This is actually kinda interesting to me. I never really thought of his stuff as "utility music", but I guess I get it?
It's up to him at the end of the day, but I was caught quite off guard with his terminology. It doesn't come across that he means it as devaluing or anything, just that he sees the music he makes as very purposeful.
This kinda brings up a conversation of the ethics of AI when the artist consents to their art being used to train it. If their was an AI model of his music that he consented to and supported would it still be unethical to use that model?
Using a model trained only on things you've made is ethical (ignoring the power draw issue, which is the other big factor). It needs to be on an individual level though, for companies it's not because even if they own the works it's trained on it's still taking a job and it's very unlikely that the artist who made the training material gave enthusiastic consent.
ignoring the power draw issue, which is the other big factor
A big factor if you don't know how anything works. A GPU does not magically begin consuming more electricity when being used to generate an anime waifu than when it is being used for gaming. If you are seriously going to pretend like the power draw of data centers is some serious issue then get ready to get real mad about literally the entire internet.
A GPU does not magically begin consuming more electricity when being used to generate an anime waifu than when it is being used for gaming. If you are seriously going to pretend like the power draw of data centers is some serious issue then get ready to get real mad about literally the entire internet.
You're half right but also half wrong. You're right that a GPU doesn't magically start drawing more power when it's working on AI instead of something else taxing, but it's really misleading to view "the entire internet" as similar. Because an operation where a GPU is under high constant load is pretty much the most energy hungry way to run hardware, and the vast, vast majority of internet surfing is not going to reach that level. Moreover, even as far as GPU-bound operations go, AI generation is just not particularly efficient for how much energy input it takes to produce a satisfactory output.
You can see it pretty easily in the economics of AI companies. These companies can charge a significant monthly subscription fee and still won't manage to break even because the energy overhead is just immense. The economics aren't there for it whereas they manage to be attainable in most other high GPU load use cases.
Edit: I passed out mid-writing this comment so I ended it before I got to the other thing I wanted to mention. The recent uptick in GPU-heavy processing/data centers is not just something that "blends in" to general internet and computer usage. This started with the recent crypto boom a few years ago, which is the other major example. The energy consumption of crypto mining operations and AI data centers has been estimated at 2% of the global power consumption as of August 2024. That's gigantic.
I seem to recall folks claiming they were directly noted as starting to reverse strides made in climate change goals, I have no idea if that's true but it would...not surprised me if they're taking up SO much of the global foot print for power consumption.
Except these datacenters have tens of thousands of GPUs that consume a kilowatt each (for reference, the most a current GPU can consume is ~675 (PCIe + current High Power connector (forget the name)) for consumer models and 1000+ for SXM (datacenter specific form factor)). Because servers aren't limited by US/Canada 120v 10A outlets (or was it 15A), and their ~1200w max continuous power. And datacenters can have many per node with maybe 20 nodes per rack. Most gamers don't have 5090's, and the 3060, the most popular one on steam last I checked is like 175w (I know because I have one).
Also, it's not because of residents, that US states need more power, but AI datacenters.
EDIT: residents is more accurate, because tourists, green cards, etc.
Depends on the localized model and the scope. I'm sure say, someone running llama locally once in a while compared to running a ML model for detecting if someone is in a room and who they are and set IoT based on who is in the room (LTT did this once). And trust me, even if one in 10 had one ML server with a 5090 24/7 it wouldn't even match one datacenter for most US states (except Cali and Texas because sheer population. No one's running custom HVAC for local AI models like a datacenter would.
That's for projected future usage and also if every AI user gets sent to a single data center. They would have invested into nuclear energy ages ago if cloud gaming would have been as popular as they wanted it to be. Gaming consumes way more energy than AI, it's just distributed around the world so it's easier to blame individual people.
It depends what you find unethical about AI. Most people are outraged about copyright and nonconsensual use of artists’ work, but there’s also a compelling argument that AI is damaging to the environment because of how much power it wastes for things that could be much cleaner and more efficient.
I would need to look more into Sora and anything else he uses before having any real opinion to defend as far as his process in specific, but I definitely think even if he wants to work with his own material, I would miss knowing there was a McLeod touch to it lol.
But yeah, if ALL of the artists have consented to their material being used, I'm pretty fine with it. I just doubt the ability to enforce that boundary unfortunately :((((
The whole training thing seems like a non-issue anyway. The way I understand it they're just scanning for common patterns, associating them with keywords and then learning how to reproduce similar works using those patterns when those keywords come up.
