The application of artificial intelligence (AI) to music stretches back many decades, and presents numerous unique opportunities for a variety of uses, such as the recommendation of recorded music from massive commercial archives, or the (semi-)automated creation of music. Due to unparalleled access to music data and effective learning algorithms running on high-powered computational hardware, AI is now producing surprising outcomes in a domain fully entrenched in human creativity—not to mention a revenue source around the globe. These developments call for a close inspection of what is occurring, and consideration of how it is changing and can change our relationship with music for better and for worse. This article looks at AI applied to music from two perspectives: copyright law and engineering praxis. It grounds its discussion in the development and use of a specific application of AI in music creation, which raises further and unanticipated questions. Most of the questions collected in this article are open as their answers are not yet clear at this time, but they are nonetheless important to consider as AI technologies develop and are applied more widely to music, not to mention other domains centred on human creativity.

Research applying machine learning to music modelling and generation typically proposes model architectures, training methods and datasets, and gauges system performance using quantitative measures like sequence likelihoods and/or qualitative listening tests. Rarely does such work explicitly question and analyse its usefulness for and impact on real-world practitioners, and then build on those outcomes to inform the development and application of machine learning. This article attempts to do these things for machine learning applied to music creation. Together with practitioners, we develop and use several applications of machine learning for music creation, and present a public concert of the results. We reflect on the entire experience to arrive at several ways of advancing these and similar applications of machine learning to music creation.

We argue that an evaluation of system behavior at the level of the music is required to usefully address the fundamental problems of music genre recognition (MGR), and indeed other tasks of music information retrieval, such as autotagging. A recent review of works in MGR since 1995 shows that most (82 %) measure the capacity of a system to recognize genre by its classification accuracy. After reviewing evaluation in MGR, we show that neither classification accuracy, nor recall and precision, nor confusion tables, necessarily reflect the capacity of a system to recognize genre in musical signals. Hence, such figures of merit cannot be used to reliably rank, promote or discount the genre recognition performance of MGR systems if genre recognition (rather than identification by irrelevant confounding factors) is the objective. This motivates the development of a richer experimental toolbox for evaluating any system designed to intelligently extract information from music signals.

The GTZAN dataset appears in at least 100 published works, and is the most-used public dataset for evaluation in machine listening research for music genre recognition (MGR). Our recent work, however, shows GTZAN has several faults (repetitions, mislabelings, and distortions), which challenge the interpretability of any result derived using it. In this article, we disprove the claims that all MGR systems are affected in the same ways by these faults, and that the performances of MGR systems in GTZAN are still meaningfully comparable since they all face the same faults. We identify and analyze the contents of GTZAN, and provide a catalog of its faults. We review how GTZAN has been used in MGR research, and find few indications that its faults have been known and considered. Finally, we rigorously study the effects of its faults on evaluating five different MGR systems. The lesson is not to banish GTZAN, but to use it with consideration of its contents.Comment: 29 pages, 7 figures, 6 tables, 128 reference

An adversary is an agent designed to make a classification system perform in some particular way, e.g., increase the probability of a false negative. Recent work builds adversaries for deep learning systems applied to image object recognition, exploiting the parameters of the system to find the minimal perturbation of the input image such that the system misclassifies it with high confidence. We adapt this approach to construct and deploy an adversary of deep learning systems applied to music content analysis. In our case, however, the system inputs are magnitude spectral frames, which require special care in order to produce valid input audio signals from network- derived perturbations . For two different train-test partitionings of two benchmark datasets, and two different architectures , we find that this adversary is very effective. We find that convolutional architectures are more robust compared to systems based on a majority vote over individually classified audio frames. Furthermore , we experiment with a new system that integrates an adversary into the training loop, but do not find that this improves the resilience of the system to new adversaries.