AI Music, simply explained (feat. Grimes and Spotify's CEO)

[@wishhhv9157]

As someone who's an audio machine learning engineer and a part-time touring musician, I don't share the same optimism: 1) Technically speaking, these algorithms don't "understand" or "compose" music, they simply capture different audio spectrogram patterns in the input audio data. I think it won't replace musicians and might even partly assist in compositions, but these algorithms learn over time. So, what's stopping Spotify from flooding itself with subpar music that's just training data. 2) Fundamentally, these arguments are like "go to an expensive restaurant and the chef just gives you a pill which makes you feel the same way amazing food does", or "pay expensive stadium game tickets and you only feel the excitement of a great game without actually watching the game". But basically these experiences are meaningless, just an illusion of the real human experience. 3) Making music should be at least a bit difficult, otherwise we start getting formulaic similar (arguably mediocre) music, which is what we're witnessing with some of the very popular names. This isn't some new instrument or a new recording technique or tool. This is LITERALLY algorithmic shuffling of different compositions to spit out a mindless "tune" that only sounds humane, but actually isn't. Make royalty distributions higher, fairer, and more transparent. The problem lies with these for-profit organizations that'll always prioritize profit over creativity & supporting musicians. 4) Music education standards are so poor that people just don't understand how difficult it is to make ANY kind of composition. And don't get me started on the frustrating system of music payments & royalties (Spotify is one of the WORST offenders!). 5) This is how dystopia begins, wherein we value a mindless algorithm that's devoid of human emotion to churn BS instead of valuing artists who've poured their lives into creating something new.

[@VukBijelic]

underrated comment

[@theinnersounds]

Really appreciate your insight and perspective. I had a question…wondering if you could explain the process behind how these algorithms simply “capture different audio spectogram patterns in the input data”… I am not very well versed on specific lingo with audio, but I am an instrumentalist and sample-based musician. Does the algorithm use actual samples as part of its play-back? I feel like I’m behind the times lol…my understanding and hope for the ethics of this all is very dedicated to maintaining the wellness of the human experience of music listening & making and we are in truly strange time…music education is abysmal, so it seems too warped to picture people growing up making music via prompts rather than through vibration and instrument. From a strictly tool loving, experimental mindset, it has infinite, curious possibilities…from an ethics standpoint, I feel unsettled. I use samples…I am conscious of what I sample and try to use things from a personal place and impart my vision for a piece of music with both my writing and actual audio from a myriad or sources: vinyl, KZbin, field recordings, one shot drums, separated stems, acapellas… my question isn’t precise, but I’m wanting to learn about how this algorithm works because, well, I agree 100%…this shit is hard and it should be a challenge. I adore sample based music, and don’t want to feel like I am cheating or stealing from another body of work so I work hard to go through the process until I feel granted by some kind of fair use & genuinely creative result. And if ai gets there thru these processes, I couldn’t fault it for maximizing a process that I do at a much slower pace, but I would absolutely pump the breaks and wonder what the limits are. The soullessness is a direct result of humans having less tangible influence on what is getting perpetually shit out of ai, the god of regurgitation. and this dilemma has almost everything to do with equity, because art feels like it’s being de incentivized as a craft and artists make pennies while Spotify and co. keep corralling us into worse conditions…I am 32, but damn I might as well be 92. Just cuz a computer can do something doesn’t mean it should. We gotta pick up instruments, and start doing our arithmetic longhand again. Cuz the results of this will be beyond our cognitive abilities and turn us to mush

[@PRINCEPOPMUSIC]

A. I music is pure comedy if one truly understands how music works

[@pnwsaylorcolumbia8572]

Love this comment. Thank you for taking the time to write this. I agree 💯!

[@theory6425]

Y should it be a bit hard? , for a common man who wants to make music for a vague purpose , it satisfies , you can use it anywhere if you want

[@Telleryn]

The biggest problem I see with AI in any creative space is not that it can make things, but the amount of that thing it can create, an AI can create thousands of songs in the time it takes a human to write and record one and out-compete humans just through sheer volume, burying human work under piles of AI stuff and making it undiscoverable, even things like tags etc that might be used to highlight human-made work only work as long as those uploading AI-produced work are being honest. With how easily recorded works can be produced by AI now, we might see a return to how musicians got their fame and money before recording was widely available, performance, before AI comes for that too.

[@nurmr]

I see this as similar to how photography (and now digital photo editing) replaced painting. You can take hundreds or thousands of photos in the same amount of time that it takes to paint a picture, but that hasn't stopped people from painting. It has made "making a picture" more accessible, but painting is still valued and modern paintings are still considered valuable.

[@FunkyJeff22]

we'll find a way to separate them, if we even want to.

[@zandreblondin8880]

@@FunkyJeff22 we wont want to. I can definitely see a future where nothing in entertainment is human, but it’s impossible to tell, so as long as people can get their dopamine from it, they will not care. It will cost almost nothing to make, and generate equal income. AI will not stop at being a “tool”. There is great financial incentive to have it replace everything that it possibly can. And the majority of people will simply ignore the uncertainty because it will be uncomfortable to admit it. Do you relate to music? Or the artist behind it? I think it’s usually the latter. Embrace the future now, prepare to relate to unthinking, unfeeling machines.

[@erictesch]

If anything it may be the loss of control from music labels, and individual artists from around the world will instantly be able to create and publish captivating work without the high cost of a recording studio. I think it will get many more people to take that idea they have and turn it into an actual creative work, reducing the gap,

[@michaelh4227]

Yep, we're already seeing the internet get flooded by AI right now and even if alot of it isn't great it still drowns out any up and coming creators who want to get into an industry.

[@emory2025]

I find it curious that you are using the CEO of spotify to talk about compensating artists properly with Ai stuff, when spotify themselves is one of the worst offenders for compensating artists in general.

[@yota8325]

It's because labels control Spotify. They are the ones profiting the most out of streaming

[@BibleStories4U]

Ai is a huge threat to the record companies. GOOD! They constantly abuse artists and determine what consumers listen to and what we don't. There are amazing artists out there who never get a break. Hopefully, Ai will be an avenue for those literally "unsung" heroes making music in their bedroom or their garage waiting for their moment in the spotlight.

[@martinbajsic4836]

elephant in the room 😂

[@suppifier6692]

Tbh as much as spotify pay peanut, they are the largest streaming service. That experience is valuable especially as a journalist. The problem isn't the amount of pay here, thats for another day, its who to pay to.

[@jackbennett2269]

This entire channel exists in the way it does specifically to attract and platform people like the CEO of Spotify and grimes, and to SILENCE and drown out the voices of the average artist/worker.

[@HristoVelev]

Spotify's endgame would be to have a recommendation type algo feed the AI and serve you music, and cut the artists out of the picture. For the human expression part they would hire some actors or use generative AI for videos - all payrolled by Spotify, and all rights belonging to them. Great video!

