This is the RU-vid home for Yo Paulie Music led by Paul Croteau. YPM was founded based on the slogan "Creating grooves, setting moods," and strives to deliver authentic music in a variety of genres. In the past year alone, music produced by YPM has been placed in more than 60 television series across dozens of networks in dozens of countries; genres most often used are trap, jazz, tension and comedy. Recent additions to the catalog include lo-fi jazz that feature saxophone and trumpet, along with reflective solo piano works. Striving for musical authenticity, a commitment to the groove, and proper dedication to the given genre, Paul works hard to please his listeners.
Thanks for the transcription! I transcribed it to Alto Saxophone. I switched the time signature to 6/8 and made an edit to the rhythm in the first, second, and last measures.
Fact is, Taxi is only interested in cornpop; the kind of obvious drivel someone with poor musical taste likes. Anyone a bit edgy, a bit left of centre, anything experimental is not suitable for them and they will reject it. Better than charging $5 to keep the volume down, they should ask for auditions. Anyone middle of the road accepted, people either who are out of tune, cannot write a song/music or edgy artists would be rejected and save themselves money.
As a songwriter I have actually found Ai incredibly helpful and enabled be to pivot my music business to be my own label. It has helped when I have not been able to hire vocalists or most recently when I sustained a vocal injury still in need of healing. Given I have people dependent on me to put food on the table it goes a lot way in keeping to workflow going
Sync is short for Synchronization... sync music is music used in television shows, synchronized with the video... all of the music you hear during a typical show normally under the dialogue, in transitions into and back from commercials, etc.
Question for you: did you check out LoadMe music generator yet? If you did, please either do a video on it or share your opinions about it. I input my own lyrics and styles of music, and the sound is crisp and clear for the most part. People are saying it's a copy of Suno, but in my opinion, it is not. The sounds are different; I have both.
In the present context, it is clear that the music industry derives its revenue from a diverse array of segments, encompassing software and musical instruments. It is imperative for the industry to transition towards a model similar to that employed by RU-vid. However, there appears to be a prevailing inclination to engage in litigation as a means to obstruct these critical shifts. This resistance may inadvertently encourage other nations to enhance their music production capacities and assume a leadership role in the global market. The conventional business model has proven to be untenable.
They way i see this going is technical musicians not getting paying studio work. all that will be left is large live performance. Record companies will generates music then find some new Taylor swift to front the ai generated songs they thing will make money.
Studio work has been on the serious decline for several decades, and sadly, even large ensemble work is drying up. Lots of cities ending their symphony programs, lots of theaters drastically shrinking their pit orchestras, or going with recorded music. Heck, even Dancing With The Stars switched from a live band made up of some of the best musicians in LA, to recorded music. Not sure how interested people will be in a concert with a live person fronting AI music, but I think that a live musician could eventually incorporate AI as part of their own music and use AI to help generate a bigger following.
Very interesting defense. This reminds of 2 things. First, the whole guitar tab apocalypse that happened maybe a decade ago, where labels threatened to sue websites hosting fanmade guitar tab interpretations of popular (copyrighted) songs. This happened when software like GuitarPro allowed people to play midi versions of songs, but which were in the end, just fanmade transciptions. Most tab hosting websites opted to remove most copyrighted content and this had a massive impact in guitar (and music) playing overall, as most kids learning an instrument will want to play their favorite songs. Secondly, its quite bold from Suno to disclose that it is indeed using copyrighted music. The Million Sond Dataset (MSD) has been around for many years now, which is a dataset of metata and audio of copyrighted music, and this was crucial to many developments in MIR and machine learning applied to music. However, access to the audio is notoriously difficult, as it required scrapping the audio from youtube (or elsewhere), and had a lot of dead links, poor quality, etc. But in the end, the labels are just struggling to stay relevant in the XXI century. They managed to convice the streaming platforms under duress to give them massive equity in order to have access to their catalogue. I wonder if this is the end game here.
If Suno would increase the Bit Rate on the Vocals it would be clear winner. Easy to use and Write very good Lyrics. Udio Vocal Quality sounds better but just not as good a creating overall song.
My thoughts: Suno and Udio have claimed that they engaged in fair use by allowing the AI to "listen" to music and then "learn", the same way a human being would score study or listen to music and then go create their own song with inspiration from favorite artists and composers. I see a lot of issues with this. First, if I were to have a photographic memory, I could theoretically take a mental photograph of a painting and be perfectly allowed under the law to store it in my mind. It's a different story when data is in a tangible format given to a computer. At that point, it's material data, not simply an idea in a conscious mind as protected under the law. Even if the original song data given to the AI is not retained and is destroyed after having been converted/transformed into a different type of data, I think this would constitute a "recording". Legally, a recording is a "reproducible" registration of sound on a device, so even if it converts the song into a new data format, it is still registering the sound and converting it into data format. And the record labels have, indeed, shown that the original songs they own are reproducible to an uncanny point at which the AI has spit out near copies of popular songs. This could only be the case if the data stored is such that the original recording would be reproducible. In any case, isn't it technically illegal to download music at all, even if destroyed later?
