Artificial intelligence-generated music is now appearing on the Billboard and Spotify charts, sparking debate about the future of music and its role in communities like UC Berkeley.
From student organizations like Golden records and Public School records to the school’s rigorous music program, tangible music practice defines the academic pursuits of students. UC Berkeley’s musical history is rich, dating back to the 1960s, which featured protest singers such as Terry Garthwaite and Joan Baez.
A Human Tradition Under Threat
How is AI music impacting the vibrant musical landscape of college campuses and beyond?
Musical history is steeped in resistance, community, and catharsis, permeating campus life from the Free Speech Movement to decades of live shows and echoing in the headphones of students walking to Dwinelle Hall. Music possesses a grounding ability; its centering of humanity makes it medicinal. Yet, as corporate monopolies and conservative social values push us toward homogeneity, the very humanity characterizing music is increasingly targeted.
Recently, artificially generated and AI-assisted artists have begun appearing on music charts, including those identifying as “soul singers” and releasing anti-migrant music rejecting the creation of asylum centers. These “artists” often feature generic AI-generated portraits, vapid lyrics, and conspicuously blank biographies.
In stark contrast, music connects familial and cultural generations through raw expression, builds solidarity through struggle, and marks changing times. Rooted in Black cultural expression, reclamation, and community during the 20th-century civil rights movement, genres like R&B and soul are now being attempted by AI personas like Xania Monet and Sienna Rose. It is a disservice to suggest that AI, lacking soul and history, can authentically produce soul and blues music.
AI, by co-opting and regurgitating existing artists’ work into the most commercially viable form, inevitably produces something lacking story, effort, and innovation-the very foundations of impactful music.
JW “Broken Veteran,” a Dutch AI-assisted artist, claimed in an email to The Guardian that AI helps those who “lack traditional musical training” and “democratizes music creation.”
However,this argument quickly unravels. Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and the members of The Beatles are just a few examples of accomplished musicians who lacked “traditional musical training.” A lack of care, effort, and a compelling story hinders successful creation far more than a lack of formal education.
The Illusion of Democratization
The idea that AI democratizes music is ironic, even absurd. The energy hubs powering AI systems are disproportionately located near marginalized communities, dangerously polluting their air and water. True democratization would involve increased and equitable funding for the arts and amplified voices from diverse communities.
Instead, AI discourages arts education and amplifies the profit-driven voices of privileged individuals, harming lower-class communities and genuine artists. Ultimately, robotic reproduction is not creation; it signifies a cultural shift toward prioritizing efficiency and material outcome, masking a larger trend toward controlled uniformity.
Students of this generation will bear the long-term consequences of AI art-both musically and politically-if its proliferation continues unchecked. As emerging artists and consumers, they have a responsibility to engage critically with this technology.
Resist the allure of apathy regarding artificial intelligence and its increasing entanglement with art. Normalizing it would be detrimental to the survival of musical communities. Engaging with human music culture is readily accessible, socially engaging, and personally cathartic. Reject AI music platforms and “artists” such as Rose. instead, support local and on-campus music labels, attend live concerts, and prioritize music created through human creativity.
