The Arrival of AI and Rick Beato's Disgust in Context

Musician, producer, teacher, and popular YouTube music analyst and commentator Rick Beato recently posted a video critical of AI (music produced by artificial intelligence). He makes some excellent points. But I think in making his points about AI, he is ignoring some things about much of the music across the long history of Rock and Roll.

My take on his critique, in many ways, starts with the undeniable fact that AI artists aren't real. Hard to argue with that. Yes, Rick, we can surely start there. It's not just hard to argue with that, it's impossible to argue with that. The AI artists aren't real. But is that the end of the argument? Perhaps it should be? But Beato goes on to compare the number of Spotify streams against the artists' Instagram followers. His point, I think, being that real artists have both millions of streams and a commensurate number of Instagram followers while AI artist accounts only boast huge streaming counts. 

OK. If the argument is that many of the streams are from bots (also fake) that's an interesting point. But I think that gets us off the question of the music itself. If very few real humans are streaming the AI material, why do I care? I'm going to ignore that angle as it seems unimportant in light of the music aspect of the issue. When we look at the music produced by AI and the music we revere as "classic" and even Hall of Fame worthy, we might want to recognize some similar things about both.

If the concern is that AI music is wholly manufactured and because it is we should (as Rick does) refuse to listen to it, I think we need to start defining what we mean by real, by manufactured, and even what is an artist. 

In history of RnR we have many many artists who have very little to nothing to do with the product we know. Producers create what we know for most of them. The Brady Bunch episode with Johnny Bravo doesn't even touch the reality. At least the song used in that episode of the show was written by the character of Greg (words and melody). 

Let's take a HUGE name like Madonna. Look at the writing credits on her albums. Madonna plus x, y, z (if she has any writing credit at all). On the "Like a Virgin" LP, Madonna has one solo writing credit and zero writing credit on the two big hits ("Material Girl," "Like a Virgin"). And that's mild compared to some artists who show up and simply lay down the vocals and lyrics pre-crafted for him/her. Greg Brady was a more complete songwriter. And now with pitch correction and autotune, today's artists don't have to be perfect. Again, it's the producers put it all together and make the music. 

On her 1989 hit album, "Like a Prayer," Madonna is listed as "co-writer" and "co-producer" on all the tracks. Songwriting credit is the ticket to making the most return on sales. How much input did Madonna have with songwriters Patrick Leonard and Stephen Bray (and even Prince) around? On eleven tracks, she has zero solo writing credits. I suspect she relied heavily on her co-writers. The album lists three different people credited with "synthesizers" with Madonna listed with "additional synthesizers." We can only imagine what that entailed. 

When the Dixie Chicks finally made a significant pop singles chart splash with their sixth studio album, "Home," they were relying on outside writers and producers. They had been very successful on the country charts, but they finally broke through on the US Billboard Top 10 with "Long Time Gone." The song was written by country session musician and songwriter, Darrell Scott. Their next Top 10 hit was a cover of the Fleetwood Mac song, "Landslide," written by Stevie Nicks. The production credits on the album list "The Dixie Chicks" on most, but always with Lloyd Maines (Natalie Maines' father and well-used country music producer).

That story can be told endless times in the history of Rock and Roll and even more so in the history of country music. I pause to note that I using enormously huge and popular artists in this article to make my point. Downstream, the history of RnR is filled with many manufactured artists and hits. Apart from a very few number of acts, most of what we connect to certain artists have little to do with them (if we are looking at released songs as a whole). 

Let's look at the great Michael Jackson. Look at the writing credits on Thriller. Yes, MJ has sole credit on 4 huge tracks, but that means lyrics and melody (very important). Quincy (and Toto, basically) gave us what we know (along with MJ's vocals). MJ is listed as "co-producer" on 4 tracks and credited with things like "drum programming" and "synthesizer arrangements" on a few, but do we really believe that wasn't mostly Quincy and/or Toto (or whomever)? Quincy Jones made Thriller what it is. At least MJ gave us the  words and melodies on a number of tracks. We can't even say that much about many artists we revere. I am not saying Michael Jackson wasn't intimately involved in the making of the album, but he relied on a number of other creators. 

