Art of Listening #8 with Keith Jopling
On our eighth addition of our The Art of Listening series the ever insightful, Keith Jopling explores the impact of AI on the music industry, exploring if the threat of AI to music is more existential than real.
I often ask artists if they are more excited or more worried or about AI, and the answer is usually both. Excited because AI is a sea change that will bring new creative possibilities - and that is always exciting to creative minds. But worried because the pace of AI ‘progress’ and its lack of regard for originality and ownership pose an obvious threat.
While AI itself is no threat in principle to human creativity, it is if it’s in the wrong hands. And creators suspect this is the real problem. Calls by technology leaders to do away with IP laws in order to speed the march of AI reveal their ulterior motives. Why can’t they progress technology with respect for human creativity?
The lack of paused, considered debate, suits technologists more than it does creators, as stated in this very good D&AD report, just published, on creativity and AI:
“It’s not about rejecting progress; it’s about demanding progress with principles. This friction isn’t failure. It’s a feature. The more we question how AI is built, trained and applied, the more likely we are to develop tools that reflect creative values, not just computational capability”.
So why are technologists so rampant? It can’t be down to money, because they have enough of that. It can’t be that they don’t appreciate art, or love music, because everybody does. It must come down to one thing; power. It’s so cliched. We know technologists are no idiots, because they’ve been smart enough to create the technology that we’re all so addicted to. As a result, they have become super-wealthy and influential. But to crave power way beyond that, at the expense of art and human creativity - well yes, that is idiotic, unnecessary and unwise.
But it is also a survival instinct. They must have power because the alternative is unthinkable. Technology companies do not want to be beholden to human created art, even when it is the hand that feeds. They would rather not ‘license’ anything they believe can be created or replicated. That is their survival instinct. It is outrageous that Trump just fired Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights and director of the Copyright Office (and brilliant that Perlmutter is now suing the US Government - go Shira!). It is pure madness that some tech leaders have called for a relaxation or abandonment of IP laws. These extreme circumstances are playing out in the USA, currently going through its second ‘wild west’ phase, but they are heavily impacting what’s happening here in the UK. It’s not the same level of theatre, but nonetheless extremely worrying that both the Labour Government and Labour Peers seem to be drifting towards sympathising with such tech leaders. Nick Clegg chiming in isn’t helpful either (everybody knows he has already been seduced by working at Meta). Tech bros are obsessed with convenience, and the argument that actually obtaining licenses to train AI on copyrighted material will slow down the UK economy in a global race for growth sure sounds like a convenient argument. Sadly, for the UK government, it is a more convenient message to hear than the many divergent voices of the music and creative industries.
The most dangerous threat I can see, is that of the Government being seduced, or duped, by technologists, into giving away too much of the necessary protections of human creativity and the (massive) commerce built around it, including as we know, a substantial part (no more, no less) of the value of the technology sector itself. The policy/economic/moral victory of technology over art in the lobby of Governments is the biggest current threat to the creative industries - a bigger threat than the actual capabilities of the technology itself.
Do we really want AI generated music?
While AI is changing the workplace and the process of creation - including music, it is no ultimate threat of substitution of the art. At the moment, music created by AI is so bad, there is no point wasting any time listening to it. The argument is that it will improve to a level of human creation “within 2-3 years”. What difference will that make though? Unless artists are going to use it deliberately to cheat us by using AI instead of actually making real songs. But artists would not risk their creative reputation doing that. Again, from the D&AD report:
“AI may be faster and cheaper but without clarity on what makes the work original, we risk losing the trust that underpins creative value. A creeping sameness is already emerging in the aesthetic of AI outputs, a surface-level shimmer masking a lack of originality. Slightly tweaked, slightly remixed, but rarely truly new.”
My take is not new - I want to listen to and appreciate the work of other human beings. I’m not interested in stuff created by robots. It’s just that simple. Music is about changing my emotional state on a level way beyond a measure of ‘engagement’ or ‘attention’.
When it comes to new music I’m as interested in the whole package as I ever was: the songs, the albums, the live performance, the creative process, the life stories. AI will never create or re-create the whole package. Some aspects, yes. When the technology arrives that puts Freddie Mercury back on stage with Queen, in a convincing and (somehow) respectful way, I’ll buy that ticket. But I would imagine that endeavour, if ever it was possible, would require a mountain of human creativity. Not to mention the permission of Freddie Mercury’s estate and Queen Productions. Obtaining that is part of the equation, right?
I’m no expert on AI, nor am I deep into the details of the current debate. I don’t fear AI one bit personally, but I am paranoid about the motivations of the tech owners who are driving the AI ‘revolution’. Sometimes it pays to be paranoid. When people who crave power talk to other people who crave power, their only fear is those who might block it i.e. revolutionaries: like those people that make art, music, write books and have other liberal ideas.
Except we wouldn’t want to consume art or entertainment from anyone, or anything, else.
Learn more about Keith Jopling:
Keith is a music strategist, advisor, consultant, writer and mentor. In 2021 he started the music podcast The Art of Longevity, featured under Spotify’s “must listen” music podcasts and on all other platforms. The archive sits on his music curation site The Song Sommelier.
Keith has worked with the boardrooms of labels, streaming services, start-ups and investors. He has held previous roles with Sony Music, Spotify, EMI and the BPI. Most recently he was Consulting Director at boutique music agency MIDiA Research (2019-2024) and began his career in music as Research Director at global trade body IFPI (2000-2006).
As an educator, he has lectured in music business, strategy and innovation at Henley Business School, NYU, BIMM, ACM, Belmont, Syracuse, Westminster and the University of Krems, Austria.