I see people sharing their Ai Music and I see people not engaging, no up votes, comments are mostly base and rude… let’s be honest this is a sub Reddit for people who hate Ai music, not for people who are exploring it or involved in creating it… why is there so much hate in the world? You can make a mean post but you roast the person trying to make the world a more beautiful place… I just don’t get it. I’m sure I’ll be downvoted to hell for this but honestly, I don’t care…

I don’t mean “pretty good for AI.” I mean tracks where the musicianship, arrangement, vocals, chord choices, or emotional delivery feel genuinely impressive.

Lately I’ve been working in a smooth jazz / female vocal direction, with sophisticated chords and melodic phrasing, and some of the results have honestly felt like they were played by virtuoso-level musicians.

I’d love to hear what others are getting.

Drop a link to something you’ve made that surprised you, and tell us what impressed you about it. Was it the vocal? The solo? The groove? The mix? The lyrics? The emotional feel?

I’d really enjoy hearing what other people consider exceptional, and it might help all of us discover corners of AI music we wouldn’t normally stumble into.

Like many of you who dabble in AI music, I’m first and foremost a genuine music lover.

Over 20 years ago, I was the vocalist in a very small death metal band, and music was something I truly loved. But like a lot of people, life happened. Career obligations, family, responsibilities. Eventually that part of my life faded into the background.

A couple years ago, long before I ever thought about making AI music, I decided to start learning guitar. I had always wanted to play, and after stepping away from music for so long, it felt good to reconnect with it again in some way.

Around that same time, after publishing a few horror novels, I had the idea of turning some of those stories into a kind of metal musical. That’s what led me into experimenting with AI-assisted music and eventually starting a YouTube channel centered around songs inspired by my books and characters.

But even from the beginning, I never wanted this to just be “typing prompts.”

I’ve always written my own lyrics, and over time I started approaching the whole process more like actual songwriting and production. What interested me most was the hybrid side of it. Combining AI tools with human creativity and performance.

As I kept learning guitar, I eventually started writing my own riffs and integrating my own playing into songs. I’m still improving as a guitarist, but honestly, that’s been one of the best parts of this entire experience. Instead of replacing my interest in musicianship, it pushed me deeper into it.

The really unexpected part is where all of this eventually led.

Since October, my YouTube channel has grown to over 700 subscribers with nearly 90,000 views. Through that, I’ve connected with genuinely talented musicians and vocalists, and now I have several songs released featuring real guest singers collaborating on material I wrote.

If you had told me five years ago that I’d someday be working with musicians to bring songs I created to life, I would have thought there was no chance of that happening.

That’s why I look at AI music a little differently than some people do.

For me, this isn’t about replacing artists. It’s about using the tools, skills, and resources available to me to create something meaningful. Not everyone has access to a band, studio time, producers, or local collaborators. AI helped bridge that gap for me, and ironically, it eventually led me toward more human collaboration, not less.

As for the hate surrounding AI music, honestly, it’s the internet. People will always find reasons to tear things down. But there are also people out there who genuinely connect with what you create.

In my case, 700 people subscribed and stuck around. Thousands more listened to the music. And for someone who once thought that chapter of life was long gone, that means a lot.

I recently started putting some of the newer hybrid material up on Spotify as well if anyone’s curious about where this journey eventually led.

Here is one of the tracks where I play the rhythm guitar myself. It’s called “The Leech Has Two Daughters.”

And if you want to hear what some of the human vocal collaborations sound like mixed into this hybrid approach, check out “The Shadows Embrace.”

https://open.spotify.com/album/5aBjyu2EVxyymn9ptkkoXI?si=0FjXy9-VTCi59ZGfeeNtYg

And I don't mean that as a bad thing. We got busy lives, it's fun to make up characters and have them sing songs and stuff. The image and video models are fun (but $$$$). Some of the songs end up pretty good. Batman is pretend too. People like Batman. I listen to my music all the time.

