Artists against AI protest

[Mike_S]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyd3r62kp5o

[bruno]

One of the comments is

"To the inevitable "art isn't important/get a proper job" crowd: I suggest trying to live for one month without any art or creativity in your life. No music. No novels. No magazines. No films. No television dramas. No theatre. No poetry. No visits to art galleries or exhibitions. No radio. Nothing.

Let's see how many of you will say "art isn't important" with a straight face after that."

Hmm. I'm not so sure. Why is it with streaming services with 1000's of movies at your fingertips, its still hard to find something to watch. Or with Spotify, its hard to find something to listen to.

Times are a changing. Without art on demand, I would simply play my guitars more, or go and see plays. Art will always exist, as humans have a need for art. We will simply adapt to the new situation. Its just how that itch is scratched. A load of grandstanding artists wont change a thing imo.

B

[StephenM]

off the top of my head I don't like AI music at all... but... I remember when artists used to yell about being able to record and pass around albums on cassettes.  Yes, I am that old and then some.  The truth is that actually helped bands to succeed as many folks would hear a band and then go buy some or even all of their albums.  It was literally word of mouth and free advertising.

The challenge to me here is, and with all modern tech, is making sure that humans still matter to one another.  That is a real problem imo.

another thing was many artists complained about spotify etc... but if you look at how well say Toto is doing at about 150 k per day many days per year you know artists of old that get lots of play are making jack off the streaming services.  Good for them... Neil Young whined about this stuff... well, if you are just an era type artist who can't sway new listeners than that is what happens.  I don't know.  I like to hear all angles of things...

good post.

I know I am in the minority here likely but these days big stars do almost nothing for me artistically.  I am much more in love with the likes of you all and people on Tik Tok, and reels, and nobodies that can play like all hello!  I never was big into celebrities much... and don't chase autographs or anything like that.  Rock on SC... you mean alot to me.

[Ted]

I think many people tend to miss the point when they are reacting to AI and music.

1. The Core Issue: AI Training on Copyrighted Music 
AI music models don't just *randomly* create music out of thin air. They learn by analyzing massive amounts of existing, copyrighted music – likely including music posted to this site. This means AI companies are profiting from music created by real artists *without permission or compensation*. 

Imagine if a company took all your songs posted to Songcrafters, Alonetone, etc., studied every note and nuance, and then built a tool that lets anyone generate "new" songs in your style—without crediting or paying you. That's what's happening.

This is different from: 

• AI making bad music (quality isn't the concern) 
• AI allowing untalented people to make music (that's not the issue) 
• AI generating music faster than humans (efficiency isn't the complaint) 

It's about fairness and ownership. Artists aren't against technology; they're against their work being used without consent.

2. The "Music Always Adapts" Argument Doesn't Work 
"Music has always changed—people complained about cassettes, MP3s, and streaming!" 

False equivalence. 
Cassettes and MP3s allowed people to share existing music. Pirating and sharing of copyrighted music without the original artist's permission is a different problem. AI-generated music is different because it creates "new" works based on copyrighted material—without the original artist's involvement or permission.

It's not about change—it's about consent. 
Artists have adapted to new formats, but those formats still required licenses and royalties. AI models, however, scrape existing songs to train their systems without compensating artists.

3. The "Art Will Always Exist" Argument Misses the Point 
"People will always make music. AI won't stop creativity." 

True, but irrelevant. 
Artists will still create, but if AI-generated music floods the market, it could: 

• Undercut human musicians financially, making it harder to sustain a career 
• Dilute the value of human-created music by saturating platforms with AI tracks 
• Lead to AI copies of artists' styles replacing the original creators 

It's not that people will stop making music—it's that corporations will profit from AI-generated songs trained on human work, while the actual musicians lose out.

4. The "Spotify & Streaming Are Worse" Argument 
"Spotify pays artists terribly, so why complain about AI?" 

Streaming royalties are bad 
AI models don't pay artists at all when they train on their music. It's like Spotify streaming millions of songs but never paying a cent.

