Making music is rarely done without a computer these days, whether it’s a part of the instrumentation, recording, or mixing and mastering, but if the song is made entirely with a computer — or specifically made with AI — artists may have a time trying to get it famous and to make money from it.
A lot of music is clearly made to make money, and with over 75,000 tracks uploaded daily to music services created from AI services, it should become pretty clear that efforts are being used to some how turn music into money. If you’re at all curious how that works, royalties are the approach, as people turn computer power and prompts into pieces of music, and playback into payment.
Not everyone is doing this, however, and AI music exists in an unusual way. Much of it is slop, generated from a basic prompt to sound like something else, while other forms can be used to create tracks people enjoy.
It’s a complex mess with people on both sides, both for and against music made with generative AI, and it’s one that has seen Australian artists caught up in the middle, their music being used as part of training systems that can be used to make audio. Tracks made in this way aren’t “sampled” per se, but they can be trained from established tracks, essentially covered and re-engineered.
Music can exist without AI, and it can exist with AI. These days, you may find AI used in songs without you realising it.
However, what AI won’t be able to do from the end of August is appear in the ARIA Charts. Specifically, it means AI artists and musicians using AI in a big way won’t be able to have their AI-infused tracks land on the top charts released by the Australian Recording Industry Association. That doesn’t mean they won’t be able to sell, but it does mean AI music won’t be able to chart using the nation’s major charts.
ARIA has this week updated its Code, and noted at music using generative AI will only be eligible for appearance on the charts when:
- It’s mostly human made (such as using AI for small portions), and
- It doesn’t attempt to manipulate charts or stream numbers (such as using AI bots to manipulate listener counts)
“The ARIA Charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes, but a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent,” said Annabelle Herd, CEO of ARIA.
“This gives everyone who releases music in Australia a clear rule to work to,” she said.
“We call on all parties who have a role in deciding the music played and promoted to Australian audiences, particularly radio, to support human artistry and implement similar changes across their own codes.”
The change comes amidst streaming services adding “AI” labels to music to point out the difference, and removing the chance of it appearing in editorialised recommendation lists.
It’s a definite change, and it comes as one track made with AI rose to the top of the charts locally, which would now effectively be banned from the ARIA dance singles chart list it recently appeared on.
The change could affect all AI music, which some would likely argue isn’t bad. However, it will be interesting to see just where the line is drawn.
For instance, while there are specific AI artists in the world appearing on global music charts, there are also established artists and producers using AI as tools in their music creation. That includes the likes of Timbaland, David Guetta, and even Paul McCartney, using AI tools to break apart recordings and create new songs.
While those have seen complex generative AI used in tracks, others forms of AI can be found in music, including stem splitting directly found in audio software Logic, or even the use of AI-based drummers and session musicians.
The point could be this: AI is found in lots of music, not just the ones that are obviously AI. This rule could make it possible for some tracks to disappear from the charts.
However, it’s also entirely possible that it could end up being a rule for one, but not for all. If some labels and artists allow for the use of AI, and either don’t disclose it or simply suggest the AI is allowed because of its connection to a human artist, the charts would simply be allowing a rule for the use of AI with some musicians, but not all.
It’s easy to see how murky and messy this could all get. For now, the rule is a position for ARIA to lean on as AI is added to the toolset of some musicians, and left out of others. And for folks making music with AI asn assist, it also means they may need to clarify just what they used AI for if they want to make it to the country’s top charts.