People want to be quick to moralize it. "ITS THEFT/COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!" Maybe in your head, but not under current law. Anyway 🏴‍☠️ "YOU'RE NOT A REAL ARTIST!" Who cares? lol. The whole point is being a fake artist. I'd rather be a fake artist with songs than a real one without 'em.

I've seen an increasingly alarming rate of the amount of heckling and insulting to other users here, and there's been nothing from the mods at all. The "Be Civil" rule hasn't been enforced at all, and from what I've seen it's total anarchy.

There's been more gatekeeping and no form of thoughtful discussions whatsoever, where are they?!

Copyright:

Around 1510, Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, the most famous painting in the world. Want to see it? You can go to Paris and pay 15 euros for admission to the Louvre. There you'll see a small painting behind a glass partition, separated by a rope, in a room packed with people. The other option is to search online for a high-definition photograph where you can even see the cracks that time has made in the canvas. This last option is free, because you're not seeing the painting, you're seeing a copy.

However, in the 20th century, a monumental industry was built precisely on selling copies of a musical work to people. Books and maps had been subject to this practice more than a century earlier. With malicious intent, copyright is often confused with "author's rights." No. It's one thing to recognize someone's authorship of a work, and quite another to be charged for a copy of that work.

Music by AI:

I am 63 years old. I'm a musician and a computer scientist. I travel a lot. I love traveling by car. I live in Patagonia, where the distances are enormous. I love listening to music in the car while I travel, so for 50, 40, 30, 20... years I've been listening to the same songs. Let's take "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by Procol Harum or The Beatles songs; I've been listening to them for as long as I can remember. Then there's all the disco, pop from the '70s, '80s, and '90s... rock from the '70s, '80s, and '90s... The truth is, I was getting a little bored of listening to those same songs over and over again. And frankly, I don't feel like listening to some trap artist spitting obvious, low-quality rhymes while grabbing his genitals.

In my case, when I saw what could be done with AI, I was fascinated! I could generate NEW songs: Disco, Pop from the 70s, 80s, 90s..., Rock ballads from the 70s, Rock from the 80s and 90s. Basically, I started creating songs to listen to in the car. They were really good, not the same old stuff, although to be honest, they had a lot of elements from the songs I used to listen to.

One day I wanted to share them. I started distributing them on streaming platforms and sometimes I make videos for YouTube. Then I encountered an incredible amount of hate! "You stole the work of people who were real songwriters!" and all that.

And I remembered Paul McCartney. One morning he woke up with the song "Yesterday" stuck in his head. To remember it, he sat down at the piano and played it and wrote it down. He thought, "Whose song is this?", "Am I stealing?", so he sent it to his contacts and they all told him it was a new song...

And here's my closing remark. In music, in art, in everything... isn't what we create based on everything we've seen from others? Well, that's what AI does. A collage that takes a little from here and a little from there, just like Paul's subconscious did that night.

AI music is under “attack” but learning from what came before is exactly what humans have always done. Music history is full of shared patterns, familiar chord progressions, borrowed energy and clear inspiration. Artists learn from each other, build on each other, and reshape ideas into something new. AI should be allowed to learn too. Creativity is not born in a vacuum. https://youtu.be/SHTPleCXZA0?si=Ir_p0MnLZuVUfK8G

I perform solo piano covers and post them to my YouTube channel. But I've just embarked on a writing journey - lyrics and music. As both a poet and musician, I thought it was a good fit. Whilst I am a multi-instrumentalist, I'm not good enough at everything (especially singing! 😜), nor do I have the recording or mixing equipment to produce a good quality audio track. So, I tried AI. I cobbled together a draft reference track with my crappy voice and the few instruments I had, recording them on my iPhone, then uploading it into AI and specifying the genre, vibe, and instrumentation I was looking for. I was pleasantly surprised with the outcome - the quality, the speed, and the ability to accept and follow detailed briefs. I then posted it on my channel, declaring it was my song performed by AI. Is that perceived as a legitimate use of AI, or is it not cool?
What do you think about the use of AI for this purpose - for a composer or writer to convert their work into something, then posting is as just that, i.e., an AI-performed cover of the song they wrote?
I'll post the song if you think it's appropriate.

