Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dimensions on the Perception of Users Towards AI Generated Music

Pedrosa, Frederico, Figueiredo, Flávio, Machado, Alexei, Moriá, Ivan, Ferreira, Lucas·2025·Anais do XIX Simpósio Brasileiro de Computação Musical (SBCM 2025)
DOI 10.5753/sbcm.2025.14454
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Music-generating Artificial Intelligence has reached a point where anyone, musician or not, can generate full-length songs from a simple textual query. As with other recent AI advances, such services are poised to impact various sectors of arts and industry, sparking social debate about their role in our daily lives. In this paper, we investigate the question: How do musicians and non-musicians perceive AI-Generated Music (AGM) services as a tool? We conducted a user-centered study (N=96) exploring perceptions of AGM in composition, production, education, and its ethical implications. The research is based on a quantitative survey analyzed using Exploratory Factor Analysis and Latent Profile Analysis, complemented by a thematic analysis of open-ended responses. Overall, results indicate a positive trend in opinions towards AGM for composition and production. The Latent Profile Analysis reveals two distinct participant groups. The larger group (77%) is highly enthusiastic about AGM for composition and production and also holds a more optimistic view of its ethical and cultural implications. The smaller group (23%) is broadly skeptical, holding a negative view of AGM’s compositional, production, and ethical aspects. Notably, both groups acknowledge the potential of AGM in education. This finding supports AGM as a promising tool for democratizing music composition and education.

