Gen AI & the Hubris of Data

In almost every discussion I’ve had with creators about generative AI (GAI), I have said that we should not overlook Big Tech’s capacity for exaggeration and total flops. Because it is possible that AI products may be the next Google Glass due to cultural and/or economic forces that reject their business models. For instance, last week, Digital Music News (DMN) announced a partnership between Amazon and the AI music product Suno for the next generation of Alexa+. DMN quotes Amazon’s Panos Panay, SVP of Devices and Services thus:

Using Alexa’s integration with Suno, you can turn simple, creative requests into complete songs, including vocals, lyrics, and instrumentation. Looking to delight your partner with a personalized song for their birthday based on their love of cats, or surprise your kid by creating a rap using their favorite cartoon characters? Alexa+ has you covered.

The first time I read about Suno, it struck me as a gimmick that may not attract or sustain enough market interest to be profitable. Just the example cited above of making personalized birthday songs seems like the kind of thing a household can only do a few times before it gets stale. “Surprise your kid by creating a rap…” sounds like what the kids calls “cringy.” But the broader question posed by Suno is whether consumers want “personalized” music, or whether the whole concept is the just another hubristic statement about the power of data in the arts.

There have been many arguments presented by theorists and scholars that consumer data either obviates the need for creators’ rights (copyrights) or justifies substantially limiting those rights. The general premise is that if consumer data informs creators about what audiences want, this insight lowers the risk of investing in production. Lowering that risk, say the theorists, implies rethinking copyright protection—or even rethinking the nature and value of creators, as Professors Sprigman and Rustalia proposed in a paper I critiqued in 2018.

As argued in that criticism and elsewhere on this blog, the goal of artists and creators is not necessarily to give audiences what they want. While one cannot dispute the market value of certain “formulas,” there is substantial evidence that when producers strive too hard to meet audience expectations, audiences are often disappointed. In short, risk is inherent to creative expression and audience experience.

In every medium and every genre, consumers want to be surprised by artists, and shifting modes of expression reflect artists’ personal responses to contemporary events. In general, the most successful (i.e., meaningful) works are the ones we didn’t know we wanted until we had them. And once these works become part of the vernacular of our lives, we cannot imagine living without them.

By contrast theories about the power of data as a predictor of creative success are founded in a techno-centric arrogance that, to me, is exemplified in a product like Suno. The idea that the consumer wants music to be tailored from a few instructions—“Alexa make me a punk rock song about a guy who lost his job.”—is typical of the kind of “innovation” many technologists would develop by ignoring fundamental reasons we enjoy music in the first place.

As explored in this post about opera, I agree that music, and other expressive media, can be replicated by an AI to provoke emotional responses in human observers. Simply put, if a composer knows that minor chords have a certain effect on the Western listener, then an AI can follow the same rule to produce a “melancholy” tune. But the science of music and human psychology only explains our instinctive, animal-like responses to combinations of sounds while leaving out the rest of the experience.

We cherish our playlists for reasons that transcend the sounds’ effects on our brains—i.e., transcend mere taste. We relate and return to artists or their messages; we store and recall memories in the songs we replay; and we connect to friends and family through songs we have in common. Suno, outputting a bespoke song like a tepid cocktail cannot provide any of that. On the contrary, it omits all those aspects of music that make us care about it, suggesting that its outputs are indeed gimmicks destined to become as dull as they are disposable when the short-lived novelty wears off. At least that’s my prediction.

There is, of course, a more insidious question worth asking—namely whether a product like Suno, especially when paired with Amazon, is less significant as a custom jukebox than it is as a new surveillance device. The use of personal data to micro-target and manipulate people and alter the course of major world events is not science fiction anymore. In that light, is it not conceivable that, say, 100-million people expressing their sentiments to an AI “music composer” will add color to data that will only exacerbate surveillance capitalism? That would be one hell of a way to pervert music.

Photo by: Cm2012

Music Artists Ask Congress to Finally Correct the Radio Royalties Mistake

Today is World Radio Day, and when most of us think of radio, we think of music. That’s why today, Congress received a letter signed by about 300 performing artists asking lawmakers to pass the long-overdue American Music Fairness Act (AMFA) this session. “Each year, AM/FM radio stations play nearly a billion songs. And each year, giant radio corporations rake in billions in advertising dollars while refusing to pay a single cent to the artists behind the music that attracts their advertisers in the first place and makes their entire business model possible,” the letter states.

The artists reiterate what presidents and legislators have known for generations—that it is absurd that the nation which produces some of the most popular recorded music in the world is almost the only democracy that does not pay artist royalties for AM/FM radio play. “This leaves the U.S. in the dubious company of North Korea, Cuba, and Iran,” the letter reminds Capitol Hill. And in a time of deep political divisions, lawmakers agree that this ongoing conflict between broadcasters and musical artists is unfounded and unfair.

As the letter reminds Congress, this is an international trade matter as much as it is a domestic issue of economics and fairness. Although most nations where American music is played on the radio do pay royalties, American artists receive nothing abroad solely because foreign artists receive nothing in the U.S. Plus, the core principle of AMFA is popular with voters. As the letter states, “…by a 6-1 margin Americans support Congress addressing this injustice….” That many Americans don’t agree on much these days, but Congress can feel confident that their constituents do support equity and fairness for American music artists.

