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.

▲ someguyiguess 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	doug_durham 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	soiltype an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> I can confidently say that house is not music. Hey, this is really fucking stupid.
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	brookst 33 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		And yet there are well respected composers who intentionally copy/paste. Repetition is key to minimalism, for instance.
	▲	pesus an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	rvnx 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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.