[@tw8464]

Exactly

[@onemorechris]

this would be a power play by Spotify; no humans in the creative process, AI generates playlist of AI generated music and simply give it to people. no meaning, no quality, just free money for spotify

[@tw8464]

@@onemorechris exactly that's exactly where this corporate nightmare is headed

[@onemorechris]

@@tw8464 garbage music for the masses. wasn’t this covered in a rick and morty episode?!!

[@tw8464]

@@onemorechris exactly!

[@jaredkhan8743]

I’m a musician, and I definitely do fear this topic. AI can be an incredible tool for filling in the gaps in like mixing and mastering (like LANDR), but what makes a musician is not only creativity but skill as well. Dedicating hours to training ur body to play an instrument, sing, learn your DAW, learning composition, etc. are all part of the journey of being a musician. I already kind of have this stance with sampling. I hear some amazing and creative uses of samples (I use them myself, as does practically everyone), but the average “beat maker” truly feels like a talentless hack. I’ve watched ppl just put a beautiful sounding loop in with some basic 808 pattern and call themselves talented with no understanding of why that sample sounds good to begin with. Letting AI make lyrics, make ur melodies, etc., it all just seems like a mask for ppl with no skill or dedication to pretend to be skilled. Ik I m probably sound elitist or gatekeeping but it’s just my perspective given my experience.

[@fireant202]

What I find interesting is where do you draw the line between something that requires skill and something that doesn't? Using AI tools will definitely require some level of skill and there are bound to be those who are better at using AI productively. The main difference in my opinion is that even the "worst" product of an AI tool will be much better than whatever you could generate in the same amount of time using your first mixing software or what have you. So the scary/unknown bit, and this was mentioned in the video, is what if someone uses the quantity over quality approach facilitated by AI tools to "brute force" creativity, sweeping away higher level human work in a tidal wave of crap. Similar fears were raised about remix culture and tools but I think at this point it's been proven that's it's own skilled art form so my gut instinct is AI will go the same way but time will tell.

[@jc3drums916]

@@fireant202 This becomes yet another area where humans are no longer pushing their physical limits, because they can achieve the same final product by learning how to use some software. It's a skill, sure, but not a physical one. Plus, it eliminates the ability for musicians to specialize - instead of some people being (primarily) composers, some being skilled at a particular instrument, etc., and thus there being a diversity of work opportunities, now everyone is primarily a software operator because the AI mostly eliminates the need for those specialized skills. We'll either end up with far fewer people doing music, or the same number of people producing a much larger quantity of formulaic garbage.

[@prapanthebachelorette6803]

I think it’s a matter of humans getting so good at using AI but no one knows how to practice the actual craft of any kind anymore 😢.

[@_Woo]

As a mastering engineer I have no sympathy lol

[@ZNIR777]

@@fireant202 "using AI requires skills" while saying it also makes the art/music/etc. more accessible is just not it...

[@scott-richardson]

What’s more profitable? Paying artists royalties? Or having an AI generate millions of new songs for your platform that you own? Suddenly you’re paying royalties to yourself, Spotify!

[@robbietorkelsonn8509]

the most profitable is just to have the music generate on the fly on your own computer without anyone else involved Why do people expect these music providers to be a party that will profit from this? They will simply not have music to sell anymore. Ciri, give me a trance song, with lyrics about cars, something like "I hate you now" ... ok ... save that one for later. For artists, it is the personal relationship that will be key to having a vibrant channel. And live performances, because people still want somewhere to go to. The only thing it ultimately means is that artists need to provide a better service for less money as the service, namely singing ... which is something you can people do in your local church choir ... is just worth less. Now get the shocking realization that things are getting values less, meaning cheaper.

[@christopherbedford9897]

@@robbietorkelsonn8509 What you are describing is the death of the soul of society. If we as a society value human talent less than soulless grind from a machine, we have started into a death spiral. Some may say we did that already, with "hit factory" pop. But at least that music is until now been created by people.

[@bobsmith12345]

yea

[@theoutlet9300]

@@christopherbedford9897 That's not how it works. Do you think like that about your clothes? Electronics? Posters?

[@christopherbedford9897]

@@theoutlet9300 Clothes, electronics, and posters aren't all about the creativity and talent of their creators. Sure, there's some of that - a little - but music is 100% about the passion the artist puts in. Without that it's muzak. Elevator music. On-hold music. Bleurgh.

[@uasiddiq]

Cleo went all out with this video. Great job not letting the embarrassment get in the way 😊

[@CleoAbram]

bahahahah thank you

[@StarWarsExpert_]

@@CleoAbram Well done, Cleo!

[@kapilsane]

​@@CleoAbram this will not help music artists, AI will destroy their career. Imagine tomorrow someone does deep fake of you, and hence nobody watches your videos? Just asking?

[@englewoodmusic]

🙏

[@bender75]

@@kapilsaneIt's just way too early to judge at this point. Cinema did not kill the theater, TV did not kill the radio, video did not kill the cinema, the car did not replace the bicycle, but it did the horse. I'm cautiously optimistic about AI as a helpful tool, not a step towards self-destruction.

[@est4nis]

Pretty sure everyone agrees composers/songwriters/artists/producers do NOT get fairly compensated. Yeah, not even Prince, Michael Jackson or Taylor Swift (to give three well know examples of record label disputes). So what makes us think that if we throw a very complex and non human variable to this equation, all of the sudden all these humans will be paid fairly? Not gonna happen.

[@prapanthebachelorette6803]

You raised a good point

[@MarcoCholo-iz9js]

Only two out of those three people you mentioned can be considered true artists

[@est4nis]

agree, and we all know who they are ;)@@MarcoCholo-iz9js

[@thegreatandterrible4508]

I would say all three of those people have been more than fairly compensated. Maybe other, less deserving people made more money, but they made plenty. Taylor Swift is literally a billionaire.

[@est4nis]

she is now after she "broke up" with the industry and basically formed her own army. @@thegreatandterrible4508

[@ericwood1942]

I love how you ask the right questions. Great journalism!!

[@System-1541]

"A lot of people that may not have believed that they had a musical talent that all of a sudden would realize that they actually do"... If you have to have a computer compose for you, don't play any instruments and cannot sing, then you DON'T have any musical talent.

[@gautambidari]

Props to the editor of the episode. It's absolutely beautiful, such a good composition.

[@HellOnWheel]

Maybe the editor was a robot.

[@LogenKershaw]

@@HellOnWheel it was definitely NOT a robot ;)

[@LogenKershaw]

Thanks

[@HellOnWheel]

@@LogenKershaw sorry, no offense meant. You really did do an amazing job on this video.

[@Nikki0417]

Thought the same thing as I was watching this!

[@Dominorican_naturalist]

What makes art amazing to me is the amount of time it takes an artist to perfect a skill, the human error, the whole process. It looses value if something generates perfection every time in my opinion. Being human is fun and full of mistakes and lack of perfect.. AI for creativity is a buzzkill for those who have trained for years just so people who haven’t trained a skill can seem just as competent in that area.

