Cheeky little review! + how to find human music
- Jaden Beach
- 6 days ago
- 7 min read
I found out about a cool new website on a reddit thread called nsigned.com, where you can submit music for review, as well as discover new music submitted by actual people and write reviews on said music. (HIGHLY RECCOMEND YOU GO SUPPORT THE SITE AND HELP THE SITE OWNER WRITE REVIEWS as THEY NEED MORE REVIEWERS!!!)
So of course... I submitted! I'm glad to hear that my ideas are perceived as intended, though the kind words are still super uplifting. In an age where uploading anything feels like chucking it out into a vast abyss, having actual constructive criticism is SO VALUABLE.
~Links to reviews~
On the side, I've made my own checklist of notable features when double-checking if music is AI. The notes may be a bit hectic but whatever.
I sat through a PAINFUL amount of SLOP recently in order to collect data. Yet somehow, it was the most temporary of pains I've ever experienced. The moment I was off of the website, any recollection of AI tracks I'd heard was impossible. Not just "I'd rather not remember that", I objectively could not remember a single track off of the top of my head. I'm really glad I took these notes when I did. Genuinely would've lost these thoughts if I'd waited.
I went to SUNO and UDIO's websites to see if I can spot telltale signs of AI music just with my ears (and meters). AGAIN I ABSOLUTELY HATE GEN AI, so I've deemed it necessary to know thy enemy. This list may be more of use the more familiar you are with music production, but I tried to write it in a way that's useful for everyone.
vv
Preliminary Notes Taken During Listening Session of Hell:
SOUNDS LIKE MESS: Messy frequency balance! instruments seem to talk over each other or combine in a way that seems unintentional and inconsistent. Low end may "pop" out of the mix at times.
SOUNDS FAKE: instruments can sound like they're giving impressions of themselves, rather than the real thing. Example: A guitar that plays with a bunch of bends and licks, yet lands/holds every note/bend exactly at equal temperament to the point of being uncanny. An "indie" vocal that similarly tries to do stylistic bends, but just as well sticks to perfect tuning with strange inhuman cadences.
SOUNDS LIKE PAPER: the ~iconic~ white-noise-esque high end, described as "paper" sounding. Almost as if blending between high quality/low quality noise? Like it can't decide if it wants to be an mp3 or a WAV.
SOUNDS AMBIGUOUSLY PLACED: it sounds neither mono nor stereo. Sometimes its like a mono signal w artificial stereo enhancement, or like the whole signal has been put in another reverb. When it does try to go stereo, it can't maintain a consistent stereo field. Stereo moments are usually only for BRIEF effect on SUNO, whereas UDIO tends to try to force a stereo sound more often. Nothing is truly panned in its place for the entire track. Instruments drift for no reason. There is no foundation. The louder a track is, the more likely everything will be squashed toward the center.
VOX SOUND OVERDONE: Kind of like point 2, vocals follow tune too perfectly, or are over-processed to a gross degree. Sometimes just straight up glitches (when it clearly shouldn't) and the software can't stand vocals that don't have a fuckton of harmonics. Sometimes vocals increase like 6db for no reason?
SOUNDS SQUASHED: generally safe dynamic range (as in SQUASHED) sounding more like white noise the louder it gets.
SOUNDS LIKE RADIO FILLER: decisions just seem inconsistent yet safe. The track may be structurally similar to more popular songs, at times straight up stealing riffs/melodies you most likely have heard before. It may sound like it's really lazily interpolating an already existing track.
SOUNDS TONAL: generally struggles with pure tones, often overdoing them, resulting in said tones poking out of the mix suddenly and noticeably.
SOUNDS INCONSISTENT: "experimental" sections have fucking horrible "mixing", while more bog-standard arrangements are ~easier~ to listen to (which isn't saying much). The more derivative it is, the more data it's likely to have referenced, therefor the more bland and safe it will be.
SOUNDS GLITCHY: areas of the mix that are meant to be in the background suffer the most from artifacting and other issues (similar to image generators)
SOUNDS DERIVATIVE: Musically, track may be pretty derivative or literally stealing. If you think it sounds eerily similar to something else, begin the track dissection!!!
SOUNDS CLICHE: fucking loves stutters, super pitch-corrected vocals, sample chops, and basically doing anything in a maximalist, overdone, constantly-in-your-face type of way with no sense of pacing or space. (at least for more energetic genres)
it just... looks gross on any meters you throw it on. Like... icky. Good music looks the part on a meter. This shit does NOT.
