Not sure about the stated principal, but I do think it follows the policy nicely. Yes, you can upload your AI generated music, but it will be tagged as such, and you cannot profit from it.

Would you really like to take action and earn less money? Morality is dead...

The flood of AI music on their platform is becuase people can make money off it. If you turn off that faucet you stop the flooding.

Spotify is the same. This impersonation ought to be illegal.

I've encountered AI copies of songs from popular artists, hopefully this will stop or at least slow that down. I suspect the only reason those songs are uploaded is because people will accidentally listen to it and then the up loader gets the streaming revenue.

Do you have some impersonated artist names I would be able to look up? This isn't a thing I have (knowingly) run into on Spotify yet and I'm really curious to see more

I'm pretty sure it is. Effective enforcement is a different matter.

It will be super premium pro plan:)

it won't be monetized so there's zero incentive to upload AI slop to Tidal

I think this is also a reason why X has gotten worse. They pay people for engagement.

Maybe on a less expensive super premium plus plan, you only see ai-generated content, but it’s at the highest quality streaming tier.

Unless they directly embed promotions in it. I could see this being an avenue for brand-derived fake artists. I wonder if they already have a policy for that and I wonder why it wouldn’t apply to, say, the beastie boys talking about adidas.

There is only zero incentive if the filter detects AI music reliably. It's still a race between effective detection and cost to generate content, isn't it?

Why would someone doing that voluntarily tag their content as AI? they can make money by hiding it.

They say only wholly produced music using AI can't be monetized, nothing stopping it's 95% AI and 5% Human. Also no concerete definitions of what that even means.

> X has gotten worse

It's actually gotten better for those of us that value all sides of a given story so we can come to our own conclusions, instead of parroting stuff we hear in bubbles. I don't know anyone that's paid to engage, including myself.

How exactly can you even make Twitter worse than what it already was in 2022?

I think that they mentioned both wholly produced music or substantially produced music. I think that it will be a fuzzy line but for example in the case of 95% AI and 5% human probably won't work.

You get both the white nationalist and the antisemite sides, yes.

X pays you for engagement if you have the premium subscription. Anyone with a verification symbol will be earning money from significant engagement, hence the rise of engagement bait on the platform.

Paid to engage is a reference to the creator revenue sharing that encourages mass-appeal and ragebait content.

X is not a meritocracy of ideas, either.

Mechahitler sure isn't helping.

If there's a market, then a competitor app with different policies will likely arise.

The other aspect that's missing from the discussion here is LEGAL. If Tidal is making money from stolen music -- although arguably they still are by offering it on a subscription basis -- then that opens them up to litigation. From that perspective, this may double both as risk-mitigation and also a marketing opportunity for them, would love an attorney to weigh in there.

(From the comments here, Spotify is the market leader and already pays out for AI generated music. But I can't say that independently.)

I appreciate a platform for art to at least attempt at maintaining the semblance of it being for humans. If AI 'artists' disagree, they can boycott Tidal and not post their songs there. For me that is a feature that I actually really value, because AI slop making Spotify money has materially worsened my experience in that platform.

I think the question Theo asks is the most relevant: Do you think [an AI-generated song] holds as much value? And I think we've been asking this question for years now, in different contexts: recorded music (records), copyable music (dual cassette recorders, CD-burners, mp3s), sampled music (of other artists' songs), AutoTune (basically removing the human singer from the song), etc. I feel like we've been marching toward this for nearly a hundred years now, replacing the human connection to the music with something artificial.

Let me preface this by agreeing that we should have platforms for only human-generated music.

> Music is about connecting to human emotions, not poor facsimiles of it.

Like most things, this is an overgeneralization. In general, I agree, but not always.

While most AI-generated content is not going to appeal to most people, it's wrong to say that all AI-generated music is not about what music is about. Personally I find _some_ AI generated music to be amazingly fun to listen to, but mostly it's parodies or works that are essentially built on top of existing media.

A creative person using AI well can produce art that people enjoy and which adds to our culture (I selectively choose not to say "create" here to avoid that very overloaded connotation w.r.t. AI creations). That is not to say that most of the work that comes out of AI needs to exist or does any of those things.

A platform like that exists. It's called Subvert. It's a cooperative that was created as a response whenever Bandcamp has changed ownership several times. The idea of Subvert is to focus on the artists instead of the interests of the founders and investors.