[@kiyotomiyazaki1668]

couldn't agree more!!

[@bug.sprout]

exactly!!

[@MarcoCholo-iz9js]

I disagree to a point. You don't need hundreds of Beethovens to maintain the music industry. Historically only a musical genius could compose music. Now the bar has been lowered even more.

[@Number-fx2qg]

100% agree. You shouldn't be able to cheat your way into a skill that others have worked years for. It will completely undermine artists in every sector, and industries take advantage of them enough as it is.

[@marcogallo2811]

Agreed. The part where she explains the gap between creativity and technical skill (as a visual artist/designer) really irks me personally. That technical skill is hours, days, and years of time someone practiced something for a specific result, errors and all. That's what in my opinion is great about a work of art. I can appreciate a cool piece of AI art, but it means nothing to me. That technical skill gap can be seen as a "gap" to those with out them, but why shouldn't it?

[@bentownsend4017]

All previously invented technologies have been tools for artists to use. AI is the first tool to be able to replace the artist themself.

[@fab_code]

exactly

[@arxmechanica-robotics]

yes and no. The same could be said for one hour photo labs, video stores, etc. New tech allows for humans to do new things in new ways.

[@coolvinay]

This is the most underrated comment!

[@charliekowittmusic]

Yeah, I don’t really get the upside to this. If the AI is putting together lyrics, rhythms, and harmonies for you, then the music’s no longer human expression at all. Is that “unlocking your creativity”? Or is that a toddler being able to outshine a virtuoso by mashing buttons on an AI music app?? I’ve spent 15 years turning my creativity into technical skill in recording and producing music. And the #1 thing I learned is that my creativity needed to be refined, not just my technical skill.

[@gaymer5697]

The only thing ai art is replacing is drawing/painting it self. Not art. Its not enough to just render reality on the paper. You need to be able to convey feelings or stories with it. The people who are good at that are not threathened by ai. Technology has always reduced the workforce needed to produce art. Now it has just reduced the work force to 1-2 people.

[@TheBiomuse]

I'm a little surprised at @Cleo Abram for missing the trick here. AI is an automated inductive reasoning technology. That does not mean that when a network is trained on a large set of songs, that the AI "does what we do" when we listen to music and interpret it through the filter of our own experiences and memories to produce something new. AI is a training-set-programmable interface. It's a little confusing because we have never had a technology that allows the structure of the program to be created by non-code input. But make no mistake: the music the neural network trains on *is structuring the software* just as a programmer would. The implication of that is striking but clear: The musicians whose music is trained upon co-author that network. They are owed licensing fees.

[@joshualane1716]

Having a discussion about the artists getting paid, featuring the CEO of Spotify, but not talking about how much artists are actually getting paid for their work is wild.

[@vice.nor.virtue]

Yeah, it's a shame that she didn't mention that each artist gets like 0.000008 pennies per-play for their songs with our current streaming platform (including spotify). You could even say that this minuscule amount of money is actually a way more appropriate payment for AI music because it requires so much less effort.

[@TheInfintyithGoofball]

​@@vice.nor.virtue yeah they REALLY deserve more pay being the foundation of the content that's the very foundation of the platform after all...

[@AvgJane19]

Valid criticism

[@ELCNUmorFnaMehT]

He probably wouldn't have done the interview if he knew he'd get questioned on that.

[@milesbarn]

do not listen to their words, watch their actions.

[@Krustenkaese92]

to be totally honest the last people I want to hear from when it comes to this are both the Spotify CEO and Grimes. There is no way that guy isn't going to use AI to make more money for himself without giving the artists their fair share (as he has been doing for years). Plus, when it comes to Grimes, someone so technology obsessed who only sees the benefits but isn't interested in considering what it'll do to artists who aren't mega rich, I'm just not interested to hear what her enlightened take is.

[@vsnrm5451]

Interesting how artists were called overdramatic for reacting to the AI apocalypse but when it's affecting other fields of art suddenly everyone takes it seriously. Just find that interesting

[@pronoydutta614]

It's because those super talented artists don't have the name recognition or proximity to the average consumer the way music does. Their work features prominently on products like games, movies, promotional marketing art and graphic design, etc. The public is generally not aware of the uses or distinctions at all compared to what they know about music.

[@thegreatandterrible4508]

​@@TavishVTthey, along with everyone else, have been claiming the death of culture for as long as we have recorded history.

[@onose10000]

yea, my thoughts exactly. unfortunately, there is nothing we can do, ai will take over and it will be too late when the general public realizes the harm it will cause.

[@quokka_yt]

@@onose10000 Example of horseshoe theory: *Delusional artist:* AI is coming, and there's nothing we can do! It will take all artists' jobs and we will be homeless! *Delusional techbro:* AI is coming, and there's nothing they can do! It will take all artists' jobs and they will be homeless!

[@quokka_yt]

I think musicians are also overdramatic, except for voice cloning which is massively bad for a myriad reasons.

[@mk1st]

That animation showing how an AI generator could come up with a million tracks and then plot a path to ‘success’ was chilling. The amount of dreck that’s going to be produced is going to be mindblowing.

[@thegreatandterrible4508]

Have you ever heard of Sturgeon's Law?

[@HateBear-real]

I guess anything can be chilling if you're absolutely incapable of thinking for yourself.

[@KBRoller]

The whole point is that it won't be dreck. It'll be good enough that, if you're not told it's an AI, you wouldn't even know.

[@donaldaxel]

@@KBRoller :: Yes, lots of "music" could be made even of some quality. Music means different things to people. Some like artful, some like "showmusic", some like thoughtful lyrics. Music as something YOU make yourself together with other people, a social activity, will live on, but maybe some of the big "show"music events will become "drug-events", sorry, my prejudice.

[@KBRoller]

@@donaldaxel I don't quite understand how you get from point A to point B. Artful, show music, thoughtful lyrics... all those things are possible with AI. So I'm not sure why you think that implies "drug-events", as you call it. If a piece of music has all the same properties as music created by a human, why would you consider it inferior to the human-made identical versions?

[@ChristianSantiagophoto]

I think subtracting the skill it takes to make art dilutes it. The process of making art, the suffering and effort behind it, the journey to get there, adds so much to the final outcome. If any dingus can make beautiful music or jaw dropping images, then they cease to be special.

[@Frozone.]

Bro is defintely not listening music for the music.

[@thegreatandterrible4508]

So, do you mostly consume stone carvings performed by hitting them with a different rock? We've been making art easier for literally the entirety of human history.

