With the advancements in generative artificial intelligence (AU) have emerged questions about its impact on music composing.
Generative artificial intelligence is based
on searching through vast data sets of information, in this case, music, to
identify patterns. Algorithms provide directions on how to search, categorize, sort
and synthesize the resultant data to fit human-developed specifications.
The simplest area of music composition utilizing
generative AI tools is lyrics because of the quantity of textual material that is
readily available. Other AI tools sift through existing songs to predict
variables that are characteristic of popular, profitable compositions. For instance,
fast tempos and major keys are more popular. Based on that information, people
can give prompts to AI music-generating tools to create melodies and harmonies
that audience will enjoy listening too. AIVA (Artificial Intelligence Virtual
Arts) can generate pieces that are hard to distinguish from music created
by classical composers.
Often the source materials has been
gathered without regard to copyright, and lyricists and music publishers are
starting to sue companies that develop and promote their AI text generating
tools. The plaintiffs are demanding licensing deals and royalties for their
works. While copyright allows for compositions that may be based on another
work, the new composition must differ significantly not to be confused with the
prior work and add new value to the music. What the composers assert that they are due is
consent (permission), credit (attribution), and compensation (typically money).
Nevertheless, AI is not truly creative. It
has no feelings and no sense of nuanced context. Were composers to depend on AI
tools to write music, the results would probably become more homogenous and duller,
certainly not inspiring the listener – or the musician.
