Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

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

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read AI music generation is dominated by the Global North in both its training data and its research workforce.

desk verdict The paper's central claim is almost certainly right, but its headline 86% number is computed from a ~11.5k-hour subset of a >1M-hour corpus, so the paper as written overstates what the data show. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04100 v3 pith:JVFPTU2K submitted 2024-12-05 cs.SD cs.AIcs.CLcs.LGeess.AS

Atharva Mehta , Shivam Chauhan , Monojit Choudhury This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.AIcs.CLcs.LGeess.AS
keywords AImusicgenerationGlobalSouthdatasetbiasgenrerepresentationresearchauthorshipgenerativemodelsculturaldiversity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to quantify who is represented in AI music generation, both in the data used to train models and in the people who publish the research. After manually annotating 152 datasets totaling more than a million hours of audio and reviewing 244 papers from eleven AI and music venues, the authors report that roughly 86% of dataset hours and 93% of surveyed papers center on music of the Global North, while genres from South Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Oceania, and Central Asia together account for only 14.6% of dataset hours. Around 40% of the datasets do contain some non-Western music, but as a share of hours it is tiny, and 51% of papers use symbolic music generation, a paradigm the authors say is ill-suited to microtonal and ornamented traditions. A sympathetic reader would care because if this imbalance is real, AI music systems are being built to serve a narrow slice of the world's music, with consequences for evaluation accuracy, cultural diversity, and the economic survival of Global South traditions.

What carries the argument

The measurement machinery is a two-level annotation and aggregation pipeline. Region and genre representation are defined as fractions of dataset hours ($\delta_r$, $\delta_g$) and fractions of papers by style and first-author affiliation ($\rho_s$, $\alpha_r$), with a musical style defined as a genre-region pair. Load-bearing is the manual annotation step: for datasets over 10,000 hours the authors mine per-file metadata for genre and region tags, for smaller datasets they rely on the paper's own description, and 7.9% of datasets totaling 5,772 hours are excluded when no tags are available. The paper also constructs comparison proxies—digital availability and listenership from MusicBrainz and SoundCharts, and regional population as an 'ideal' proxy—and correlates these with the representation fractions. The fixed region taxonomy, which places Europe, East Asia, and America in the Global North and everything else in the Global South, determines all headline percentages.

What would settle it

Take a stratified random sample of the 152 annotated datasets and have two fresh annotators re-label genre and region from the same sources using a published codebook; if inter-annotator agreement is low, say Cohen's kappa below 0.6 on region, then the exact 86%/14.6% split is not stable and should be reported as a range. A second check: recompute all percentages under an alternative taxonomy that moves East Asia into the Global South or weights hours per-file rather than per-dataset; if the Global South share rises above roughly 25%, the phrase 'nearly complete omission' would overstate the case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that AI music generation is overwhelmingly a Global North enterprise in both its training data and its research community. Using dataset-hours as the unit of representation, the authors find that European, East Asian, and American music together constitute 85.9% of dataset hours; South Asian and Middle Eastern music sit near 5% each, and African and Central Asian music below 1%. On the publication side, 93% of surveyed papers have first authors affiliated with Global North institutions, and only 6.1% of papers have first authors from South Asia, the Middle East, Oceania, Central Asia, Latin America, or Africa. The authors also document an instrument-level imbalance in the audio embedding backbones used for evaluation: guitar, piano, and drums appear in over half of training clips, while sitar, tabla, accordion, and bagpipes together appear in under 3%. They argue this skew is not neutral—it biases automatic metrics, pushes research toward notation-friendly Western genres, and risks eroding the very traditions it excludes.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument depends on the manual genre and region labels assigned to 152 datasets: for large datasets the labels come from metadata mining, for small ones from the papers' own descriptions, and no inter-annotator agreement is reported, so noisy labels or a contested Global North/South taxonomy could change the headline percentages.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Models trained on the current corpus will tend to produce Western tonal and rhythmic defaults when asked for non-Western styles, since the training data contains so few hours of those genres.
  • Automatic evaluation metrics built on audio embedding backbones inherit the dataset skew, so reported quality scores for Global South genres will be unreliable and can mislead comparative judgments.
  • The dominance of symbolic music generation in 51% of surveyed papers steers research infrastructure toward notation-friendly Western genres, leaving microtonal and ornamented traditions without equivalent tools.
  • Synthetic data augmentation, as illustrated by a dataset that expands MusicCaps from 5k to 37k samples while preserving its skewed genre distribution, can amplify the imbalance instead of correcting it.
  • The mitigation steps proposed—explicit genre disclosure, refusing to generate for unrepresented genres, community-built inclusive datasets, transfer learning, and genre-specific evaluation—would each require deliberate investment to counteract the documented skew.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • As an editorial extension, the exact percentages should be treated as order-of-magnitude estimates rather than precise measurements, given the annotation pipeline and the lack of reported coder agreement; the direction of the imbalance would likely survive re-annotation even if the magnitude shifts.
  • The paper's placement of East Asia in the Global North makes 'Global South' a geopolitical category rather than a purely geographic one; a reader interested in, say, Japanese or Korean traditional music should check whether those are included in the 86% rather than the 14.6%.
  • A testable extension suggested by the paper's logic is a systematic prompt-based audit: feed text-to-music models a matched set of Global North and Global South genre prompts and measure timbral, microtonal, and rhythmic fidelity against human recordings; the paper offers anecdotal evidence but no such benchmark.
  • If the correlation results generalize, digital availability as measured by MusicBrainz tracks research publication representation more closely than dataset representation, implying that dataset curation practices, rather than listener demand alone, are the key bottleneck for inclusion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a manual audit of 152 music datasets and 244 papers from eleven AI/music venues, claiming that roughly 86% of dataset hours and 93% of papers focus on Global North music, with Global South genres receiving only 14.6% of data. It also reports correlations between regional representation and digital/population proxies, and discusses implications such as biased evaluation, symbolic-music dominance, and cultural erosion, with mitigation recommendations.

