Commentary: The pushback against AI songs is music to my ears
For Bloomberg Opinion’s Dave Lee, music generated entirely by AI is an abomination and finding it placed by algorithms into a playlist is a “deeply violating experience”.
Read a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
NEW YORK: Good news for fans of music produced by actual musicians: Some important victories are being won in the war against AI slop and trickery.
In November, I wrote a column imploring Spotify – the leading music streaming platform – to make it possible for me to block any music made with AI from reaching my ears. The column was provoked by an entirely artificial AI song reaching the top of the country charts.
It wasn’t an isolated incident. The New York Times reported recently that about a dozen AI-generated songs have hit various Billboard charts since 2022. Many of them were created by the leading AI music creation app, Suno, which built its model by scraping millions of songs written and performed by humans.
At the time, Spotify was sitting somewhat on the fence. It said it was working on a shared industry standard for disclosing when AI was used in the creation of music. So far, nothing has been implemented – but now that’s set to change.
Guess Word
Crack the word, one row at a time
Buzzword
Create words using the given letters
Mini Sudoku
Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser
Mini Crossword
Small grid, big challenge
Word Search
Spot as many words as you can
One argument against AI labelling is that separating AI from “real” is complex. If artists use AI to fill a drum track, but they composed and performed the music themselves, should that be considered AI? Perhaps not? But where that line is drawn is absolutely open to debate.
Some highly respected figures in music see AI as a great opportunity. Hip-hop icon Dr Dre called it “a new tool for creativity”. When I discussed AI with ABBA’s Bjorn Ulvaeus for this column last year, he said AI helped him quickly imagine how it would sound when vast orchestras were playing a new composition. “It’s like an extension of my mind,” he said.
Still, even with that nuance, I believe that music generated entirely by AI, created with prompts rather than talent, is an abomination – and finding it placed by Spotify’s algorithms into a playlist is, as I wrote, a “deeply violating experience”.
ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENTS
I’m pleased to report there have been some encouraging developments since. Earlier this summer, music streaming platform Tidal announced that under its new AI policy, AI tracks could be put on the platform but that the use of AI would be clearly labelled and, here’s the best bit: AI-made tracks could not be monetised.
Tidal is drawing the line at music that is “wholly or substantially” generated by AI. The company has said it will keep revisiting its policy as the technology evolves.
Tidal’s approach is the strictest so far, but other platforms are taking important steps, too. Starting in mid-September, Spotify has said AI-generated “personas” will be labelled clearly and excluded from appearing in algorithmic playlists.
Apple has pledged to do the same, promising to clearly label AI-made music on Apple Music. These measures follow the pleas of influential music groups, including the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which in July issued a joint proposal calling for a clear and standardised labelling system for AI-generated music.
In Australia, in what I think should be a model for other chart companies worldwide, things have been taken even further. There, the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has flatly banned wholly AI-generated music from appearing in its charts.
The move was prompted by the popularity of an AI-created Madonna cover. ARIA defines that as a song in which “the entirety or the primary portion of the creative elements” has been generated by AI. ARIA Chief Executive Officer Annabelle Herd acknowledged the rapidly evolving landscape but said “a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent”.
HARD TO DETECT
An obvious challenge is that those making AI music might just lie about it. Stats from streaming site Deezer showed that in June, more than 50 per cent of tracks uploaded to its platform were detected as AI-generated. As the technology improves, it will become harder to detect AI use.
Thankfully, a number of legal challenges and the threat of more to come mean Suno is having to devise ways it might help.
As a starting point, it has introduced export restrictions to make it more difficult for bad actors to mass-export hundreds of songs from its platform to flood streaming services with tracks designed only to suck up royalties.
Suno also said it is planning to work on a shared standard with the streaming platforms to add “watermarking and fingerprinting technology” to help identify AI tracks. “These tools are designed to be durable and resistant to tampering, without affecting the listening experience,” the company’s CEO, Mikey Shulman, wrote in a blog post.
Another approach might be to prove the opposite: that a human has put the work in. The rapper and producer will.i.am can sometimes sound a little nutty when describing his tech ideas, but he might have been on to something when he suggested to Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain there might be a way to prove the human touch.
“How can you validate human sweat? We need a lived experience file,” he said, suggesting the physical effort in recording music could be tracked using biometrics. That’s a little out there, sure – but perhaps every idea should be on the table.
It’s hard to predict if humans might come round to enjoying AI music as an acceptable form of artistic expression. When it came up as a topic of chat among some of the Bloomberg Opinion team in New York, views were divided on whether it mattered if music was made by AI as long as we enjoyed it.
My view is that it does. Art needs an artist. Bandcamp, the music distribution platform popular among indie acts, seems to agree: It was one of the earliest movers in banning AI music – “wholly or in substantial part” – outright.
If makers and fans of AI music disagree with that kind of stance, there’s nothing to stop them from launching their own services for people who want to listen to their creations. But fans of real music shouldn’t have their experience adulterated. These recent policy changes are music to the ears of those who cherish real creativity.
Source: Bloomberg/sk
Sign up for our newsletters
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
