AI in music: revolutionary or harmful?

Following a Grammy nomination and an expanding world of potential, the controversy of AI in music continues to grow. The question becomes, where do artists and consumers draw the line?

On Nov. 2, 2023, the last Beatles song “Now and Then” was released, closing the door of arguably the biggest band of all time’s discography. The song originated as a home demo recorded by frontman John Lennon around 1977 and was unreleased for nearly three decades due to production difficulties.  

Using AI audio restoration, Lennon’s voice was extracted and the song was released in 2023. The song was recently nominated in the 67th Annual Grammy Awards for Record of the Year and Best Rock Performance, becoming the first song using AI to do so. 

The complications of AI in art have encouraged further discussion by fans and musicians who continue to share their thoughts on the ethics of using AI in music.  

Some of the major questions are what are the appropriate times to use it? Does it strip creativity and the human aspect out of music and to what extent? What major ethical issues should artists be concerned about the most right now?  

“Now and Then” is a possible blueprint of the ways AI can be used in music without dehumanizing the artform. An aspect that many music fans enjoy is the raw energy and passion involved, causing people to question if AI can reflect it. 

The backlash to “Now and Then” has been meager compared to that of many other things AI has been used for. It has validated concerns due to the process the Beatles underwent for the song. Longtime Beatles collaborator and producer George Martin’s son, Giles Martin, was responsible for working with bassist Paul McCartney to finish producing the song.  

Peter Jackson, best known for his production, writing and directing of the Lord of the Rings series, was able to extract Lennon’s vocals from the home demo during Jackson’s directing of the 2021 documentary series “The Beatles: Get Back.” During early production, Jackson was given full cooperation with Ringo Starr and McCartney, the two remaining members of the band, along with Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono and guitarist George Harrison’s widow Olivia Harrison.  

Additionally, Jackson produced the music video for “Now and Then,” which features never-before-seen archival footage of the band throughout their existence and incorporates combinations of the young Beatles around a modern McCartney and Starr, finishing with all four members bowing out as the song fades. 

Everything was seemingly done with ethical consideration while making “Now and Then.” However, music artists across the globe have been concerned about the potential dangers of using AI in their work. During the infamous rap beef between Kendrick Lamar and Drake, the latter artist found himself against a Senate subcommittee for his use of AI. 

In the Drake song “Taylor Made Freestyle,” the Canadian rapper used an AI voice model of the late rap legend Tupac Shakur. In an attempt to weaponize the West Coast rapper against Compton native Lamar, Drake did so without permission from Shakur’s estate. As a result, Drake received a cease-and-desist letter from the estate of the late rapper, demanding that the song be removed, according to Rolling Stone. 

Drake removed the song soon after but it is unclear which side the law falls on regarding AI creations when using someone’s image or likeness. Laws vary state by state, with some protecting your visual likeness but not your voice. Others protect your likeness when you are alive, but not once you’re deceased. 

In March, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed a bill intended to protect artists from AI. The Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, or ELVIS Act, updates the state’s laws which already protect the likeness, name and photograph to now include AI-specific uses. 

“As the technology landscape evolves with Artificial Intelligence, we’re proud to lead the nation in proposing legal protection for our best-in-class artists and songwriters,” said Lee in a press release announcing the bill. “Tennessee’s music industry supports more than 61,617 jobs across the state, contributes $5.8 billion to our GDP, and fills over 4,500 music venues.” 

Officials and producers within the music industry have also commented on the ethics and usage of AI in music, attempting to find where the line should be drawn to respect musicians, fans and the industry as a whole. 

In an interview with the Ledger, Sam Morales, former production and technical services manager of the Soka Performing Arts Center, compared his use of AI to the other artists. 

“[The Beatles] were years ahead of their time with their use of technology… I think there’s something very appropriate about them being the ones to open the floodgates to other artists enhancing or creating their own work with AI’s help,” Morales said, before expressing his dismay with how artists like Drake have chosen to use AI. 

“Even when I use it, it’s to help with what I am working on, not for it to make something for me,” Morales said. “I think that’s the only way we keep the human touch, otherwise it’s just 1’s and 0’s.” Morales uses AI daily at work to caption video content, polish early drafts of scripts and for face recognition in images. 

AI will continue to be implemented into music while copyright laws and bills struggle to keep up with its evolution. The contrast between “Now and Then” and “Taylor Made Freestyle” shows complete opposite sides of how artists may use AI. Until bills are signed in each of the states to update what falls under fair use, it’s safe to say we will continue to see musicians test the boundaries of what they can get away with.