“We’re not gonna take it!”
Forty-two years ago, Dee Snider wrote that classic lyric and song for Twisted Sister as a rallying cry against authority that tries to control or marginalize individuality:
“We’ve got the right to choose, and /
There ain’t no way we’ll lose it /
This is our life, this is our song /
We’ll fight the powers that be, just /
Don’t pick our destiny, ’cause /
You don’t know us, you don’t belong.”
It’s more than four decades later, and that song now speaks for those who rebel against the bait-and-switch of streaming services. Or Adobe holding your creative work hostage because, basically, they made a paintbrush and think that they deserve payment if you want to open the art you made with that paintbrush. Or streaming services that control your listening with algorithms so unimaginative that a stuffed animal’s choices would be more creative.
Maybe it also applies to subscriptions. BMW’s attempt to charge a subscription fee to unlock the ability to use heated seats—which were already installed in their cars—crashed and burned amid consumer fury. Some have even used subscriptions as a weapon of protest, by canceling Disney+ and Hulu to show their displeasure with the cowardice of taking Jimmy Kimmel off the air (and this included people who didn’t even like Kimmel). Or maybe it’s free trials with “activation” fees, or almost-impossible-to-cancel contracts.
And maybe a major front is opening up in the War on Stupid, thanks to, of all people, music listeners.
There’s an assumption that because a few loudmouths talk about how generative AI is going to write hit songs and make musicians obsolete, we’re cooked. Well, in some cases—such as jingles—that may prove to be true. But for wisdom about AI music, don’t listen to those who want to line their own pockets via an industry that draws more electricity than a small country and steals water from people in rural areas.
Instead, listen to those who matter—and I’m not even talking about the artists, but the listeners. The fans. The “star creators.” The humans who crave authenticity and music’s shared emotional experience. Most importantly, these people will be our most powerful allies in a quest to retain artistic autonomy and creativity. Why? Because that’s what they want us to do.
AI music has been around long enough that we now have studies and surveys measuring people’s reactions. Yes, they find the sound quality satisfactory. Yes, they enjoy playing with music-making toys—cool—but they also care about the artists.
An Ipsos/Deezer survey on listener attitudes is fascinating, as are recent studies by MIT’s Media Lab, England’s MyndStream, the University of Zurich’s examination of live performances, researchers at Middle Georgia State University, and research on the effects of music by the Department of Neurology at Heinrich-Heme University (Düsselforf, Germany). Let me talk you off the ledge with some real info.
We’ll get the bad news out of the way first: Blind tests indicate that AI-generated music can rival human compositions.
Many people, it turned out, had a preference for the sound quality of AI-generated music, but in the MIT study, “Participants were significantly more likely to rate human-composed music, regardless of labeling (i.e., as human, AI-generated or hybrid), as more effective at eliciting target emotional states.” Another nugget: “Participants will express preference for unlabeled human-composed music over AI-generated music, and will also find it more effective, thus influencing music-induced affect.”
I’m just getting started.
Musicians and non-musicians were more likely to agree that AI cannot be emotionally authentic or replicate human musicianship. Even better, the surveyed Deezer listeners demanded fairness:
- 65 percent say that training generative AI-models shouldn’t be allowed to use copyrighted material.
- 70 percent believe 100-percent AI-generated music threatens the livelihood of current and future musicians/artists/composers.
- 73 percent think that using copyrighted material to generate new AI music without approval from the original artist is unethical.
- 69 percent believe payouts for 100-percent AI-generated music should be lower than for human-made music.
What’s more, they want 100-percent AI-generated music tagged, and fair compensation for those whose music is used to train AI-models. They want to support us.
Distrust and backlash toward AI has been on a slow rise lately. Ask Microsoft, or those who’ve been duped by AI slop. Listeners aren’t as unaware as the Algorithm Overlords would like to believe.
• Craig Anderton’s Open Channel: Has Music Technology Made Us…Lazy?
Of course, talk is cheap, but to maintain listener loyalty, Deezer acted. It automatically removes all 100-percent AI-generated songs from algorithmic recommendations, and does not include these songs in editorial playlists. According to the company, “This is a first step in making sure that these tracks don’t dilute the royalty pool in any significant way. Potential future actions, including updating our supplier policy and removing or demonetizing content, need to be based on careful consideration.”
Now, I’m certain that eventually AI will mature and work with us, but today, AI is at a development stage akin to taking Mickey Mantle when he was seven years old, suiting him up in a Yankees uniform, having him play center field and expecting a .365 batting average. AI is simply not yet capable of rising to its absurd amount of hype.
Discover more great stories—get a free Mix SmartBrief subscription!
Remember, we have an army of supportive allies out there—listeners. People who crave new sounds, and a human antidote to a world that’s forcing AI (and unwanted control) down our throats. What can we do about this? What practical steps will give us, as musicians, the power to marshal this awesome army?
I’m so glad you asked. See you next time.
