 |
| Art created by Gemini for this article...just for the irony! |
AI in music....and AI in the arts in general.
Before we leap in, one thing worth remembering - and it's highly likely to anger everyone reading this right now - is that most of the public discourse on this topic (at least by musicians and industry folk) has been of a legal or philosophical nature, while usually taking a brief moment to mention how "fake" AI sounds as composer or performer (or poet or essayist or visual artist).
If that's your view, you need to swallow a bitter pill: The market disagrees with you, and (by any metrics you yourself would apply to a fellow human) you are wrong.
Sienna Rose, The Velvet Sundown, Nick Hustles, Xania Monet, FN Meka, Yona, Breaking Rust, Eddie Dalton, and more....including the 100% AI driven (no human intervention) creation Anna Indiana - all streaming millions to hungry listeners. Listeners who largely don't care about any of the issues we're about to get into - they care only about if they like the music.
Admittedly, this pisses me off a little, too.
At any rate, ponder that for a moment and then we'll leap in.
While I've thought extensively about this topic (and have for longer than I care to say, as I've been an avid fan of the works of Raymond Kurzweil for a long time, starting with his 1990 book "The Age of Intelligent Machines", and, as an irrelevant aside, still own my Kurzweil K-2000 keyboard), it's usually fragmented based on specifics. I've never really coalesced these thoughts into a single, specific policy position.
So let's explore "both sides" of this issue and see where we land.
Worthy of note: It should be obvious that the history given below (on both sides of the issue) is greatly abbreviated and oversimplified for brevity and ease of discussion. But the major pillars remain.
Let's get into it!
Before I launch the first salvo, let me just quickly outline the top objections to the use of AI in music (and the arts). These will be somewhat abbreviated, but we can deep dive later if needed.
1) Copyright Infringement - AIs were and are trained on copyright protected material, and yet the artists were not asked permission, were not cited, and were not compensated.
2) Identity Cloning - so-called "deepfakes" can strip an artist of their identity and devalue their artistry, especially with unofficial "remixes" and "collaborations" and other means of removing artistic choice and diluting their creative output. This happens, by the way, not only with vocal style, but with instrumental style, compositional style, and the like.
3) Economic Displacement - which is a nice way of saying "rob artists of their ability to earn a living". Why hire a real composer when you can use a free app? Why pay performance fees when you can plug that app into the sound system? Or the radio? Or many other examples.
4) Devaluation of Human Art - The ease with which one can generate near instantaneous, algorithmically polished songs (i.e. - the perfect pop song) devalues not only the human creative drive, but the years of study and practice required to compose and perform at even the lowest levels of competence and reduces art to mere ( and near worthless) commodity.
5) Destruction of Cultural Evolution - machine intervention into a human endeavor seems sullied enough to many, but the fact that its sonic products are based not on creativity, but on pure data (from compositional tendencies to sales figures), threatens to undermine the manner in which music and all art evolves across time and place.
These factors can be expanded to cover the arts in general (dance, theater, painting, etc.), obviously.
So....plagiarism, "style-scraping", monetary theft (directly & indirectly), job loss, devaluation of the physical craft, artistic homogenization....I think that about covers it.
While I've had plenty of conversations in person about specific aspects of AI use in the artistic realm, and while I was fairly active decades ago on the Kurzweil AI forums (especially with regard to music), I think my first truly "public statement" about this came very recently on social media. Facebook, if I recall correctly.
My response (and please don't stop reading if you disagree with my initial sortie - we're far from done here) to a social media post expressing concern (and possibly even depression) over the current state of things was:
Meh.....I'm old enough to have seen (& survived) several technological overhauls of the music industry.
I don't see this as significantly different, though I understand most folks will disagree.
For context, I didn't live through the advent of fire, the printing press, the first camera, or radio as Paulie Felice will claim (this is a joke for those who don't know)....but I was working in studios as a player and engineer when the analog to digital Rubicon was crossed....was making damn good money producing TV and radio commercials when suddenly ACID and other loop based programs wiped out that revenue stream almost overnight....saw large studios go out of business as small DAW setups took over.....and more.