Two things can be bad at the same time. 
Yes, Spotify is evil, but AI taking music without permission is an even worse.


5. The "I Like Songcrafters Artists More" Argument 
"I don't care about big artists. I prefer my pals on Songcrafters (or indie artists on TikTok)" 

AI affects all musicians, not just big stars. 
Even small artists on Songcrafters could have their work fed into AI models without consent, and then someone else could generate music in their style. Some of us (not me) are actually trying to make a career in music. AI theft hurts independent musicians the most, because they rely on originality to build a fanbase.


It's About Permission & Compensation 
AI music isn't the problem. AI being trained on music without permission is. 

Musicians—whether big stars or indie players—deserve control over how their work is used. If AI companies want to use existing songs to train their models, they should get permission and pay artists accordingly.

And that's why I support efforts regulate what AI can take and how it can take it. And I also support  blocking AI bots from scraping this site. (Hello, Admins!)

[bruno]

So, my question is this. If the silent album is going to be released on vinyl, how are they going to make it silent?

Plus this is little or no original music, people talk about influences - what they mean is borrowing this and that. Essentially the same as AI.

[AndyR]

I'm listening to it on Spotify at the moment.

It's not silence - it's empty studios or spaces with folk wandering about, flies buzzing, chairs moving, etc.

You could use this to train an AI engine to imitate the studio space... no wait...         

I'm actually finding it very restful - until the bluddy Spotify ads come up!!!!!

Ted, I agree with most of what you say, except Point 1.
I, and I'm guessing most songwriters or content creators, don't create stuff out of thin air. We have all learnt our "craft" in exactly the same way described for AI!

None of these human songwriters are accused of theft or need to credit their sources. And none of the artistes I have learnt from gave me consent to learn from them.

AI learning as described is no different to how I learnt. Why is it so distressing/offensive to us? IT SHOULD NOT BE AT ALL (but, I haven't got the answer to that aspect).

AI can do it quicker is all.

I know one reason I find AI generated stuff offensive - I don't know whether to trust it or the output (or the people who wrote the training algorithms).

And there's another aspect for me - I'm not even sure what the correct word is for what I feel (envy? jealousy?) for the people who create "art" by pressing a button and then they get the traffic/listens/hits and I don't.

I'm not sure how "pure" that second "envy" reaction - valid as it is - from me is.

Back to the trust thing.
Let's keep it to AI generated music and moving pictures (I have much bigger trust issues over AI digests of search results):

I'm listening to a thing and I can no longer trust whether I am listening to the creation of a human...
WOAH ... very sad 
EXCEPT ... I am listening to the creation of humanity - AI analysed human creativity, learnt the human tricks, then applied them to create some more stuff.
It is new stuff, based on humanity, possibly through the filters of some initial humans (but they're humanity too).

So what's my problem? Do I even have one?
If I like it, I can listen or watch it.
If I don't, I don't have to (that's what I do with The Clash, Neil Young, all those other artists I cannot stand)(apologies to fans of those two, I've got loads more names I could have picked - I just needed some real artists that I do not listen to because I find nothing enjoyable in them, same applies to AI "art").

Those of us (humanity) who like making music can continue to do so.
Those of us (humanity) who like listening to music can continue to do so.

There's all sorts of much bigger issues about AI than the art/copyright thing (did any of you watch those cult films with Arnie somebody in? Now that's scary )

The problem we have is that we make music, and the art/copyright thing all looks a bit "dodgy".

But when I really think about it, I don't think it is. If AI wants to learn from unsuccessful songwriters and recording artistes like us... good luck to it!!

[AndyR]

Album's just finished - very relaxing.

Two amusing things...
- last track (Companies) sounds like someone recorded pigs... hmmm
- spotify's algorithm picked something with the sound of the seas next...

"I am the Sea" by The Who
And then something from "Surroundscapes"
And then a bunch of Crickets

It seems there's a whole world of sound recordings out there that "Is This What We Want" fits right into.

[StephenM]

[Zoltan]