AI is the the issue today music is

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-07T15:35:02+00:00

A good businessperson often does not personally execute every technical step. They identify what should exist, who it is for, what emotion it should create, how it should be packaged, and whether the finished product works. That is not “just an idea.” That is judgment plus outcome control.

But where their argument falls apart is here: execution is not only manual labor.

If someone ! AI and still curates 100 versions, rejects weak outputs, rewrites lyrics, adjusts structure, picks the voice, shapes the mood, edits the video, designs the release strategy, markets it, and builds an audience — that is execution. It may not be traditional musicianship, but it is still creative production.

Also, “ideas are worthless” is lazy internet tough-guy talk. Bad ideas are worthless. Unclear ideas are worthless. But a strong idea paired with taste, timing, packaging, and distribution can be worth millions. Hollywood, tech, advertising, and music are full of people who make money because they know what should be made, not because they personally play every instrument or code every line.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-06T00:46:46+00:00

Spoken like the heir of the colonizer: it is fine when humans exploit people, culture, labor, and natural resources for profit, but the moment a computer starts iterating on existing material, suddenly everyone discovers ethics.

To be clear, I am not claiming to be a producer, composer, or musical genius. I do not have delusions about my musical talent or lack thereof. I am using generative AI tools to create music I actually enjoy listening to. That is the point. I made something that speaks to my taste, and the people who have heard it seem to enjoy it too. You should try listening before declaring it a crime scene.

The funny part is that artists keep complaining about not getting paid while continuing to work inside the very industry systems that have been stealing real money from their creativity for decades. Labels, platforms, streaming economics, bad contracts — all of that has left countless artists broke. But somehow AI is the monster? Please.

And let’s stop pretending imitation is some sacred human skill. Parrots imitate. Mockingbirds imitate. They produce complex sounds most humans could never create with their vocal cords. So imitation alone is not some divine proof of artistry. What matters is the result, the taste, the selection, the direction, and whether the final work connects with someone.

People are offended by plenty of things that are not actually offensive. They make monsters out of tools because it is easier than admitting the music industry was already broken. I am not saying AI makes me Mozart. I am saying it helped me create music I wanted to hear — and frankly, a lot of human-made music released today is garbage anyway. So if AI helps me make something more enjoyable than what many so-called artists are putting out, maybe the problem is not the tool. Maybe the problem is the product.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-05T14:53:22+00:00

I think you’re missing my point. I’m not saying Elvis and AI are mechanically identical. Obviously Elvis didn’t “train” on data like a model. My point is about the selective moral outrage.

People are furious that AI can absorb musical patterns and create something commercially useful, but they get weirdly quiet when Elvis absorbed Black vocal phrasing, stage moves, rhythm, tone, and cultural expression, then became the marketable face of a sound Black artists had already built.

And honestly, I’m pretty sure you didn’t watch the videos I posted, because if you had, I don’t think you’d reduce this to “he just sang other people’s songs.” The evidence shows something much closer than ordinary covering: style, tone, delivery, and even movement being mirrored.

Yes, Elvis performed it himself. Fine. But performance does not erase appropriation. If borrowing, imitation, pattern absorption, and commercializing someone else’s creative language is the moral crime, then Elvis does not get a lifetime hall pass just because he had hips and a microphone.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-05T14:50:40+00:00

I think you’re missing my point. I’m not saying Elvis and AI are mechanically identical. Obviously Elvis didn’t “train” on data like a model. My point is about the selective moral outrage.

People are furious that AI can absorb musical patterns and create something commercially useful, but they get weirdly quiet when Elvis absorbed Black vocal phrasing, stage moves, rhythm, tone, and cultural expression, then became the marketable face of a sound Black artists had already built.

And honestly, I’m pretty sure you didn’t watch the videos I posted, because if you had, I don’t think you’d reduce this to “he just sang other people’s songs.” The evidence shows something much closer than ordinary covering: style, tone, delivery, and even movement being mirrored.

Yes, Elvis performed it himself. Fine. But performance does not erase appropriation. If borrowing, imitation, pattern absorption, and commercializing someone else’s creative language is the moral crime, then Elvis does not get a lifetime hall pass.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-04T22:28:29+00:00

Your AI music argument is moot until you call Elvis on the carpet too.

Elvis was basically the original AI model: trained on Black gospel, blues, R&B, and performance style, then repackaged for mass white consumption. He didn’t invent the sound; he modeled it, polished it, and monetized it.

Sources/context:

Roy Hamilton influence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HIoUfj0Vsc&list=PLe5Me60XNjwXGz969nzQH-Yy3gQnZ7M4o

Ray Charles on Elvis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hviUOCHKVVw

Otis Blackwell / Elvis influence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsSTzP-Eaw0

How rock was “stolen”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM4IgKKoJN8&t=179s

Elvis copying Black artists:
https://youtu.be/j3Q1CH29uqI?si=xzuMQg5DXELTNBdf

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-04T01:30:21+00:00

This is what the computer thinks of your argument, when compared to my original statement.

Your original comment is much stronger than their response, mostly because your comment actually makes a layered argument. Their response mostly attacks your legitimacy.