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 · 10.5753/sbcm.2025.14454

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Astrid Schepman and Paul Rodway. Initial validation of the general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 1:100014, 2020. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ali Akbar Septiandri, Marios Constantinides, and Daniele Quercia. The potential impact of ai innovations on us occupations. PNAS nexus, 3(9):pgae320, 2024. · DOI
  3. Florian Grötschla, Ahmet Solak, Luca A Lanzendörfer, and Roger Wattenhofer. Benchmarking music generation models and metrics via human preference studies. In ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2025. · DOI
  4. Dinh-Viet-Toan Le, Louis Bigo, Dorien Herremans, and Mikaela Keller. Natural language processing methods for symbolic music generation and information retrieval: a survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 57(7):1–40, 2025. · DOI
  5. Yujia Zhao, Mingzhi Yang, Yujia Lin, Xiaohong Zhang, Feifei Shi, Zongjie Wang, Jianguo Ding, and Huansheng Ning. Ai-enabled text-to-music generation: A comprehensive review of methods, frameworks, and future directions. Electronics, 14(6):1197, 2025. · DOI
  6. Yihan Cao, Siyu Li, Yixin Liu, Zhiling Yan, Yutong Dai, Philip Yu, and Lichao Sun. A survey of ai-generated content (aigc). ACM Computing Surveys, 57(5):1–38, 2025. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Alessandro Ansani, Friederike Koehler, Lisa Giombini, Matias Hämäläinen, Chen Meng, Marco Marini, and Suvi Saarikallio. Ai performer bias: Listeners like music less when they think it was performed by an ai. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 1(1):1–25, 2025. · doi:10.31219/osf.io/3rnve
  8. João D’Assumpção, Gilberto Almeida, and Mariza Ferro. Os potenciais impactos Ético legais da aplicação de modelos generativos de Áudio na música. In Anais do V Work shop sobre as Implicações da Computação na Sociedade, pages 80–88, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 2024. SBC. · DOI
  9. Patrick Biernacki and Dan Waldorf. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological methods & research, 10(2):141–163, 1981. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Francisco Tigre Moura and Charlotte Maw. Artificial intelligence became beethoven: how do listeners and music professionals perceive artificially composed music? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 38(2):137–146, 2021. · DOI
  11. Eric Drott. Copyright, compensation, and commons in the music ai industry. Creative Industries Journal, 14(2):190–207, 2021. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Gianluca Micchi, Louis Bigo, Mathieu Giraud, Richard Groult, and Florence Levé. I keep counting: An experiment in human/AI co-creative songwriting. Transactions of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval (TISMIR), 4(1):263–275, 2021. · DOI
  13. António Correia. On the human-ai metaphorical interplay for culturally sensitive generative ai design in music cocreation. In ACM IUI Workshops, 2024.
  14. Peter Knees, Markus Schedl, and Masataka Goto. Intelligent user interfaces for music discovery. Transactions of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval, 3(1):165––179, 2020. · DOI
  15. Martin Rohrmeier. On creativity, music’s ai completeness, and four challenges for artificial musical creativity. Transactions of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval, 5(1):50–66, 2022. · DOI
  16. Kyungyun Lee, Gladys Hitt, Emily Terada, and Jin Ha Lee. Ethics of singing voice synthesis: Perceptions of users and developers. In ISMIR, pages 733–740, 2022.
  17. Dimiter Zlatkov, Jeff Ens, and Philippe Pasquier. Searching for human bias against ai-composed music. In International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Music, Sound, Art and Design (Part of EvoStar), pages 308–323. Springer, 2023. · DOI
  18. Francesca Ronchini, Luca Comanducci, Gabriele Perego, and Fabio Antonacci. Paguri: a user experience study of creative interaction with text-to-music models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04333, 2024. · DOI
  19. Michele Newman, Lidia Morris, and Jin Ha Lee. Human-ai music creation: Understanding the perceptions and experiences of music creators for ethical and productive collaboration. In ISMIR, pages 80–88, 2023.
  20. Renaud Bougueng Tchemeube, Jeffrey Ens, Cale Plut, Philippe Pasquier, Maryam Safi, Yvan Grabit, and Jean-Baptiste Rolland. Evaluating human-ai interaction via usability, user experience and acceptance measures for mmm-c: A creative ai system for music composition. In IJCAI, pages 5769–5778, 2023. · DOI
  21. Hyeshin Chu, Joohee Kim, Seongouk Kim, Hongkyu Lim, Hyunwook Lee, Seungmin Jin, Jongeun Lee, Taehwan Kim, and Sungahn Ko. An empirical study on how people perceive ai-generated music. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 304–314, 2022. · DOI
  22. Qionglin Li and Yumeng Ma. A study on social perception and acceptance of ai music-taking jj lin’s fans as an example. In 2024 7th International Conference on Humanities Education and Social Sciences (ICHESS 2024), pages 768–779. Atlantis Press, 2024. · doi:10.2991/978-2-38476-323-8_87
  23. Sidarta Prassetyo and Celya Intan Kharisma Putri. Ai in language education: students’ perceptions of creating nursery songs with chatgpt and sunoai. Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication, 11(1):01–22, 2025.
  24. Francisco Fialho Correia. The role of artificial intelligence in music production: A survey on public acceptance, perception and bias. Master’s thesis, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa (Portugal), 2024.
  25. Louise Doyle, Anne-Marie Brady, and Gobnait Byrne. An overview of mixed methods research. Journal of research in nursing, 14(2):175–185, 2009. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Leandre R Fabrigar and Duane T Wegener. Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press, 2012. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Herbert W Marsh, Bengt Muthén, Tihomir Asparouhov, Oliver Lüdtke, Alexander Robitzsch, Alexandre JS Morin, and Ulrich Trautwein. Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating cfa and efa: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural equation modeling: A multidisciplinary journal, 16(3):439–476, 2009. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Hudson F Golino and Andreas Demetriou. Estimating the dimensionality of intelligence like data using exploratory graph analysis. Intelligence, 62:54–70, 2017. · DOI
  29. David Goretzko. How many factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis? a critical overview of factor retention methods. Psychological Methods, 2025. · DOI
  30. Larry Wasserman. All of statistics: a concise course in statistical inference. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
  31. Geoffrey J McLachlan and Suren Rathnayake. On the number of components in a gaussian mixture model. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 4(5):341–355, 2014. · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Pedrosa, F., Figueiredo, F., Machado, A., Moriá, I., & Ferreira, L.
Venue
Anais do XIX Simpósio Brasileiro de Computação Musical (SBCM 2025)
Publisher
Sociedade Brasileira de Computação - SBC
Published
2025-09-15
Pages
44-51
DOI
10.5753/sbcm.2025.14454
Cited by
0
References
1

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: Dimensions on the Perception of Users Towards AI Generated Music. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5753/sbcm.2025.14454
The paper
Pedrosa, F., Figueiredo, F., Machado, A., Moriá, I., & Ferreira, L. (2025). Dimensions on the Perception of Users Towards AI Generated Music. Anais do XIX Simpósio Brasileiro de Computação Musical (SBCM 2025). https://doi.org/10.5753/sbcm.2025.14454

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.