Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Blind search and flexible product visions: the sociotechnical shaping of generative music engines

Bown, Oliver·2025·AI & SOCIETY

Abstract

Amidst the surge in AI-oriented commercial ventures, music is a site of intensive efforts to innovate. A number of companies are seeking to apply AI to music production and consumption, and amongst them several are seeking to reinvent the music listening experience as adaptive, interactive, functional and infinitely generative. These are bold objectives, having no clear roadmap for what designs, technologies and use cases, if any, will be successful. Thus each company relies on speculative product visions. Through four case studies of such companies, I consider how product visions must carefully provide a clear plan for developers and investors, whilst also remaining open to agile user-centred product development strategies, which I discuss in terms of the ‘blind search’ nature of innovation. I suggest that innovation in this area needs to be understood in terms of technological emergence, which is neither technologically determinist nor driven entirely by the visions of founders, but through a complex of interacting forces. I also consider, through these cases, how, through the accumulation of residual value, all such start-up work risks being exapted for more familiar extractive capitalist agendas under the general process that Doctorow calls “enshittification”. Lastly, I consider a number of other more specific ways in which these projects, if their growth is achieved, could influence music culture more broadly.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00146-024-01862-x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Amabile T (1996) Creativity in context, Westview press
  2. Born G (2022) Cultures in AI/AI in culture: A NeurIPS 2022 Workshop position paper. NeurIPS Workshop on Cultures in AI/AI in Culture
  3. Born G (2022) Music and digital media: a planetary anthropology, UCL Press. · doi:10.14324/111.9781800082434
  4. Dean RT (2018) The Oxford handbook of algorithmic music. Oxford University Press, Oxford · DOI
  5. Drott E (2018) Why the next song matters: streaming, recommendation, scarcity. Twentieth-Century Music 15(3):325–357 · DOI
  6. Drott E (2021) Copyright, compensation, and commons in the music AI industry. Creat Ind J 14(2):190–207
  7. Haruvi A, Kopito R, Brande-Eilat N, Kalev S, Kay E, Furman D (2021) Modeling the effect of background sounds on human focus using brain decoding technology. bioRxiv: 2021.2004.2002.438269 · DOI
  8. Hodgson T (2020) Quantifying music: imagined metrics in digital startup culture. Culture Theory Crit 61(4):424–439 · doi:10.1080/14735784.2021.1894961
  9. Kurzweil R (1999) The age of spiritual machines: how we will live, work and think in the new age of intelligent machines. Orion
  10. Perkins DN (1996) Creativity: beyond the Darwinian paradigm. MIT Press, Dimensions of Creativity. M. Boden, pp 119–142
  11. Prey R (2018) Nothing personal: algorithmic individuation on music streaming platforms. Media Cult Soc 40(7):1086–1100 · DOI
  12. Simonton DK (2011) Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell’s (1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark. Rev Gen Psychol 15(2):158 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Sparrow J (2022) Music Ally Focus #51: Edward Balassanian, CEO of Aimi, talks about how AI music will power metaverse experiences, paying AI music collaborators, and how it will change the way we think about music. J Sparrow 1:1
  14. Stark L (2018) Algorithmic psychometrics and the scalable subject. Soc Stud Sci 48(2):204–231 · DOI
  15. Sternberg RJ (2006) The nature of creativity. Creat Res J 18(1):87–98 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI (1991) An investment theory of creativity and its development. Hum Dev 34(1):1–31 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Watson A, Leyshon A (2022) Negotiating platformisation: MusicTech, intellectual property rights and third wave platform reintermediation in the music industry. J Cult Econ 15(3):326–343 · doi:10.1080/17530350.2022.2028653
  18. Weber RJ, Perkins DN (1992). Inventive minds: creativity in technology. Oxford University Press on Demand · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195071702.001.0001

Metadata

Authors
Bown, O.
Venue
AI & SOCIETY
Published
2024-03-01
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
585-603
ISSN
  • 0951-5666
  • 1435-5655
Cited by
3
References
2
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council (101019164)
  • University of New South Wales

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Blind search and flexible product visions: the sociotechnical shaping of generative music engines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00146-024-01862-x
The paper
Bown, O. (2025). Blind search and flexible product visions: the sociotechnical shaping of generative music engines. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01862-x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.