Recently, Deezer announced new measures to restrict the recommendation of what it deems “fully AI generated music,” with particular attention on platforms like Suno and Udio. This move has sparked significant debate in the music community, raising questions about what qualifies as fully AI generated and the broader implications for creators. Here at AI Sound Off, we’re digging deeper into the nuances of this policy.
What Does Deezer Consider “Purely AI-Generated Music”?
Deezer’s announcement is light on specifics, leaving many to wonder what qualifies a track as “fully AI generated.” While Deezer singles out Suno and Udio, it has not outlined the criteria it uses to evaluate tracks. Here are a few possibilities:
- Degree of AI Involvement: Is the song entirely composed, performed, and produced by AI, or does it involve human input at any stage? How does Deezer recognize this?
- Recognition of Source: Does the AI use copyrighted material or heavily reference existing works?
- Metadata Disclosure: Are platforms required to disclose how AI contributes to the music-making process?
Without clear guidelines, tracks by human creators using AI tools for inspiration or augmentation might inadvertently fall into the same “limbo” as fully AI-generated content. This lack of clarity creates challenges for artists who incorporate AI responsibly.
Why Target AI Music?
Deezer argues that AI-generated music “dilutes” its catalog, potentially overwhelming listeners with low-quality or derivative tracks. But this reasoning raises questions:
- Volume of Submissions:
- According to the referenced article, Deezer processes an average of 100,000 daily submissions, with 10,000 auto AI-generated tracks and 90,000 others. Is AI music inherently more “dilutive” than human-made tracks of questionable quality?
- Bias Against Emerging Technology:
- AI tools like Suno and Udio often help independent creators push creative boundaries. By treating AI-generated music as suspect, Deezer risks stifling innovation and excluding artists experimenting with new technologies.
- Quality Control:
- If dilution is the issue, why not focus on quality metrics for all submissions rather than singling out AI? Low-effort human submissions arguably contribute as much, if not more, to catalog bloat.
The “Land of Limbo”: Non-Recommendation
Deezer’s approach places certain AI-generated tracks in a non-recommended space—a kind of digital purgatory where music exists but isn’t actively promoted. This leads to critical questions:
- Transparency: How will artists know their music has been flagged? Will there be an appeal process?
- Impact on Discovery: Smaller creators relying on AI tools may see their chances of reaching new audiences plummet.
- Fairness: Is this consistent with how Deezer handles other forms of music, like lo-fi loops or royalty-free soundscapes?
Derivative vs. Generative: The Bigger Picture
One of Deezer’s central claims is that AI-generated tracks dilute the catalog. However, most music, whether AI-generated or human-made, draws inspiration from existing works. The distinction between derivative and generative isn’t always clear-cut:
- Derivative Human Music: Many of the 90,000 daily submissions are imitative, adhering to trends or replicating popular sounds.
- AI-Assisted Creativity: AI tools often enable human creators to break free of traditional molds, producing unique works that wouldn’t exist otherwise.
By targeting AI specifically, Deezer risks conflating innovation with dilution, undermining a promising avenue for creative expression.
A Missed Opportunity for Leadership
Instead of restricting AI-generated music, Deezer could lead the industry by:
- Establishing Clear Standards:
- Develop transparent criteria for evaluating and categorizing AI-generated tracks.
- Promoting Responsible AI Use:
- Encourage disclosure of AI involvement in music creation without penalizing its use.
- Focusing on Quality:
- Implement universal quality filters for all submissions, regardless of how the music is created.
Conclusion
Deezer’s stance on AI-generated music highlights the challenges of adapting to rapidly evolving technologies. While concerns about catalog dilution are valid, the focus on AI as a primary culprit feels misplaced. Much of the music we love today—from electronic beats to algorithmically composed film scores—owes its existence to technology.
Instead of singling out AI, let’s foster an ecosystem where all creators, human and AI-assisted, can thrive. Deezer’s policy may have noble intentions, but without clarity and fairness, it risks stifling the very innovation that drives the music industry forward.
