CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Missing Melodies: AI Music Generation and its "Nearly" Complete Omission of the Global South

Mehta, Atharva, Chauhan, Shivam, Choudhury, Monojit·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2412.04100arXiv 2412.04100
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent advances in generative AI have sparked renewed interest and expanded possibilities for music generation. However, the performance and versatility of these systems across musical genres are heavily influenced by the availability of training data. We conducted an extensive analysis of over one million hours of audio datasets used in AI music generation research and manually reviewed more than 200 papers from eleven prominent AI and music conferences and organizations (AAAI, ACM, EUSIPCO, EURASIP, ICASSP, ICML, IJCAI, ISMIR, NeurIPS, NIME, SMC) to identify a critical gap in the fair representation and inclusion of the musical genres of the Global South in AI research. Our findings reveal a stark imbalance: approximately 86% of the total dataset hours and over 93% of researchers focus primarily on music from the Global North. However, around 40% of these datasets include some form of non-Western music, genres from the Global South account for only 14.6% of the data. Furthermore, approximately 51% of the papers surveyed concentrate on symbolic music generation, a method that often fails to capture the cultural nuances inherent in music from regions such as South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. As AI increasingly shapes the creation and dissemination of music, the significant underrepresentation of music genres in datasets and research presents a serious threat to global musical diversity. We also propose some important steps to mitigate these risks and foster a more inclusive future for AI-driven music generation.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2412.04100

Cites

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Benefits may accrue disproportionately to platform owners and model developers rather than to the artists whose work constitutes training data.

    “Benefits may accrue disproportionately to platform owners and model developers rather than to the artists whose work constitutes training data, resembling accumulation by dispossession in which creative labor is appropriated and returned as competition (Mehta, Chauhan, and Choudhury 2024).”

    From The Algorithmic Flattening of Sound: Computational Evidence and Justice Implications of AI Music Homogenization (2026) · cites this paper as Mehta, Chauhan, and Choudhury 2024

