DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion (opens in new tab)

No, it’s not a style, it’s by definition an incomplete song.

The request is valid; you just need the right tools for the job.

Story Jam lets you design chord progressions without needing to know about music theory, instead offering intuitive terms like "lightness", "darkness", "drifting" and "roaming". They mean about what you think they mean.

https://storyjam.tenpens.ink

I'm planning a "Show HN" post for tomorrow morning EST with more details. But you can get the sneak peek here :)

Yeah, I'd think that it will take commoditized generation tools that existing or new composition multi-tracking tools could incorporate. i.e. FLStudio plugin

one-shots are essentially toys

The ability to record has led the greatest expansion I musical artistry in human history.

Ty it don’t think peasants were listening t to Bach, do you? Only the extraordinarily wealthy could afford to have music as anything like an every day thing.

There are like 6 core activities that bind humans together: shared creation of food, myth and music; co habitation, protection, child rearing.

We've done these things ourselves for hundreds of thousands of years. As we are increasingly convinced to buy them for convenience we loose the very things that make us know our connectedness.

So ya, there are real problems caused by the convenience of technology

People that never considered the value of artistic process until it was the topic du jour unilaterally decided that it was inefficient, oppressive, complex, frivolous, and unfairly inaccessible to those that hadn't put any sustained effort into developing theirs. If you didn't understand what they don't, you'd realize that companies spending billions of dollars to create tools that make cheap simulacra of artists' work to sell them at a loss to crush them in their own markets was merely the natural progression of artistic praxis. Despite it being economically unsustainable and clearly only cheap until it craters the value of artistic skill, these tools have democratized creativity. Instead of creation only being available to those with the interest and willingness to practice and develop their artistic sense, process, and skill, they're now broadly available to anyone willing to pay money for a subscription service that will obviously soon be a hell of a lot more expensive, or shell out a few thousands dollars for a top-tier video card that you almost certainly already have in your gaming rig, anyway. This is silicon valley progress and if you don't like it, you're a communist.

You're not composing music with an AI generator either: you're pushing a button with a few, limited instructions, and expect something that rewards your perception of what makes good music for your intention.

If you don't enjoy composing music, just don't do it, and give it to someone who does, and has the experience/knowledge/culture/practice/gut to do it.

> saying of all things this has no net benefit seems like the wrong thing to call out, and incredibly short sighted for HN.

Well it has the benefit of being true.

So putting paid humans out of business is your position then? Please explain why you believe in the long sighted view AI reducing already poverty level wages to zero is beneficial.

In this particular case it is totally black and white. Prove me wrong.

Tell me one example how music gen in any way benefits anybody to the level that is worth putting out of business the last few artists that make ends meet?

Yes, we've taken a wrong turn into a hellish dystopia.

We've created machines to replace humans doing things humans enjoy doing. Leaving the drudgery machines were supposed to eliminate to be done by humans.

Good for them, really.

But don't mistake one thing for the other: how is it different than, say, being Emperor Joseph II asking Mozart in Vienna to write an opera for him?

Mozart wrote the music, not Joseph.

Similarly, you can hike across France, from South to Britain for several days. Or you can take the train. Or a car, alone, or with a driver. Or a plane, in the pilot or the passenger seat.

You'll get in the same place in the end. The experience will be totally, fundamentally different for you, as well as for others.

> Is music making always a net positive?

Yes because the act of making music, even not very good music, is what has value. Music generated without human input has no discernible value.

> If nothing else, these tools will allow more music will be made.

By machines that, as far as we can tell, take no enjoyment from making it. And eliminates any possibility of emotional connection between the artist and the listener. Which is the entire source of music's value.

There's already a huge library of royalty free music available and even just AIing some music up doesn't fully protect you from strikes if it hallucinates something close enough to an existing song.

And let's be honest, the reason it can be done for a lower price is because the public doesn't have taste.

Put another way, they hate costs, and all of us are costs :)

That's right, they don't just hate creatives. They'll go after anyone.

I wonder what the hyper-capitalist's end game looks like. One giant company that covers everything with one man sitting at a dashboard, tweaking parameters? Is that one man even necessary?

I wonder what our plans are for when "the economy" prefers to do it's thing without us. Writing poems all day? What capitalist instrument will provide "money" for us to spend in this giant machine?

> Any job that can be done as good for a lower price or better for the same price is going to be a target.

So they just hate humanity in general then.

That's why corporations that have made creative products have traditionally never gone anywhere. They all just went out of business. And all the artists got rich.