Apart from the rare artist such as McCartney or Prince (who can write, play, sing, and produce on their own), very few in the music business produce what we know in their catalogs without a huge amount of help. A considerable portion of Rock and Roll history is manufactured for us... starting with Elvis. We don't deny Elvis' vocal talents or charisma or even what he brough to the tracks, but he could hardly be said to be the force behind the songs lyrically or musically most of the time. 

Elvis' "Golden Records" singles compilation contains 20 well-known Elvis hits. Elvis has writing credit on 4, and none as solo writer. His biggest selling album, "Elvis' Christmas Album," he has zero writing credits and only two credits as "arranger." That is expected for a Christmas album, but there are two original, non-traditional tracks on the album and Elvis wrote neither.

The bones of a song are its lyrics and its melody and even its structure. The producer adds the meat (instrumentation, arrangement, effects, etc.). We readily acknowledge that the lyrics and melody are the song. Points to artists who start there. This is why good songs can be reinterpreted again and again and again with wildly different arrangements and production and still resonate with us. The entire Christmas catalog of songs proves this. Not that every experiment works, but the failure is never a a failure of the lyrics or the melodies, the failure is in the production. No amount of production, however, can save an awful melody or lyrics (usually). 

Putting that together, if Michael Jackson brings in "Beat It," lyrics and melody and structure, he has the start of something (because you've got to be startin' somethin'!). He has now surpassed what countless artists contribute. But beyond that, MJ is wholly dependent on producers, arrangers, musicians, etc. 

Thousands upon thousands of independent artists (indies) are writing and self-producing tracks all he time (and have for decades). But limited resources and limited expertise (combined with the stranglehold the national radio conglomerate has on access to markets) keeps what I call real music from many. A great band with great lyrics and melodies might not know anything about recording or production and have almost no access to markets.

Some of what Beato calls "real" music is almost as manufactured as AI music. Do we really want to closely examine the degree some of our most admired artists really had in producing the music we love? Do we want to further delve into how they got access to the greater music markets that are nearly impossible for most independent artists to access? 

As we watch AI invade our listening space, lets' not forget the great music we never got to hear because the music business has, for decades, spoon fed us prepackaged, overproduced, arranged, and professionally mixed songs the name on the cover hardly had a hand in making. 

Would critics of AI like Rick Beato even suffer the mild complaints I've listed above concerning the likes of The Dixie Chicks, Madonna, or even MJ? I highly doubt it. And let's be clear, I think all of these artists have a degree of exceptional talent in one way or another, but none of them could produce anything like the material we associate them with on their own. 

Paul McCartney can play better than all of them, write better than all of them, produce better than all of them, arrange better than all of them, and sing as well if not better than all of them. He is as far from AI as we can imagine. But many of the artists we know and love (many of whom are enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame) are the product of a huge system of supportive scaffolding. Phil Keaggy is far more musically capable and accomplished than all of those listed as well, yet he will never even sniff the Hall of Fame. 

In my opinion (and I realize nobody cares) I hold the likes of an independent, small label artist such as  Denison Witmer (to choose one from many candidates) and The Connells in much higher esteem than artists like The Dixie Chicks or Madonna. That takes nothing away from the talent they have. I wouldn't even argue that some of what has come out in the name of Madonna is not better than all of The Connell's catalog. That's not the point. But if we're going to truly honor lyric writing, melodies, song structures, and musicianship, it is the Denison Witmers and Phil Keaggys  and Connells of the world we should honor, not the manufactured stars who have far less to do with their own music.

This is all in light of the complaints and concerns with the arrival of AI. If we're going to criticize (rightly) AI-produced music, let's spread a little of the legitimate concerns across the board.

I love the song "Material Girl." It's part of my high school experience and takes me back every time I hear it. It's a great listen. Madonna's vocals are great. But in terms of Madonna the Artist, it's one step above AI. Written by Peter Brown and Robert Rans, produced by Niles Rodgers. Johnny Bravo had more to do with his song than Madonna did on this track. Yes, her vocals and charisma make it the song it is, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking she's a better "artist" than someone like Denison Witmer. 

In the world of Billboard hit artists, someone like Christopher Cross is far more real than a Madonna. He deserves a spot in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ahead of Madonna (and ahead of many others). Heck, The Monkees contributed as much or more to their albums than Madonna. I'm not saying Christopher Cross deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame, but since I'm not really sure what the criteria is based on who has been inducted, maybe he deserves another look?