Last year, the surviving Beatles released their ‘last song’ by using AI to complete the track Now and Then. It clearly grabbed the attention of the media, not least due to the fact that the release of Now and Then came during the time the hype over nascent AI technology, notably ChatGPT, was at its peak. Of course, the release drew criticism, too.
In truth, Get Back director Peter Jackson, who was largely responsible for the resurrection of the track, trod carefully when it came to ethics. The technology was used to extract John Lennon’s voice from old demo tapes rather than mimic the former Beatles’ vocals. Yet, it also posed questions of how far the technology would go in resurrecting the dead.
Thus far, AI has broadly been used ethically when treating with artists who have passed on, or at least it has been ethical in commercial releases. Elvis Presley had similar treatment to John Lennon, with the King’s voice being ‘enhanced’ by AI for remixes. In this case, the tech is being used to ‘clean up’ vocals; it’s not a world away from what a producer would do on a track without AI.
Elvis’s image and music feel communally owned
Elvis is an interesting example, however. The singer is such a ubiquitous figure in pop culture, creating a sense of ownership. His image and voice pop up in all kinds of media unofficially. We could point to examples like The Kings in Fallout New Vegas or the imagery in online games like Aloha King Elvis. He has been reproduced so many times that it feels like reproducing him with AI would seem harmless.
Yet, at what point does the ethical boundary be crossed? We’d argue that it is when you go beyond the cleanup or homage. To explain, you can see that social media sites like YouTube are littered with AI ‘tributes’ to artists like Frank Sinatra, Kurt Cobain, and Amy Winehouse. Some of these might be fan-made, but the majority have one purpose in mind: YouTube clicks that lead to financial rewards.
AI can bring back the sound of famous artists
Hypothetically, could you envisage a situation where there is a ‘new’ Nirvana album completely generated by AI? It would make many of us uneasy, and it would be difficult to enjoy regardless of how faithful the AI is to Nirvana’s sound. That scenario is not just possible but probable, and the only question that remains is whether the release would be official or not. Indeed, we saw some evidence of this with the release of The Lost Tapes of the 27 Club, a mental health initiative that saw the release of material created by AI in the style of Nirvana, Jimi Hendrix, and several other icons. Estate owners might sue, but there is little that they could do to stop the creation of the album in the first place.
Note: The Lost Tapes of the 27 Club was a charity initiative and largely escaped criticism
Of course, you may have noted that some artists have embraced AI. Grimes is the most interesting of this bunch, suggesting that she is happy to have AI copy her voice as long as she gets paid for it. We won’t criticise Grimes, as it is her prerogative, and it is understandable that she sees the move as giving her ownership over her vocals. Bjork, too, sees AI as a creative partner, allowing her to discover new sounds or polish material.
Yet, these artists have control over their agency, and it is a different argument to that of bringing back artists from their graves. Even if the estate agrees, fans can find it difficult to accept. Of course, it’s not just music, as the same ethical questions pop up in movies. Sometimes it feels acceptable, such as the completion of Paul Walker’s scenes after the actor passed during the filming of Furious 7. But when we move into areas like reproducing James Dean for the movie Finding Jack (Dean was cast in the movie but died before filming), it feels somewhat controversial.
A tool to help artists’ craft
None of this is meant to disparage AI’s role in music creation. It should be viewed as a useful tool, one that can complement and augment an artist’s craft. As a tool, it can be as an aid for discovery, and our reaction to it might be similar to those at Newport Folk Festival when Dylan strode on stage with an electric guitar or those who were skeptical when hip-hop MCs began to use samples in the late 1970s.
Yet, this tool can also plagiarize, and that is where most artists and fans should – and likely will – draw the line. Music is art, and it is thus a form of human expression. When you take the human element out of it, it is no longer art.