[@ChristianSantiagophoto]

You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that someone who prompts a novel into existence deserves the same respect as Stephen King or Ernest Hemingway? Yes i guess technically typing on a computer is easier than writing with a quill pen by candlelight or carving text into stone, but the process of telling stories is as difficult as it's always been. I get that there are degrees of evolution in the process of creating art. Photography was great for people who couldn't paint worth a lick. But it still requires a technical understanding of lighting and composition and posing and psychology to interact with your subject. Even if you're doing a lot of compositing in Photoshop, it still requires you to craft something and blend and mask it to sell it. where is the line drawn? Are we really going to praise someone who does nothing more than prompt mid-journey to give him "dope Caravaggio vibes." @@thegreatandterrible4508

[@digitalarsenal5234]

Can we just takeba minute to appreciate how great the editing and production for this video is? Fantastic job!

[@endah08]

May as well, won't be able to appreciate it when it's AI

[@Weirdo0258]

@@endah08 why not? i don't get that..there is not one AI, there are so many! why can't we appreciate one AI for its work? just like we appreciate google over bing or yahoo for example

[@TheMattSturgeon]

We still appreciate when a new ches engine comes along and destroys us all in new and exciting ways. Doesn't stop us having human-only tournaments though

[@Drunk3nMonk3y72]

Thank A.I

[@Saturnine37]

Especially that montage at 13:00

[@nitro5247]

You’ve handled an extremely touchy subject with more than the appropriate amount of delicacy and sensitivity. Amazing job as always Cleo.

[@Glouryian]

Somewhere I read something like "People working for minimum wage while machines make poetry and art is not the future I imagined." I would like to feel different about it, but I deeply worry that the enthusiastic exitement around AI is naiv or even worse harmful. Enabling people to realize whats in their head sounds like a huge selling point. But AI does not create any knowledge, but dependence. Someone who does not have the abilities to write a song will still not be able to write a song but be dependent on AI tools to create something. Education and training are the tools which really enable and make people independent to express their own unique creativity. The struggle to make an idea into something others can enjoy is part of the creative process, because it forces you to think differently, to find solutions. Each work of art is the result of the whole unique human experience of the artist, a series of thousands of individual experiences and creative choices. Generating AI skips all of that. AI may create you a song, but not the song, YOU would have created. And thats a huge difference. And for the copyright part: the human inspiration and the AI "inspiration" is not the same. If you paint something in the style of van Gogh the outcome will still be highly influenced by your personal experience of the art. Maybe you will focus more on the paintstrokes, or the colours, or the light. Maybe you connect van Gogh to a certain emotion or memory. In the end you will make a lot of individual creative decisions which will lead to your own unique work of art. AI does not does not have any that. The worst outcome could be that in the future the creative monopol may lie in the hands of AI coorporations. In the capitalist world we live the human factor is the worst for business. Artists can have a creative crisis, may get sick, may sometimes be not easy to deal with. Now there is a solution which steadily creates vast amounts of output without any of these problems and of course this has the potential to push aside human creators on the long term. And creators may become dependent on their tools to realize their artistic ideas. There of course will still be musicians, artists, writers who will be stars and create unique masterpieces, but for vast majority of small, independent and unique thinking artists this will make a situation much harder, which is already much less than favourable.

[@lacadam]

Incredibly well put!

[@jonasjacobsen9702]

This is so spot on. That is exactly the issue I have with AI as a tool. People seem to completely disregard this idea. As well as the fact that ultimately it will only be used as a way of making money in a capitalist world. The actual representation of the human elements of creativity will be lost.

[@muyimuyi]

So very true!!!!

[@Synexcu]

This is why I LOVE (Not like, LOVE) this CHANNEL! You always make the most interesting video and go out and beyond with it! I always love to play your video while I'm eating, or coding just to hear your voice and your materials. Your use of shorts are also better than any other creators!

[@skycladsquirrel]

I have been preaching this tech for over 20 years. The business model needs to make sure that artists and writers get payments for the songs we create. Then everyone will be happy. Imagine getting money for something you never made. Plus, If an artist likes the collabs could sing them in concerts and make even more money. It's exciting. But we have to make sure it's done right.

[@jeffg4686]

@4:10 - they call it a "tell" It is true tho... Music will be the hardest thing to come up with something compelling. Could you see AI generating stuff from musicians like talking heads, david bowie, led zeppelin, jimi hendrix - all the greats - NOT GONNA HAPPEN... It can use those to generate more songs in their likeness. But understanding true creativity is hard.

[@pear92]

As an artist of both the musical and visual varieties, AI needs to stay the hell away from the Arts. The beauty of creating art comes from the human struggle of studying and improving over time, and seeing those improvements in yourself and being able to look back at your old stuff and really see how far you’ve come. Capitalism has sullied the arts by reducing them to products for profit.

[@NickBoyce]

The quality of this episode was off the charts. Well done to all involved. 👏 Also: tuba.

[@naomisarisofficial]

I prefer raw music, raw human emotion.

[@nimbites]

True

[@Arnoldismouldy]

This is such an introspective video. I cant believe Ive been missing out in this gem of a channel for so long…

[@jonwollenberger]

Watched this video when it came out. And came back to it now. I am a subscriber, and generally love what you do. But, I think for anyone in the music industry, or aspiring to be in the music industry, this video feels like it misses out on what many in the industry have to deal with in actuality, and fear they may have to deal with in the future. I would be really interested to see you do a follow-up video where you talk to people on the other end of this story, "working class" musicians and people in the industry who aren't among the mega-successful or the tech people who run the platforms. Would also love to see you talk to people like Jack Conte, or Ari Herstand, or economist Will Page too.

[@SamuelFRobinson]

I found your report to be very inspiring. The cuts were clean, and the changes in the background music kept my attention. I liked the way you weaved in the affiliate link and the request to subscribe at the end. I also loved how you introduced the hook for "watch more". Your subscriber count is a testament to your efforts. I am interested in learning more about your process, as my focus is now on my channel services both offline and online. I really appreciated the way you organized the description, even down to Tuba. At first, I thought you were only promoting one affiliate link, but upon reading further, I saw that you had separated them. You put the primary link at the top, and the others were listed below. If I incorporate the things I'm learning from you, do I have to pay you royalties?

[@MojoSogo]

Was this comment written by AI?

[@SamuelFRobinson]

I wrote the following text and then used Grammarly to correct any errors. However, Grammarly is not always perfect, so I usually do one final edit before posting. On my @GetAIKeys page, I share insights about AI systems and services for working professionals and business owners. That was after Grammarly and this was my original. These are my own thoughts, and then I ran it through Grammarly to avoid some mistakes. Grammarly is not perfect. I often do one final edit prior to posting. On @GetAIKeys, I provide insights into AI systems and services for working professionals and business owners. Thank for asking. @@MojoSogo

[@AMANKUMAR-oh1zt]

I did read till the end. So here you have “tuba”.

[@yeknommonkey]

The ‘gap’ exists so that people can be different. If everyone is super then nobody is super. Humans have different abilities and the skills to use them in order to make life worthwhile, being inspired by someone else with a talent or a resolve to to learn beyond what you feel you can do, searching for what you are good at and whether you can impact other humans. Ai is taking this away, let’s just get ai doing the work that currently people coding Ai are doing if they feel that human input is no longer worthwhile, and get robots doing the physical graft that nobody wants to do. There’s no need for ai to take creative pursuits away or robots to take enjoyable and worthwhile physical pursuits away.