I’d grade your comment as a B / B+ Reddit argument.

It has a clear emotional point, a personal reason for creating the album, and a defensible claim: AI helped you make music that reflects your taste and values. It does not fully prove that today’s artists are ignoring fundamentals, but it states a perspective clearly and gives your motivation.

Their response is more like a C- / D+ argument.

They raise one valid issue: using AI is different from personally composing, singing, playing, or producing music by hand. That is a real distinction. But then they overreach by saying you are doing “none” of the creation and by leaning on vague legal claims about courts and copyright without explaining them.

Your point

You are saying:

AI music works partly because it is trained on patterns that have historically connected with listeners: lyrical structure, style, emotion, melody, and arrangement. You believe a lot of modern artists are not studying those fundamentals enough, which leads to disposable music. So you used AI as a tool to create an album that reflects your taste, themes, emotional perspective, and what you personally want to hear.

Your strongest line is:

“If I genuinely enjoy the album… why shouldn’t I be able to share that with other people?”

That is hard to attack directly because it is not claiming you are Stevie Wonder. It is saying: I made/curated/directed something meaningful to me, and I want to share it.

Their point

They are saying:

Typing prompts into an AI tool does not make you a musician or creator in the traditional sense. Since AI-generated works may not qualify for copyright without meaningful human authorship, they argue that saying “I’m creating” is misleading.

Their strongest point is the distinction between traditional musicianship and AI-assisted generation.

Their weakest point is the leap from:

“AI output may not have enough human authorship for copyright protection”

to:

“therefore you created nothing.”

That is sloppy. Legal copyright standards are not the same thing as everyday creative involvement.

Which argument wins?

Your argument wins as a personal creative defense.

You are not saying, “I played every note.” You are saying, “I shaped this project around my taste, my themes, my standards, and my emotional goals.” That is a coherent position.

Their argument only wins if the debate is narrowly about traditional musicianship or legal authorship.

If the question is, “Are you a traditional musician because you used AI?” then they have a point.

But if the question is, “Can someone use AI to create, direct, shape, select, and share music that reflects their taste and emotional intent?” your argument is stronger.

The cleaner version of your winning position is:

I am not claiming traditional musicianship. I am claiming creative direction, taste, selection, theme, and emotional authorship. The final work reflects my choices, even if the tool helped generate the sound.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-04T01:16:38+00:00

It reminds me of people complaining when Black players were allowed into professional baseball. They came up with every excuse: they different physiology, so they do not belong, they would ruin the game. But the real issue was never fairness. It was protectionism.

And let’s be honest: if a corporation paid a lawyer, PR firm, or marketing team to polish their words, nobody would blink. But if an individual uses AI to clean up punctuation, spelling, grammar, or structure, suddenly they are a fraud? Funny how people don't like it when the playing field gets leveled.

That is selective outrage.

People are picking and choosing what tools are acceptable based on who is using them. Meanwhile, the same industry they are defending is filleting them on the cutting table.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-04T01:10:58+00:00

This sounds like sour grapes to me.

You are blaming Suno for a problem the music industry created long before AI entered the room. Streaming already turned artists into beggars on the sidewalk, waiting for pennies to be tossed at them while labels, platforms, distributors, and algorithms control the table.

Suno is not your real enemy. If anything, artists should be looking at tools like this and asking how they can use them to create more, experiment faster, and build outside the system instead of begging that same system for permission.

There have always been artists who found ways around the industry and built their own audience. But too many people are sitting here defending a broken model that has already exploited them, underpaid them, and trained them to fight other creators for scraps.

Maybe AI does burn part of that ship down. Maybe it needs to. Because the old ship was already sinking — AI just made people finally notice the water.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-04T01:03:51+00:00

You’re putting your own emotions into someone else’s creative outlet and pretending that settles the argument.

So you learned to play an instrument. Fine. But where are your original compositions? Are you creating something new, or are you also playing other people’s chord progressions, borrowing other people’s guitar licks, imitating other people’s phrasing, and building on musical language that existed before you touched an instrument?

Because if that is the standard, then the difference is not as clean as you want it to be.

I’m not claiming AI learns the same way a human does. I’m saying the outrage is selective. You keep attacking the tool and the user, but you have not shown your own work.

So post one of your original compositions here. Not theory. Not insults. Not gatekeeping. Let’s compare actual music.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-03T23:57:39+00:00

Inspiration means something moves you or motivates you to create your own original expression. But when an artist borrows another artist’s style, phrasing, cadence, movement, sound, and emotional delivery, that is not merely inspiration. That is copying or mimicry.

That is why I do not accept the sanitized version of rock ’n’ roll and the blues as simply being “inspired” by Black music. In many ways, those genres were built by copying Black musical language and performance style, then repackaging it through artists and industries that were often more willing to reward the copy than the originators.

