Hi guys,

I wanna share with you my acapella experiments for 5-parts mixed vocal band, using Kevin and Nathalie for male and females voices.

Today we start with two songs, "Shape of You" and a Medley of Avicii.





Please fell free to give me suggestion to improve sound quality and realism!

Thanks for your support!

That sounds "too perfect" and therefore apparently/obviously not real. Humans have irregularities in their voices that make them sound, well.... human.

One of the forum rules clearly states that no covers are to be posted unless you have obtained the license. Copyright violation etc....

You're supposed to use PG products as well in the production.

How all this sounds also depends on if you own these voice databases. If you own and use them, they are almost instantly recognizable as software generated.

That is not a bad thing or a good thing. It is what it is.

While AI and software-generated voices are commonly compared to human voices, that comparison is not very meaningful. AI sounds like AI and humans sound like humans.

I assume the idea is for AI to perfectly replicate human vocals. I assume someday that may happen. Just not today.

What I think will be more interesting is for AI voices to be able to produce really interesting sounds that humans can not.

Well, yes, I would like to "own" a robot that I could send to the store to bring me some Blue Bell ice cream using their own money they made working for someone else while I was asleep. Then come home and sing in the style of Willie Nelson to some BIAB song that I combobulated. No, I am serious, that would be cool.

That does bring up some legal and ethical issues. If the robot is so "human-like" is it OK to "own" it? What would Willie have to say about all that?...lol

So far it is pretty easy to tell the difference from a robot singer and a human...lol



Billy

"While AI and software-generated voices are commonly compared to human voices, that comparison is not very meaningful. AI sounds like AI and humans sound like humans."
If the purpose of A.I. Synth vocals is to replace human vocals then the comparison is both meaningful and necessary.
Synths were, initially, promoted as ways to synthetically replicate traditional instruments. Wendy Carlos et al were pressured to do this but knew that, at that stage of development, the results weren't impressive. Instead they wanted synths to have their own "voices" as created by the user and continued to move along that path.
When we hear "samplers" we intuitively make comparisons with sounds from our own experience and with the labels we already have.
These days a Mellotron track will get comments about how it sounds like a cheap, noisy string sample whereas it used to be a sound that wonderfully replicated things - to most ears. These days I hear Mellotron and rather than comparing it to the samples I think of the classic recordings made using it and note how closely those are replicated.
Comparison, like judgement,is an evolutionary survival tool.

"One of the forum rules clearly states that no covers are to be posted unless you have obtained the license. Copyright violation etc...."

One of the forums.
Best of YouTube (6 viewing)
Videos related to music (instruction, performance, mixing tips etc.)

So how does this work? If Mike Halloran puts a cover song on Youtube without obtaining a license, can I post a link to it here?

Billy

Hi Billy,

I believe that Youtube handles all of the copyright violation infringements meaning if it is no taken down by youtube it is OK. There is now and has been many copyrighted songs on the Best of Youtube forum that PGMusic has not taken down thus it must be a safe place to post copyrighted songs.

During COVID, my church posted a YouTube video of a service. (The sanctuary has 18 inch thick stone walls so no internet in there to live broadcast.) Last year, we got a notice about our copyright violation. Once I deleted the service the legal problem went away.

So it is possible to get a serious copyright violation on YouTube and not just a "this may be a copyright violation" notice. BTW, it was copyright problem not a royalties problem. I would have thought both would have been an issue.

...Deb

due to the sheer number of songs on YT that are covers, I would have thought YT has worked out and agreement with the copyright issues.

My understanding is that if there is a copyright issue, and the copyright owner doesn't want their music infringed, YT will remove it as soon as their software figures out your song is in the banned from YT list. All others, unless you have obtained the license and are able to show that to YT, they will monitize your video and music and remit the proceeds to the proper copyright owner.

It would appear, from my very few instances of being hit with a copyright notice that some copyright "strikes" are resolved by Utub capturing monetization if established or monetizing it and directing the $$$ to the complainant.

Yes.... That's exactly what I said. I have a couple of videos that use copyrighted material. One of those is a foreign artist from Argentina... it's been hit with a copyright notice in my dashboard and monetized. At least they didn't pull my videos or silence them.

That's good.

YouTube can pull videos, let publishers monetize, issue warnings, cancel your account… Just try to post a Led Zep cover and see what happens. We can also listen to Rick Beato moan and groan about it.

Although it appears that YouTube, I mean Google—excuse me, Alphabet—does as they like, they are under considerable pressure to take it down when certain music is posted. Not from the US but definitely from the EU.

You'll note that I used the term "complainant", (mashup of claimant & complaint), rather than copyright holder. The claimant doesn't seem to need to establish ownership before getting the benefit.

When a video is pulled without warning, that should only be done in response to a request by a legitimate rights holder and the only defense is a sync license.

Otherwise, these things can be fought, often successfully, especially when done by a copyright troll. There is no reason to let the bad actors win.

Sync licenses are often easy to get once you know how to contact the publishers and those who won't allow them tell you over the phone or by email. If someone wants to start a separate thread, I'll be glad to share some of my tips on this and dealing with copyright trolls. Sure beats paying the hourly I charge for telling corporate clients the same thing on the phone. Of course, I deal with specific situations in that environment and often write the exact response that is needed.

It's not happened to me for quite a while BUT I'm certain the voice of experience would benefit me & anyone else ready & able to pay attention.