Well in fact you're right, I have a conflict of interest, and I should have mentioned that at the begining of my post. Sorry for that. I did not think about that.
And yes I think I need to draw a line between what is acceptable as a musician or not. Because AI is here, and I love thinking how to use AI on a creative way.
We are all musicians, isn't it ?
So, if I look back in the past, I see musicians like hackers. I mean, musicians took something who were not designed to make music originally (animal skin to make drums, then bones to make flutes, etc) and they hacked that to make music on a creative manner. A guitar is just a piece of wood with some nylon or steel strings. A computer, basically, wasn't designed in order to make music. But some prodigies hacked the tool to make music with. The same with sampling. Som guys recorded rain sound, train sound, etc, and they made music with.
Then, AI is a new tool. So, how to hack it in order to create weird things? To create NEW things?
Are we creators? Hackers? Musicians? Or do we look these new things with fear?

Well yes I develop a VST with AI. So yes I have a conflict of interest.
And on another hand, I just invite you to create your own VST. I don't care that you use mine because originally I developed mine for ME, for MY need, with MY vision. And that's ok that your vision is different from mine. Furthermore, it's very that's it is different, because I am very curious about how we could hack these models in order to generate new kind of sounds with, new style of music.

And yes, I have read that someone spoke about pleasure while creating music. I deeply agree with him. Making music need to be a pleasure.
Please, I would be very happy that you don't see me as a guy who has for objective to create a new Suno or Udio solution which create a full song for the user. On another hand, why not using these tools to generate samples and mix them together?
Personnaly, and that's just my opinion, no problem you see things differently, but I think any sound from any source is interesting in itself. It's like the proverb: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
So we could say: The appeal of a sound lies in the ear of the musician.

 

Klaus Schulze once said: There's still room for improvement in the arrangement! You can also improve music and revisit older musical styles. Young musicians want to create and own something of their own. Only later, when they're adults, do they also listen to music from the previous generation.

 

Last edited: Dec 14, 2025 at 8:02 AM

Buy Absynth 6 VST3, learn sound design, and read the manual. You'll quickly realize you don't need AI.

You don't need anything new; it's all there! Don't be blinded by AI's processing power and speed. Learn a craft, like playing an instrument and using plugins. Then, when you still have energy and are young, team up with others and start a band!

If you achieve this goal, you won't need AI.Don't give any more of your skills to machines. Instead, focus on expanding and developing your mental abilities, rather than transferring your skills to a machine. Because in the end, the machine will make you a slave.

 

just when I was recently shown some free jazz tunes made by Suno I was thinking that anytime I prefer my own sloppy playing or anyone else's over the sterile interpetration. on a consumer level even, but certainly on a performing one.

as above said the tools available or even considering generative, granular, chord generators should enable anyone to come up with decent results. Anyone who is at least willing to put minimal effort into the process.

Learning an instrument or any creative tool can be as innocent or rough as you like, but you learn something and even when you evolve slowly you will find someting rewarding in that process, something that brings you closer to yourself.

That experience in itself is pretty much irreplaceable.

 

Ok you know what?
I don't mind about convicing you about using AI tools or not.
What interest me now would be to share a bit of our respective musical path. After that I purpose you that we debate. I purpose you that as a first step because we can project a lot of things on each other without knowing anything on each other too? Then, having a debate is a waste of time.
So, my purposition is:
I share my youtube chanel
You share yours, or you soundcloud or whatever.

But let's meet us around our musical stuff. Not for any competition, but in order to meet us with our creative facette. Then, let's speak together after.
Does that sound fair for you?

Here is my youtube chanel:
https://www.youtube.com/@innermost9675

 

The thing is that the audio generative ecosystem is roughly where Stable Diffusion was back in 2022, before ControlNets, IPAdapters, regional prompting and all that fine-grained control stuff exploded. Right now with audio models you throw a prompt in, cross your fingers, and hope for the best. That's it. Very little intermediate control. Zero granular experimentation.

I've tried doing audio-to-audio diffusion the same way you'd do img2img, playing with noise levels, denoising strength, etc. Results? Meh. Not quite there yet. What I'd kill for is something like ControlNets but for audio, conditioning on rhythm, on timbre, on melodic contour separately. We're not there yet with open or close source models.

So yeah, the only "AI" I use in my compositions is Synthesizer V for vocals (mostly because I'm way too introverted and inconsistent to bug real singers with my weird shit) but you have granular control over the output. For actual composition and sound design? I'm just faster and having more fun doing it the "old way" in my DAW. The muscle memory is there, the ear is trained, and frankly the AI tools don't give me the control I want yet. Audio models outputs are a bad joke, tbh.

The tech for audio just isn't mature enough for the experimental, hands-on workflow some of us want. I don't need a DAW with generative AI and zero control over the output, I need people like Matt3o and his IPAdapter to push the bounderies on what we can do with sound on the latent space. That would be something very interesting to try. Prompt for a techno kick? As fun as searching through a poor quality sample library.

 

nice idea but won’t work, would be difficult because AI makes music in any genre its not not limited but all you listed still has the boundaries of the genre, well maybe except muzak being a more broad definition.
I wouldn’t call it music at all. Some new word is needed - Music is created by humans, a mix of their creativity, emotions, experiences, soul and culture, everything a machine simply cannot have. And AI cant create new genres as humans just mimick those that are already discovered. Real art is the path of disappointments and successes, the path of blood, sweat, and tears, happy accidents, stories behind every song. That’s what shall never be behind AI

 

Last edited: Dec 14, 2025 at 1:22 AM

I mean it's not even about AI, not the main part.
The OP's marketing his project. I don't think it's the best idea nor the kind of way to do it. Thread title, WTF?