[@Tele-gram-m_Miss_CleoAbram]

✍️✍️✍️

[@HeyTylerAustin]

Can we take a second to appreciate how great the graphics in these videos are? They aid in our understand of complex topics and I had to remind myself that I'm watching an independent KZbin channel!

[@nikzechner]

I saw your first video when you had 50 followers. It's crazy how fast you progressed over a few months. Congrats, well deserved! 🥳

[@limanino]

My dream: sing something like "la la la" in each notes then have a computer translate it into the instrument I choose.

[@kenyenmusic7548]

Uhhh you can already do that. And have been able to for a long time. Best program for converting hummed melodies into midi is probably samplab. From there you take the midi file and put it in a daw, then you can use whatever synth you want to play those notes

[@NORBZMUSIC]

Very well done. I am a producer and have incorporated A.I. into various processes in my studio. Having said that, relying on it from start to finish is still synthetic, emotionless, hard to 'feel' anything from it there's no soul to it. Using the various tools as just that is both a time saver and a new toy with endless experimenting and wonderment with cool unique results.

[@autohmae]

the irony is when artists use lots of autotune, but then complain that AI will make their job obsolete. Because they themselves are using tools to sound more robotic/less natural. Or maybe I'm just part of the older generation now 🙂

[@NORBZMUSIC]

😂

[@lmao4982]

I think this won't be true for long, especially if someone puts a lot of effort and knowledge into using the technology well

[@BusquedaBlues]

genuinely curious but what do you use AI for when it comes to your music making process? if you know your way around a DAW, your work flow should be easy enough to lay down a bunch of 4-8 bar melodies w/ drum patterns programmed. i feel like i'm already endlessly experimenting with my own music making process, that having AI to generate drum patterns or melodies feels pointless.

[@NORBZMUSIC]

@@BusquedaBlues It's more the post/fx like the AI isolation tools, voice changers, mix/mastering, etc. I also find it kinda funny that a lot of software claims to be/use AI but it doesn't.. I have messed Aiva/Ecrette and a few others for actual drum patterns or riffs or just for the midi to strip from it and it still leaves a lot to be desired. Only thing that ever passed a listening test to the point where I almost can't tell it's AI was soft meditation simple 2-3 layer chord progressions on a few pad sounds. Anything with multi-instrument storytelling, drums, drops, builders, bridges, quality progressions it's a fat NO.

[@ChrisHanlonnz]

I'm interested in your creativity - technical skills point. Mostly in the past it has been the constraints that have ignited the creativity. If AI removes constraints, do we lose some creativity? There will always be some constraints but I think this is an interesting topic on its own, not just in the music realm.

[@dylanmurphy3266]

One thing I always remember as a musician is that, as a beginner, I felt overwhelmed by the ideas I had that I couldn’t articulate on my instrument. Over the years I’ve learned this skill, but of course some of my ideas were lost in the learning process. That’s just part of growing and developing as a human and as a craftsperson; I see no need to introduce a tool like AI for “the people with musical ideas who can’t play an instrument that well.” It won’t happen overnight but the solution of the past and I truly believe the solution of the future is the long game. Consistent, dedicated practice is the only true way. That said, many excellent points in the video and the comment section. I’m excited to see how AI develops, even if I personally don’t see it being useful in music at this time. It’s still a young tool with a staggering potential for growth.

[@terpcj]

I've worked in various creative, copyright-aware fields since the early 80s. Depending on my age, I might have different opinions about this, but as of now, I view it as another tool and, potentially a collaborator in the future. Think back to the classical scribes -- how would they view a word processor or text generator? A tool to relieve their calligraphic burden or as a usurper taking their creative and financial raison d'art from them? Humans are adaptable. Change is rarely undone and reset, we just change ourselves...or our children and grandchildren do. Music, writing, art, language, technology...it's really all part of the same conveyor of building on what came before to leave our legacy lest we stagnate into robotic mediocrity.

[@vice.nor.virtue]

I absolutely hear your point on this. The tools we have built for ourselves to create art have gotten unfathomably good in the progress of human history, but the deal here is that AI can replace the artist themselves. Visual art and music shouldn't be given the same amount of praise just because someone has the ability to put together a few good keywords.

[@terpcj]

@@vice.nor.virtue That's the trick, isn't it? If it was AI-Beethoven who composed the 9th Symphony, would the music be any less great? Which is more valuable, the created work or the human ego? At the end of the day, that's the philosophical/moral/ethical question -- with us as hardly unbiased analysts. Look back to the early 19th century manual loom weavers with the introduction of powered looms to see how well humans often come out in this equation. Now, because of that Industrial Revolution, and in spite of the OG Luddites trying to thwart it, we can send spaceships to the dark climes of space (jury's still out on the good/bad of that). We've also displaced and exploited a whole lot of people along the way and even before. It's never for the establishment to judge the worth of change (the establishment rarely "gets it") but rather for the generation(s) that follow to pass judgment...and then make their own mistakes.

[@econ3000]

wow... never heard of you before but this video was excellent! You are easy on the eyes, your energy is contagious, and you have a nice singing voice as well!! On top of all of that your video production and editing is top notch, and the graphical animations were awesome. Very impressive work!

[@MegaMathnerd]

One of your best! -- Love, Dad

[@Nitro15]

Are you married?

[@krishnamahawar319]

@@Nitro15 he is her dad man!

[@Nitro15]

@@krishnamahawar319 What's your point

[@navneetanand4503]

@@MegaMathnerd why didn't this get likes?

[@navneetanand4503]

@@Nitro15 he is ACTUALLY her dad

[@singsingmei]

2:42 Yes! this. I was having trouble voicing this idea, ironically enough. lol! you put it perfectly.

[@gustavo-entrala]

Masterful. Thank you Cleo from Madrid, Spain

[@shivamanand4334]

Twitter Reddit all removing free APIs, data really is the new oil in AI. Text or Sound. The formulaic approach into music is already in place. Producers optimise the hooky 10s for reels so they create awareness. Atleast in Bollywood. Even if it’s an art without human emotions drilled in, do people care? we see art or listen to music and do we love it for the artists struggle or what they invoke in us using our memories? If the brain can’t tell it’s AI, it sure will create popular songs. Even moving ones. And let’s be honest AI art work will be indistinguishable by 24. I think there’s tremendous value the royalty programmes will create is there’s an overseeing app like Spotify taking care of reach. How do you sue a kid who create a banger using your sound? And now it’s used in reels where it can’t detect?