Good comment, thanks for watching and commenting. It is not illegal to download free music, if it were, the 350 million or so free Spotify user accounts would be in trouble. Listening is not illegal, nor is analyzing. If you had a photographic memory and painted a new version of a painting, it would be a new painting, a copy, because it is a physical representation of the original. It could be considered a derivative work, or it could even be considered fair use for educational purposes. If you tried to sell your copy as the original, you would be breaking the law. If Suno tried to sell an accurate copy of a song, that would also be illegal. But these are both absurd examples not in touch with how the tools are used, or how they were intended to be used. End users are trying to get these tools to make copies of existing works, and failing to do so when you listen critically to the examples in the lawsuit. End users are inserting copyrighted lyrics into the tools, that's not Suno or Udio's fault. Learning how music works is not "recording." I can quote manyt famous saxophone solos during gigs, does that make me a criminal? To be clear, these tools are not converting songs into other forms, in any way whatsoever. To assert this shows a lack of understanding of how AI training works. These tools learn the concepts of rhythm, harmony, tone, etc. They learn genres, style, etc. Then the create new audio files. They do not create copies of existing works. Thanks again for taking the time to comment!
@@deepestdeepdives Definitely make a video about this, the more people talk about it the better. :) Yes, there are ads, but they are not paid for by listeners, it’s the same concept as broadcast radio. AI does indeed learn like humans, at least in a general sense. AI tools ingest music, dissect it to learn how it works, then use that knowledge to create new music. Just like people. It is disingenuous to argue that it’s not the same simply because computers can do it exponentially faster. The process is the same. At the end of the day, listeners/consumers don’t care a single bit how much time someone practiced or studied to create music. They care how it makes them feel. People like us, creatives and composers, are a niche market, and we are generally the only people even discussing this issue. The world simply doesn’t care about our skills or effort. It cares about feelings and the memories they associate to music. Would like to hear more about what you consider cheating when using AI. If using AI to generate thumbnails or background music is cheating(I do both), does that mean that using a search engine for research is also cheating? Why do I ask? Because before there were search engines we had these things called libraries where we had to go and physically look things up in archived documents, books, magazines, encyclopedias, etc. Search engines changed the game… are they cheating tools? Of course not. I completely understand that artists might not want their music used for AI training. Just curious though, are they also opposed to humans studying their music to learn how they play, to emulate their style? Honestly, there are some that would be upset about that, but they are the exception. Music is a tribal concept, spread by word of mouth and by ear. These tools make it easier for people to create music… and those that use these tools to try and duplicate existing content are the ones breaking laws. User behavior matters, not the existence of the tool. Make that video, let’s keep the discussion going! :)
@@YoPaulieMusic >They do not create copies of existing works. To be fair, I am pretty sure there are using heavy data augmentation during training, which could be considered as copying. For example, is a heaivly eq'ed version of the song consiered a copy? What amount a mix between 2 or more songs? Or a mashup?
@@rfalconator7896 Not sure I understand what you mean. They are analyzing the music as it is received in order to learn how it works, how it is made, etc. I don't see why they would heavily augment music prior to training it, that defeats the purpose of learning how it works. My understanding is that AI music learning tools ingest music in a variety of formats, but it is usually normalized into a single file format. No audio editing, just creation of a standard file format.
They copied music tht they intended to profit from. They stole everyones music by hacking servers and personal pc's. That is far as the court case should go. They are in possesion of stolen property. Any thing after that is "profiting from your crime". STOLEN MEANS STOLEN! If you want to make music you should try taking a music lesson. There are millions of victims here. I see that you dont care and probably consider yourself a songwriter by typing "a song about a dog". Of course You should put me out of work and you should be able to hack into my laptop
Except that's not the case. Speculations are not evidence nor proof. The record labels understood this, that's why the lawsuits isn't about theft/nor copyright.
I'm not sure all of the original artists in your unauthorized music videos would approve of how you've used and copied thier original works and recordings. Did you ask permission, or is that what you consider "fair use?" I think you have no room at all to talk. I wonder why you're even here.
Richie, you are quite mistaken and factually incorrect. Downloading freely available music is not stealing. Spotify has over 300 million free account users thata listen without paying, and Spotify has a download feature. When you listen to RU-vid videos you are listening for free. Suno did not break any laws and did not download anything illegally There is no stolen property. I've watched your videos and find it ironic that you are suggesting I take a music lesson. I've got a degree in music, and about 1,500 tracks in music libraries with my music used on well over a hundred different tv series, as well as a couple of feature films. I am a songwriter and composer, and based on your musical output I don't think anyone is a threat to putting you out of work, because I find it hard to believe that you have actually worked as a musician ever. Don't like my tone? Don't poke bees nests that you are not handled to deal with.
They didn't do anything you and every other person who listens to music haven't done. They did not break through any pay walls or hack servers or personal PC's and didn't copy anything. While stolen means stolen, something has to actually be stolen to be considered stolen. I have not only made music, I've written music professionally for almost 25 years and played for 56 years. This doesn't threaten anyone except people who pretend to have a career because they make a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a year doing sync and are actually hobbyists who could never make a living on what they make. Those are about 90% of the people I hear complaining now that musicians are starting to understand what this really is and isn't.