 

Of course that’s coming to DAWs — they’re all working on it.

All this AI stuff is probably the way things are heading.

It’ll hardly be possible for artists to do anything without AI anymore, at least until people start turning away from AI-generated media in noticeable numbers.

Even today, there are still people who listen to music on shellac record players, play on Super Nintendos, or drive old cars… but the majority will get used to the AI stuff.

There’s not much we’ll be able to do about it. As soon as you make a good song, AI grabs it and uses it...

 

First, please note that this is my personal opinion.

Future generations may conclude that it was strange that people could make a living from entertainment like music and art in the first place.

That said, technology and change cannot be stopped. It's not a personal trend, but simply humanity's natural evolution. And if we don't judge whether it's good or bad, everything is impermanent.


So what will actually happen going forward? First, people without musical ability will be given ways to enjoy music. Next, I believe future artists will produce all their own music, art, writing, and other entertainment. This allows them to convey what they want to express more accurately and from multiple angles.

That's all. I tried to answer this without including my own values. Thanks for reading my poor English.

 

well, I could be wrong, but that’s how it seems to me: I think we are now living through a cultural shift, and all music and art are divided into before AI and after AI. The value of art, as such, will be greatly reduced because every creator can now be suspected of having used AI,
if almost anyone could make some music for themselves using algorithms.
Soon, a sign or symbol will be common among creators, indicating that the content was produced without the help of AI to distance themselves from it. The main value of musical art will partially return to what it began with: the mastery of live performance which is probably a good thing.

 

If I assumed, which is the mother of all fuckups, that anyone who creates music from any source can call themselves a musician...
Then using the defined terms of what a performing instrument playing musician is and always has been, it gets split into three sub-sections.
1. You are a trained performing instrument-playing musician, or,
2. If you only create from other peoples samples or samples, or only MIDI sequencing, or are a DJ who does not play an instrument, you are an editor.
3. If you solely rely on A.I by creating lyrics or use A.I in a DAW having no musical idea of scale-chord harmony, no knowledge of rhythms or polyrhythms, no knowledge of counterpoint, or form, or structure, or why certain notes sound better than others and let the A.I do it for you, then you are the bottom-feeding parasite of the music industry that leeches off the skills of others that the A.I has already taken from, or as they are finding more often, stolen. You are an amateur lyricist and nothing more.

 

Last edited: Dec 14, 2025 at 8:29 AM

You've decided to use AI, you've created a product, and that certainly took a lot of work and energy. Of course, you want to bring this product to market. Is there a market for it? Yes! Does it have advantages? Yes! Does it have disadvantages? Yes! It's only natural that you'd offer your product here in the forum, for example, with the goal of getting it to musicians. You were certainly aware beforehand that not everyone would like or want your product.

I visited your YouTube channel and they were very hardworking, but they already use AI in their music production, so they've gone down the AI path and there's no going back.

 

Last edited: Dec 14, 2025 at 8:53 AM

Point number 3.

Right now, YouTube is being flooded with endless amounts of garbage AI tracks and mixes.

The videos all look equally ridiculous, and on top of that, they often say things like
“deep XXX mix, mastered by a human pro audio technician” or some other nonsense.

There’s no sign anywhere of the required AI disclosure in YouTube’s Creator Studio mode...

I really hope this AI junk doesn’t end up driving real artists away from YouTube.

 

I think YouTube needs more time to implement its existing AI policy. There should also be a filter to hide synthetic AI content.

 

And which category does a Bedouin, who plays his two-string rebab from time to time at village festivals and weddings, never trained and playing intuitively without knowing the notes or music theory, fall into? Or a rapper trained in theory, who eats counterpoint for breackfust but uses samples from 60s funk records? Or electronic experimental musicians using field recordings and found sounds? Or early-type Black Mississippi blues improvisation musicians? Or beatboxers looping their voice samples? You are putting out lots of creators.

 

Indeed it doesn't matter if there is ai music or not.
People complained about commercialized music industry now they complain about the potential for inflationary created non commercial music.

 

@Synclavier, you described that very precisely, I'll add a few sentences:

Untrained Musicians

The term "untrained" generally refers to people who lack formal musical training (music college, conservatory, university studies) but create, release, or perform music. In the music industry, career changes are very common; many producers, songwriters, or live musicians are self-taught or have acquired their knowledge through practical experience.

Untrained musicians are primarily found in freelance, creative fields such as bands, solo acts, producing, DJing, or songwriting. In addition, activities such as home recording, mixing for others, busking, or small commissioned work for advertising, podcasts, or social media are also common.

 

But that's a bit superficial, because humans aren't even in your equation anymore. Who are these "people"? If you uncritically observe what's happening and do nothing about it, nothing will change. We should discuss it, exchange facts and arguments so that a balanced opinion can be formed.

 

Just to clarify something first: when you say “they”, do you think my YouTube channel represents several composers?
It’s actually only me — a single composer.

Also, I think there may be an assumption that everything I do involves AI, which isn’t the case.
For example, here are a few tracks with zero AI involved:

– Personal composition (feat.):

– Cover:

– Personal composition:

– Personal composition:

So I’m curious:
what exactly makes you say that I’ve “gone down an AI path with no return”?
Are you talking about the use of a tool in some projects, or about an artistic identity you’re attributing to me?