What we lose to AI music

AI-generated music is here to stay, whether we like it or not. So let’s keep an open mind and explore what lies ahead. I will not cover copyright or AI ethics or AI-assisted music production. Nor the criminal acts that are necessary to create the technology.

It is an ethnocentric (and arguably capitalist) view that a recorded song is the only expression of music. There are many cultures that combine dance, poetry, and other social aspects into the word “music.”

Machine music

The most famous benefit of listening to music is that it helps us regulate emotions. Listeners can select tracks to match or shift their mood. They’ll reduce stress and have stronger positive feelings through self-soothing and dopamine releases.

Listening to music can also enhance our focus (/bgmusic/). Or it is used as a motivator for mundane tasks. It’ll improve performance in sports through the arousal effect. Under the right circumstances, it can even improve memory and aid in learning.

Logically, all these effects could also be achieved with generated music. There is no strong evidence this isn’t the case. We could create audio more specific to an intent. It’ll might be more effective and it would certainly be more economical.

We can generate focus music specifically for a person. Or audio that reminds a person with Alzheimer’s of their children’s names.

We shouldn’t dismiss machine music entirely.

Art vs. utilitarian

A mental model I explored is the expressive versus utilitarian music. With “utilitarian,” I mean music where listening to it is not the primary aim.

We could generate music in real-time during video games based on what happens in the game. Perhaps generate background beats to fill up the silence in a talking-head video. Or themed playlists to set the mood in a restaurant.

Aside from the economic impact on musicians, I can understand the use of generative music in these settings.

However, expressive music that awes me and I listen to attentively. This art has aspects that can’t be replicated with a machine. For example, when we listen to artists, we are mirroring the emotions in a track. This recognizing and empathizing with the artist is called expressive recognition. And it is a key aspect of music appreciation.

Whether consciously or not, we know that the computer never understood the content expressed, so we’ll never experience that inherently human experience.

The same goes for structural recognition, where listeners recognize the rule-breaking of genre tropes and musical elements like odd progressions, tempo shifts, and key changes. All moments where the musician signals a shared understanding of cultural and musical understanding. Machines lack this syntactic awareness. They won’t share a virtuosic wink, one that connects us on a deeper social level.

Bypassing the benefits

You could make the argument that these aspects of music are not important to the average music listener. You might be right, although I hope not. But that’s not the main worry.

Generating audio through prompting will completely bypass the cognitive, sociological, and psychological benefits of writing and performing music. What if people stop trying to master instruments? What if they’d quit collaborating on, creating, and sharing their music?

Not only will they not develop and expand on their taste, people will lose out on music teaching them to be effective communicators and creative problem solvers. They’ll lose out on the self-assurance they’d gain from showcasing their mastery of musical instruments. We’d create a generation of musicians with poorer social-emotional functioning, because they never had to compromise on their ideas. They’d dull their emotional intelligence because they won’t have to navigate through social conflict.

Without the struggle, musicians will not learn the life skills they would’ve otherwise. And for what? To generate music only for themselves?

Society and politics

We’ve covered the internal aspects. What about the societal and political aspects of musicking? Many philosophers have determined that music has a dual role in society. It’s both associated with order, religious and political power, and also as a powerful subversive force.

Music is used as a conduit against the status quo. Against the order (insert obscure punk reference here). By making all recordings sound similar and the music formulaic, we risk losing its role as a balancing medium. We become compliant.

Think of the songs of protest against the leaders of the world’s superpowers. The weak leaders are quick to dismiss the artists, or even prosecute them, knowing and fearing the power of music. Persons that generate music with AI will not have the capacity nor the following to rebel.

We shouldn’t ignore the tons of generated songs designed to skew democracies and fortify ideologies. More the reason that human music needs to persevere. This balance is essential.

Where do we go from here

Our relationship with music will have to change. I implore musicians to explore more interesting, perhaps theoretically complex music. Sounds that have not been done before. Cross genres, step out of Western harmonics, and make unique compositions. And music listeners should keep an open mind to these sounds.

From an economic perspective, we should make collaborative and live performances more accessible and discoverable. We should innovate on human curation in an increasingly saturated market. We have the responsibility to pick out the genuinely interesting, expressive music that explores the boundaries of what humans can do.

Let music be a human and subversive force.