Hello! Welcome back to the Charlie Cudnik Album Discussion! A little bit of a different episode this time around, as we will be talking about a contemporary issue in the world, the elephant in the room, AI music. I’ve consciously tried to avoid bringing hot button or highly divisive issues onto this show, mostly just out of preference, since, 1: I always, always hate when entertainers get on their soapbox and get really self-righteous; and 2: I’ve tried to keep the album discussion as a source of positivity and joy, since those are so rare to come by these days.
But, I can only hold my tongue so long. And when the fear and greed that are in the air start to infect something that I hold dear and sacred, I need to speak up.
We’ve seen tremendous AI advancements in the past year alone. It is not just the product of the day, it is here. Like any tool for humanity, if it is used effectively and ethically, it could potentially be a benefit. But, as the old saying goes, the key that opens the gate to Heaven can also open the gate to Hell.
AI music is not music. AI music should never be allowed to replace real, human artists. Anyone who says differently is likely trying to sell you AI, or naively misinformed.
To me, the reason for music’s creation and existence is, for the listener and the performer, to share in each other’s emotions. We listen to music to understand not only ourselves, but to understand and take a part in our universal human nature, which is so often hidden away by the masks and restrictions of ourselves and society.
AI music, and AI art, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the purpose of art and music creation is for. If art is defined as self expression through a medium, then, by definition, AI art is not art. Code has no self to express.
What AI makes, then, cannot, by definition, be considered music. It might look, sound, and feel like music, but it is not. It must never be considered as such. Not only that, but it is plagiarism on a scale never before seen. This is not fear-mongering, this is just how AI’s are trained. Original music by human artists is used, without the artist’s permission or even knowledge, and is chopped up and reheated. AI cannot create, it can only draw from what is readily available.
My question is, for those who use these tools to try and make art or music, is this: If you didn’t bother to actually make it, why should I care about it? And no, prompt writing does not count as creation, just as a commissioned piece of art is not the creation of the person who commissioned it, no matter how precise and demanding the specifications are.
This technology is growing and becoming more and more advanced. But even if AI, and those who pedal it, are able to make a product that appeals more to the masses, to me, it will never replace human artists, since it is not an expression of another human being. It is merely a product, like all music, but without the human connection and joy of community and creation that music allows for.
So, I ask you, Edsmen and teachers alike, if you truly care about authenticity, communication and understanding, to reject AI music and AI art. The next generation needs its sensitive singer-songwriters, pop princesses, rock gods, and rap legends and it needs them to be real human beings with real feelings and emotions. Don’t let faceless conglomerates like Suno, Udio, Spotify, and AIVA, tell you what you should be listening to, and don’t let them snatch up even more money from the human artists you love and enjoy.
