BACKGROUND
For Part 4 of this series, I will offer commentary on the recent statement from several of Southern Gospel’s prominent song publishers. The four points from their statement are:
1. As publishers, we recognize our moral, legal, and spiritual obligation to ensure that, to the best of our ability, the songs we promote truly reflect the heart and efforts of human creators rather than being mere products of technology.
2. The integrity of the songwriting and pitching process must remain beyond reproach, applying equally to both music and lyrics.
3. The intended use of AI technology is never to create the lyric or melody itself, but rather to provide a demonstration of what the original song sounds like. Therefore, it becomes even more imperative that we assume more individual responsibility in the integrity of the process. To that end, we are committed to an ongoing dialogue and education with the songwriters we represent regarding the sustained recognition of ethical boundaries.
4. To alleviate any concerns artists may have regarding the originality of the songs submitted for their consideration, we are prepared to provide a signed statement with each submission, affirming its authenticity.

COMMENTARY & OBSERVATIONS
I fully agree with points 2 & 4. If a publisher says a particular songwriter or group of songwriters wrote all the lyrics and/or music for a particular song, that should be the truth, as point 2 states. I’m also grateful these publishers are going to be offering what’s basically a certificate of authenticity for each song they promote. 

The history of the music industry is riddled with instances where songs were stolen, sold to an individual, or created as “works for hire” and then published with a different name listed as the songwriter! This has sadly been part of Gospel music’s publishing history as well as secular. If a songwriter wants to sell a song and forego their future royalties, that’s up to them, but no other party should be able to put their name on that song and present it as if they wrote it. Even if it’s a derivative work based on a public domain song, the original songwriter should be listed alongside the adaptive writers. That’s not a legal requirement, but it’s certainly the ethical thing to do. Years ago, Chris Tomlin and Louie Giglio wrote a popular worship song called “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)” which, on many copies I’ve seen, fails to credit John Newton, the writer of 80% of the lyrics. That’s ridiculous! 

Also, regarding Point 4, an artist preparing to record should have full access to a song’s credits before making a decision to record it. Some artists may want to reject a song if it’s partly written by AI. They may also reject a song if they’re opposed to something about a particular human songwriter’s lifestyle or bad choices the songwriter has made. Total transparency is always good. 

When it comes to Point 1 of the statement, I would counter that the foremost moral obligation is precisely that; being truthful about the source of each song, whether it’s human, AI, or a combination of the two is commendable. When it comes to the primary spiritual obligation of a publisher, that really should be to ensure that lyrics align with scripture. Scripture doesn’t give any indication that people turn into angels when they die, just to give one example, but you might find song lyrics taking that view in some of these catalogs.

As for using AI at all, I view it as a tool. Songwriters might consult a rhyming dictionary or a thesaurus; no one really considers it cheating if you use those helpful tools. The songwriter still has to curate all the ideas AI spits out, rejecting what they consider to be inferior, and molding the good bits together until it’s in a presentable form. Sure, it may be more of a producing role than songwriting in the traditional sense, but it’s all part of the creative process. As long as they’re honest about it, I don’t see a glaring problem. 

Now, I’ve already mentioned previously that from my admittedly limited experience trying out AI apps, I’ve found that lyrics written entirely by AI in Suno, ChatGPT, etc. are not very original or creative; not necessarily bad given proper prompting, but just mostly bland and predictable. On the other hand, Suno can generate some rather compelling melodies and stylistic settings once you learn to prompt it regarding what you want. If I were an active artist choosing songs to record (I’m not), I’d give demos made using AI the same fair shake I would any other demo. And as a fan of Christian music, I’m most concerned that the songs I buy have lyrics that are compatible with scripture and are engagingly creative and whether the music/production is of a compelling, high quality. If I see that a song’s creation was aided by AI, my thought is, “Well good for you (the writer) for learning how to use that technology so well.”

Regarding Point 3 of the statement, I think what the publishers really meant to say there was something more along the lines of “We won’t publish any songs that include lyrics or melodies created with AI technology.” It is simply not correct to say, “the intended use of AI technology is never to create the lyric or melody itself.” That is precisely the intended purpose of AI song apps. Sure, you can enter entirely original lyrics, and you can convince it to sing your original melody using a feature like Suno’s “Cover” feature, but the most obvious AI tools in these apps are for writing lyrics (either in part or in whole) and generating recordings of songs using text-based prompts.

WHAT IF?
Let’s pretend. just for the sake of argument, that a brand-new epic anthem with obvious hit potential exists. We’re talking about a Joseph Habedank “Here He Comes” sort of song that would bring an audience to their feet on a nightly basis. Suppose 100% of the lyrics were written by a human songwriter, but that songwriter never had an original melody in mind. Instead, they used AI to generate all the music (based on their prompts) and then refined the demo by replacing/updating sections of the song until they were satisfied. The lyric quality and the sound quality of that demo won’t matter, sadly, because it will automatically be rejected. Keep in mind that all of these publishers are also closely associated with some of the industry’s top recording labels. Chances are strong that the song would still be rejected even if it were assigned to an AI-friendly publisher and Habedank himself wanted to record it. 

Lest you think I’m giving these publishers too much grief, I do want to be clear. It’s great they are committed to opening a dialogue and educating songwriters about what they expect. On one hand, if you are a songwriter who wants to use AI, you know you’ll need to find a different publisher for your songs. On the other hand, if you are a songwriter who dislikes the idea that other songwriters might be using AI, you can work with these publishers and be confident that all the other writers on their roster share your view.

YET TO COME
Part 5 will wrap up this series. You may remember that in Part 2, I linked to an example of a song I generated in Suno after entering just three words. That song demonstrated just how simplistic and lame Suno’s AI can be if you rely on it entirely for lyrics. In Part 5, I am going to provide links to several songs I’ve generated in Suno along with details of just how much direct input I put into each one.

One of the greatest features of AI is that it allows you to explore how your song can sound over a wide array of musical styles. If you’re using it as a songwriting tool to create a demo, you get to try as many options as you want. In Part 5, I’ll also show you some variations of my original song titled “Sing” that I used Suno AI to cover in different styles. Lyrics and music for “Sing” were 100% written by me, by the way. You can click HERE to hear a version of “Sing” performed by the Pine Ridge Boys and produced by Arthur Rice.

Again, I appreciate any and all feedback about this article series. Please leave a comment here or email me at: ai@musicscribe.com