[@DavidWilliams-nm5jv]

Honestly, this should be VERY simple. Did the AI company PAY the artists to use the music that they were trained on? If so, then they're good. If not, then EVERYTHING that AI generates is "copied from" rather than inspired from. The data that AIs want to train from has value, and they cannot simply strip that value away because it's convenient for them (read "free"). It's completely analogous to how all training has ever been through history - if you wanted to learn to be a blacksmith, you paid for that knowledge by working as an apprentice. If you want to learn to be a doctor, you pay for the necessary schooling. It's really NOT that complicated a subject, in my mind.

[@emersonjoaquim5000]

So you are saying that every producer of music (Ai or not) should pay for the records they listen? Like if you are drake you need to pay for every music you ear because you are somewhat learning, taking inspiration from that

[@zandreblondin8880]

@@emersonjoaquim5000AI isn’t a person. People are allowed to hear and be inspired by music because thats part of being human. AI does not deserve the same luxuries. It doesn’t deserve rights. It doesnt deserve to be equated to human artistry. Do not respect the machine. Use it if you must, but dont be concerned about whether or not it’s being treated fairly. It doesnt care, so why should you?

[@DavidWilliams-nm5jv]

No, Computers are not humans and vice-versa. AI cannot exist without data to train on, and the developers of the AI should pay a fair value for that data. Data has value. Usually a lot. Look at how much money the self-driving AI companies are spending to get driving data. It's millions upon millions. Music and Art AI should be paying for data as well, not stealing it.

[@kierankelleher007]

Happy New Year Cleo. Your content is awesome - keep it going 👏👏👏👏

[@mpregsonic5874]

The artist should get paid. Using a machine learning model to learn from an artist’s work is using their data and they should be paid for supplying that data. Learning purely from observations makes the data it uses to learn the only evidence to credit someone. These AI models need to be created responsibly and be able to supply a record of the data it used to create, kinda like a receipt.

[@klaxxor]

Whoever put that light behind Cleo's head to highlight her hair deserves a high-five! I always appreciate the quality of these videos.

[@geminifly5]

Sweet video! The effort you put into your editing process does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. Thanks for the engaging and informative content 🙌🏻

[@CDancos]

I feel like the skills are part of the artistic expression as well. The amount of effort you put into learning the skills gives you experience and deep understanding of the subject, it’s not always about the end result for the artists, only for the industry.This sound like the death of expertise, and I find it very odd to compare AI tools with a computer replacing analog instruments, since the Ai’s are replacing the complex tools and oriented to suit the unskilled end-user, it’s looking like the one button to do it all.This will eventually create a tier of fast-food music.

[@KBRoller]

Whenever people say AI is the "death of ", be it art or music or expertise, it makes me wonder. Why do artists make art? If they do it because they enjoy it and/or want to communicate their ideas, then no amount of AI content will stop them from doing it. If they're only or mainly doing it for money, then... well, personally, I think "the only reason I learned this is for cash flow" is a sign of apathy that isn't worth protecting. Someone else making art doesn't stop you from making art. Likewise, if that someone else is an AI, it still doesn't stop you from making art.

[@CDancos]

I don’t view it as a simple “money” vs “pure expression” dichotomy, the two things are very intertwined. And I’d like to invite you to ask “why not“ instead of “ why make art?” some things in life aren’t pragmatic at all, and the arrangement of making money while expressing one self has worked well for some so far, maybe it won’t anymore. Maybe expertise is only gatekeeping thousands of creative people, and it’s ok to lose some of the old ways to new aways of doing it? I don’t have the answer. But I do worry that this arrangement may not work well for me anymore and I’m barely 30.

[@KBRoller]

@@CDancos Money and art are currently intertwined, but my argument is that they *shouldn't* be. The only reason they are is because, in our current capitalist society, if you can't sell what you make or do to someone who wants it, you are literally left to starve and die. That, to me, is a form of slavery that humanity needs to get rid of. Obviously, the idea that humans will grow up enough to stop enslaving each other just because it's the right thing to do is naive. But my hope is that, as AI is able to do more and more jobs, it will be a catalyst for our growth as a species, and we'll be forced to treat each other better and stop requiring everything to be commoditized just to survive. It's either that... or we destroy each other and ourselves and blame it on the AI. One of the two will happen, because AI progress is a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. I only hope humans, overall, are mature enough not to make ourselves extinct over our own ignorance and greed.

[@splitmid3697]

The amount of effort you put in into learning something does not and has never mattered. Timmy takes 3 years to learn how to read, Cathy is a genius and does it in an hour. Does that mean that Timmy's reading skills are more more valuable? No. Now, an AI goes through thousands of songs an hour, analyses them, finds the patterns and then lets others use it for their own benefit, which would have taken a human decades. If a talented person with something to say but without the technical skill you may have uses AI tools to allow them to make a song that makes humans feel something while you can't match his end result with your "experience and deep understanding of the subject," maybe you should get over yourself, use the tools and try saying something in your new AI-assisted song that makes humans feel something. With your experience and deep understanding, it should come out better than something made by an unskilled person, right? And if it doesn't, maybe you weren't as good as you thought or just had nothing to say. The end result is all that matters. In the case of music, the song either makes humans feel something or it doesn't. AI is ultimately logical, it's trained on data. It can mimic emotion, it doesn't feel it. You will always need human creativity for that. For context, every cent I've ever made in my life came from some kind of writing. When the huge ChatGPT panic happened, I wasn't worried, and I'm still not worried. The only writers who were justified in getting worried were the ones who wrote whatever they were writing in a machine-like way with no creativity. People like me, on the other hand, started getting asked to take articles generated by ChatGPT and "humanize" them by rewriting them in a more creative, less machine-like way, that still got all the necessary information across. In the end, the only people who should be afraid of fast-food quality music/writing/etc. that's generated by AI are the ones whose music/writing/etc. is no better than fast-food quality. The true artists, the people who have something to say and can make humans feel, should be happy. The more fast-food there is in their industry the more impressive they are compared to the majority of the shit that's being put out there. A Michellin chef doesn't worry about how many McDonald's and Burger Kings there are in the same neighborhood.

[@KBRoller]

@@splitmid3697 I mean... while I agree with a lot of what you've said, I do fundamentally disagree on some specifics. Firstly, when you say the AI can't ever feel emotions, I do have to point you to the P-Zombie problem. Basically, you don't know if anyone else but you actually feels any emotions; you have to infer that just because people "act like" they have a similar emotional experience to yourself. In the same way, if an AI behaves as though it has emotions, you really can't determine whether it does or does not "actually" have emotions. Emotions are just specific patterns of neural activity in our brains, and AIs also have patterns of neural activity in their networks; if that activity leads to it behaving the same was humans do when we feel emotions, you can't really say it's "not actually feeling emotions", otherwise that implies no one feels emotions, either, except yourself. Secondly, you seem to be judging all possible future AIs on the performance of current AI models. That's fallacious: AI progress has accelerated, and continues to do so, since 2018, and newer models coming out once a year (or even more frequently) perform better and better. The fact that ChatGPT currently doesn't sound quite human is in no way an indicator that AIs can't ever -- or even won't soon -- sound human. (There's also, by the way, the consideration that ChatGPT has a layer of RLHF training on top of its base training. That extra fine-tuning adjusts not only its content, but the way it sounds, too. Papers that tested GPT-4 before the RLHF tuning have shown much more "human" sounding responses from it than we get with ChatGPT.)