Everyone clutching their pearls and calling for politicians to write laws need to calm down, take a deep breath, and realize rather than trying to stop the inevitable, the energy should be spent on how to navigate the new landscape.
Those of us who understand that still survive in this industry. Those who don't just lament the good old days while making their living in another field.
Will it be hard? Sure. But we'll get through it like we always do. You betcha.
So, obviously that's just drawing a line in the sand to make clear where I stood on that day and in that particular headspace....and (most importantly) in response to a specific professional concern. That is, it was aimed at other music industry professionals who were concerned about being out of work soon.
Just as obviously, it takes a lot more than drawing a line and walking away to resolve an issue. There are VERY real concerns that need to be addressed, so let's see if we can tackle this thing.
You'll note that in my response above I humorously nodded to fire, printing press, camera, and radio. It should be obvious that I had reason for that. So, if you'll indulge me, a bit of history. That history will have us playing ONE side of this issue. I'll get to the other side immediately after!
Sooo...
Imagine you're a proto-human; some prehistoric hominem fearful of the danger the night brings, the cold brings, the unknown brings. Despite your young age by today's standards, you've lived long relative to your peers - partly by luck, partly because you're smarter. You've thought about things, analyzed patterns, planned ahead.
Several times in your brief & difficult existence, you've experienced fire. You're not sure how it starts - maybe heat, maybe lighting, maybe...magic?
But a youngster in your tribe (who seems thoughtful like you, but rebellious and perhaps overly inquisitive) wasted time constantly rubbing sticks together or bending sunlight through a handful of ice....but the result was he captured fire.
Now your tribe has fire because it can make it on demand. This youngster has, as it were, pulled the sun from the sky!
The positives are obvious, but the negatives....
The fire is hungry. It consumes an consumes or it dies. So it eats away our resources.
The fire is loud. It screams into the dark with it's light (and into the light with its smoke) telling every beast and enemy "Look - we are right here!".
The fire is ruthless. It burns both enemy AND friend. It gives heat but can burn us in our beds, burn our hands when we feed it, burns anything and anyone.
The fire is dirty. It cooks our food but its smoke burns our eyes and our lungs.
The fire is easy. It makes the younger generation soft and weak. They won't be able to struggle through cold and discomfort and fear for the hunt.
Fast forward to the invention of the wheel....it will make us lazy and make larger scale warfare easier.
Fast forward to the invention of writing....it will destroy the oral tradition and destroy individual memory.
Fast forward to the invention of the printing press.....it will destabilize social order and democratize not just knowledge, but propaganda.
Fast forward to the invention of radio....it will destroy live performance and story-telling and moves across the globe faster than the printed word.
Fast forward to the invention of TV....it will destroy community and it will destroy the reading of books and newspapers.
Are we seeing a pattern yet?
Note that some of those concerns were legitimate, some not, and some the "problem" became a positive.
Note also in my comment about the technological overhauls of the music industry, I mentioned the dramatic shifts just in my lifetime that wiped out revenue streams or established order.
Let's focus the lens. In music, the printing press allowed for printed music to be sold (despite the concerns of negative impact)....and then musicians came to see monetization of this avenue as god given right.
Then, recording technology came, and with it home record players and radios (despite its potential disruption of live performance and print music sales)....and then musicians came to see monetization of this avenue as god given right.
Then, home computers and the internet came, and with it file-sharing via P2P networks (despite the disruption of record sales and radio royalties)....and then musicians came to see monetization of this avenue as god given right.
Are we seeing a pattern yet?
On the other side of the equation, however, we have a blatant example of Big Money ignoring copyright protections and more. Let's again look at a bit of history again, but first, let's outline a handful of points in support of using AI in music (and the arts) just as we did above for objections. Some will be from the perspective of industry pros, and some from hobbyist or even non-musician perspectives.