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Sami Abu-El-Haija, Nisarg Kothari, Joonseok Lee, Paul Natsev, George Toderici, Balakrishnan Varadarajan, and Sudheendra Vijayanarasimhan. 2016. Youtube-8m: A large-scale video classification benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08675 (2016). · arXiv
  2. Andrea Agostinelli, Timo I Denk, Zalán Borsos, Jesse Engel, Mauro Verzetti, Antoine Caillon, Qingqing Huang, Aren Jansen, Adam Roberts, Marco Tagliasacchi, et al. 2023. Musiclm: Generating music from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325 (2023). · arXiv
  3. James Atwood, Yoni Halpern, Pallavi Baljekar, Eric Breck, D Sculley, Pavel Ostyakov, Sergey I Nikolenko, Igor Ivanov, Roman Solovyev, Weimin Wang, et al. 2020. The inclusive images competition. In The NeurIPS'18 Competition: From Machine Learning to Intelligent Conversations. Springer, 155-186.
  4. Emily M Bender and Batya Friedman. 2018. Data statements for natural language processing: Toward mitigating system bias and enabling better science. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 6 (2018), 587-604.
  5. Nick Bryan-Kinns and Zijin Li. 2024. Reducing Barriers to the Use of Marginalised Music Genres in AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13439 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13439 · arXiv
  6. Monojit Choudhury and Amit Deshpande. 2021. How Linguistically Fair Are Multilingual Pre-Trained Language Models? Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 35, 14 (May 2021), 12710-12718. https://doi.org/ 10.1609/aaai.v35i14.17505 · DOI
  7. Nick Collins and Mick Grierson. 2024. Avoiding an AI-imposed Taylor's Version of all music history. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14589 (2024). · arXiv
  8. Jade Copet, Felix Kreuk, Itai Gat, Tal Remez, David Kant, Gabriel Synnaeve, Yossi Adi, and Alexandre Défossez. 2024. Simple and controllable music generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024).
  9. Prafulla Dhariwal, Heewoo Jun, Christine Payne, Jong Wook Kim, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever. 2020. Jukebox: A generative model for music. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00341 (2020). · arXiv
  10. Anahita Doosti and Matthew Guzdial. 2023. Transfer Learning for Underrepresented Music Generation. arXiv:2306.00281 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00281 · arXiv
  11. Joe Dysart. 2018. Give Me That AI Rock and Roll. https://cacm.acm.org/news/give-me-that-ai-rock-and-roll/
  12. Richard Florida, Charlotta Mellander, and Kevin Stolarick. 2010. Music Scenes to Music Clusters: The Economic Geography of Music in the US, 1970-2000. Environment and Planning A Economy and Space 42, 4 (4 2010), 785-804. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4253 · DOI
  13. Jort F. Gemmeke, Daniel P. W. Ellis, Dylan Freedman, Aren Jansen, Wade Lawrence, R. Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, and Marvin Ritter. 2017. Audio Set: An ontology and human-labeled dataset for audio events. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). 776-780. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2017.7952261 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Shawn Hershey, Sourish Chaudhuri, Daniel P. W. Ellis, Jort F. Gemmeke, Aren Jansen, Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, Devin Platt, Rif A. Saurous, Bryan Seybold, Malcolm Slaney, Ron Weiss, and Kevin Wilson. 2017. CNN Architectures for Large-Scale Audio Classification. In International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09430 · arXiv
  15. Pratik Joshi, Sebastin Santy, Amar Budhiraja, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. The state and fate of linguistic diversity and inclusion in the NLP world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09095 (2020). · arXiv
  16. Shreyas Joshi, Muhammad Shahnawaz Khan, Aditya Dafe, Kavita Singh, Vedant Zope, and Tanish Jhamtani. 2024. Fine Tuning LLMs for Low Resource Languages. In 2024 5th International Conference on Image Processing and Capsule Networks (ICIPCN). 511-519. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIPCN63822.2024.00090 · DOI
  17. Kevin Kilgour, Mauricio Zuluaga, Dominik Roblek, and Matthew Sharifi. 2018. Fr\'echet audio distance: A metric for evaluating music enhancement algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08466 (2018). · arXiv
  18. Solomon Kullback and Richard A Leibler. 1951. On information and sufficiency. The annals of mathematical statistics 22, 1 (1951), 79-86.
  19. Séamus Lankford, Haithem Afli, and Andy Way. 2023. adaptMLLM: Fine-Tuning Multilingual Language Models on Low- Resource Languages with Integrated LLM Playgrounds. Information 14, 12 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/info14120638 · DOI
  20. Holger Lund. 2019. Decolonizing Pop Music. (July 2019). https://doi.org/10.56513/QGAV8825-3 · DOI
  21. Jan Melechovsky, Zixun Guo, Deepanway Ghosal, Navonil Majumder, Dorien Herremans, and Soujanya Poria. 2024. Mustango: Toward Controllable Text-to-Music Generation. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), Kevin Duh, Helena Gomez, and Steven Bethard (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Mexico City, Mexico, 8293-8316. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.459 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Chinasa T Okolo. 2023. AI in the Global South: Opportunities and challenges towards more inclusive governance. Brook- ings Institution Press. https://www. brookings. edu/articles/ai-in-the-global-south-opportunities-and-challengestowards- more-inclusive-governance (2023).
  23. Iroro Orife, Julia Kreutzer, Blessing Sibanda, Daniel Whitenack, Kathleen Siminyu, Laura Martinus, Jamiil Toure Ali, Jade Abbott, Vukosi Marivate, Salomon Kabongo, et al. 2020. Masakhane-Machine Translation For Africa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.11529 (2020). · arXiv
  24. Patrick E Savage. 2019. Cultural evolution of music. Palgrave Communications 5, 1 (2019), 1-12.
  25. Flavio Schneider, Ojasv Kamal, Zhijing Jin, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2024. Moûsai: Efficient text-to-music diffusion models. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 8050-8068.
  26. Shzr Ee Tan. 2021. Special issue: Decolonising music and music studies. Ethnomusicology Forum 30, 1 (2021), 4-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17411912.2021.1938445 · DOI
  27. Yan Tao, Olga Viberg, Ryan S Baker, and René F Kizilcec. 2024. Cultural bias and cultural alignment of large language models. PNAS Nexus 3, 9 (09 2024), pgae346. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae346 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article-pdf/3/9/pgae346/59151559/pgae346.pdf · DOI · Paper page
  28. Robin Ungruh, Karlijn Dinnissen, Anja Volk, Maria Soledad Pera, and Hanna Hauptmann. 2024. Putting Popularity Bias Mitigation to the Test: A User-Centric Evaluation in Music Recommenders. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (Bari, Italy) (RecSys '24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 169-178. https://doi.org/10.1145/3640457.3688102 · DOI
  29. Zeyu Xiong, Weitao Wang, Jing Yu, Yue Lin, and Ziyan Wang. 2023. A Comprehensive Survey for Evaluation Methodologies of AI-Generated Music. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13736 (2023). · arXiv
  30. Li-Chia Yang and Alexander Lerch. 2018. On the evaluation of generative models in music. Neural Computing and Applications 32, 9 (11 2018), 4773-4784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3849-7 · DOI
  31. Barret Zoph, Deniz Yuret, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2016. Transfer learning for low-resource neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.02201 (2016). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mehta, A., Chauhan, S., & Choudhury, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2412.04100
arXiv
2412.04100
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

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