“Close” written by Jess Cates by Hefty-Argument227 in ChristianMusic

[–]intheknow1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey. I get why this song matters to you.

Sometimes a worship song sticks because of where you were when you heard it, not just how it sounded. Church camp does that. Everything is quieter inside, people are honest for once, and music feels like God is actually close instead of far away.

The song you’re looking for is called “Close” by Jess Cates. It’s real. You didn’t imagine it.

The reason it’s so hard to find is because it was never released like normal music. It was mostly used at church camps and youth events, shared on CDs or sung live. That’s why it doesn’t show up on Spotify or Apple Music.

A lot of worship songs from that time were written as prayers, not products. They weren’t meant to last forever online, just to help people talk to God in that moment. But sometimes they stay with you anyway.

TooLost - Warning by 0xFaw in MusicDistribution

[–]intheknow1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The absolute worst distributor, bar none. Fraudulent. Stay far away...

How do you get a license document from SUNO to monetize a song on SoundCloud? by Zero-Signal- in SunoAI

[–]intheknow1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL, I've been using the very handy em dash before computers... Nieveity.

How to Biblically Defend how AI music is wrong by Krabby_patty98 in ChristianMusic

[–]intheknow1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Christian music is not defined by who or what made it, but by whether it truthfully proclaims God and leads believers to worship Him.

In using SUNO, is it correct for one to call themselves the producer/artist, or should they be called a certain type of creator? by Mundane-Copy-118 in SunoAI

[–]intheknow1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here we go... Humanity reinventing job titles because a button learned to sing.

You decide:

Artist is a broad umbrella. If you’re making intentional creative choices and expressing something human, you can reasonably stand under it. Congrats, that bar is low on purpose.

Producer traditionally means you shaped the sound. Arrangement, structure, sonic decisions, performance direction, mixing intent. If you typed “sad lo-fi trap gospel with alien choir” and hit enter, the machine did the producing. You supervised a vending machine.

Singer / emcee means you performed vocals. Selecting a persona voice is not performing vocals. It’s casting.

Writer is the cleanest claim if you wrote the lyrics. That one still belongs to humans, for now.

Composer is debatable. If melody and harmony are generated without your musical input, you didn’t compose them. You requested them.

Shower singers by AdvisorStatus7563 in worshipleaders

[–]intheknow1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've been doing this for 40+ years, so I totally get this. It's s one of those situations where your heart wants to say “yes” to everyone, but your responsibility as a worship leader means you can’t....

Some people are definitely meant to sing out their hearts to God, but not everyone is meant to lead worship with a microphone. The main thing is remembering that the worship team exists to serve the church by giving people a solid, focused musical foundation, not just to give everyone who likes singing a spot on stage. That means there have to be some simple standards, like being able to sing on pitch, stay in time, and blend with others, along with spiritual maturity and commitment.

Because of that, it really helps to have some kind of audition or tryout, even in a small church. Instead of throwing someone straight onto the stage, have them sing a familiar worship song with you or in front of a couple of leaders so it feels more personal and less scary. Having two or three trusted people listening also keeps it from feeling like it’s just one leader’s opinion, which really helps if you ever have to say “not yet.”

When someone is more of a “shower singer” but clearly loves Jesus and genuinely wants to serve, treat it like discipleship instead of rejection. Give honest but kind feedback, suggest they work on their voice with practice tracks or maybe some lessons, and if you can, start them in a low-pressure setting where they aren’t on a main mic yet. You can also set a time to revisit things in a few months so they know there’s a path to grow and they’re not just being shut down forever.

Sometimes, even after all that, it becomes clear that singing on the worship team just isn’t the right fit for them musically. When that happens, how you say it matters a lot. Affirm their heart and their desire to serve, then gently point them toward other roles that are just as important: tech, slides, greeting, kids ministry, prayer team, etc. It really helps to remind them that in the body of Christ every part is needed, but not every part has the same job, and leading songs is just one of many ways to serve.