To me the songs they showed as proof don't sound close at all, same with ScarJo vs OpenAi drama, everyone went with the meme instead of taking a minute and listen to the audio. I also think this lawsuit is just a warning shot/veiled threat. Labels have been working increasingly as cartels and making their own bed.
if you take the copywrite lyrics and change them, but keeping the same syllables, then describe the song style you want, then you can hear that song you wanted to copy. then all you have to do is remove the vocals, and resing the actual lyrics. then it sounds close to original. now take any other song that sounds like that one song, and do the same.
If just being able to create copyright violations with a tool is already illegal then the guitar, which is right next to me, is also illegal... Though I bet music labels would love to take our instruments away so they can monopolize music.
I searched on Google exact this song : Mariah Carey - Christmas song , than the exact song showed up , and now I can download it and sell it and make money of it illegally ! So we should all sue Google for this and take them offline ! Or does that just count for Suno ? Shouldn’t we bring the entire internet to court for copyright infringement ?
Great video, I hope that the courts can see the possibilities of freeing artists as slaves to these corporations and letting art grow. Give artists their songs back let artists make what their songs are worth and don't just limit it to whoever the corporations deem worthy or publicly marketable... #TeamSuno
Facts. Everything they said is true. The record labels knew this as well. That's why they're only targeting the back-end data training in the lawsuit. But the laws agrees with Suno, back-end data training with or without permission is not illegal. The record labels are corrupt and greedy. There's no other way around it.
Agree. Everything (Suno said) that you just read is accurate. But the majority of normal people who uses it extensively already knew that. It's the anti-AI crowd that doesn't understand.
I thought that this problem was new for me. So I watched the video, wanted to thank you for the solution and saw that I've had this problem also 3 years ago... LOL... But anyway I like to thank you again! ;-
@@louisaruth interesting comment, but not accurate. Triangles exist in the real world and in geometric proofs. North exists in physics and can be pretty cen thanks to magnets. Negative undertones/harmonics do not exist.
@@YoPaulieMusic my comment is tongue in cheek i don't really understand what undertones are supposed to be or why they have to exist in order for negative harmony to count as a 'sound musical theory concept.' i also don't totally understand how overtones relate to music theory beyond it leading to comments like "if were going all physical then only the Major scale is the Real scale in terms of its corresponds to the harmonic series." this screams western bias to me, and definitely confused me as an approach back when i was still in school designating 0 degrees as north is a social construct, as is the significance we westerners place on the major scale, specifically the C major scale. however, describing music using geometry, one can quickly see how much our social constructs constrain our understanding and imaginations the easiest way to discuss negative harmony, or practically any other music concept, is by conceptualizing the twelve tones on a clock face. from there, we can use simple geometry to represent intervals, chords, or progressions; so if 'triangles exist in the real world and in geometric proofs,' so does negative harmony i look out my window, and the only triangles i see are man-made structures. triangles, squares, and perfect circles are rare in nature. if we had never before seen these shapes, would we accept that they exist in the real world based solely on mathematical proofs? i would, but what's the use if i lived out in nature? likewise, wind, water, and bird sounds occur in nature, but a naturally occurring IV-V-I would be a statistical anomaly because music is man-made like the structures out my window. meanwhile, it would take great skill to re-create natural sounds like birds and wind within western music's confines. you seem like an accomplished musical person, so maybe negative harmony doesn't help you the way it has helped others, including myself, because you already understand your craft. similarly, triangles and straight lines are not super helpful to cartographer even though anyone can use these simple shapes to plot paths between locations a few years ago, i realized the major and minor chords could be represented as a single triangle with a front and back on a clock face, and it blew my mind. oh my god, not only is music easy to understand, but understanding it is high level math. children playing music are doing math! we are exploring a soundscape, and music theory articulates how we are going about that exploration (regardless of how the exploration is perceived or conceived, everyone has the potential to understand this stuff their own valid, unique way) i think a 'sound musical theory concept' is one that makes music as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. recognizing the geometry of music, including how chords and scales flip on different axis, flattens the field, whereas traditional western music theory is most famous for its exclusivity have you seen the three part series from "Learn Harmony Now!" called "Understand Negative Harmony"? or Noel Johnston's 2 part series on "the flippening"? if i had seen these videos 25 years ago, it would have changed my life. turns out i understood music (and math) much better than i realized. today, i spend my free time on dmitri tymoczko's book 'a geometry of music." fun! i would totally watch a video giving it a review :)
@@louisaruth I appreciate your thoughtful response! I believe that just as people have different learning styles-some preferring text, others images, or even hands-on experiences-our understanding of music can also vary widely depending on how we engage with it. You offer a good example for those that visualize music geometrically, while for others, different modalities might resonate more strongly. Yes, my video has a Western bias because Levy's theory is based on Western music theory. :) While I may not fully align with your viewpoint, it is clear that you have found a method that works for you. Ultimately, I think what matters most is that we all find the tools and methods that help us connect with and explore music in meaningful ways. Thanks again for your insightful contribution!