[@nufh]

Music will never die, people will use A.I to enrich it further.

[@JonathanLeverkuhn]

Great video! As someone who creates, performs, and geeks out about music, I have so many thoughts on this topic... and they basically boil down to: I don't think AI will ultimately change much when it comes to artistic integrity, and I also don't think it will change much in the way of compensation for MOST artists. If you're recording with MIDI samples, is that really your sound? If you use software to master your track, is that really your sound? Hell, if you use an effects pedal in your signal chain, is that really your sound? When we get too hung up on who "owns" a sound, I think we miss the point and lose sight of whatever the artist is trying to express. AI might turbo charge this a bit, but it's not really a new issue. Artists are going to find ways to use AI to more accurately convey their art, and people who just want to try to be famous are probably going to abuse AI so they can churn out their tripe at a more rapid pace. As far as getting paid, 99% of the people out there making music are barely getting paid as-is. If you find yourself in the right place at the right time and your music gets popular enough to get fed into a training algorithm... I mean... you're already doing a lot better than most of us. I'm not saying this makes it alright, but it's a problem that seems like it'll mostly impact the 1%.

[@ThiagoSantosusa]

This channel deserves a lot more views and subscribers 👏🏻 bravo!

[@josevarona4521]

As a classically trained musician, Jazz drummer, and recording engineer turned DJ, I can honestly say you missed the mark with this video. @CleoAbram I’m a huge* fan of your work 😉 and a lover of new technologies! However, this “laptop producer” world we live in today only has shorten our attention span for music. People, already, don’t connect with music the same way we did before, when the barrier of entrée to be an artist required more skill. To @telleryn point the sheer volume of synthetic music that already has taken countless jobs from studio musicians, and performing musicians, ie: artists perform with a laptop vs a band, is staggering and frankly unbearable for working musicians trying to make a living. When you add AI to a creative space and an industry that’s already edging out the “little man”, it just exacerbates the already existing problems. Musicians/instrumentalist hardly ever get paid from royalties. There is an incredibly huge amount of musicians/instrumentalist behind each record that gets produce and they get a onetime fee for their work. In my opinion those folks are the real victims of AI, not the song’s interpreter. They should have been included in this video. Just my thoughts. Btw I just noticed my own digitization from the first sentence in this comment. Just out here trying to survive 😅.

[@the11382]

It is elitist to want the barrier for entry to be higher. Record labels are a far bigger problem with music than AI. AI democratizes music, record labels try to own the artist. The labels earn far more money when an artist is dead than alive, which means a big conflict of interest.

[@jonwollenberger]

@@the11382 I'm not sure it is elitist to say people who put time and effort into developing a skill are trying to hold onto the idea that there is value in that hard work. Anyone is welcome in the music world if they work at the skills required (yes, I know luck, looks, and other things too often also wind up playing a role, but nonetheless the development of a skill and love of craft matter). Record labels are a bigger problem than AI now. But who's going to wind up controlling the AI that takes more work away from artists? Bet it'll be the labels, just like it's the labels owning a percentage of Spotify too, and thus squeezing the artists from both sides.

[@BiggusDiggusable]

No one has done more to destroy music than Spotify and Ek.

[@PublixCarrotCake]

My Spotify library enabled me to discover highly diverse and at times obscure music

[@BiggusDiggusable]

@@PublixCarrotCake Sure...it's made it easier for you, but artists get paid almost nothing for your privilege to do that.

[@PublixCarrotCake]

Ah yes, for sure, 100% they're being screwed and having to rely much more on other revenue streams if they're "lucky"enough to have that available

[@griphy]

I'm sure Kaaza and Shazam would have done wonders for the industry instead

[@ThePowerBunny]

Cleo Abram fan club anyone??

[@carultch]

She's way too pro-AI, for my liking. One day we'll regret AI, as we can't automate our way to prosperity forever.

[@kaemonbonet4931]

The problem with the idea of filling the "gap" in-between idea and product is that the "gap" is the creativity. If you fill it with an ai tool you're getting that ai tool shining through, not your vision. It wouldnt be vermeers girl with the pearl earring, it would be "my computer has been trained to make stuff that looks like a videogame and i want to see a picture of a woman wearing pearls. "

[@LAVISHING]

This was awesome! Cool that you could get my friend Grimes on your channel Cleo!

[@BryantAvant]

AI will be the death of talentless fame. People will still want to see a great vocalist or a great band.

[@lllllMlllll]

As a musician, I do not really care! AI or not, if your music is worth listening to, it will work. AI is like the new kid on the block, who cares. However, a song with mistakes and shortcomings by a human is worth a thousand perfect song by AI. A Big part of what makes a song worth listening to, beside the actual song, is the fact that people look for a singer that reflects their emotion and see themselves in that singer.

[@barnabasjthomas9983]

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. Leave it to the listeners.

[@selispeks]

You actually changed my mind about this debate, and I feel like I have a solution! People should CONSENT to their works being used in AI training. If they do not or cannot consent, their creations should not be used. The AI won't learn as much, yes, but then we can work off a system of "digital inspiration" using works from people who are okay with it. After all, the human mind draws inspiration in the same way: we recognize patterns and recreate the ones that inspire us in our work!

[@argentinephenomenologist]

Hi Cleo: awesome, fantastic, excellent, moving, awfully entertaining. Thank you, and please keep doing what you do.

[@dfkramer76]

I really appreciate your reporting. This was the first KZbin I have watched, for usually I just watch you instatock. ❤

[@notyourbys2]

Visual artists and actors and writers tried to warn you all, but everyone starting making thumbnails and album covers and music videos using AI. I guess musicians should have had some foresight. Very hilarious that the CEO of spotify is saying how they want to compensate musicians fairly for AI, when they can't compensate fairly to begin with. Art, music and writing is fucked, and none of you stood for each other until it was too late.

[@fis_trashwitch]

Don't forget the struggle of Artists in General against AI.

[@CustardCream22]

AI is not for me in any sense when it comes to art. It can imitate a voice but it’ll never be real.

[@Tekken4Life3]

"In order to get to the heart of the music AI debate I talked to a multi-millionaire that stands to profit from its implementation and the billionaire CEO of a music platform that has been desperate to make it truly profitable for over a decade."

[@sus10651]

Portrait makers complained about photography. Music distribution companies complained about Spotify and KZbin. Taxis complained about Uber. Technology moved on, unnerved.

