It's good when a first sentence exposes the bias within the post. It makes for shorter reading.

Actually the whole point is that I'm not trying to tell anyone what is art, or what is even music. Just like the quote above, all music is absolutely not a performance art. Someone sitting at home programming classical music in Cubase using VSL libraries is not performing anything at all either. Now that isn't music, or art? Again someone else can make that distinction for everyone, it seems people think these days. One of my favorite old industrial bands was Einsturzende Neubauten, from Germany. It's very difficult to say their recordings were "not art", but someone with a narrow mind and a guitar could easily try to say they weren't making "music". Shopping carts and train bridges as percussive instruments?

If some idiot wants to duct tape a banana to a wall and call it art, who are you are I to say? He made about 6 million dollars and some cryptobro fool ate it after buying it. That's not all that different from Dada or Absurdism.

I don't use AI to make music, and I do not listen to it. I don't care if other people do. The reason why, is because they aren't forcing me to listen to it. I'm not sure where everyone is hearing all this "AI slop" to start with. Which is ironic in itself. People complain AI just reads stuff on the internet and repeats it, it's just text prediction and it doesn't really know anything about the topic. The people saying this are doing the exact same thing! They are regurgitating some words they read on Reddit or in the media. Sounding like whining teenage girls on Tiktok. I see and hear more about " AI Slop" than I actually hear any AI music.

It does not take a genius to not listen to stuff you don't want to hear. And it doesn't take AI to make garbage some people call "music". All you have to do is turn on the radio or download someone else's playlist. When I point out a track someone posts on here is AI, I only do it after the people who complain about AI all the time have lavished praise on a track made with the same technology they supposedly hate and can instantly ID.

The way I have begun to read those comments about "AI Slop", all you have to do is substitute that with " I know I couldn't make that". It is that transparent.

 

Last edited: Feb 4, 2026 at 9:32 AM

You didn't seem to read what I wrote so I guess you actually agree with my point..."Was Lou Reed a great technical singer or could he rip on guitar? Hell no, but what a great artist! Was Jean Michel Basquiat gonna paint the Sistene Chapel, no not that kinda guy, but what a great artist!" Jean Michel wasn't about "Renaissance-level technique" and anybody could see that and I don't believe that he ever tried to go that route. He was my neighbor and liked my dog so I can vouch for both his humanity as well as taste in dog flesh, lol.

I never said that all art is good art though it matters not. People can surely make bad art, AI cannot as it isn't an artist.

Your point about comparing classical to modern art isn't an an argument because you don't explain why "it stops working" when compared to each other. It's still a mystery why you believe so. Keep going so we can understand the why and so to agree or not! Also, suffering isn't a pre-requisite for creating worth in any art form. Joy or neutrality are also motivations.

It can't though. It isn't a person and so not artist.

 

so an ambient artist, or singer-songwriter, or techno or whatever, that creates songs, albums in their home studio, releases them, but does not perform is not an artist?

 

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

According to this pov, what makes art - art, is the person evaluating it. A machine can create art, nature can create art, you don't have to be a human nor call yourself an artist to create art.

Is Gangnam style a work of art? Depends on the listener. At the end you're trying to reach as many people as you can with your ideas. A lot of good artists WILL use gimmicks or other crap just to get to people and then do the "real" art.

 

I dont think anyone is claiming AI is an artist. It still takes a human to use AI (well not really, but thats a different story lol). Im a seasoned musician, composer, producer, artist. If i use AI in my process, that means I am no longer an artist? At what point? 100% Suno generated output? sure, maybe not. What about using AI to help execute my vision in some way? Im still a human, im still creating. Using a combination of tools I am still expressing myself. My brain, life experiences, instruments and technology all come together to create something.

 

A wise saying: Art is when you don't know what the outcome will be.

Most music is first and foremost a learned craft. When developing a song with several musicians, intuition, teamwork, and a bit of luck also come into play. An inner voice or feeling guides them to translate the idea in their head or mind into the real world.

We managed for decades without AI, and the music available for purchase on LPs, CDs, or MP3s is generally of high quality and durable. It didn't need, and still doesn't need, AI. AI is a new business model; people try to sell you something to either make extra money or to save time and money. Using AI for music production is pure self-deception and an additional toy for amusement, pointless activity, and distraction.

