Is it ethical to use a tool to generate music and not claim the tool was used?

doggyd69b said:
If someone carves a sculpture with an axe or some sort of blade, because that is what he had available.. then later, new technology came up and this time he uses a chainsaw and power tools. Does that make it less of an art? Same with music.
There has been electronic music where not a single real instrument was used, all created in the computer, yet nobody could say that it is not music. it still can have all the correct elements and still be good.
I think the ethic part comes into play when someone uses some keywords to tell AI to generate the music and deceives people by saying HE wrote it.
But, then again isn't he using a tool too? Trust me nobody will pass on the opportunity to press the EASY button in life when available.
Click to expand...
so if a computer uses a chainsaw to carve a sculpture .... ?
 
ravenson said:
so if a computer uses a chainsaw to carve a sculpture .... ?
Click to expand...
it's still art. someone still has to tell the computer what to do. This is basically what a CNC machine does...
As previously stated the unethical part is when the person doing it claims it was him/her and not a machine... The tool in this case has to be disclosed.
Also a lot of people are talking about streaming sites morphing into AI content and relegating real people to the background in order to increase profit.. that will happen but those companies will be shooting themselves in the foot. In the long run, people will prevail. Haven't you seen any of the Terminator movies?
 
I'll just say the stuff on UDIO is nuts. (AI sound creations from user prompts)
Udio .com
 
Can't believe everything you see and hear can you? I'm doing an album soon, all instruments will played by me physically. Imagine that.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: I-P
I don't mind the use of machine learning in creative production provided its use is transparent. I've seen a number of news articles published on sites we all know that are probably the result of an LLM but with this being undeclared. I personally feel that this is unethical...
 
I feel like some of these feelings have been around for almost as long as computers have been used for musical purposes. I recall an 80s album that mentioned in the liner notes that "there is no Fairlight on this record" or another that said "apart from the drum machine, everything was played live."

At the time I didn't even really understand the reason or the implication of liner notes like those. Now that I do I appreciate the idea that while technology is great, and can have constructive benefits musically, the "creative industry" for lack of a better way of describing it is somewhat self-policing. The consumer generally doesn't care as long as they can dance to it or it has a good hook.

I think that's both understandable and unfortunate all at the same time, but I do appreciate it when artists are honest or at least transparent about their methods, even if for no one else but those that kinda care.
 
DrumEatDrum said:
I remember being a little kids in the 70s and my late grandmother had an organ she liked to play.

It has a little beatbox that could give you some rhythmic accompaniment. It also had an arpeggio feature that you could hold down one key and it would play the whole arpeggio.

And in the early 80s, that basic technology was found in dozens of hit songs, and hundreds if not thousands more songs.

I don't see much in AI that is any different than that. Sure, it's way more advanced and can do higher-level functions. But at its core, it's no different than flipping a switch and having a 1970s organ play you a beat and arpeggiate your notes for you.
Click to expand...


Winston_Wolf said:
I feel like some of these feelings have been around for almost as long as computers have been used for musical purposes. I recall an 80s album that mentioned in the liner notes that "there is no Fairlight on this record" or another that said "apart from the drum machine, everything was played live."

At the time I didn't even really understand the reason or the implication of liner notes like those. Now that I do I appreciate the idea that while technology is great, and can have constructive benefits musically, the "creative industry" for lack of a better way of describing it is somewhat self-policing. The consumer generally doesn't care as long as they can dance to it or it has a good hook.

I think that's both understandable and unfortunate all at the same time, but I do appreciate it when artists are honest or at least transparent about their methods, even if for no one else but those that kinda care.
Click to expand...

As Peter Gabriel put it in his liner notes to his Plays Live album:
“Some additional recording took place not a thousand miles away from the home of the artiste. The generic term of this process is ‘cheating’.”
Click to expand...
 
I am interested did anyone here try to play around with song covers using AI? I know that a lot of people think that music AI tools are bad and harmful, but for me music AI is really interesting. You can mess around with voices and sounds, not bad at all for creative exploring. I was just wondering did any musicians try it out? So far I found best performances in AudioModify, the cool thing is that you own what you create with it, so you can publish your creation easily, and who knows even make some money along the way.
 
The ethics of using an AI tool—like a YouTube AI voice generator, AI song generator, or AI voice changer—without disclosing it comes down to transparency and respect for originality. If someone creates music with an AI voice generator, they might mislead their audience if they don’t clarify that a tool was involved, especially if listeners assume it’s an entirely human production. Transparent use of AI tools builds trust with audiences, allowing them to appreciate the creative input while acknowledging the technological support behind it. So, while it may not be illegal, omitting AI use might affect how genuine and honest a creator appears to their audience.
 
An interesting angle of this consideration then becomes the difference between disclosing an automated tool usage and disclosing a 'ghost performer' usage.

I am not sure i see an ethical difference between the two...and secrecy seems the place where ego and economic force collude....with a sad fact that, with a little experience, everyone can tell the emperor is nude and cringingly foolish about their self-importance.(or, at best, afraid for their revenue stream - just as foolish - as the era of 'Featuring {guest performer}' shows that people love to hear team-ups..i know I do!)

Angle2, who here would think that expressing an honest opinion might stifle their viability as a 'ghost performer'...giving light to a darker suppressing effect via economics of honesty and therefore, quality of music?
Another way to ask this might be, have you ever lied to enhance your musical profitability?...and what do you have to say about its overall arc(well after the deceit).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top