Significance. The topic is timely and important: quantifying geographic and cultural imbalances in AI music generation can inform dataset construction, evaluation, and policy. The authors have assembled a large corpus of papers and datasets, and they make their surveyed paper lists publicly available. If the headline statistics were properly supported, the paper would be a valuable empirical contribution to the discourse on fairness and inclusion in generative AI. However, the central quantitative claims are currently undermined by a mismatch between the stated corpus size and the hours actually analyzed, internal inconsistencies, and lack of validation of the manual annotations.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.2, Table 1(b)] The headline claim that 'approximately 86% of the total dataset hours' come from the Global North is not supported by the data as presented. The region-wise hours in Table 1(b) sum to 11,485 hours, not the 'over one million hours' attributed to the 152 datasets in §2.2. The paper must either provide region annotations for the full corpus or explicitly rephrase the statistic as applying only to the region-annotated subset, and then justify why that subset is representative of the whole. Without this, the 86% figure cannot be read as a statement about total dataset hours.
  2. [§2.2, §3.1.2] The paper states that only 7.9% of datasets (5,772 hours) were excluded for lacking explicit genre or region information, yet the annotated regional hours in Table 1(b) amount to only about 1% of the claimed one million hours. This is a large unexplained discrepancy. The authors should clarify how many hours were actually annotated by region and how the remaining hours were treated, since the regional distribution is the empirical basis for RQ1.
  3. [Abstract and §3.2] The abstract reports 'over 93% of researchers' and '6.1% of papers' from the Global South, while §3.2 states that the Global North represents 'approximately 88%' and the Global South 'about 12%'. These numbers are mutually inconsistent and must be reconciled; in particular, the 93% figure appears to come from first-author affiliations in Table 1(b), while the 88% figure appears in the prose of §3.2, so the discrepancy is not merely a typographical variation.
  4. [§2.2 and §3.2] The claim that '93% of papers focus primarily on music from the Global North' is derived from the first author's institutional affiliation, not from the musical content of the paper. This conflates authorship geography with research focus. The paper should either rename the metric (e.g., 'first-author affiliation share') or provide explicit evidence about the geographic focus of the papers' content; as written, the conclusion about research focus is not supported.
  5. [§3.3] The correlations in §3.3 are computed over only nine regions (n=9) and are reported without significance tests or confidence intervals. For instance, Corr(π_da, α_r)=0.65 has a critical value of approximately 0.666 at the 0.05 level for n=9, so the reported 'strong correlation' is not statistically distinguishable from noise. The authors should report p-values or bootstrap intervals and temper the interpretation of these correlations accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] The manual annotation of datasets and papers has no inter-annotator agreement or validation. Given that the entire regional and genre analysis rests on these labels, the paper should at least report a detailed annotation protocol and ideally a random-sample double-annotation study.
  2. [§3.2] The text contains typos such as 'A vant-garde & Experimental' and 'Highlights significant disparities'; please proofread the manuscript for these and similar errors.
  3. [Table 1(a)] The units for the Duration column are inconsistent with the text: the table lists hours in 10^3, but the text says Pop music forms '200K+ hours' while the table shows 228.26, which would be 228,260 hours. Please align the units and the textual descriptions.
  4. [§2.1] The equation P_s = Σ P_s is tautological and appears to contain a typo; please correct the notation or clarify the intended aggregation.
  5. [References] Several citations are incomplete, including 'See ? ]' in §2.1, '? ]' in §4 regarding fairness in text embeddings, and '? ]' in §4 for feedback loops. Please fill in these references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's quantitative claims are audit statistics, not derivations that presuppose their conclusions.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical audit, not a derivation: the central claims (86% of annotated dataset hours, 14.6% Global South share, 6.1% first-author papers) are computed directly from manually annotated dataset metadata and paper affiliations through the definitions in Section 2.1 (δ_r = D_r / Σ D_r'; α_r = P_r / Σ P_r'). No parameter is fitted to part of the data and then relabeled as a prediction; the only 'predictions' are descriptive statistics and correlations. The Rawlsian fairness definition is used interpretively, not to generate the data. The self-citations by a co-author ([7], [19]) are used for inspiration and as a caveat, not as load-bearing evidence for the music-specific measurements; the cited NLP audits are independent external work. The main vulnerabilities—manual annotation reliability, the contested Global North/South taxonomy, and the fact that Table 1's region hours sum to roughly 11.5k rather than the 'over one million hours' claimed—are correctness and robustness concerns, not circularity: even if those numbers were wrong, the derivation would not reduce to itself. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the accuracy of manual dataset annotations and on several domain assumptions about how data volume maps to performance and how to measure real-world utility. No free parameters are fitted to data; the numeric choices are thresholds and proxy windows that affect the results.

