We have written previously, along with the rest of the world it seems, about the potential threat AI poses to creative types the world over. Not that that has made a jot of difference to the tech industry’s plans to plunder the skills of musicians big and small to train its AI models to replace them. In the US, any AI guard rails there may have been have been tossed aside. Russia and China never had any in the first place. The EU had been doing well on containing AI, but a new proposal being consulted on by the UK Government (which is not now part of Europe, or is it? We are really not sure any more) is looking to change existing copyright law to make it easier for tech companies to train AI models using copyrighted music without needing a licence.
That has stirred up musical royalty. More than 1,000 of them,
including Annie Lennox, Damon Albarn, Kate Bush, and bands and artists
you thought had long since retired (Cat Stevens? Is he still going?) have got
together to release a silent album ‘This Is What We Want’ in protest at these
plans. A silent album is actually a
brilliant idea. Imagine what 1,000
musicians all trying to collaborate would sound like. The resulting racket
would completely undermine sympathy for their cause. Releasing a silent album, allegedly featuring
sound recordings of empty studios and performance spaces (though who would
really be able to tell?) avoids that problem.
Plus, it is very cheap to record and no bum notes to worry about either!
Under the new proposals, AI developers/bots will be able to use creators' content published on the internet to help develop their AI models, unless the rights holders elect to "opt out". Similar to Facebook’s recent changes in fact. For years now, artists have been fighting a losing battle on this front, first over samples, now this. Paul McCartney chipped in to the debate recently to much nodding of heads by his superstar chums. However, the megastars of yesteryear have already made their fortunes. It’s the next generation of musicians that are struggling to make a bean. Even apparently higher profile indie artists struggle to earn a living from their craft, as Miki Berenyi (ex Lush) recently revealed to OL. However, this was the case long before AI, driven by record company and streaming giants models of exploitation and miserly royalty and streaming payments. UK Music Chief Executive Tom Kiehl feels that “these proposals would be catastrophic for our world-leading creative industries”, and I am sure he is right - if you believe that music is just an industry, that is, and its all about exports and jobs, not supporting creativity, which the major players haven't done for a long time.
But will this affect the sorts of smaller artists
that we feature here in Outsideleft? The majority of those don’t expect to make much money from their recordings. They earn
what they can through playing live and selling merchandise and vinyl editions
and have been for quite a while now. Manufactured AI acts can only realistically
provide competition when it comes to creating anodyne background music for hairdressers, adverts and radio stations,
or generating those endless Youtube new age music albums that claim to help you
study. No AI act can build a following,
tour, or generate enough devoted fans to sell T Shirts and baseball caps to.
Then there is the inescapable fact that most music produced
today is already hugely derivative, and to be frank, always was. Each new musical genre and sub-genre builds on
the last, recycling riffs and ideas until no one is really sure who wrote what. Gospel
formed the base for Elvis’s sound. The
Blues developed into R&B, then into Rock, into Punk Rock, and so on. Eastern mantras and structures found their
way into psychedelia. Tracks by one act
have long been copied or plundered for inspiration by another, as OL writer Sofia
Ribeiro-Willcox wrote
recently in Outsideleft in reference to the purloining of Brazilian tunes by western music
stars. Led Zeppelin famously lost a court case over stealing a Blues musician's lyrics. Nirvana's 'Come As You Are' allegedly plagiarised the intro riff to Killing Joke's 'Eighties', which allegedly plagiarised The Damned's 'Life Goes On'. There
are countless other examples. When you think of all that, complaining that an AI Bot
is doing the same by learning from, then aping, your style starts to ring a bit
hollow. You can always opt out too, though the process to do so will no doubt
be made as onerous as it is to opt out of Facebook flogging your personal data
without asking.
So, is the risk from AI really as great as we are told? In
creating bland pop songs and hummable lift music, maybe it is. In many other areas of
life, including its ability to invade your privacy, its use by Governments to
exert control, and in its military application, it is hugely risky, for sure. But what of the AI threat to true human creativity? That, and the impact on performance and
skills at a grass roots level, may have been overblown by those who have made a
very good living indeed by building on the originality of those who have gone
before them, and have a clearly vested interest in keeping tight control of ‘their’
tunes.
Whether I am right or wrong about that, only time will tell.