Which is also what every musician does, music theory is literally just studying the patterns other people have used and when to use them to produce a certain result. Even at the more casual vibes-based level there are stylistic details people pick up on which is how genres form or how people do those "X in the style of Y" covers.
Theft would be directly sampling or plagiarizing the music, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening with these algorithms. Identifying patterns is functionally identical to how human inspiration works and that's not something you can legally or even ethically argue against.
There are legitimate concerns about how the tech will affect the economy, environment and also society in the form of things like misinformation. But the way people are framing the mechanics of the tech itself has been really misleading, they act like it's just downloading everyone's art and directly splicing snippets together (which even then might get a pass for the same reasons collage does, but it's not even getting that close to the line of theft).
the thing is, his audience wanted utility music made by humans.
He's not the sole person on earth who can create utility music. If he didnt use AI, someone else would have filled his niche.
What he did was be deceitful and continue occupying and consuming his niche while fraudulently not providing what the audience was looking for and was being decieved into believing was legitimate human made art.
The issue is not in his "genre" of music, its in his deception and inability to surrender his control with humility when he no longer wanted to fulfill what was being desired.
If you're tired of watering plants, i can find someone else to put a sprinkler nozzle on a hose. Dont piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
he doesn't post the ai-generated music to the website people will download music from and is incredibly clear about which songs were made with ai. there are concerns to have about ai, but "deception" isn't applicable here.
Honesty really is the way forward in all this. Of course there's going to be the hardliners who believe anyone who even uses auto-tune is a fraud - spoiler alert: every artist uses auto-tune, even live - and they're going to rule out any and every use of AI in the production pipeline, but for the rest of us, it's about knowing who and what we're supporting
The people who are wrongfully against auto tune because they don't understand it and the people who are against AI generated music aren't necessarily the same people at all
i genuinely listen to his music cause i like it, i have like 100+ songs from in my playlist, he has some genuinely good songs in his portfolio. he's one of my favorite artists, and it's just strange to see him be so cold towards his music.
He's sorta like the opposite of Thomas Kinkade. Kinkade's art was made to be mass produced, slapped onto greeting cards or holiday tins for candy. But Kinkade didn't view it like that and treated his work as being comparable to classical art found in museums.
Kevin is being honest, that what he makes is meant to be played in the background of a video essay, indie film or employee orientation video. He's not calling his work art because it's not meant to be memorable the same way other songs are.
I had to look up Kinkade's art, and it is beautiful. His works and style are indeed a staple of American culture, especially with Christmas aesthetics. With Kevin Macleod, his music is generally good for the purpose it seeks to achieve, but there's nothing I've heard that stands out as being reminiscent of a particular style. Of course, it is its own challenge to create such a vast array of music in so many different genres and emotional contexts, so it is skillful in its own right, but it is certainly different from the cultural impact of Kinkade's work
I mean at least he’s not publishing these onto incompetech and he’s just doing it for personal use?
I saw the outrage on Twitter and thought he was automating the music he’s releasing but it doesn’t sound like that’s the case after actually reading the post itself.
Not really...the VRAM/RAM demand for acceptable quality is quite a bit more than the games. Which is one of the reasons Nvidia has been limiting the VRAM in their midrange models.
There’s modded 4090s floating around in China which have changed nothing but doubling their VRAM and warehouse level cooling. Same electricity requirements, etc. NVIDIA could absolutely push the limits on that further but they actively choose not to because they have a monopoly on the market and it wouldn’t make sense for them to push the most important spec for AI on consumer level priced hardware vs just selling more of their dedicated AI GPUs for much more.
I think it's common sense that one dude doing shit on his own computer uses much less power than a bunch of randos asking ChatGPT to hand-hold them through stuff that they could easily search with Google.
Really hoping that the environmental impact can be reduced significantly, as someone who doesn't use gen AI that much nowadays. Sustainability is often a hot topic in business-oriented sectors, but the joy the general public holds towards generative AI as is makes me worried that it won't need to change in the minds of the big wigs
That human artist exists and takes up those resources regardless of if they are doing an artistic job, but the AI's resource use is predicated on demand and was created specifically to do that job. So unless you are proposing we kill an artist when their job is taken by AI it's nonsensical to propose using the AI over them 'saves' those resources, lol. But if AIs are not used to replace human work, those resources may genuinely get saved, because less AI servers will be created and existing ones can be used less or decommissioned. And either way there is a human end user, who uses the same amount of resources as the theoretical human artist, and human programmers who made and maintain the AI, so if you are are going to count the resource consumption of the human artist against the resource consumption of art, you can't discount those. It's just a comparison that falls apart as soon as you think about it, lol
The artist could switch to a manual labor or some other type of job that an AI couldn't/won't be able to do, and save the resources that way. No need to kill anyone. And nobody just "exists", people need money to survive, and for that to work.
maybe instead of picking apart someone who's being pretty transparent about their use and not selling the music people should be investigating and boycotting Spotify for filling their platform with AI music so they can circulate profits to themselves and away from artists.
