This is a long, but informative and entertaining update on where current AI ‘songwriting’ tools are at.
There’s an interesting bit at the end, where he says where he thinks it’s heading.
(warning: Henning is prone to a bit of sweary language at times)
I stopped at around the 10 minute mark because I wouldn’t recommend using AI the way that he is approaching it. Also I only use free AI and would never pay for it. The video is a bit long winded, anyone want to pass along the highlights?
Here’s a summary from ChatGPT 
In “RANT – THIS IS IT,” musician and YouTuber Henning Pauly expresses shock and sadness over the rapid rise of AI-generated music, especially after testing Suno Studio. Once skeptical, he now believes AI can create songs—with lyrics, arrangements, and emotion—faster and often better than trained musicians. He argues that this marks the end of human-made commercial music, predicting a future where people simply ask AI for personalized songs about their lives or moods. While he admits AI music sounds impressive, Pauly mourns what it means for musicianship, creativity, and the value of human artistry.
Here’s another perspective:
Cheers,
Keith
I think in many ways she’s saying the same thing. AI is getting much better and can create music that moves people. I don’t like where the road is going, but I think it’s inevitable.
Is anyone here using AI to create music?
@CT Clint, I use an AI mastering tool. Lyrics, music composition, playing of instruments, singing and mixing are all done by real humans.
Not me.
I think true art comes with a degree of pain and “paying your dues”.
I’m somewhat of a hypocrite because I will use some enabling technology ( drum loops, etc.) to assist my journey, but I believe my journey is heading more towards being able to create music from the basics as much as possible…
I will give an analogy which, I think, both fits and will resonate with the OP of this thread @brianlarsen with whom I share an hobby: full circle bell-ringing.
I have come to realise that this is (much like learning a traditional musical instrument) an astonishingly complex and difficult practice. I came to this realisation through trying to explain it to others, as well as assisting with the training of newer ringers.
This sort of bell-ringing is absolutely able to be replaced with technology and, more than 2 centuries ago, the technology existed to eradicate it. And yet it persists today.
I am occasionally asked “isn’t there a way to automate it?”. Yes, of course there is, but that’s completely missing the point of why we do it.
We do it because it’s difficult. We do it because it challenges us, and because it’s a deeply human endeavour.
And I believe making music is the same! The value of music isn’t the precision of what we can achieve, which can easily be surpassed using computers, but with the imperfections and the journey, and the struggle to produce something.
That something may not be particularly good, but it’s human and it has “soul” (whatever that is) and that gives it (IMO) infinitely more value than some pristinely produced machine-generated content.
The problems are:
a) in the world of commercial music, does anyone care?
b).in the wider market for art, can we tell the difference?
For the first, as a commercial artist (which I am not) I would be very concerned. But, as a non-commercial “artist” I am not concerned at all; my enjoyment comes from challenging myself to learn music and to play better. The “short cut” of using AI (in its current form of using it to generate derivative content) is a cheat and, to me, is missing the point and is of no value.
I might as well use a canned backing track. In fact I would rather use a canned backing track if that was produced by humans.
At its best (and IMO) using generative AI for music production is no better than Karaoke. At its worst it’s purely plagiarising lift musak (and there are cases where that works, but I would argue whether it can be considered “art”).
So, no, I don’t use it and have no intent to use it. I don’t see any value in it to me, personally, or to anyone else who happens across anything I publish.
If what I produce is crap, I would rather own that, and use the critique I get to try to improve. I don’t see the point of using AI generated content to make it seem that I’m more competent than I actually am. I see that as, basically, dishonest (especially so if I don’t explicitly detail my creative involvement vs the AIs)
After all, this is a hobby for me. It brings me enjoyment. Why would I want to outsource that enjoyment to a computer?
Cheers,
Keith
I think she is saying that people are being fooled into seeing meaning where there is none.
It’s no surprise to me that is happening, as the music industry in general has been exploiting the propensity for humans to fall for this sort of thing for decades. But it’s a worrying that the tech bro billionaires are now starting to exploit and automate it.
Cheers,
Keith
I feel the same way about a lot of popular music.
I found this video of Henning’s quite interesting, and I’d thought of posting it here too. I’m fascinated by both the technology and the way it triggers disdain, denial, distrust and despair.
I asked ChatGPT to write a joke about this:
" People are freaking out about AI making music, like it’s the end of creativity. Have you heard the Top 40 lately? If AI starts writing pop songs, that’s not a threat — that’s a software update."
Funny, but true.
I suspect we are largely agreeing. I’m not suggesting there’s meaning in AI music, just that it can affect people - whether they are being fooled or not - and for the majority that’s all they want.