1) Radical Democratization - Similar to the argument for DAWs & home recording, AI can save an artist thousands of dollars on studio time, pre-production, musician fees, and more. An idea can be plotted, alternative takes generated, stylistic norms bent, & more in a fraction of the time with a fraction of the effort, increasing productivity & streamlining workflow immensely.
2) Preservation of Cultural Heritage - Audio forensics & other tools can restore even horribly degraded recordings (from old blues records to anthropological field recordings to home recordings to damaged professional projects), making available what would otherwise have been lost. Again, this applies to everything from personal home recordings to scientific field recordings to professional tapes - think the 2008 Universal Studio fire or the Sony Music Flood of 2006.
3) Health & Wellness - Machines can make music fully interactive, and in doing so, unleash the power of music therapy 24/7/365. Imagine the health app that alters the soundscape to match your real-time biometrics (pulse, blood pressure, respiration rate, gait/walking style, voice analysis, and the like. This could also be applied to entertainment (imagine a video game altering the soundtrack based on similar metrics), but the health implications are astounding when one considers its use in stress management, sleep management, focus & task management, and more.
4) Creative Empowerment - Now, even the non-musician who has ideas can turn those nebulous notions into art. Imagine the pastime lyricist who can suddenly bring life to their words with song. Or the coworker or family member who can generate a highly specific song for a friend or loved one. The music lover who could only appreciate music "from the outside" is no longer a passive listener - they are a full-fledged active creator.
5) Gamified Music Box - Both the pro and the non-musician can now experiment (without expensive production costs) with odd mixes, genre-fusion, "what if" scenarios (i.e. - what if there was an industrial dance song with a rockabilly guitar, African drums, and vocal duo between a screamo female & opera male singing lyrics about the love of smores in an episode of Star Trek?)....or such tools could used for music education rather than hobbyist fun.
These factors can be expanded to cover the arts in general (dance, theater, painting, etc.), obviously.
While I gave my first public social media comment above (which seems to land on one side of the debate), allow me to also include my second (which seems to land on the other).
In response to a non-musician defending AI use to create music and visual art (specifically for graphic design), I responded:
Meh.....I'm old enough to have seen (& survived) several technological overhauls of the music industry.
I see this as significantly different, though I understand you disagree.
For context, I didn't live through the advent of fire, the printing press, the first camera, or radio as Paulie Felice will claim (this is a joke for those who don't know)....but I was working in studios as a player and engineer when the analog to digital Rubicon was crossed....was making damn good money producing TV and radio commercials when suddenly ACID and other loop based programs wiped out that revenue stream almost overnight....saw large studios go out of business as small DAW setups took over.....and more.
Everyone jumping for joy that they can now do with a few prompts what it took years of study, practice, and sacrifice to gain might want to ask what the cost of their joy jumping truly is - and I don't mean just the massive carbon & resource footprint dropping another hammer on environmental concerns (but yeah, that, too).
You may well have immediate access to genius level compositional tools (even though you neither recognize nor comprehend the giants on whose shoulders programmers stood to achieve it when they trained their AIs), but you may be driving current & future geniuses into a completely different field if they can no longer survive this landscape.
The future just got more difficult for musicians. You betcha.
So, obviously that's just drawing a line in the sand to make clear where I stood on that day and in that particular headspace....and (most importantly) in response to a specific non-professional celebration. That is, it was aimed at hobbyists & non-musicians who were flatly unconcerned about the potential negative impacts of their fun.
So.....let's again look at a bit of history.
1600 saw the patronage system. Composers were employees of royalty or religious institutions almost exclusively. Ditto performers.
1700 saw the rise of mass printed sheet music. This had actually begun almost 200 years earlier, but by the 1700s, it became ubiquitous and sales climbed, along with the appearance of the "middle class" (who bought pianos and thus sheet music). This meant composers could profit in the marketplace, not just be servant to the rich. But the reality was that Big Business could afford to print and individuals typically couldn't, so musicians again were left in the rain.