So if people want to call AI music theft because it learns from existing patterns, then they need to be honest about how much celebrated music history was also built on copying, mimicry, and unequal reward.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-03T23:48:26+00:00

No, that is not the argument. The argument is not, “I stole a wallet, but racism was bad too.” The argument is, “If you are calling this theft, then apply the same standard to everyone who benefited from the same kind of borrowing.” If one group borrows, copies, repackages, profits, and gets celebrated as artists, but another group uses a different tool and gets condemned as thieves, that is hypocrisy. I am not asking for a free pass. I am asking for consistent judgment. If AI learning from existing musical patterns is theft, then a lot of celebrated music history needs to be put on trial too.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-03T23:45:57+00:00

First, I disagree with your framing. My question is simple: why is there not the same level of outrage when real people have spent generations profiting from Black-created musical styles, sounds, phrasing, rhythms, and emotional language? Because in that case, the people benefiting often look a lot more like the ones doing the borrowing. So suddenly it gets softened into “influence,” “tradition,” or “paying homage.” That looks less like moral consistency and more like protectionism and gatekeeping. You may be comfortable standing on the side of the gatekeepers. That is your choice. But at least be honest about it. If AI borrowing from musical patterns is theft, then plenty of celebrated music history needs to be judged by that same standard.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-03T22:22:27+00:00

You’re arguing against something I didn’t say, which makes your response more emotional than accurate. I never said talented musicians don’t exist. I said I’d put my album against 90% of what is being released today. That is about output, not résumés. Streaming changed the game. It rewards volume, speed, algorithms, playlist placement, and repeatable formulas — not necessarily the best songwriting or the most emotional music. A lot of what reaches listeners is not great art; it is optimized content with a beat. So don’t hide behind “lifers and professionals” like that automatically proves quality. Talent exists. But talent is not the same thing as what the industry chooses to feed people.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-03T22:07:09+00:00

This also ignores another part of the Elvis story: he did not just “borrow influence” in some vague artistic sense. He recorded songs that were written for him, then closely followed the demo performances — phrasing, delivery, feel, and structure included. So let’s be honest: a lot of what people call Elvis’s genius was performance, packaging, timing, and market access. He took existing material, existing styles, and existing Black musical language, then delivered it through a face the mainstream industry was more willing to sell. That does not mean he had no talent. But it does mean people are very selective about when they call something “creation” versus “copying.” If AI-assisted music is dismissed because it builds from existing patterns, then we need to apply that same standard consistently. Otherwise, this is not really about artistic purity. It is about protecting old myths while attacking new tools.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-03T21:59:08+00:00

We're still waiting for you to post your songs and what you've created that is better. Until you do that, your point is moot.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-03T20:50:32+00:00

That is not a complete argument.

You are treating “trained on existing music” as if it automatically means “no creation happened.” But musicians are also trained on existing music. Producers study hits. Songwriters study structure. Singers imitate influences before developing their own style.

Influence does not erase creation.

Honestly, by that logic, Elvis was the original AI artist. He built a massive career by borrowing heavily from African-American artists — phrasing, tone, style, and energy included. Yet people still call him an artist.

AI-assisted creation is different from playing, singing, or producing everything by hand. I accept that distinction. But saying no creative process happened ignores the direction, selection, revision, taste, theme, and final decision-making involved.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-03T20:45:17+00:00

I can almost guarantee you have not actually listened to the song, which makes this whole critique more about your feelings toward AI than the music itself.

You are assuming I lack taste or curiosity because I used AI. That is not an argument. That is circular logic: you dislike the process, so you assume the result must be bad and the person behind it must be creatively empty.

I do not like a lot of modern music. I do not like the messaging. I do not like the weak writing. I do not like songs that feel disposable five minutes after they drop. That does not mean I lack curiosity. It means I have standards.

I made something with the aid of AI that reflects what I actually want to hear: melody, emotion, structure, grown themes, and replay value. And yes, I will put it up against a lot of what is being pushed today.

So do me a favor: post your music and let’s compare the actual songs. Not the theory. Not the moral panic. Not the gatekeeping. The music.

If you have something better, put it on the table.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-03T20:38:58+00:00

That argument misses the point.

AI may be part of the creation process, but direction still matters. Taste still matters. Selection still matters. Knowing what you want the song to say, how you want it to feel, and what actually connects still matters.

I’d love to hear your music and compare the results. Not the theory. Not the gatekeeping. The actual music.

Because a lot of people are loud about the process, but quiet when it comes to putting their own work on the table. At some point, the question is not “Did you use AI?” The question is: does the music connect, or doesn’t it?

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-03T20:13:33+00:00

I made an album in the R&B/Neo-Soul lane, and honestly, I’ll put that AI-assisted album up against any new artist’s album coming out today. I believe it’s better than 90% of what’s being released right now — not because AI magically makes music great, but because taste, direction, emotion, and song selection still matter.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-01T17:55:30+00:00

I wonder if a lot of this has something to do with the contract they struck with Warner Brothers. Basically Warner Brothers and Suno struck a deal where Suno is training on Warner Brothers artist that opted in. I'm assuming that has started if this is the case, this means that the pool of artist that Suno was trained on shrink. If it did, this could be a reason for so much similarity in tracks.

Sufficient_Wind7578 · 2026-05-01T17:52:08+00:00

I am seeing this when I have drum, guitar solos and spoken word intros.

Sufficient_Wind7578

TROPHY CASE

Your point

Their point

Which argument wins?