www.thewrap.com: In a New York Times story published Tuesday, representatives for creator ghostwriter977 said the song had been submitted for next year’s Grammy Awards. In the article, Harvey Mason Jr., the CEO of the Recording Academy, said the song was “absolutely eligible” on the creative side “because it was written by a human.”
Now Mason has returned to the public spotlight singing a very different tune.
7 comments:
I think it’s really funny that the CEO of the Recording Academy had retracted his words because the AI voices seemed so real to him. Listening to the song myself, I would not have known that the voices were AI generated if I were just randomly listening to it. It is fascinating how AI is able to make things seem so real, and in combination with a talented artist, like this ghost writer, AI truly seems unstoppable. The ghost writer did an incredible job coming up with lyrics that sound just like both Drake and the Weekend’s music. However, I do think it is quite terrifying and uncomfortable. If I was an artist and people were using my work to train AI’s to copy and create new versions of my work, I would be very scared. I think it kind of attacks the art form in a way that takes away the true meaning and emotional-quality behind it. I hope that we never get to the point as a society where all the music we listen to is AI-made. That truly would be terrifying and so unfortunate for all of the artists who have worked so hard to create new sounds and share their stories with the world.
The concept of Ai art, especially in competition bases, is extremely complicated an messy. Ai is a tool, and should be used as such, but where do we draw the boundaries? All of the strikes going on in Hollywood are there for a reason, the industry needs to figure out how it defines Ai art, and credits the original artists. This case in particular is interesting as the song itself is human-created. As that the writing and composing of a song is primarily what makes the song ‘a song,’ I suppose some people thought it should be eligible for an award despite the fake vocals. However you cannot use recordings of artist’s voices and take credit for it, similarly as you cannot generate a painting and not credit it’s influences. Much earlier in the music industry, most famous recording artists didn’t create their own songs. They were professional performers, they sang songs written for them, and appeared at venues, often not having written the work that they made popular. For example, Carole King started off as a songwriter, later going into the performing world. However on both sides of that chain there was compensation and credit. Right now we are at turning point again in the industry, and need to figure out who and what is credited for what work, not to mention what ‘deserves’ an award.
I agree with Mason Jr. and his decision that AI produced music is not eligible for a creative award. While yes, talent is needed to manipulate AI in a way to sound like real voices, like done with “Heart on my Sleeve,” I do not believe it has the originality needed to win a creative award, such as a Grammy. This is particularly true for “Heart on my Sleeve” as the voices imitated by AI (Drake and the Weeknd) were not properly credited or given their sampling rights. As AI becomes more and more prominent, deciding where the line is drawn between originality and AI production will be something that us creatives will have to decide on. As an industry, I believe us artists pride ourselves on the true originality and intimacy of our work, however, I am also curious on how we can use AI with integrity to further the art we create.
I was quite surprised when I first heard that this song would be eligible for Grammy nominations because I did not (and still do not) think a piece of music being created by a human is enough to justify its comparison to music featuring only human voices. I am quite relieved it was not eligible for the Grammy's. I do not believe songs with AI voices should be eligible unless the singer themself sees the final product, and agrees that it is not a disservice to the other music they have put out. In my opinion, the most important factor in determining the quality of a song, at least to the more untrained ear, is the talent and skill of the actual musician. Generating vocals completely overrides this. I think the only potential Grammy's that songs with AI vocals should be considered for are ones concerning the skill of whoever designed the song, but none that take into account anything regarding vocal quality (i.e. best song).
I enjoyed reading this article. I thought that it was extremely relevant to the art and entertainment world today and brings up important issues. The article talked about a song called “Heart on My Sleeve” that was written by a human, but used artificial intelligence to replicate the voices of the Weeknd and Drake and used the vocals on the track. It was widely popular and nearly made it on the Billboard charts after it was released on TikTok. However, it came out that this song could not be eligible for a Grammy. This is because it used voices of two artists without their permission or the permission of their labels and it is not available on traditional music streaming platforms. I definitely agree that AI music should not be eligible to be entered in the Grammy’s. Even though it was written by a human, vocalists and singers work extremely hard on their craft, training their voices, and recording their music, I think that it would diminish the art form. I also believe that using AI in art hinders creativity and discovery which is such an important part in the human experience.
I feel as though this is very fair. Using vocals from people and not getting their permission, then creating the rest of the music with AI is something that is not original art. No matter how much time that took the person they are not creating something that is original nor legal.The fact that the song would even be up for grammy consideration in the first place is a bold statement that assumes a lot about the song in the first place. I think that the statement Mason released clearing up the eligibility and saying that they do value artists is very important. I’m glad someone cleared it up, and clarified that they still support growing artists. Reading further, I think the artists asking for AI’s to be unable to copy their music is totally valid, and interesting that people will have to protect their art in that way moving forward.
I read the article last week about this song and CEO Harvey Mason Jr. and was shocked Mason agreed the song was Grammy eligible. Everyone saw this turn coming. Drake has repeatedly in the past expressed his dislike of AI and anyone trying to replicate his voice, so I’m glad his legal team got on it. AI produced work is just not the same as that written and produced by human artists. Authorization needs to be upfront and in fact, I believe consumers should be informed when listening to songs by synthetic artists. Companies should not be able to exploit artists’ work without compensation. The article also quotes Mason saying it’s “complicated, [and] it’s moving really, really, quickly”. While I agree with his sentiment, it is a part of his job and many others at the Recording Academy to be the ones to set the standards as AI continues to develop.
Post a Comment