Some people constantly need something new to get a small dopamine hit (a brief feeling of happiness), which is why the mountains of trash keep growing. But money doesn't buy happiness; it only calms the nerves. Life often lacks meaning; the materialistic world is a cold, loveless, and hostile environment for humanity.

The music industry is desperate to generate revenue and profits at any cost, and that's why they'll force AI on them, because it's the current and future business model for the music industry in times of tight budgets and limited revenue. It's quite possible that some AI companies will go bankrupt.

Don't abandon the next generation of musicians and creatives; educate them about the disadvantages of using AI.
We need intelligent, creative young people, because they will be the future of the music scene when we're no longer here.

 

@clone & @shinyzen recording in music is largely capturing a performance of some kind. its not difficult to understand why that is, i shouldnt have to explain that to people on a music forum. just like with another performing art acting, films are largely capturing that - its the nature of the disciplines to perform to create

its also not difficult to understand your original point @clone you literally said it already now twice, we can read homie. its just not a good point against what Lois said for discussion, art isnt this tough thing to define. the word literally has a definition and the disciplines have established classifications

 

Last edited: Feb 4, 2026 at 2:44 PM

The line is our ego, its boundaries. “Me” and “not me.”

If you're a performer, you perform music that was composed by someone else. If you're a composer, your music is most likely performed by other people. At least you can't perform it yourself without other people if you have composed music for an ensemble (any sort of ensemble). And anyone who composes music in most cases bases on the music that preceded it. The originality of what we do is overrated. We want originality and think we're original and unique, even though we're not. True originality is a very rare bird.

For some not-so-clear reason, we overvalue the contribution of the individual and forget that music is always a collective product. The author of a loop I am using is a co-writer of “my” composition (actually it's our composition, not mine). Just as in modern pop and rock music, all the musicians in a band are co-authors to one degree or another, because the guitarist, bassist or drummer rarely play exactly what is written in the score (there are no scores in modern bands). A mixing engineer is a co-author too. And the “author” of a composition composed by an AI system also has a huge number of co-writers. But really, he's just the initiator that made “his” composition appear as a file that was made available to other people. And he approved of what AI suggested to him. Without him, this composition would not exist.

The only problem is that we either attribute authorship to ourselves, even though we are not 100% authors, or we attribute authorship to one person, when he or she is not an author in the full sense of the word. We do this mostly unconsciously. No problem arises if we are clear about the extent to which “our” work is ours and do not try to mislead ourselves or others about it.

There's nothing wrong with making music with other people. The forms of collaboration are almost endless.

 

Last edited: Feb 4, 2026 at 3:20 PM

I thought that piece of music that you posted was phenomenal, especially the first half of it and posted my positive reaction to it. My understanding of art is that an artist using the tools creates art, be it visual or musical and anything else tangential. However in my opinion, when a person uses material created by AI which is not of their making, that work transitions to something akin to curation. The work is not entirely their own and depends on the AI corporation's filling in the gaps in order to finalize completion of said song. It might look or sound amazing though isn't categorically what I'll admit into my personal definition of art.

That is a point of view that I don't agree with as only an artist can create art, be it in the eye of the beholder or not. A sophisticated algorithm is not an artist and so cannot create art, it is merely product in order to hopefully be sold for profit. Art need not be sold or even shown to be art. An AI algorithm has no joy of creation for creation sake. I believe one needs to pay to play in one form or another (ads, your data or both those and cash) in order to enjoy the fruits of that service...which translates to it is not of your own creation. To claim the product of that collaboration with a corporate algorithm as one's own and call it art is for me solely a rationalization and one I don't abide to in definition or as well in the deed.

It's just my opinion which doesn't, which my Dad might have said..."Amount to a hill of beans".

 

Of course this is just a POV. But a solid one. If something is art yes or no, is if someone sees it as art. So only your viewer/listener can decide if it's art.

So, according to this thesis, it doesn't matter what created the thing. The only thing that matters is the outcome.

Of course it's all philosophical. There is no WRONG answer. I agree mere AI can't be considered as an artist. Will its creation be considered art? Depends on your view on art.

 

Two people who are way more knowledgeable than any of us will tell you where's the line. In detail.

First:

Second:

The second one is of specific interest to musicians.

 

Hello @euxyh103!

A work of art can open a door or trigger something in your brain or mind, while nothing happens to your neighbor standing right next to it. As you can see, what means something to one person says nothing to another.

