hen AR Rahman talked about the inevitability of the artificial intelligence in the music, he had to face a barrage of criticism primarily because it is feared that machines will replace humans and render them jobless.

It should come as no surprise that Rahman has taken a positive view of the technology that is rocking the world. Its all-pervasive nature and the ability to take over intellectual/ creative functions, thought to be exclusively human, have again placed the creation before the creator. It appears that the next battle in the war is going to be with the Frankenstein monsters that we have created for ourselves.

The AI can help correct vocal pitch, allow engineers to mix and master much more quickly and cheaply. The Beatles recently used AI to isolate John Lennon’s voice from a 1978 demo, in order to build a new pristinely produced song. The AI is also ingrained in many peoples’ listening experiences: streaming platforms like Spotify and Apple Music rely on AI algorithms to suggest people songs based on their listening habits.

Rahman has always welcomed change and innovation – be it in the traditional creative way or in the intermixing of the latest technology as a way of bringing about creative change. He has never shied away from the galloping technological developments as many others have done. His music ethos is firmly rooted in tradition and the ability to look back rather than forward has been wrapped in the halo of humility, respect, awe and a veneration of what the elders have done. The homage to the greats of the past is cast in the ritualistic mould as if only marginal change can take place now and the more significant ones have already happened.

The desire for innovation is sometimes taken as an affront to the memory of the elders and a sign of disrespect to their seminal role. If fundamental change is planned or taken up, it is seen as being too daring, like punching above ones weight. In the musical ethos of many a land, it is also viewed as being an upstart.

This may be partially justified because much of the innovation has been half-baked. Much that has been achieved on the surface is seen to be hurting the essentialness of musical expression. The polyglot nature of the incorporation has always been questioned by the more serious lovers and experts of music and seen as a step back or merely imitation rather than a sound step forward in making the music sound contemporary.

Rahman has always welcomed change and innovation – be it in the traditional creative way or in the intermixing of the latest technology as a way of bringing about creative change. His music ethos is very firmly rooted in tradition and the ability to look back rather than forward has been wrapped in the halo of humility, respect, awe and a veneration of what the elders have done.

The fact is that change has always been the underlying factor in the giant leaps that musical sensibility has taken, be it a change forced by the interaction of cultures or the change thrust upon the artists by the change in technology. For example, replacing the gut strings with those of metal can also be taken as a technology of the past and not fully covered by the encompassing nature of technology that facilitates a definition.

Certain conditions were imposed on sound production by the recording technologies that were introduced around the end of the 19th Century. Then again, galloping change that took place during the course of the century that totally transformed voice modulation, sound production and the post-production in its recorded version. All this transformed the way we receive and thus understand and appreciate music. Later, the introduction of the tempered scale totally buried the gram, morchanna and shruti system on which local music was based.

It was, however, not wholly lost. Traces of it can still be found in the intonation and some forms but the impact of technology has been significant and is likely to become even more wholesome in the days to come.

Some people argue that these advancements will further the democratisation of music, allowing anyone with an idea to create music from their bedroom. However, some artists have reacted with fury that something so personal as their voice or musical style could be co-opted and commodified for someone else’s gain. The push-and-pull between protecting artists, forging innovation and determining the complementary roles for man and machine in music creation will be explored for years to come.

If there is a huge explosion in music created at infinite scale and infinite speed, will that return us to thinking about what we are actually bringing to the table as humans? “Where does imagination exist in this? How do we bring character to our own creations?”

Even those most excited about the technology have become worried. Last month, Edward Newton-Rex, the vice president of audio at the AI Company Stability AI, resigned from the company, saying he feared that he might have been contributing towards putting musicians out of jobs. “Companies worth billions of dollars are, without permission, training generative AI models on creators’ work, which is then being used to create new content that in many cases can compete with the original work,” he wrote in a public letter.

The writer is a culture critic based in Lahore.