1800 saw the first true birth of copyright. This secured the rights of the composer so monied interests couldn't profit on the work of composers without sharing the wealth.
1900 saw song writing businesses and the birth of the recording industry. Common was what I've called the "O Brother Where Art Thou" model (due to the movie, of course). The Man with the money pays the band to record, but he retains all rights. The band can then profit from the success of the record by performing live, but all monies for the actual recording go to The Man.
1940 saw songwriter strikes & radio boycott because Big Biz was still refusing the share the wealth. PROs (ASCAP & BMI) are established, though the predatory behavior of ASCAP opens the door for BMI to enter the fray on artists' behalf. We saw an explosion of other genres finding radio success (outside of Hollywood pop & Tin Pan Alley), but for all the money they pay to artists, the turn the screws on small venues.
1950-1970 we saw what many now consider the Golden Age of Vinyl, multitrack recording technology, and The New Recording Model (labels sign artists). But for all the rock stars and music millionaires, the labels made billions more, often stepping on artists to do so.
2000s saw the internet explosion, downloading, the death of vinyl & CDs, and the dominance of the streaming platform. Big Biz continues to suck up the wealth, paying major artists next to nothing for streams, and small artists absolute zero.
Are we seeing a pattern yet?
At every turn, Big Money finds a way to suck up all the air in the room, by pass the rights of the individual, and profit off the labor of others.
This, by the way, is not an anti-capitalist diatribe. There have always been ethical business men. But there have also always been unethical business men. The reality is that blaming the corporate model misses the mark and lets unethical individuals off the hook.
An individual human in every single case opted to screw over his fellow man. That's a point worth remembering, regardless of your personal politics.
At any rate....the summation is that monied interests have demonstrated, throughout even our brief history above, the mistake of seeing the market as zero sum (it is not) and thus a willingness to profit at another's expense.
Just as important, however, is the fact that we have respond to each threat with new organizations, laws, and practices.
That brings us to 2026, and the fact that these same monied interests are ignoring copyright law (while expecting their patents to be honored, in a bit of irony & hypocrisy), knowingly engaging in illegal behavior just to make a profit (again, at the expense of others), and turning an artform into nothing but a commodity.
Those using these tools are obviously not thinking of it that way, though - they're thinking how great it is to be able to make music (or visual art and the like) when that door used to be closed to them.
So, where does that take us?
What do we do about it?
Should individuals, then, not use AI & LLMs to help with writing or artwork or, now, music?
Or is it OK as long as the creators of the original work on which AI was trained get paid?
It's sort of like standing at that old crossroads waiting on the devil....
I hope the reader by now sees that this is not so easy a topic, nor is there a clear and easy solution. We have TWO realities, and they both have an obvious positive and just as obvious negative side. There is simply no clear and easy right and wrong.
To quote William Gibson, "The future is already here. It just isn't evenly distributed."
In Part Two, I hope to lay out a different road - one where we shift the lens again and examine why technological advancement is both exponential and inevitable, examine unusual models that have proven effective (albeit not perfectly scaled) in the past, and potential legal and educational strategies to inject some degree of fairness and individual leverage into the equation.
Please feel free to comment below (or contact me directly) with your thoughts so far!
=======
If you value my work and want to support it......contact me for lessons (guitar, electric bass, ukulele, social drumming, songwriting, etc) or feel free to leave a tip (one-shot or monthly):
Monthly support: https://www.patreon.com/skinnydevilmusic or https://www.paypal.me/skinnydevilmusic (Pay What You Will)
One-shot support: https://www.paypal.me/skinnydevilmusic or www.venmo.com/David-McLean-47 (Pay What You Will)
http://www.skinnydevil.org
http://www.sdmlguitar.com
No comments:
Post a Comment