> Tie it to in-person concerts and it might actually work as a business, as well as logistically

Don't give ticketmaster any ideas.

This is the key point, they're all enforcing tagging with no means to filter it out entirely.

Agreed. Especially since there is similar functionality for explicit tracks

This is all about streaming platforms commandeering royalties away from artists.

The way royalties get assigned is based on a percentage of your listening versus your monthly payment.

For example, spend an entire month listening to Taylor Swift’s new album, she gets the entire royalty share.

But if you listen to the album 100 times but then listen to lofi beats 900 times, Taylor only gets 10%.

The “earnings per stream” number you’ll see cited is only an average and varies greatly because there’s only so much money to go around since your listening is unlimited.

But now you have services like Spotify that are removing real songs from “mood” playlists and replacing them with AI music that directs royalties toward Spotify.

Another factor that has happened: record labels have been working to screw over artists so much that they actually negotiated lower royalty rates with Spotify in exchange for company stock.

Giving up royalties but then instead owning a part of Spotify effectively directs money away artists and toward the labels.

That's a genuinely grim thought, but not unrealistic either. I'll have to chew on that one, it's interesting.

> artist behind AI is making money. Real work, real people are happy.

I would not call someone typing words into a prompt an "artist" doing "real work", and they definitely should not be monetizing it.

Same, although I prefer Endel. It’s a paid subscription, but their objective-focused playlists work really well for me. Relax, Focus, Deep Focus… very effective.

I agree in sentiment, I love knowing that another human made this, either because I fancy I could maybe do something as good as that, or because I just admire the talent, or simply because the lyrics or music touch me somehow.

That said, there are a lot of people who simply enjoy having something playing in the background, it doesn't matter what, and if you're into country music it's great to have 10,000+ hours of country music to play.

If Tidal provides a checkbox so you can choose whether to exclude AI content, I think that would work for both audiences.

I have a great solution. They can point chatGPT to their AI generated slop and get AI generated enjoyment from others appreciating their "Art". Meanwhile, keep that out of my sphere.

The whole “what is art” question has different answers for different people. Yes, for some, music is communication, but when I listen to metal in the gym it’s an adrenaline boost. When I listen to brain.fm, it’s for focus. When I listen to a rap song with an MC that’s great at storytelling, then it’s communication. Sometimes it’s just a utility though. I’ve played music for about 30 years - live, in bands, in my bedroom - played many instruments, written electronic music, made lots of noises. But I’m not always trying to communicate something. In fact I’m sometimes scared I don’t have anything good to say with my music. So I just play it.

Same here, and I've run into annoying technical issues too. I am on the verge of canceling, but this new AI-skeptical stance makes me want to give them another chance. Sometimes I like to listen to their stations instead of my own playlists, but if you leave them on long enough they will eventually start playing obvious AI slop. If they actually figure out how to let me filter out ALL AI generated music, then I will be a happy customer even when their app throws meaningless error codes at me instead of playing music.

Then support your favorite AI music creators by going to their gigs.. oh wait

That seems like a hard line to draw for EDM, which I suppose, plenty of people have indeed refused to class as "human-made" over the years.

You'd probably need to be more generally back-to-basics (instruments-only, no EDM).

Bandcamp is well on their way already. If you want to support actual musicians, you can just buy their music directly. https://blog.bandcamp.com/2026/01/13/keeping-bandcamp-human/

What is your response to Tidal’s statement

> Artificial intelligence and machine learning are not new to music creation, they have just become more commonplace and advanced

In other words, there is no bright line. AI techniques have been a part of music creation from the start. What makes bad AI music hard to detect and remove is the fact that it is a much closer approximation of regular music.

> Music is about connecting to human emotions, not poor facsimiles of it

"art is in the eye of the beholder."

I listen to a lot of EDM, which can be very mechanical, but I personally have strong emotional connection to. I personally would welcome AI-generated music as an alternative to human-made.

To be clear: I do agree a "human-verified" system would be great, but I don't think it would be black and white. And I would guess that eventually AI music will be better than a lot of human made music.

As I stated elsewhere in the thread, the streaming platforms do not have the correct incentives to do this. It’s the labels that do releases that are correctly incentivized, as they need to build an audience that trusts them and enjoys the music that they release.

Independently-released music is a huge red flag. If you can’t find a single label A&R to support you, you may have to work on the quality of your output… music doesn’t exist in a vacuum. There are tens of thousands of labels across nearly every imaginable genre. Their role as gatekeeper is a valuable one.

