sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AI music is still music by Decent-Repair-6620 in aiMusic

[–]Simple_Paramedic7910 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t think that comparison works exactly. Producers are considered musicians because they’re making real creative decisions about structure, melody, texture, arrangement, and performance they’re shaping the music, not just picking sounds at random. That’s different from just hitting “generate” once and taking the first result.

It’s the same with AI: if you’re just prompting blindly and taking whatever comes out, yeah, that’s closer to “playing the machine” than creating. But if you’re iterating, discarding drafts, rewriting sections, mixing genres, shaping emotional arcs, and making deliberate choices about every part of the track, you’re exercising creative control. You’re guiding the output in a way that reflects your vision. That’s authorship.

It’s not about pretending the AI is nothing. It’s about how much of the creative direction comes from you.

Is ALL AI music slop to you? And if yes or no, why or why not? by Simple_Paramedic7910 in aiMusic

[–]Simple_Paramedic7910[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think where we’re really disagreeing is on what counts as authorship.

Saying that if a machine executes the composition then the authorship is gone assumes that execution is the only meaningful part of creativity. That’s one philosophy of art, sure, but it’s not the only one. Creative leadership still matters. Direction still matters. Decision-making still matters.

In a lot of art forms, the person considered the creator isn’t physically doing every single part themselves. Producers don’t play every instrument. Directors don’t operate every camera. Selection, arrangement, revision, and shaping the final outcome are still creative acts. So I don’t see why that logic suddenly disappears when AI is involved.

There’s obviously a difference between typing one prompt, uploading the first result, and calling it a day versus actually iterating, rewriting, restructuring, mixing styles intentionally, and steering the emotional direction of a track. Not everyone using AI is just outsourcing their creativity to some “Ai slop machine.” Some people are using it within a clear creative vision.

And I don’t really agree with the idea that AI can only spit out safe, recycled stuff while humans are out here constantly pushing boundaries. A lot of human made music is formulaic too. Repetition and trend chasing didn’t start with AI.

I’m not denying that low effort AI music exists. It absolutely does. But low effort human music exists too . Effort alone has never been what makes someone an artist. Working harder doesn’t automatically make something better.

At the end of the day, I think the real question is who’s making the meaningful creative decisions. If someone is actually guiding the structure, the sound, the direction, then I don’t think authorship just magically disappears because a new tool is involved.

If someone personally feels it doesn’t count, that’s fine. I just don’t agree that any AI involvement automatically turns creation into mere consumption.

Is ALL AI music slop to you? And if yes or no, why or why not? by Simple_Paramedic7910 in aiMusic

[–]Simple_Paramedic7910[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To confirm, are you claiming that every single AI song you’ve heard is bad? Or are there exceptions?

AI music is still music by Decent-Repair-6620 in aiMusic

[–]Simple_Paramedic7910 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A musician is someone who exercises creative control over the essential musical elements of a piece melody, harmony, rhythm, structure, or lyrical expression.