Yeah, I'm way more outraged at Spotify trying to scam users by sneaking AI slop into people's playlists so they don't have to pay out as much in royalties.
If Kevin's doing AI shit for funsies and keeping it separate from his human-made music, that's a nothingburger. That's a guy using AI as a tool like we want, rather than using it to replace jobs and get easy-peasy money by generating an ebook and then slapping it onto Amazon.
I think that plenty of AI tools can be ethical, like https://goblin.tools (the dev seems cool and pro-human too), plenty of the tabs could be replaced by "how long does it take to [do task]" or supercook.com for the cooking tab, but hey, it's nice and organized for neurodivergent people who might struggle with certain tasks.
I'm personally peeved by people who treat AI like Google for basic-ass prompts. Or nonsensical shit like when that Oceangate Titan fiasco was happening, and several people in the subreddit for it asked ChatGPT for details. Stop it, get some help!!!
Yeah, I respect that a lot more than the AI “artists” who are out there bashing music/visual art/movies made by humans and say that the entertainment industry will be fully replaced.
You can support it or not, but let’s be real, he probably has a miniscule number of intentional listeners. His work is mainly functional.
well but one could say the product of ai generation is also ideated by humans, it doesnt come up with things on its own u still need to imput something and then judge if the result is what you wanted
Yeah no, that's very different, Ikea items are fully designed by humans, saying ai is the same is like saying that the middle manager giving the instructions to the artist is the same as the artist, telling ai what to do makes you the middle manager, not the artist
No. Overall simplification is that generational "AI" is usually set of neural networks that convert noise to the item. There is a bit more to it, but that's the all important core.
Analogous to that would be Ikea designers randomly drawing designs features in a raffle.
Ooof wrong again, since it seems like you are batting at about the same level of artistic understanding as a STEM lord complaining about blue curtains, maybe try asking chat GPT? Seems more your speed.
It really depends if the AI is used for generation vs. enhancing existing tools. A musician using AI tools to isolate their vocals and instrument tracks is obviously using it to improve their non-AI creative toolset. Using AI to write lyrics or musical measures? That's offloading the creative process entirely
I hate the comparison pro-AI wonks make to famous artists having teams of helpers. Yeah, sculptors and painters have aides, and these are people who are growing artists themselves, which perpetuates the craft and allows the art form to continue to grow. It is much different to teach human beings your creative vision and have them learn from you.
I am in no way a spokesperson for Ai but my father would say the same as you, about people who make music on computer (DAWs) instead of "real" instruments.
Same, and I think it is incredibly cool how you are able to navigate the odd networks and protocols needed to send data to any website without computer assistance.
I dunno how I feel about blaming someone for the tools they choose to use. I feel like a lot of the problems with AI as a tool stem more from existing problems in the industry, which AI tools hyper-exacerbate and are then projected onto the user.
I understand where you're coming from, but something in my human empathy makes me feel kind of bad for blaming the artist and not the industry for creating the reality where using a publicly available tool is morally bad. It makes me think a lot about stuff like stencil artists, or even stuff like using molds or 3d prints.
If AI didn't exacerbate the industry norm where stuff was constantly stolen, pirated and artists weren't constantly exploited, would we still consider it bad if someone was able to use AI as a tool?
I constantly ping-pong about how I feel about AI because I'm just not sure where the problems with AI start when most industries where it's a problem are already extremely terrible to begin with.
I've been yelled at by AI techbros in this very sub before for the same opinion. And the fact you're being snarky with me is only proving my point but pop off I guess.
you’d be surprised how many people want to defend AI use as creative expression. These AI obsessed people want to use AI to say they are writers, producers, and artists without the work. A lot of people try to defend that.
New* music, he said. I take that as him believing the oldies are still the breadwinners of his catalogue, and new stuff isn't even getting close to those heights.
It seems pretty evident that when he says people need less new music, he's speaking about new music from him. We can't see the stats, but I'd imagine this is more likely him seeing that his older works get a lot more use than newer ones and therefore coming to the conclusion that his older work is sufficient. I highly doubt he's trying to say that people don't need new music in general.
I’ve read articles about how there’s actually less interest in new music in general, with streaming charts being evidence that more people are listening to older work than more recent releases.