I feel the same way, but it’s hard to draw the line: - was the song totally one-shot “make me a song in the style of X?” - was it a legit artist that used AI to create a verse lyric stanza after they’d already created the entirety of the melody/ chords etc?

Baudelaire and many others said the same thing about photography.

Perhaps. But just how human made? We already had the “Depeche Mode isn’t real music because they just push play on a sequencer” debate 40 years ago.

And lots of composers can’t play the stuff they write. But the composition is human.

Then there’s emerging AI-supported music, since AI can come up with and test harmonic ideas far more sophisticated than most people. If a human’s saying “no, not that, try using an augmented sixth to get us from F#maj to Cmin”, is that human generated?

Not trying to be contrary, just saying the definition needs to be really clear, and that’s going to be difficult.

Nothing personal, but there's something hilarious about "I demand a quick and easy solution to a likely practically impossible problem once you get into details" -- in opposition to AI.

For me personally, I no longer hear the difference between AI generated music and new pop-songs. Not sure what that says about me or the music industry.

Why don’t they play indie alternative pop music? It’s easier than ever to create, surely there are many bands with almost no audience who would give away their music for free. The reason may be discovery, but they could band together and make a centralized platform.

Honestly I don't know that I care about AI generated tracks, like you said it's the same argument one could make for samples or drum machines or synths or a dozen other previous technologies in the music space. What I actually miss is music curation and discovery, instead of a just a giant slop-pile of new music that I can't possible sort through, or an algorithm defines for me.

I'd love some Internet Pirate Radio. If someone wants to sort through the best all-AI tracks and run those, that'd be cool. I don't want an AI to pick the best AI tracks.

You are correct, but I think having a good policy - and trying earnestly to enforce it - is a good start, even if that enforcement is very imperfect.

Maybe if enough AI produces self-report their work as AI, and enough non-AI producers are honest about uploading non-AI work, they'll quickly have the necessary amount of good-enough data to train good classifiers?

> A good argument is that therefore there is no reason to pay royalties on AI generated work as it is the equivalent to public domain.

That has some different second order consequences that I don't think you're seeing. It's not that they will be free to you as a user, it's more that they will be free from the platform perspective to do whatever they want with the revenue they get from it.

Say for example you have a platform with Spotify monetization scheme for instance, which is already very unfair to small artists. But now imagine you have to compete to be included on auto play or playlists against something that's basically free for Spotify, what's your chance of getting any money out of it? Say Spotify changes their algorithm and starts pushing 20% of all auto play playlists to consist of AI songs, that's basically a 20% bump on their profit basis.

I mean you can outsource it to users, which also allows you to organically make exceptions for AI music that is actually popular.

You really just want your users, who hate AI, to see a big "REPORT AI" button they can click. The problem you are trying to solve is the perception among your users that your platform is dominated by AI slop. So at the end of the day the only thing you actually have to figure out is what your users think is AI slop, have a quick trigger on un-popular stuff, and basically never enforce on popular stuff unless there is actually some controversy.

Let's go with impossible.

Sure, if you're referring to people who actually play instruments or sing. Electronic music shows are mostly DJing though.

To me it’s less about the technologies used to produce the audio. If a human has put some creative effort into it, even if it’s mostly curating AI-generated audio, I’m in principle fine with that. But if little to no effort was put into it, it’s slop by definition.

I feel like audio-level heuristics will be easier, but ultimately who's to say?

> Generative models synthesize sound mathematically. These synthesis methods leave unnatural dips, specific spectral noise profiles, or phase alignments that rarely occur in real, human-recorded audio

It seems consistent to me. I'm not sure if suno represents the state of the art, but the output I've heard from there seems to be noticeably lower fidelity than a skilled amateur recording. In many cases, it's still more than good enough. But Tidal advertises things like "lossless", which is a much higher fidelity threshold than anything suno can produce, at least that I've heard. Crediting artists might be taken to mean crediting human artists whose creative output is represented by the music. Sending royalties to "AI musicians" displaces some of those potential payments.

That's the neat part: AI Slop "music" will have to stop pretending that it has any value.

As always, what is AI? I have used algorithmic machine learning tools to help in mixing and mastering tracks years ago. Generative music has existed in some sense as long as electronically amplified music has. These all at heart have some human sensibility directing them to wards communication with other people ac part of rhe socio-cultural language of humanity music and art are.