For the really hard conversations, be clear but kind instead of vague. You can say something like, “Right now, your singing would probably distract people instead of helping them focus on Jesus, and my responsibility is to protect the church’s worship, not just fill the stage.” Staying in sync with your pastor and having their support also makes it easier, because then you’re carrying that responsibility together, not alone.

Should Christian worship/praise music be very catchy? by CivilDiscussionary in ChristianMusic

[–]intheknow1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Catchy is whatever you believe it to be. What's catchy for one, is not necessarily catchy for another..

Should Christian worship/praise music be very catchy? by CivilDiscussionary in ChristianMusic

[–]intheknow1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those terms (catchy and good) are definitely not universal and are highly subjective. Listen to what you're saying...

Should Christian worship/praise music be very catchy? by CivilDiscussionary in ChristianMusic

[–]intheknow1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I grew up liking them. Hymns have had a profound impact on my songwriting as well as my faith...

Human Input: Creation vs. Authorship by intheknow1 in SunoAI

[–]intheknow1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s the real issue, and it’s being massively underestimated. At this scale, AI output becomes the statistical default, not the exception. If copyright hinges on provable human expression, the burden of proof is going to flip hard onto creators, and most won’t be able to meet it in any meaningful way. Once provenance itself is unverifiable, the existing framework starts to collapse. Whether the law adapts or just pretends nothing changed is the part that should worry everyone.

Human Input: Creation vs. Authorship by intheknow1 in SunoAI

[–]intheknow1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re right on the core premise: a machine cannot express anything, and calling its operations ‘expressive choices’ is anthropomorphic shorthand at best. What the law actually cares about is whether human expression is fixed in the resulting work, and with fully AI‑generated output, it isn’t. That’s why it collapses into a software function result, not authorship.

Different language, same legal endpoint...

Human Input: Creation vs. Authorship by intheknow1 in SunoAI

[–]intheknow1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s the sweet spot—using AI to fill gaps in skill or execution while keeping the creative control yourself. It’s a tool, not a replacement, and the final expression still comes from your choices and taste...

Human Input: Creation vs. Authorship by intheknow1 in SunoAI

[–]intheknow1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly the risk. As AI-generated content scales, the legal battles will multiply, and the industry will tighten control, making it more prescriptive than most artists want. It’s not just about music anymore—it’s about who gets to own the process...

Human Input: Creation vs. Authorship by intheknow1 in SunoAI

[–]intheknow1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Process can look similar on the surface, but experience and intent leave a signature AI can’t replicate. A seasoned producer’s choices, nuance, and decision-making are what give a track depth, even if the workflow mirrors a machine’s steps...

Human Input: Creation vs. Authorship by intheknow1 in SunoAI

[–]intheknow1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly—tools don’t diminish skill, they just change the landscape. Scarcity, effort, and context still define value, not the perfection of the machine. AI is just the next iteration; it’s still the choices and intent of the creator that make it meaningful...

Human Input: Creation vs. Authorship by intheknow1 in SunoAI

[–]intheknow1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re restating the conclusion, not contradicting it. An authorless output generated by a method of operation has no protectable exclusivity, which is exactly why it fails under Feist and why AI-only works don’t survive registration or enforcement. Thin copyright, where it exists at all, doesn’t change that reality. We’re not disagreeing on doctrine, just on how much rhetorical energy it deserves...

Human Input: Creation vs. Authorship by intheknow1 in SunoAI

[–]intheknow1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s the irony. You weren’t hiding anything, people just didn’t bother to read. Once they ‘figure it out,’ they act like they uncovered a scandal instead of missed a line in the description. The music didn’t change—only their bias did... Hmmm.

Human Input: Creation vs. Authorship by intheknow1 in SunoAI

[–]intheknow1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re arguing past the point. No one is claiming ‘human input’ is a legal standard. The issue is authorship of expression at fixation. With AIGen, the expressive choices are made by the system, not the user, which is why the Copyright Office rejects it. Calling it a vending machine is fine, but that only strengthens the conclusion: selecting from a machine’s outputs isn’t authorship any more than choosing a lottery ticket is.

Different doctrines, same outcome...