[tgv]

> "solving" it with a big hammer like generative AI is rather unsatisfying.

The reason is greed. They jump on the bandwagon to get rich, not to bring art. They don't care about long term effects on creativity. If it means that it kills motivation to create new music, or even learn how to play an instrument, that's fine by these people. As long as they get their money.

[zaptrem]

If our sole goal was to get rich we would have pivoted to some b2bsaas thing as many suggested to us. What we’ve actually seen is so much new creativity from people who otherwise would never have made music.

[frankhorrigan]

Nothing was stopping them from making music before other than laziness.

I’m so sick of hearing this excuse. “I can’t draw so I use AI,” as if the people who can draw were born that way.

No, they spent countless hours practicing and that’s what makes it art. Because it’s the product of hours of decision making and learning. You can not skip ahead in line. Full stop.

[zaptrem]

This just sounds like gatekeeping.

[AlexeyBelov]

I think it's the opposite. They are not saying "those people shouldn't draw [using AI]", they are saying "those people should've been drawing all this time".

[zaptrem]

Many people may not have the time, talent, and/or dedication, but I still think they should get to make music.

[gazebo64]

Describing music to an AI is not "making music" the same way that hiring a musician and asking them to write you a rock song about a breakup is not "making music"

[frankhorrigan]

They can do so anytime they pick up an instrument. But plugging things into AI is not making music.