However, startups providing at massive loss wep applications with which you can prompt with few words some inane crap is completely a new phenomenon and it has as much to do with music as spam emails have with literature. It is pretty clear what the difference is.

I believe we've already crossed the quality threshold for being equal to or "better" (subjective) than human.

For EDM, check out the AI artist "Vibfy". Especially the song "I Hear You" as it has the best mastering so far. The melody and vocals of all the songs are fire, but in some of the earlier songs the mastering is sub-par with strange volume changes and muddy beats.

There is an AI folk band called "We're all f*cked" that is incredibly good and indistinguishable from actual humans.

What I had in mind was, "perform it on your instruments in our studio and we'll record the performance, record the music, and add it to our platform."

Probably too expensive to scale, but... it's an idea.

You’re gonna have to be more specific. They said what same thing?

This isn't a problem which needs to be solved perfectly, at least in this context. If some electronic music creators (using 2015 level technology) get reduced play and some fully AI music gets through the filters it's really fine.

Just broke 1000 albums this past weekend. It's delightful to be able to just listen to something then hand the artist money and download the flac files.

I also really like the quasi social aspect where users have simple profiles. No messages between users, no likes, no ratings, no BS. About the most you can do is leave a text review. Your profile is an image and text field so you can write a simple bio and provide links to whatever. My entire Bandcamp collection is discovered by crawling profiles and randomly listening to things. I also found some fun personal sites and so on. The site design is also simple and not a JS laden mess like "MoDeRn" ampwall.

You will probably be able to listen to machine-generated music on most major platforms. I just hope there’s one which excludes all of that.

Personally I think it’s a bit like cultural junk food: it has the appearance of real food, but leaves one hungry afterward. Which really isn’t all that surprising – music isn’t just some random collection of patterns, it’s intimately tied to real culture. Current AI software is only ever going to copy and regurgitate human culture, not make meaningful creations from scratch.

I made (what would eventually get called) EDM in high school and a lot of what I enjoyed was dismissed as “not real music”. It’s not a musician playing it, but a computer! Unless a guitarist was plucking strings or a pianist hitting the keys, it wasn’t “real”.

Doesn’t matter how carefully crafted it was: it’s only real if you couldn’t hit “play”. Sorry, Mike Oldfield. Hate to break it to you that you’re a fake musician.

I agree with you. I do enjoy some live musicians jamming on a stage, but for a lot of the genres I frequently listen to, I’d have no way of knowing if a song was written by human or by AI. If it’s good, it’s good.

> Independently-released music is a huge red flag.

You've never listened to anything on Soundcloud and found it good?

AI music != electronic music.

Most AI music is actually country-pop ballads and indie folk.

Making electronic music with AI is hard and it isn't very good at it.

I would go with, if the song could be reasonably performed live by the human publishing it, and have a similar sound to the recording, then its fine to keep in. The issue I have is songs like this one, where there is no way anyone could even try to perform it

https://open.spotify.com/track/0jGJtiDfEO9syfSL8AshBF?si=b92...

> between AI generated music and new pop-songs

I think food is a good analogy here. This is a bit like saying I can’t tell the difference between the McDonald’s that is 90% automated and the McDonald’s that’s 20% automated. You’re still just talking about McDonald’s, which is manufactured and engineered to deliver a very specific taste and flavor.

Pop music, almost by definition, is not innovative. Consider the experimental bleeding edge that pushes the evolution of genres. Eventually, that experimental sound enters the pop cycle. Off the top of my head, Fred Again was innovative in 2022, Kettama was innovative in 2025. Fred’s already pop-adjacent, if not full on directly impacting the pop industry at this point. If you want slightly older examples, I would give you Skrillex circa 2010, or Zedd circa 2014.

Then the slop merchants will simply move to controlling a DAW with AI and use the same software synths that everyone else does. It's a little more involved and slower, but far from hard.

Ultimately this isn't really solvable without a way of marking audio with a verifiable signature that it was produced by a specific human, with some kind of reputation algorithm.

This is like how I can't tell the difference between good wine and mediocre wine. It's not a skill I have a desire to develop.

Because then the coffee shop has to curate it or the band needs to market to the coffee shop.

Incentives are mismatched here - the indie band benefits from being noticed and sought out, the coffee shop wants to set a vibe without distracting or irritating anyone (which music can do simply by repeating, if you don't curate a large enough collection).