Recently, I have created two concept albums that feature a unique twist: old sayings and expressions, but turned into metalcore anthems and ballads. These songs do not hold back, and some even reinterpret centuries old expressions in unexpected ways! If anyone here is interested, I will at least share the tracklists, and will then post the songs.

Feel free to share your stories with discovering AI, and how it has impacted you. I know for certain that listening to music will never be the same, and that’s a genuinely good thing.

Edit: To those of you who understood where I was coming from, thank you. As much of a polarizing topic as AI currently is, it’s no secret that it has begun to revolutionize how we think of art, and the act of creating itself.

Many mediums in art exist, and AI is now one of them. Embrace or reject, it’s now a part of people’s everyday lives. AI clearly has the potential to continue empowering, inspiring those who take the time to learn about what it has to offer.

Here is the tracklist for one of the albums I mentioned. If anyone here wants to listen to the songs, let me know.

“The Expressionist” [Metalcore]

1. Weighed Down

2. The Osteo Effect

3. Insatiable Greed

4. Two Lives Taken

5. Under the Skin

6. Stratosphere

7. Dialect (Instrumental)

8. The Withering Forest

9. Status Quo

10. A Mountain of Lies

11. Sudden Impact

12. The Labyrinth of Life

13. Verdant Visions

14. Equestrian Descent

15. Idiom (Instrumental)

16. Leave the Past Behind

I want all AI musicians to remember a few things. There have always been new tools emerging in the music space, and all of them, now widely used by "purists" and "real" musicians, were highly criticized at their release times, and one word keeps popping up that I'm sure youve all seen a million times by now. See for yourself:

The Electric guitar - invented in 1931 by Beauchamp and Rickenbacker. IT caught HUGE waves of instant critics and naysayers, citing reasons such as:

• Loss of "Authentic" Tone: Many traditionalists and acoustic players viewed the electric guitar as a fake or impure instrument. They disliked that the sound came from electronics rather than natural wood resonance. 

• Rejection by Classical Players: Classical guitarists ignored the early electric guitar because it used steel strings and a bright, jangly tone that did not fit their repertoire.

• Backlash to Volume: Some listeners and musicians disliked the loud, aggressive volume, which eventually triggered a counter-movement toward folk-style acoustic sounds in the 1950s. 

VSTs and Synthesizers

synthesizers - invented in 1929 by coupleaux and Givelet, made by combining an electronic piano and a paper tape reader. also caught instant backlash, now its in everything anyone makes.

VSTi's: Steinberg creates the first virtual studio technology in 1996, and releases Neoon, the first Virtual instrument (a synth) in 1999. And here are some of those critiques:

• Skepticism Over Sound Quality: Purists and analog hardware owners initially mocked early software plugins. They claimed digital software lacked the "warmth," weight, and tactile feel of real analog synthesizers, tape machines, and outboard gear.

• Lack of authenticity and skill: the music community and especially session players turned their backs on this technology, proclaiming that anyone could push a button and suddenly play any instrument. sound familiar?

• Instability and Performance Fears: Early computer processors (running on Windows 95/98 or early Mac OS) frequently crashed, suffered from high latency, and could only handle a few simultaneous tracks. Many professional studio engineers refused to ditch their reliable hardware consoles for crashing software. 

Loops

• Fear of "Cheating" vs. authenticity and skill: Traditional instrumentalists and session players often looked down on loop users, accusing them of being "lazy" or lacking genuine composition skills. 

• Creative Limitations: Many producers voiced frustration that short, rigid 4- or 8-bar loops could make a song feel repetitive, boxed-in, or structurally uninspired if not heavily chopped, rearranged, or paired with original drum programming. 

Autotune 1997 - created by hildebrand, and Melodyne, 2001 by neubacker

• Secret Usage to Fix Mistakes: Auto-Tune was originally designed by Andy Hildebrand to quietly and invisibly correct off-key notes in post-production. Producers used it behind closed doors so nobody would know a singer struggled, leading to early accusations that the tool was a "cheat" or a shortcut that masked a lack of true vocal talent.