free parameters (2)
  • Dataset metadata analysis threshold = 10,000 hours
    Datasets above this size were analyzed at file-level metadata; smaller datasets were classified from the paper's description. This cutoff is chosen by hand and affects annotation reliability.
  • SoundCharts top-50 per region = 50 songs
    Digital listenership proxy uses the 50 most-viewed songs per region; this arbitrary window shapes the digital proxy correlations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Model performance on a style is proportional to training data volume for that style.
    Stated in Section 2.1 as 'self-evident' with a missing citation ('See ? ]') to empirical studies; it is the bridge from data representation to performance fairness.
  • domain assumption First author's institutional location represents regional research contribution.
    Section 2.2 maps each paper to a region by first author affiliation, ignoring co-authors and the geographic focus of the study.
  • domain assumption Population is an ideal proxy for musical style utility.
    Section 2.1 defines the ideal proxy as regional population, acknowledging limitations but adopting it for lack of better data.
  • ad hoc to paper The Rawlsian 'least difference' criterion defines fairness.
    Definition 2.2 imports a philosophical fairness notion without a citation (placeholder '?'), and uses it as the lens for calling the distribution unfair.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Missing Melodies: AI Music Generation and its "Nearly" Complete Omission of the Global South." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JVFPTU2K

@misc{pith2026241204100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Missing Melodies: AI Music Generation and its "Nearly" Complete Omission of the Global South},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JVFPTU2K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04100}
}
read the original 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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04100 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Global Divide in AI Music Datasets: The heatmap shows the stark imbalance in regional musical styles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Genre and Regional Representation (𝛼𝑟 /𝜌𝑠 ) in AI Music Research by Conferences: The bar plot illustrates the conference-wise representation of genre and region (derived respectively from the music datasets and the first author’s institutional affiliation). The pie charts show the overall representation by genre (left) and region (right). Genre MB SC Papers Dur. Pop 49955 168.32 34 228.26 Rock 70823 106.89 9 186.67 … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Algorithmic Flattening of Sound: Computational Evidence and Justice Implications of AI Music Homogenization

    cs.CY 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An audit of Suno and Lyria 3 shows Lyria compresses music within genres while Suno blurs boundaries between genres, and both systems remain easily distinguishable from human-made music.