So unless your playlist is, like, part of the product you're selling (which it is for a number of coffee shops to be fair), you just look for something like "10 hours of lo-fi beats to study to" and throw it on.

This is a totally fascist musical bias -- I have been using spectral techniques in music since the late 1980s. It has been common for decades. "Unnatural" spectral packet distortion is a component of a wide-breadth of existing music that pre-dates modern generative AI. I am confident that the false positives will be overwhelming and unfair to many artists. Such a cowardly and lossy solution.

I think my comment is being misunderstood. I don't think AI music has any value. I'm just calling out that Tidal's right and left hands are saying two different things. The left hand: AI music has no monetary value. The right hand: AI music is valuable enough to host on the platform. This is the schism that doesn't make sense to me.

I suppose. To me, Tidal was always on the side of artists rather than big faceless studios. Now there's an even bigger, even more faceless entity - and it's surprising to me that Tidal is giving them a platform rather than blocking it entirely

The vast majority of music I listen to on SoundCloud is released on small labels (<10, <100, or <1000 artists). It is not that hard to release on those labels. There are tens of thousands artists releasing on thousands of labels every Friday.

That being said, I guess I may have some genre bias. Maybe it’s exceedingly difficult to get signed to a small label as e.g. a Midwest Emo Band (bad example because I have friends who released on a small label as a Midwest Emo Band). But you need to put in the effort if you expect me to give you my precious listening time.

Edit: redundancy

I agree with the other poster. I think it's very difficult to guide this missile so that it blows up AI-generated music and doesn't blow up EDM.

My own taste in music is pretty junk-food-y I guess. Electronic music and not the pretentious kind. Dubstep, electro. Give me something that goes wub-wub. Incidentally, I think this experience mostly isn't one about human connection? Like, there is some circuit in my brain that likes that sound and wants to be tickled.

I can play classical piano to a mediocre standard. I listen to it and enjoy it occasionally. But, honestly, what I feel like my spirit needs is something that goes wub-wub and I think that space is densely seeded enough that maybe we can scale back human involvement in producing it.

Do you have any recommendations for casual listening of downloaded music files? I'm pretty done with Spotify and would rather spend money on Bandcamp. The main hurdle is that I'm not enough of a music person to want to spend much time organizing a collection, I just want an easy way to put some music on while I'm working.

junk food is a common misconception about electronic music with ppl who have only listened to trash versions of it on social media.

I learned music production by first learning how to produce house. Because of this, I can confidently say that house is not music. You literally just copy/paste over and over. Just because a human makes something, doesn't make it good or "music" necessarily.

That doesn't really work for electronic music though.

Electronic or not, whether messing with a buchla or producing via vsts and changing knobs around still ends up with a human feel and human choices in a way AI music doesn't.

And what about the line between triggers or samples? I can play some impossible AI music if I sample the impossible parts and just say it's a sample played on a synth or whatever.

YouTube is already recommending tons of AI-generated electronic music. It's pretty easy to spot: It will have millions of views and the "artist's" discography will only go back to 2025 or 2026. It's usually just singles. The cover art is vague atmospheric AI-generated. The "artist" will have no presence online save for a couple instagram account with a couple posts that are also AI-generated.

It develops itself once you drink wine frequently enough.

The indie band in France also collect subsidies from "SACEM" AND "SPRE" (and YouTubeurs from "SCAM").

With SACEM, if you have a cafe, then you have to pay 4000 USD per year to support musicians, etc etc.

Of course, this is only broadcasting rights, you have to acquire the music (or rent it) on a B2B platform.

If you play AI Lofi in theory you don't have to, but don't worry that inspectors will find a way to fine you.

Ironically, the human band you are playing will get zero, and it will go to the big rich and popular artists.

You open the music you download with something like IINA or Doppler, and you're off to the races. What exactly is the hurdle?

If you keep each album in its own folder, basically any app will be able to use the MP3 tags to keep things organized for you. Really even the folders aren't needed, you could just have a huge directory full of every MP3, but that would be annoying to deal with for other reasons.

Something like https://picard.musicbrainz.org/ can be used if you want to get more complicated. For instance I like to keep albums in folders per release year.

> Do you have any recommendations for casual listening of downloaded music files?

Other than the simple approach of playlists and/or shuffle, unfortunately no.

> I just want an easy way to put some music on while I'm working.

Think of Bandcamp as a record store, not a radio station.