Quick Stereo Notes between Platforms:
SUNO: generally mono with occasional stereo effects that are generally shit. Seems like it tries to blur the mono signal into a stereo signal.
UDIO: attempts LMR panning with varying degrees of success throughout a given track, still inconsistent and muddy when analyzed up close, there's never consistent panning.
BOTH ARE FLOATY AND SHIT
Quick Frequency Balance Comparison between Platforms:
SUNO: flatttt white noise bullshit, plays mixes relatively safe.
UDIO: a bit more varied/temperamental, more potential to hurt ears, tries to emphasize sidechain more.
BOTH ARE NOISY AND SHIT
SO------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a glance, most of this slop passes as basic radio background filler and will sound very close to it (since that's, like, most of its dataset).
Give it more than 30 seconds of attention however, and you'll be met with instruments that morph messily in the stereo field as well as into each other.
You'll be met with vocals that opt for overly-perfect standard western tuning that have every essence of humanity stripped away, in favor of hyper-processing and saturation.
You'll be met with a mix that is muddy and incoherent when held under a microscope. Both mono and stereo at the same time, both flat and harsh at the same time.
I wasn't rewarded for listening closely, and in fact felt I was actively being shoved away from the mix. Thankfully, I've found AI music to be the most forgettable thing ever due to how derivative and flat it is. (tho it still hurts in the moment)
Even if a track isn't tonally dogshit, the lyrics almost ALWAYS suffer. (the nature of this music makes me actively tune out what's being said half the time) They're generally basic and meaningless slop with "make me move badebababoom" bullshit. That or people just very clearly inserting themselves into their most idolized artists' sounds. If you can't trust your ears, consider finding a lyrics sheet or looking into artist statistics!
When it comes to listening for AI...
...LOOK FOR:
Stereo incoherency/inconsistency, insts seeming to move through stereo field nonsensically without a solid foundation
frequency spectrum messiness where elements bleed into each other rather than live in their distinct zones in the spectrum.
derivative structures, melodies, riffs, sounds, etc. Moments where you go "I've definitely heard that tune before somewhere", or a vocal that sounds like an already established/popular artist
a generally flat frequency response (especially in loud sections) that is either too abrasive/loud, or safely softened to the point of muddiness.
artifacting in the elements outside of what is loudest. Errors in the area surrounding the focal point.
vocals with unnecessarily perfect pitch correction and excess saturation (sometimes even INTENTIONALLY mistuned vocals that still ride out a little too perfectly)
inconsistent low-fidelity artifacting in transient-heavy signals (drums, clicks, and the like) (may sound like they were ripped using a shitty web-based stem ripper) (like a really bad mp3)
And when in doubt... other obviously AI elements outside of the music (album art, other images or audio on their socials) If they used AI in one area, chances are high it's being used across their whole workflow.
A track that has only one of these issues potentially may not be AI, but if it's checking multiple boxes in the above list... go ahead and look through their discography or social media and begin the dissection. Of course there are very obvious AI videos/songs out there, but in general try not to immediately assume one way or the other until some time has been taken to review the material. AI looks/sounds the way it does because of OUR DATA that it stole. Sometimes a piece of media can "look AI" because it is reminiscent of the very material the AI was trained on. Stay alert!
Ironically enough I do, again, regretfully advise going to SUNO/UDIO one time for like 10 mins or so to "know thy enemy". It'll be VERY apparent what to look for after paying attention to a few generated tracks. Again, don't worry, it's so goddamn forgettable that you won't be thinking about it later. I'm very happy to never return to those godforsaken hellscapes again :)
Not sponsored, but minimeters is a free application that has a bunch of useful audio tools for looking at what sound is doing in real time. Listen to music you enjoy through those meters, (or literally any other meters) then try listening to AI slop through the same meters. Being able to both see and hear the difference, at least personally, helped a TON. A stereoscope and spectrogram in particular are very useful, with an oscilloscope also being helpful.
TIP: Have some "chaser" music ready to help recover from the temporary hell your ears will be receiving. I personally recommend "Surround" by Hiroshi Yoshimura!! Whatever suits your fancy.
Maybe this is dumb and will only help AI bros deceive us more, but right now I think this is a pretty good list! Hopefully you do too.