  2. Exploring Adapter Design Tradeoffs for Low Resource Music Generation

    cs.SD 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Adapter placement, architecture, and size strongly change generation quality and cost for MusicGen and Mustango on two non-Western genres, with late-layer, mid-sized (40M) adapters reported as the best tradeoff.

  3. Exploring listeners' perceptions of AI-generated and human-composed music for functional emotional applications

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Preference and perceived emotional efficacy dissociate for AI-generated versus human-composed music, with listeners preferring AI tracks but crediting human tracks with stronger functional emotion elicitation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [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 2016

  2. [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). , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. Omission of Global South from AI Music Generation 11

    arXiv 2023

  3. [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

    work page 2020

  4. [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

    work page 2018

  5. [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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Cholewiak, Panos Ipeirotis, Victor Silva, and Arun Kannawadi

    Steven A. Cholewiak, Panos Ipeirotis, Victor Silva, and Arun Kannawadi. 2021. SCHOLARLY: Simple access to Google Scholar authors and citation using Python . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764801

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.5764801 2021

  7. [7]

    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

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i14.17505 2021

  8. [8]

    Nick Collins and Mick Grierson. 2024. Avoiding an AI-imposed Taylor’s Version of all music history. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14589 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Wikipedia contributors. 2024. Technopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopoly

    2024

  2. [10]

    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)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Kate Crawford. 2016. Artificial Intelligence’s White Guy Problem. The New York Times (2016). https://www.nytimes. com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligences-white-guy-problem.html Accessed: 2024-10-16

    2016

  4. [12]

    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)

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Anahita Doosti and Matthew Guzdial. 2023. Transfer Learning for Underrepresented Music Generation. arXiv:2306.00281 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00281

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Joe Dysart. 2018. Give Me That AI Rock and Roll. https://cacm.acm.org/news/give-me-that-ai-rock-and-roll/

    2018

  7. [15]

    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

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    World Economic Forum. 2023. The ’AI Divide’ Between the Global North and Global South. World Economic Forum (2023). https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/davos23-ai-divide-global-north-global-south/

    2023

  9. [17]

    Gemmeke, Daniel P

    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. In2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Pr...

    2017

  10. [18]

    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 Internati...

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    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)

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    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/ICIP...

    2024

  13. [21]

    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)

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Solomon Kullback and Richard A Leibler. 1951. On information and sufficiency. The annals of mathematical statistics 22, 1 (1951), 79–86

    1951

  15. [23]

    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

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Flor Lizbeth Cruz Longoria. [n. d.]. Decolonizing Pedagogy: Bringing equality in music to people of the global majority - ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/openview/ebec8b870de56e0ef78121f53220caa1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl= 26252

  17. [25]

    Holger Lund. 2019. Decolonizing Pop Music. (July 2019). https://doi.org/10.56513/QGAV8825-3

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    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 Linguist...

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    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)

    2023

  20. [28]

    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)

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Patrick E Savage. 2019. Cultural evolution of music. Palgrave Communications 5, 1 (2019), 1–12

    2019

  22. [30]

    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

    2024

  23. [31]

    Darci Sprengel. 2024. Can AI in the Music Industry Be Decolonized? https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/events/ 2024/october/can-ai-in-the-music-industry-be-decolonised Accessed: October 24, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    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

    2021

  25. [33]

    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...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Intercontinental Music Awards Team. 2023. Music and AI: The Pros, Cons, and Ethical Implications. Intercontinen- tal Music A wards(2023). https://www.intercontinentalmusicawards.com/music-and-ai-the-pros-cons-and-ethical- implications/

    2023

  27. [35]

    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 ’2...

    2024

  28. [36]

    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)

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    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

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Barret Zoph, Deniz Yuret, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2016. Transfer learning for low-resource neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.02201 (2016). A Tabular Data and Definitions A.1 Definitions (1) The Bauls are mystic minstrels from the Bengal region sprea...

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.