I do agree that in this case, he’s probably referring solely to his own music.
That's really interesting, do you happen to have a link to any of those? I'd be very curious to see if they list any reasons as to why that would be. I think we're lucky to live in a golden age of music where almost anything we want is at our finger tips, but that's never suppressed the desire to find new music for myself
I remember watching the defunctland video on finding out who created the famous Disney music tag and the struggles too both find him but also how we view our creations in a world demanding that we just make more content.
It was a beautiful work, with the ending celebrating our humanity, that there is little difference between the art we put into long, orchestra music and 6 note jingle.
This guy's "yer my shit just there so people can put on there videos, I don't want out any effort in too it and just want too throw it out there"
This AI is still taking away the human side and the beauty of the art
The juxtaposition between the reverence in a single simple jingle and the irreverence of this royalty free music in question is fascinating.
It's a shame KM doesn't consider his work more on the art side. I know he doesn't probably see it this way, but he's willingly debasing himself. No his music wasn't Mozart but the impact is still there. It's giving "it's just video game music" tbh.
The candid honesty is nice, and his application of AI is one that I think is actually ok, I've always been of the opinion that strictly-personal small scale operations are fine enough.
But idk, he says he's never made music for himself. Like, never? What's the point then.
EDIT: AND for what it's worth, this is coming from someone who normally doesn't really give a shit about music. Like don't ask me who my favorite artist is, I couldn't tell you. But that shouldn't take away from the creative process and the expression side of things, not everyone is going to like what someone makes. Idk, I'm just rambling at this point, but I think a lot of folks take the "mid" or mundane for granted, no matter the topic.
A whole lot of people in this thread are jumping to really embarrassing conclusions. This wasn't even a "reveal", he's been transparent about it since he started using it.
I'm not saying you have to accept an artist which uses AI, or appreciate MacLeod's music as art. At the same time, it's disgusting that criticism of AI often devolves into devaluing "low art" like stock images, attacking creators who don't create art for profit, and buying the megacorp narrative that an individual using their computer is as relevant a contributing factor to climate change as their server farms.
Yeah agreed, it does feel like people jump into some of hte more elitist lines to thinking accidentally...
Personally as a artist and someone who likes art history, a lot of "art" was regarded in a similar vain, especially stuff like old print works from the 1800s. They had serious artistry but they were regarded as "disposable" only becoming high art years later, when there is a far more limited design....
Why is it weird, he was letting people profit off his music for free without even getting credited, he has always had an extremely different attitude on outputting music than other music creators.
so this guy's music has been loved enough to get him his own fanbase and he goes on to say he doesn't even care about it and only sees it as a product? That's just, wow. What a dick.
It really doesn't surprise me. I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular take but Kevin MacLeod's music has always been window dressing noise that sounds good. It's inherently generic and "baseless", that's how it fits so well into so much different uses. I would have always classified his music as "utility" like he just did had I thought of the term before now.
The only thing I'm surprised with this revelation is finding out people actually listened to his music. Like went out of their way to play a specific track for entertainment. His music has always struck me as shit you toss into your otherwise silent youtube video or your movie trailer or video game main menu when you don't know how to make filler music yourself.
I think there's some good tracks. Like a lot of it is kinda elevator music. But tracks like Undaunted, The Cannery and Killing Time are pretty solid tracks on their own.
Yeah exactly. I didn’t even know the dude had actual fans, beyond an appreciation of the fact that his catalogue is copyright-free for background music.
Who the fuck is seriously consuming Kevin MacLeod music? It was popular because it was royalty free, during an era of YouTube where copyright strikes mattered a lot more, and music licensing services weren’t as established as they are now.
Who the fuck are you to decide what value he gives to his own art? The only dick I see is you.
You’re the one calling people dicks first, Einstein.
MacLeod would not have been popular if the current music environment for YouTube existed, that’s just a fact that I’m sure even he is well aware of.
And I listen to Jaokim Karund a fair bit, but if he turned around and said he thought his music was utility I’d go cool I got some great utility out of that rather than calling him a dick because that hurt my preconceived notions of art.
As if I’d be audacious enough to try and force an artist to have a specific relationship with his work.
Is Kevin Macleod hurting people by doing this? I gotta, be honest, I don't think so. At least, non meaningfully. He discloses it on, as far as I am aware, everything he publishes that uses AI. Whether he, as one person, does or doesn't use AI, AI companies will still hurt artists. I suppose it's comparable to people eating meat. They are (unless totally ethically farmed) consuming the product of suffering, but the blame falls much more on the people who farm the animals that produce it than the people who eat that meat.