Sure that’s fair, and maybe my ideal platform doesn’t really work for electronic music and works better for singer-songwriters that perform live. Which is fine - I just like the idea of a platform that guarantees that a real person made this music.

I don’t mean electronic music writ large, I mean AI generated music.

Electronic music is probably my favorite genre, broadly. But there’s a human behind the machine, not a random collection of patterns. To use a concrete example: NIN is about 1000% more interesting because of who Trent Reznor is, and not because it’s merely good music.

This disconnect is much more of an issue with say, country or bluegrass or jazz. To divorce those from the musician and their cultural context is to miss the whole point.

I went to see an orchestra performance. They literally just only made sound by dragging their bows across the strings on their "instruments". I can confidently say that is not music.

It's pretty clear you didn't get beyond the very basics of music production or house music if you think this. I'd love to hear your masterfully produced house track to prove me wrong, though.

People engage with music in different ways. Some people focus on lyrics and the connection they make. Other people largely ignore lyrics and focus on the rhythms and patterns. Both are valid and both are very human. We do not need gatekeepers coming in and judging what is music and what is not music.

House music can bring me as much joy as listening to Bach performed by a skilled ensemble. It depends on where I am at mentally. Both are valid forms of human expression.

> I can confidently say that house is not music.

Hey, this is really fucking stupid.

Their approach of "manually tagging songs that are good 'non-AI' and not good 'AI'" is a questionable approach from an engineering and product perspective.

They would benefit much more from a have a better recommendation and ranking algorithm that carefully monitors all metrics, recommends high-performers, and excludes unpopular content from the feed.

You can use the fact it was AI-generated as a signal, but it is just a signal among other criterias, not an outright ban.

Essentially, explore songs and artists, exploit winners.

    Lot of people abort a song/artist/creator/etc.

    Lot of fake listens.

    People don't like the song of an album

    Creator is historically with a low score

    etc...

-> Downrank

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit )

Then you judge the popularity of a song, an album, a creator, a playlist, etc not its creation method. Exactly like a genre type. It's not because you don't like country music that everybody should be forbidden to listen to country music.

It's good for them too, the more streams they do, the more money they get, and the more their audience is engaged. If the person doesn’t like “AI-generated genre” then just downrank it heavily on its recommandation feed, like YouTube or TikTok does.

And yet there are well respected composers who intentionally copy/paste. Repetition is key to minimalism, for instance.

It’s not even limited to “electronic” music. Consider that sound engineers work with hundreds of layers on a single track to engineer a very specific sound. Then a pop star adds vocals. Then those vocals are engineered beyond recognition. Sometimes if the vocalist is talented enough they go on tour and then perform with minimal after-effects, and sometimes they lipsync.

It would be a shades of gray situation, but I think of this performance by Skrillex where he is mixing live, and thats what I would expect from a live EDM performance. There should be a line between a EDM artist, and a DJ

https://youtu.be/hb0XLX0b4Y4

I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all, I'm saying electronic music is significantly harder for AI to do than a conventional love ballad or a rock song.

AI can't do "robotic" math music, it's best at sappy generic emotive stuff. (I guess this isn't at all a surprise for those that know how the musical sausage is made.)

There's a human behind AI-generated music too. A human writes the prompts. Your distinction seems rather arbitrary.

I would respect it if he followed up with “the only real music is dubstep”.

I'd love to see AI take a stab at a Meshuggah or Dillinger Escape Plan clone.

Sure but a producer has never needed to be able to be a live artist. Making the music is the only requirement and that totally fine.

Typing “make me an electronic guitar song about a bad breakup” is a whole lot different than learning to play the instrument yourself and conveying your own emotions from your real experience into a song that you write and perform.

If you can’t see how these are fundamentally different things, I don’t know what to tell you.

Even if you generate the soundtrack, if you set the lyrics it can be great music. At least for one person, who chose the lyrics. I set some poems on music and I absolutely love the results.

Do you really think that's the only way to do it? I spend hours refining the output, slicing things up, redoing certain parts, tossing it into the DAW and compressing, adding effects, etc. I mean, if you think one shot prompts are the only way to use AI to make music fine, but you're being intentionally obtuse.

I think a lot of songs about bad break-ups were written by talented musicians without actual experience of a bad break-up, riffing on the corpus of songs they'd heard about bad break-ups.

Like, a lot of times you're just engaging with someone's desire to have made a song, and what they felt about some songs that someone else made.

You are describing empathy, a human experience.