AMFA’s Pedigree is Long – Too Long

Under copyright law, musical works, which are created by songwriters, are protected separately from sound recordings, which are created by performing artists who may or may not also be the songwriters. Broadcast, terrestrial radio networks have long paid royalties to songwriters for public performance of musical works but never to performing artists for airing the sound recordings.

AMFA, first introduced in June of 2021 by former Congressman Ted Deutch and co-sponsor Darrell Issa, is the legislative descendant of many bills over many decades proposing to remedy this inequity. During that time, artists have even earned royalties from digital transmission thanks to an amendment to the Copyright Act passed in 1995—sixteen years before Spotify became popular. So, to say the terrestrial radio fix is overdue is an understatement. I have advocated AMFA and explained its provisions in several posts, but I will copy and paste the basic terms again here:

For smaller stations (under $1.5 million/year), the AMFA caps royalties between $10/year to $500/year depending on revenue and status as either a public or private station. For larger stations and networks, rates would be set, as they for the rest of the performance licensing market, by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). Under the provisions of AMFA, the CRB must consider station size and revenue when setting rates and must also consider the station’s promotional value to recording artists.

The broadcasters have no plausible, factual argument to oppose the terms of AMFA; the basic principle of the bill is popular with Americans who love the music made by the signatories of this letter; and lawmakers already know all the reasons why passing this bill is the right thing to do. Time to get it done.

Photo source by Kjekol

Congress Should Only Pass AM Radio Act with the American Music Fairness Act

Two bills are back in motion in the U.S. Congress—the AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act, and the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA). As I argued in a post for The Hill last May, if the first bill is to become law, then the second bill should also become law. While the AM radio provision arguably has some public-serving benefits, it is unavoidably a favor to broadcasters—and to pass it without finally delivering long overdue justice for music artists would be unconscionable.

AM Radio in Every Vehicle

The AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act, mandating that all new vehicles include receivers for the AM band, was initially drafted in response to the auto industry signaling a move away from AM radio in new cars. For instance, in electric vehicles (EV), the powertrains interfere with AM radio reception, but even manufacturers of traditional powertrain vehicles were recognizing a downward trend in AM listeners and, therefore, planning to discontinue AM receivers in new sound systems. Thus, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and Representative Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) sponsored the AM Radio in Every Vehicle bills, which gained bipartisan support, albeit along partisan lines.

Republicans emphasized the importance of conservative talk radio while Democrats highlighted the role of AM in the emergency broadcast system and its reach to underserved markets. Make of those rationales what you will (e.g., most people likely get their emergency messaging on their cellphones), but there is no question that AM in Every Vehicle would be a legislative favor to broadcasters, extending the life of terrestrial radio as the market moves toward alternatives like streaming and podcasts. Even if the market eventually abandons the AM band, the bill can serve as a precedent for FM radio, where more drivers listen to music. And that is significant because U.S. broadcasters still do not pay royalties to music artists for terrestrial radio play. That’s where AMFA comes in.

American Music Fairness Act (AMFA)

While the AM Radio bill was reintroduced this week by Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) reintroduced AMFA. “The United States is the only democratic country in the world in which artists are not paid for the use of their music on AM and FM radio,” said Senator Blackburn. “This legislation would close an outdated loophole that has allowed corporate broadcasters to take advantage of artists and their songs for decades.”

That’s it in a nutshell. And in a time when bipartisanship is in short supply, one would be hard-pressed to find a Member of Congress who does not agree that radio broadcasters should pay royalties to music artists for their vital contributions to the stations. The broadcasters will oppose AMFA, as they have always opposed royalty legislation, on the basis that 1) they cannot afford the royalties; and/or 2) their promotional value outweighs the royalty value. These claims are overstated, but even if they were not, the AMFA bill answers both. As describe in an older post:

As composers and artists have noted in many contexts, music is more regulated in terms of price than most other products on the market. While radio broadcasters are free to charge what the market will bear for advertising on their networks—and the largest entities earn billions in revenue—the music artists, with AMFA, are asking for a regulated price of more than zero for use of the only product that draws listeners to the stations in the first place. (Or do you listen to radio for the commercials?)

Further, not only should Congress condition passing AM Radio on passing AMFA, but it should set aside the political theater of a little-known resolution called the Local Radio Fairness Act (LRFA). Since at least 2008, this insincere (one might say cynical) never-to-be-passed resolution is akin to a loyalty pledge to the broadcasters, promising not to mandate royalties for musical artists. For instance, last year’s resolution highlighted the unfounded implication that radio play only benefits the artists rather than the honest assessment expressed in AMFA that the benefits are at least mutual if not generally tilted in favor of the broadcasters.

If Congress wants to mandate that AM radio remain in automobiles for the foreseeable future, so be it. But Members should also acknowledge that the law is a gift to the broadcasters and a precedent for a similar mandate for FM in the future. As such, it is only fair that Congress finally require American radio stations to pay artists for the music without which many radio stations would have little or no value whatsoever.

Photo by Ababil12

The Illusion of More

Dissecting the digital utopia.

Category: Music