[@shatterpointgames]

I do think that the barrier of entry is a good thing. People fail to realize that things that are hard are the most satifying things in the world. Every time we make something easier we take away the joy of working hard to achieve a goal. I ask myself, would I have sat in my room for hours on end learning guitar if I knew I could just tye in "gud guitart music that sounds happy" and get a production quality recording that would take me ten years of practice to match? Probably not, and I would be missing out on one of the most meaningful parts of my life. I hate the thought that any random person will be able to sit down and make production quality music in a matter of seconds, its cheap, its too easy, it defeats the purpose of life. We're going to have to ask each person "is that AI?" then if you produce anything good everyone will doubt you even made it yourself so why bother? Celebrity singers that support it are probably ones who aren't actually musically talented and just rely on their production chain to pump out "pop" music.

[@AstroBuoyant]

This is a joke … it’s like saying pollution is good cause people can wear scuba gear all the time.

[@HYP3RC0L0R]

Bombshell: Cleo is actually AI this whole time. How I know? She’s too impossibly beautiful and perfect to be a real human.

[@jayant.lohani]

This is one of the best videos i've seen in quite a while! Plus, amazing vocals!

[@sabofx]

Imagine this scenario: A little known singer songwriter composes and produces a song that fails to get public attention. A well known artist makes a cover of that song and it becomes a big hit. Now if I want to make a new cover inspired by the same melody (present in both the original and popular cover), then who do I have to compensate? One could argue that my version would ride on the success of the famous (second) release. But I think the law only requires me to pay the original composer.

[@Suburp212]

Your videos are alw6s so informative and interesting. Thank you.

[@jet305]

Excellent video and so much effort put into it. New sub!

[@SamKelley-lo8bl]

Cleo, I think an important history lesson to contextualize this AI music phenomenon is Techno music. Not in a broad sense, but as a genre of music inspired by synth pop bands like Kraftwerk and YMO, with sci fi influences from the Parliament Funkadelic and the soul of James Brown. Much in the same way that AI is using various sources to create the 'perfect track', producers in Detroit in the 1980's including Juan Atkins, Kevin Saunderson, among many, many others were using new music technology (i.e. tr808, tr909, tb303, etc.) that up until the early 1980's was too expensive for an average music producer like a Moog modular synthesizer or even far too complicated in the sense of Buchla. The important thing with Detroit techno is that it took all these influences, plus the soulful 4 on the floor rhythm that came from Disco and House and created a genre of music that is completely centered around the machine. In a sense Detroit Techno is more machine than man, something that Kraftwerk only dreamed of. It's repetitiveness and use of space and melody in composition was and is accomplished with hardware sequencers, drum machines, and of course the DJ equipment that allows Techno to be played live. And the result speaks for itself. Techno is great music to dance to. It was the pinnacle of the burgeoning rave culture that still flourishes today around the world. Techno, with it's machine exterior and Black soul interior from Detroit has united people in ways that no other genre of music has. After the Berlin wall fell, it was Techno and grimy raves in abandoned Soviet-era buildings that united the city that had been fractured since the Second World War. I've read KZbin comments from geezers from the nineties in Belfast that said that the music and raves was the only thing that brought the people of that city together. Techno music is a perfect example of artists using new technology to benefit humanity as a whole. Music has healing properties and Techno producers and DJ's from around the world are continuing to push the limits of technology to produce machine-oriented dance music that brings people together. Technology isn't inherently good or evil, but can be used by humans to create beautiful things.

[@shamanthks7218]

Happy 12th year birthday to your channel!

[@itsKnnth]

"Music is. Human expression" that's very well said.

[@y_social_]

"music is the best way to communicate between our lonely little brains what its like to be alive". Love that Cleo!

[@souravrsandeep9508]

Best channel on KZbin!

[@werdwerdus]

i hope she talks about how Spotify just recently changed their terms so smaller artists with a low number of listens no longer get paid ...

[@joso7228]

As a Drummer I was buried by Drum Machines decades ago. Now AI wants to Cremate my Coffin too.

[@ashishkollamparambil4963]

Absolutely love the content! Thanks for your hard work Cleo!

[@Poundy]

was that a Mini Aussie I spied?! Another excellent vid made even more interesting :)

[@phelix920]

I like the video, and I also enjoyed noticing that you’ve got yourself some rhythm with the music. You go girl! I will be subscribing to your channel now. 👍🏾👏🏾👋🏾💐 Phelix

[@nbain]

This video was AWESOME. Maybe your best yet

[@blondesalute]

I feel like having a fully AI artist would be a whole separate job (maybe paying the ones behind the AI, or having a new version of royalty-free music, or having this music personal for only you and your friends/family)

[@diegomarche]

Loved the content and the production work.

[@badjujubean]

That last line gave me sent a wave of inspiration through me. Amazing work on this video

[@charlie.violin]

great work Cleo! Videos are awesome

[@issiewizzie]

Great work Cloe & team

[@hopef0rhumanity726]

This is all amazing and Cleo did an amazing job…but the fist song got me!😂

[@akhydroponics]

Awesome content thank you so much for giving good info on something this complicated

[@RamartiAndFamily]

What an incredible video! You had my attention all the way through, and answered nearly every question I’ve had for the last 28 years about the music business industry and it’s legal complications.

[@64ccd]

Great video as always! Here's my two cents as a musician: I think AI has the ability to kill music that doesn't push the creator in its marketing. Why would anyone make anonymous elevator music or lofi-chillhop for youtubers if youtubers could ask an AI to make them 100 different versions until it got it just right? They wouldn't. So bedroom producers making simple instrumental tracks won't make money anymore. Ariana Grande, Billie Eilish and Ed Sheeran will keep making money because people care about them as people - they want to know what Ed Sheeran has on his mind. Same goes for virtuosos like Polyphia where we don't care how quickly a computer can "play" something, but seeing Tim Henson innovate on the guitar will make people chose Polyphia over AI every time. I think the divide between album listeners and playlist listeners will grow, where playlist listeners won't care who made the music (if they ever did), whereas album listeners will care all the more. They're already the people who went back to buying vinyl, I think. For better or worse I think the music scene ten years from now will be one where the likes of Jacob Collier and Laufey will thrive, but someone like Avicii wouldn't have a chance at making it big. You can't stop evolution, only adapt.

[@masonmount17]

Sick video! Loved seeing Collier in there too

[@zenmasterjay1]

I appreciate the ad notifier... but i watched it anyway😮

[@lalahouton998]

Cleo - love the positivity of your videos. That is purely why I watch them. A quick question - do you use AI to produce personalised videos? As in, perhaps the example of avicii and say linkin park are specific to me because you have data upon me that makes your video personalised (I loved both)! So perhaps someone else is seeing another two different bands as an example? I don’t know what this is called, but it’s kind of like personalise marketing which helps to make the viewer feels the video is personalised!? Is there such a thing - perhaps a video on this would explore the topic. I am wondering if AI is being used or if it’s algorithm with data vendors enabling the personalisation! I hope this makes sense. Does anyone else experience this with videos (perhaps Netflix and also Spotify atm)? A video on this would be awesome

[@osvalreyes566]

Wow watching this videos are pure pleasure ❤ there's lot of work into this 👏