Latest on MJJC

A.I Michael - opinions

"(Put It) On The Line," "All This Pain" and "Your Excuse" was taken down from YouTube... and I loved all three of them... I wonder what happened?
 
Has anyone ever trained an AI exclusively on MJ vocals post 2005? Hold My Hand, Best of Joy, WBSS 2008?
 
I’ve long been a fan of Randy Travis (for those who don’t know he lost most of his ability to speak about 7-8 yrs ago from a stroke and before that had lime disease which didn’t help either) Well recently they put out an AI song and man you could’ve told me Randy got his voice back or it was a track from the vault and I’d have believed it! Insane! Most convincing AI I’ve heard thus far.

It got me thinking though, I wonder if the estate will try and do this with Michael. Except they’ve always been less than truthful and more than a little shady so I feel they’d do it and pass it off as the real McCoy. However with Michael, it seems to be impossible to pass it off as the real deal because no matter how good the model is, Mike is too difficult to emulate. Other artists might have distinct voices but usually not much else. Michael, however had such unique diction and stylistic choices that no matter how hard someone tries, it just feels inauthentic. They might nail some of it but that true authentic Michael sound is impossible to get from anything other than the source himself.
 
james283126 said:
I’ve long been a fan of Randy Travis (for those who don’t know he lost most of his ability to speak about 7-8 yrs ago from a stroke and before that had lime disease which didn’t help either) Well recently they put out an AI song and man you could’ve told me Randy got his voice back or it was a track from the vault and I’d have believed it! Insane! Most convincing AI I’ve heard thus far.

It got me thinking though, I wonder if the estate will try and do this with Michael. Except they’ve always been less than truthful and more than a little shady so I feel they’d do it and pass it off as the real McCoy. However with Michael, it seems to be impossible to pass it off as the real deal because no matter how good the model is, Mike is too difficult to emulate. Other artists might have distinct voices but usually not much else. Michael, however had such unique diction and stylistic choices that no matter how hard someone tries, it just feels inauthentic. They might nail some of it but that true authentic Michael sound is impossible to get from anything other than the source himself.
Click to expand...
Nah, this about establishes the precedent. They can train a voice model off the 2006-2008 era stuff and have it sing those Post Invincible outtakes. It's practically inevitable as easily as it is thought up.
 
Beano Wild said:
bit of an ignorant thing to say since AI helps with isolations & tracks that werent possible by hand. look at the beatle's Now & Then
Click to expand...
Seems a bit harsh, imo. For every positive AI story I see there seem to be 3 or 4 negative ones. The positive ones seem to mostly be in health / medical stuff. The negative ones mostly in the arts. Steve Marriott and Scarlett Johanssen spring to mind.

@ABCNewsLive
"Has AI gone too far? Actress Scarlett Johansson is slamming OpenAI over a generative voice that, she says, sounds similar to her own."

@ClassicRockMag
"It sounds like someone trying to sound like someone trying to sound like Steve Marriott": Rock legends line up to protest release of AI-assisted Humble Pie recordings"

A charming quote from the director of Steve Marriott's estate:
"Contacted by Variety, Chris France, who has been managing director of Marriott’s estate since 1997, said: “At present there are no confirmed plans to use Steve Marriott’s voice on AI recordings,” adding, “That does not mean a deal will not be done with one of several suitors who have made offers… I am afraid that [Mollie Marriott’s] opinions are of no consequence to me or his estate.”
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Feels like AI is a bad catch all term we need to stop using quickly so we can define what is and isn't acceptable about it
Click to expand...
Noam Chomsky calls it 'plagiarism software' but somehow I don't think that's what you had in mind, lol.

Seriously, though, I think you make a fair point. It's a bit of a mess, atm. The positive stories are very positive - for now (until we find out how far it can go wrong!) but the concerns people have are entirely valid and understandable, imo. My concerns about AI in relation to Michael are purely bc he's dead. For me, it's not about what he might do if he was still alive, it's just ... he's dead and it just feels wrong to me. But it's a conversation and there are many, many views. As you said, we need to work out a better way to talk about all of it.

“Thinking is a human feature. Will AI someday really think? That's like asking if submarines swim. If you call it swimming then robots will think, yes.”
Noam Chomsky

GOV5yr5W4AADaBz
 
You can make the same arguments about anything. These are simply tools that can be used for good or bad. Depends how they used. New technology drives innovation. Like it or not this tech is here to stay, and its only going to get better :)
 
Robbsaber01 said:
You can make the same arguments about anything. These are simply tools that can be used for good or bad. Depends how they used. New technology drives innovation. Like it or not this tech is here to stay,
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this ...

Robbsaber01 said:
and its only going to get better :)
Click to expand...
... but not so much with this. It will get better, that's for sure, but it won't necessarily make things better. As with every other human invention it will probably create as many problems as it solves. I still think it will be more effective in some fields (science, tech, medical, possibly agricultural) and less welcome (for me, at least) in the arts.
 
zinniabooklover said:
I agree with all of this ...


... but not so much with this. It will get better, that's for sure, but it won't necessarily make things better. As with every other human invention it will probably create as many problems as it solves. I still think it will be more effective in some fields (science, tech, medical, possibly agricultural) and less welcome (for me, at least) in the arts.
Click to expand...
It's been a great benefit to the arts though. The problematic stuff is "creating" with it. It's best benefit is to use as a tool to "fix" art. Now and Then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top