The Changing Landscape of AI Music: Let's Talk About It

There's been a lot of discussion lately about artificial intelligence and its place in the music industry. And honestly, it seems like we're entering another major turning point in how music is created, distributed, labeled, and consumed.

AI music is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Streaming platforms are introducing new policies, music distributors are adjusting their requirements, and industry organizations are discussing how to distinguish human-created music from music generated with artificial intelligence.

Some platforms are introducing AI labels. Others are cracking down on spam and fraudulent uploads. There are also ongoing conversations about copyright, licensing, royalties, and whether artists should have control over how their work is used to train AI models.

And I think these are conversations worth having.

But there's something I'd like to address from a more personal perspective.

Some of my music uses AI. And I have absolutely no intention of hiding that.

Now, let's get something straight.

When I say some of my music is AI music, I don't mean that I simply type a couple of words into a computer and have it create everything for me.

That's not how I approach it.

I write my own lyrics. I come up with the concepts, the ideas, the themes, and the messages behind my songs. I put the words together myself. I decide what I want to communicate and what I want the finished product to sound like.

Then I use AI to help create the actual music.

In other words, the lyrics are mine, while the musical production is AI-generated.

Is that traditional music production? No. Is it entirely human-produced music? Also no. But does that mean there's no human creativity involved? Absolutely not.

I think that's an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in these discussions.

The music industry is changing

Let's look at some of the developments.

YouTube Music has started introducing labels to help listeners identify music that is fully or partly generated using AI. Spotify has been taking steps to address AI-generated spam and improve transparency. Tidal has introduced its own policies for identifying fully AI-generated recordings, including restrictions on monetization.

Meanwhile, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has introduced principles for determining whether recordings created using AI can qualify for official music charts.

These developments reflect a larger conversation about how AI should fit into the music industry.

And I understand why these conversations are happening.

There are legitimate concerns about people using AI to impersonate existing artists, reproduce someone's voice without permission, exploit copyrighted material, flood streaming platforms with thousands of low-effort tracks, or manipulate streaming numbers.

Those are issues worth addressing.

Artists deserve to have their work respected. They deserve transparency, appropriate compensation, and control over how their creative contributions are used.

I don't think supporting AI means we have to dismiss those concerns.

But I also don't think the solution should be to treat every person who uses AI to create music as though they're doing something wrong.

AI doesn't automatically mean there's no creativity

Here's where I think the conversation gets interesting.

Technology has always influenced how music is made.

We have synthesizers, digital audio workstations, drum machines, Auto-Tune, sampling, digital instruments, and countless other tools that have changed music production over the years.

People have disagreed about these developments, too.

Does that mean every new technology is automatically comparable to generative AI? No. There are important differences, particularly when it comes to training data, copyright, and the ability to replicate another person's voice or style.

But I think it's worth remembering that the tools used to create music have never been completely static.

AI is another technological development, albeit a particularly significant one.

And I think we should be willing to explore what it can do without automatically dismissing every creative application.

Consider someone who writes their own lyrics but doesn't play an instrument. Someone who has ideas for a song but doesn't have access to a recording studio, musicians, or the resources to produce a professional-sounding instrumental.

Does using AI to help bring that idea to life automatically make their creative contribution meaningless?

I don't think so.

That doesn't mean everyone has to like the finished product. It doesn't mean everyone has to consider it equivalent to a song written, performed, and recorded entirely by human musicians.

But I don't think we should pretend the human contribution doesn't exist.

Where I stand on all this

Personally, I'm supportive of AI as a creative tool.

I use it in my own creative endeavors, including music, and I don't see a reason to be ashamed of that.

At the same time, I'm not opposed to transparency.

If a platform wants to identify music that uses generative AI, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. In fact, I think listeners should have the ability to understand how the music they're listening to was created.

There's a difference between being transparent and discriminating against someone simply because they use a particular tool.

I'd also like to see clearer standards across streaming services and distributors. Creators should know what is expected of them, what needs to be disclosed, and what restrictions apply to their work.

And, importantly, AI companies should be held accountable when it comes to the rights of the artists and creators whose work may be used to develop their technology.

I'm not suggesting that AI should be a free-for-all.

I'm suggesting that we find a way to make room for technological innovation while respecting human creativity.

So, what about my music?

Well, I'll continue making it.

Some of my music uses AI-generated musical production, while the lyrics are written by me. I have other creative projects and musical ideas that I approach differently, too.

I'm not trying to pass off AI-generated instrumentals as though I personally performed every instrument. I'm not claiming to be something I'm not.

I'm Jaime David. I'm a songwriter, creator, and someone who enjoys experimenting with different ways of making music.

And if AI can help me turn some of my written ideas into actual songs, I'm going to explore that possibility.

You don't have to like AI music. You don't have to listen to it. You don't even have to agree with my approach.

But I do think we should be able to have a reasonable conversation about it.

The future of music is changing. AI is going to be part of that conversation whether we like it or not.

And rather than simply arguing about whether AI belongs in music, perhaps we should spend more time discussing how it can be used responsibly, how human creators can be protected, and how people who use these tools can be transparent about their work.

Because at the end of the day, I don't believe creativity should be defined exclusively by which tools someone uses.

Sometimes it's about the ideas you bring to the table and what you do with the tools available to you.

And that's something I intend to keep exploring.

Sources and further reading:

Search This Blog