If you stand before a painting labeled "AI," this AI-generated painting is certainly not suitable for leisurely contemplation. Rather, it challenges humanity: "Dear artist, we don't need you at all; I can do it too, even if only copied from existing images." We all want artists who create something to be able to make a living from it, or at least deserve our appreciation.

Anyone who has awakened a little will realize that AI and the coming robots fundamentally challenge humanity or even render it superfluous. This rightly frightens people, as does the fear of losing their jobs and thus a purpose and social connections—surely not in the best interests of our society. We want something that was created by humans, that is, by our fellow human beings.

Only maximizing profit at the expense of people is not in our best interests and is therefore detrimental to society.

Ole Ohlendorff - Art
German: https://ohlendorff-art.de
English: https://ohlendorff-art.de/en/

A tribute to late musicians from the rock, pop, beat, blues, jazz, punk scenes. Since 1996, 179 Portraits have already seen the light of day, all in a 80 cm x 130 cm size.

A Picture Gallery of Contemporary Art, that has come from the past and is heading to the future.

Music meets the art of painting.
On the path of legends.
Tracing the origins.
Remembering. Feeling touched.

It’s not about super stars,
It’s about life.
It’s about identity, about impermanence.
It’s about music, dance.
It’s about feelings.

It’s about you
About me
About us.

Let’s keep the fire alive!

 

Last edited: Feb 4, 2026 at 5:03 PM

i will say though since everyone else has to be fair, my perspective is from being a professional recording artist, songwriter, producer and musician, making a living off of it now for almost a decade as lot of people know by now. majority of my income comes from touring on top of that. i see how other professionals feel about using A.I. in the industry, its just not respected in a creative context here in the U.S. - nobody i know getting money like that is using A.I. or working with people who need A.I. - even engineers i know, i remember one telling me: "A.I. is trying to be like me" lol

though i dont think you need to be making money with it to be a music artist, ive made a lot of money but that wasnt always the case. i dont think my music wasnt art because i wasnt making money and i dont think its not now because i am - i agree with the notion of it being a performing art, you have to perform to create regarding music. even sampling, you see someone tracking with a sampler, finger drumming is really out here, its performing and recording that performance, using a kick sample and playing a kick pattern or some digital instrument with a midi, youre still performing. i still consider you a performing artist, if you have to click input it in, youre not a good one but...if youre charging people to make music and youre using A.I. youre scamming imo

its not about if something is art or not to me, that doesnt need to be defined, its about if the art is good or not. sample based genres also come from an appreciation and love of music and sharing that. DJ's have always done that since early radio, its not far fetched to me for a DJ at a club or a DJ and an MC at a house party playing other peoples music (which is what makes them DJ'S) to then use things from records they love in their own music theyre performing with - its the entertainment industry, though a lot of DJ's are also musicians. i see them as just entertainers if thats what theyre doing to make money, not performing artists or musicians, i dont judge them the same because its not the same, thats what DJ's have always done play music for the party. i dont see that same love for the art form with using A.I. that i see with DJ's and producers and samples - so i dont see it the same as sampling. i play instruments and sing at an advanced level from years of discipline, i just cant respect using A.I. because i know what it takes to develop that ability and i dont see a love of music with people that use it - if youre just trying to get a check go off but i cant cosign that as an artist

what i think is the actual line: thousands of years of our species developing music throughout our existence, is being divided by something inhuman we created. historically we divide ourselves from anything inhuman and then amongst ourselves once we dominate. thats all i feel

 

Last edited: Feb 4, 2026 at 5:32 PM

I'm returning to my fundamental concept - when I talk about AI I don't mean "let's generate something based on other's work with a single prompt".
Of course there's a range, like I said. From testing musically if a chord will sit well in the song by asking Cubase chord pads, to using Ozone preset, and then of course the extreme of generating an entire track. Same as with using loops and I imagine artists had the same discussion of using a loop is fair as it's not an original idea.

Then the discussion expanded to what is art, thus my contribution (which tbh I don't really have a solid opinion yet) of a famous quote that defines art.

At the end, AI is not a "bad" word. Usage of AI in medical fields can identify tumors in CTs that doctors will miss.
AI can write code now based on prompts. It's awesome. You don't have to know code to create tools for yourself. So it's not always a bad thing. It's a huge library of all knowledge known to man, and as such I love the idea of testing ideas with it. And I would love for it to understand daw and be able to integrate directly so I can tell it to find a mastering or reverb I liked on a 90s song and generate that for me using Ozone on my track.