Even without AI I believe there’s a world of difference between a Joni Mitchell self penned song and some girl or boy band ‘hit’ churned out by a team of songwriters asked to create a stirring song - which I suspect is CT’s point above.
Again, I agree entirely. I don’t like it, but it’s coming and like so much in the world today it’s driven by money.
Sometimes I’ll use the likes of EZ drummer to generate a matching backing groove to what I’m playing on guitar. I don’t have the time or energy to learn another instrument. My focus is on my guitar, vocals and lyrics. If I ever decide to move on from being a hobbyist (which I highly doubt) I’ll join or start a band to have others humans play the instruments that I don’t play. Though, I have one blues song the now that I’ve wrote which I’m still trying to craft on guitar the parts that I hear in my head, when I eventually get there I may on this ocassion ask others in the community like Keith to help with the providing the other instruments for the track.
This, I believe, is at the crux of much of the AI discusssion.
Where does this ‘meaning’ really live? With the creator, whether human or AI; or with the listener/ viewer /audience? Or has its home become lost, if it ever had one? How does the intention of the creator relate to the absorbed meaning of the audience. Is one source inherently ‘better’, or more grounded than the other? Who really ‘gives’ anything meaning?
I think AI is so contentious because it cuts to the heart of who we are; or, more succintly, who we think we are. And that still, is the number 1 unanswered question for man.
Personally, an AI produced song is diminished somewhat in my book.
Life, like music, is about the ‘carrying on’ of the dance, rather than arriving, upright, at the end of the song, in a victorious or satisfied state.
For me, the end result of any particular thing is, in many ways, cosmically, insignificant.
The great Alan Watts, over 50 years ago, wrote some brilliant short essays touching on, and forboding these very concerns, that in the end, have plagued mankind for millenia.
Note: No AI was used in any form, in the creation of this post…
Cheers, Shane
And that’s it in a nutshell for me. 
@CT You probably caught (what I regard as) the most important message at 3.10 min in which he says AI is not going to ruin anything for people who play for enjoyment/fun/hobby, nor even live music, but it’s put an end to commercial music as we know it. That includes everyone who makes a living from making/producing and selling music, (which is Aimee Norris’ main problem).
After the long bit in the middle where he shows you some of the programs abilities he give his opinion of where music ‘creation/consuming’ is heading at 34.26 min.
I’ve said it before: music (and art in general) is what we humans do for enjoyment . We give up our ‘free’ time and hard-earned cash for the pleasure. Why should I feel entitled to be paid to do something just because I enjoy it? I love to ski and play volleyball, even play marbles. Why should I not get paid for that? (Of course, if I can make a living out of it- Yay!)
Many of the bands I grew up listening to never made a career out of making music.
Most of the music I enjoy today, is the music I make or play by myself, that I share and ‘consume’ here on JG, and that I experience in a live setting, either open mics, or the ultimate: musicians playing in my home for my friends. (In a couple of weeks the Igloo Hearts are playing our living room). I’ve just booked a flight to see Johnny Dowd play in a bicycle cellar in Berlin on his European Tour next March (sadly bypassing the UK 
)
For those who feel that something has ‘more meaning’ or ‘value’ if it is intentionally hand-crafted by a fellow human… fine 
People will still do that if they want. In the past everything was unique and created by individuals; every knife and fork, plate, cup, piece of clothing, even machinery. No one looks at all the items we’re surrounded by and that make our lives easier and more pleasurable, wishing they didn’t exist. It does not diminish one iota the value of any artisan piece. 99% of us are playing on mass produced factory gear that we often treasure. Our enjoyment is not diminished by that ‘extra value’ that Justin, Lieven and Batwoman experience by having a custom instrument made especially for them.
I still prefer an ‘imperfect’ painting to a spectacular photograph. It would sound bonkers to want to prevent photography (although many did at the time)
The question about global business regulation (esp. IT) and inequality in wealth distribution is a more important, but different issue.
In my ideal world, there would be logarithmically increasing tax levies on all companies’ and individuals’ wealth generation above the ‘basic need’ level. This money would be used to provide universal basic income (UBI), covering everyone’s basic requirements (food, clothing, education, health etc.). People could still earn more if they wanted (and most people do in all the trials conducted).
While I’m at it, I’d abolish all inheritance, which would do more to promote egalitarian societies than anything else, while helping to focus us to live our lives here and now. That’s philosophy btw, not politics 
Wrong assumption 
For the rest I will stay away from here because I don’t find these threads cozy…
Greetings ,I will play 
I’m playing my guitar with a heart full of hygge as I type… 