I’ve got a couple podcast or radio interviews today and tomorrow because of this BBC article about K-pop bands using AI to create music videos and possibly (ooh scary) some of their “music.”
The K-pop band, Seventeen, has their fans in a tizzy. (They’re all twenty-five and up, by the way, though, in fairness, they’ve been around since they were nine years younger — I read somewhere their debut was 2015 — so none of them were seventeen even at the start.) Anyway… a song of theirs, “Maestro” evidently has AI generated elements in its video, but it’s not clear what role AI played in the music. That’s the tizzy and the catalyst for the discussion and my radio appearances this week.
Here’s Maestro, if you care. Only has SIXTY SEVEN MILLION VIEWS.
According to the article one of these young gentlemen, Seventeen member, “Woozy,” (oookay) responded to the tizzy well:
“This is a technological development that we have to leverage, not just be dissatisfied with. I practiced using AI and tried to look for the pros and cons.”
Yeah, that. Love the honesty. Go ahead and use the available tools to create good and original music for your audience to enjoy. It would be a shame if you couldn’t admit something so intellectually reasonable. It’s akin to how disappointed I am when some artist gracefully and generously acknowledges they were influenced by someone else, but it’s ridiculously interpreted as an admission of copying and stealing.
The article explains that Woozy clarified matters for the fans on Instagram, saying that all of Seventeen’s music is “written and composed by human creators”. I noted that he didn’t say “100% written and composed,” but he also didn’t not say it. I’m not making any inferences. The fact is there are interesting questions now and in the future, and I understand while we consider those questions time favors the pilaging marauders, but Woozy gets it. AI isn’t an all-or-nothing or any one thing.
AI can produce its own finished recording of its own finished composition, and it can be merely a creative tool. It can be involved in lots of ways that, in my opinion, don’t lead necessarily to compromised authorship. Looking at you, Woozy.
I know you’ve heard it before, but wow, we bristled hard at, then tolerated, and then wholy embraced autotune and melodyne. We let practically people who can’t carry a tune carry a really crappy tune just fine. Nowadays half of the most popular songs in the world at any given time sound like that technology. We will to some extent find ourselves there with AI as well. And that’s fine.
Woozy knows his popular K-Pop band’s value is largely about the relatability and personal connection to their audience, and it seems unlikely we’ll soon reach a point where the audience would tolerate wholly or even largely AI-generated songs. Will they be able to tell the difference? Sometimes.
And that’s why it’s going to hit different musicians differently.
Artificial intelligence will soon be able to write a very good facsimile of a Taylor Swift song, but it cannot replace her. First, she’s very good at what she does. Second, her fans derive too much value from Taylor Swift songs being from Taylor’s creativity. Taylor is therefore safe.
Most semi-targeted advertising music, musical wallpaper, mediocre uninspired music, reality show script-level stuff, sorry — AI is coming for all of that. AI is good enough. And “good enough” has been known to disrupt many a market.
Markets get disrupted! As I type this, my whole family is decked out in cheap-ass SHEIN. We do not want to hear about how it’s going to put all the retail stores in the mall out of business. Whatever. H&M and Zara put something else out of business when it was their turn. The family-owned 1000 square foot “department store” in my little town went out of business thirty-five years ago and I was absolutely sad, but that’s business.
With reality in mind, I’m not sure what can come of Katy Perry, Billie Eilish, Nicki Minaj, and 200 or so other artists signing an open letter from something called the Artist Rights Alliance, asking that the “predatory” use of AI in music stop.
The Artist Rights Alliance’s very reasonable demand is that AI devs “not undermine or replace the human artistry” of creatives, or “deny us fair compensation for our work.”
Actually, no, that very first part is not going to happen. You’re going to be undermined. And also to some extent replaced. You already have been. And the “fairness” of this is in question and will be sorted out case by case.
The letter is titled, “Stop Devaluing Music.” Let’s start there. AI is not so much devaluing music as it’s offering the public the option of valuing music at a much lower price than you’d like. If you’re replaceable, you’re being devalued, kinda the nature of being replaceable. Sucks sometimes, but it’s the foreseeable reality because it’s the backward-looking reality! Whether you’re not that special or your fans have bad taste (blame them if you want) I can’t think of an instance where the world has looked at a commodity and not been happy with two of the three stool legs — fast, good, cheap. They take two, add “-enough” to the third, and Add To Cart. (hat tip NoHo Hank.)
And if you DO want some sort of regulation, make a really good argument!
At the moment, this letter’s undersigned call for the developers of AI to not “infringe upon and devalue the rights of human artists.” But neither of these is a bullseye. Infringement is already illegal. The problem is the authors, the letter, and the resistance assume infringement where it’s in question. It is AT THE VERY LEAST not a given, even if you believe as I certainly do that these tools were trained on your work, that the development of the tools is copyright infringement. It’s not. And your rights are what they are and what they were or they weren’t your rights. If their value is dropping, it’s partly a function of you.
If your music is no better than a commodity, progress has come for your margin.
Sucks to be a grown-up. (hat tip Prof G.)
I could be wrong. Tell me why I’m wrong! My mind can be changed.