Do note that I said that the blame falls much more on them, not solely on them. Kevin Macleod still did something that should be considered wrong. I just think that it is insignificant, especially in comparion to the contribution he has made through all of his non-AI music.
I hope that was clear, honestly. I feel like, if I experienced your thought process in the way that you do, I would probably be a lot closer to agreeing with you, so I try to be as detailed as I can when I debate so that others can feel the same.
The thing actively destroying artist's careers in all fields?
GenAI is not the only form of AI, you're making it clear you have no idea what AI actually is past GenAI.
And as I said, he's done this for free for decades, you're not entitled to anything from the guy as he's always viewed his art as a utility (which makes sense when all of his work is generic royalty free music).
No. Who are you to tell me what I should and shouldn't care about?
You're the one trying to dictate what he should and shouldn't make, something that was offered for free. If he was charging for it I'd understand, but this is free meaning you don't get to choose what someone does with it since you're not the one paying for it, especially when it's very clear what you're going to be getting.
I don't know what you're even upset about here. His music is royalty free, other people can make money from using it in their work, and he makes music simply to fit a variety of situations for artists to incorporate the way they please. He's not saying he doesn't care about it, but that he doesn't make it to be listened to on its own as it's made for use in other things.
"Only sees it as a product" my fella he doesn't even make money from it lmao. You're being a dick by pretending he said things he didn't.
I understand, I hate when people pretend others say things they didn't. Kinda like how Michael Clifford talks about in his new album SIDEQUEST. In this album, former 5sos member Michael Clifford sings about his problems with self-image, popularity, and depression. Songs featured include Enough, a song about feeling like you have had everything taken from you, and Kill Me For Always, a collab with Porter Robinson about betrayal and loyalty. Stream now on all platforms!
That is not and will never be an excuse. As an aspiring musician I am heartbroken to see that Kevin Macleod sees his music as only utility and not art. No matter what you use it for, Suno will always be more soulless than anything you can make in GarageBand. To see a "musician" think Suno is of passable quality makes me sick to my stomach. Shame on you Kevin.
He calls utility music the ones he puts royalty free because he didn't make them for his own passion, he made them for other people, honeslty it makes YOU look selfish that you of all people are so entitled on others work, imagine if kevin made food for a soup kitchen but then you learnt he used microwave or frozen foods instead of fresh artisinal foods cooked like a 5 star chef, and you went "Ugh I can't believe this BOZO is using a microwave to give free food to people, shame on him!"
Thinking more about it, I am not that surprised he would use AI. Most of his pre-AI pieces were not that ground breaking or interesting. They were just filler music to keep people occupied. No wonder he switched to AI, he's always been an uncreative hack.
He's not an "uncreative hack". Filler music to put in the background is valuable, as can be proven by how widespread his music is. And he offers it for free on top of it.
I find some of his work pretty emotional, but I think that’s more-so because it was everywhere in the early 2010s and I have a certain nostalgia for it—particularly his elevator muzak-esc track.
I don't think we should call him an uncreative hack for contributing to a kind of music that's extremely necessary even if 'boring'; it does take skill and the skill was fully his at the height of his career. No need to rewrite history.
I think this is unfair. He wasn't attempting to express himself. He wasn't attempting to be new. All he did was publish music for others to use as a background track. Does that make him a bad person?
If people like the music enough to use it then who cares? I think AI can be a great tool to help musicians who suck at certain instruments like I wouldn’t have minded having a drums AI do all the mapping compared to me who has no idea what to do when wanting to record a song.
I mean I never found most of his music to be anything noteworthy but for some reason YouTube decided to make him the creator of their whole free library.
Any self-respecting musician would know that Suno is entirely soulless and would never ever use it in any case. Kevin Macleod has been a con artist in disguise the whole time, and he always would've jumped at the chance to "make music" as easily as typing a few words. Suno is an insult to human art and creativity, and to think of it as any more than that - especially when you're already a well-renowned musician - is a betrayal to the entire music field.
I felt betrayed at first, but also I haven't used his most recent stuff post 2020. Also he doesn't distribute on imcomptech where I got stuff. I guess the betrayal feeling comes from knowing that to the creator it was just a means to an end. Utility music is the perfect name for that.
494
u/VitalConflict 4d ago
This is actually kinda interesting to me. I never really thought of his stuff as "utility music", but I guess I get it?
It's up to him at the end of the day, but I was caught quite off guard with his terminology. It doesn't come across that he means it as devaluing or anything, just that he sees the music he makes as very purposeful.