How to avoid AI music?

Reading time: 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

It’s an impossible question Metal Archives wants to solve.

One of these days I was confronted by an app that makes “genuine” AI music. I was impressed by what is the future of art in music if one can make a “band” in a matter of seconds. (In my case I asked it to create a technical death metal band, and it was done “perfectly”).

Well, I’m not the one who will philosophize about the AI, the future, what’s art and so on.

But it seems that The Metal Archives wants to buy this fight. At least it what is written in their home page today. I think that (at least for now) it is a lost fight. As for the Dark Soul United we don’t receive submissions from kids playing artists. There is always a press release and a professional PR behind it. If one wants to use their resources playing around with AI it’s up to them. They (the AI “band”) will receive a rating they deserve. Different from what Metal Archives is up to. Read it here:

AI generated music / 2024-04-26 12:53

Recently, there has been a noticeable uptick in the number of bands being submitted to the site which have AI generated music. We want to make it clear what our position is on these bands, and how we plan to move forward in assessing them.

It went without saying, at least up until now, that when we imagined growing the largest and most complete database of metal music, part of that vision was the preservation of art and human expression through music. Until AI, that was a given. The music described on the site is, in some way, played, programmed, and composed by a human being. That still remains an important criterion for us, and it is our belief that AI generated music does not satisfy that requirement.

With the above in mind, we won’t be accepting bands with AI generated albums, and we will scrutinize more thoroughly submissions suspected of having AI generated music.

For those users submitting bands, if you have a band suspected of having AI generated music, we may call upon you to provide evidence to prove otherwise, whether it’s behind-the-scenes material, statements from the band or its label, evidence the band played live, promotional material showing the band is genuine, and so on. The more evidence we have to show that such a band is real, and its music composed by a human being, the better. Our goal isn’t to make this harder on you, or anyone for that matter, but we do want to stay true to our vision for the site.

This policy isn’t perfect and is a work-in-progress which may evolve over time. We know there will be some bands with AI generated music mistakenly added to the site, and we also know mistakes can be made and bands without AI generated material may be flagged for having AI generated music. With your help, we hope to avoid this as much as possible.

Thank you. \m/

---

Roderick Blutrache

20 Years of Encyclopaedia Metallum: THE METAL ARCHIVES.

Is there a reason to celebrate? Is there a reason to not to?

Turning 20 today when in a post on the site they say they had put the first band (Amorphis) and put a proper URL, It’s impossible to deny the legacy of the Metal Archives.

From its humbling beginnings to the explosion which is today being the main database for metal on the history of Internet (others tried, but without success) their work is impressing good and huge. Up to date information counts a lot, mistakes in this area are committed, so let’s continue to see what bands releasing new albums, check out what albums are the best in their areas with the invaluable information the team has provided over the years.

But all of this hasn’t being done without dubious choices. For example, at the beginning, when Black Metal got its apex and Folk Metal wasn’t still a thing, the regional non-metal groups from Scandinavia started to get pages, but then, boom: everyone was obliterated (except what “they” considered to be true metal).

Not long after that it was strictly forbidden to put “Core” bands. I liked the initiative in the beginning, but again, what is metal, death metal, metal core, death core, what’s the line for that? Then some totally stupid bands started to be accepted where others were not or accepted because it was based on “an album X” (this rule stays to this day, see Soulfly for example). But appalling enough: a lot of rules were destroyed and they started to add what they hated. Go figure.

There was abuse of “who was more metal than who”. Some 12 yo kids playing gods of metal were extremely nauseating for a guy like me. Some reviews were accepted where others were not, totally arbitrary.

No to say the site started to copy and paste features from Discogs.com like CD/LP numbers and bootlegs (the official release not authorized by the bands or labels) and all the brouhaha.

Of course, it’s totally unjust to say the site is a great walking defect. They brought excellent things as well; they have LEARNED from all their mistakes: they improved a second generation of site which would differ LP’s from CD’s and even accepted digital releases. 

Everyday the site is updated, one can really keep track of the future releases, the “artists” can be the musician and guy who make the logo as well, and you discover (almost) everything with basic information for each one.

That very same code that commits mistakes, commits marvelous things: the WIKI system, which for me is the ONLY collaborative way of get things done!

The feature I like most is: the date of the new and past releases, mixed with the country, style and the famous “cards” (which are symbols to include or exclude things from the search).

So yes, there is a reason to celebrate the 20 years of MA: I hope the they get better and more precise by the time, not free of mistakes, but if they prosper, metal information is going to gain a lot.

And by the end of the day: what’s metal and what’s not? I have no answer to this question. Neither do they, I suppose.

So what’s your opinion about MA? Share it with us!

consult: https://www.metal-archives.com/

---

Roderick Blutrache