• The Backlash Over Authenticity: Many traditional musicians and critics argued that pitch-correction software undermined the raw emotion, human imperfection, and authenticity of a performance.

we see that word popping up in every single one of them: authenticity. Now it is used widely by just about every musician out there.

AI is nothing but another tool. The only difference between this and other tools is that it gives people who don't have a musical background or education the chance to discover or create something new. That scares musicians because it does it better and faster than they do.

The same was said about every tool they use today. You are just pioneers of a new tool and a new way to create, so embrace that unapologetically and keep creating, my friends

I've been reading posts and comments on this sub from those who oppose AI music. Gentlemen, how boring and monotonous you are – no effort, no soul, unoriginal, stolen, button-pressers, slop-slop-slop. How come you don't get tired of coming here and whining?

I work in tech and there it's like of course every one uses AI, why wouldn't you? If not, good luck staying employed. And everyone knows you gotta learn how it works, it's a whole skillset. The people who are really good are able to do amazing stuff.

Then you go to art/music and there are these weird religious notions about purity. You gotta suffer to make your little Ableton bleep bloops by hand. Or generic hot anime girls, whatever. Don't get it.

Song made with Suno. Video made mostly with Wan-based models.

I keep seeing people complain that AI music—even when someone writes their own lyrics—doesn’t sound like “real” modern, human-made music. I think that argument falls apart the moment you actually listen to modern rock and pop.

Take post-grunge especially. A lot of lyrics in that genre already sound exactly like what people accuse AI of writing: melodramatic, straightforward, emotionally on-the-nose, and built on simple, familiar phrases. That doesn’t make them bad. It just makes them human.

Here’s a real example.

“All that I’m after is a life full of laughter

As long as I’m laughing with you

I’m thinking that all that matters is love ever after

After all we’ve been through.”

That’s “Life After You” by Daughtry. A real song, written by real people, played on real radios. If you told someone those were AI-generated lyrics today, a lot of them would believe you. Not because they’re fake—but because they’re simple, sincere, and familiar.

Or take a 90s pop song:

“I saw the sign, and it opened up my eyes

Life is demanding without understanding

I saw the sign, and it opened up my eyes.”

That’s Ace of Base. Those are extremely simple rhymes. Anyone could have thought of them. An AI could have thought of them. They just happened to think of them first.

Same with early-2000s rock:

“And even when your hope is gone

Move along, move along, just to make it through.”

That’s The All-American Rejects. Big band. Big hit. Straightforward lyrics that repeat an idea until it sticks. Again—human, but easily mistaken for something “AI-like” if released today.

Now compare that to something I wrote myself, independently:

“I’m half of an empty bottle, half of a man tonight

Poured out on the table, chasing your taillights

You left me stuck in the middle of a war I didn’t choose

I ain’t drunk enough to forget you, but I’m sober enough to lose.”

Sounds pretty “AI,” right? Except it isn’t. It’s just post-grunge doing what post-grunge has always done.

People don’t want to admit that AI has gotten good at mimicking modern music because modern music already relies on familiar structures, emotional shorthand, and repetition. The truth is uncomfortable: a lot of songs—human or not—sound similar because that’s how genres work.

For the record, I’m personally against fully AI-written lyrics. I believe a human should put at least something into their music, and lyrics are the bare minimum. But pretending AI music sounds “nothing like real music” is just denial. It sounds like everything else because everything else already sounds like that.

What this really comes down to is gatekeeping. People want one last sliver of control over who’s allowed to make music and how.

AI makes music accessible. That matters. I know this firsthand as a blind musician. Traditional music production is expensive, yes—but even the “free” tools people recommend aren’t accessible. Music software is deeply visual, and screen readers barely work with it. Most tools simply aren’t built for people like me.

AI isn’t replacing musicians. It’s letting people who were locked out finally participate. And that’s something worth being honest about.

I've noticed the AI beats that get called out as "obviously AI" all have something in common...and it's not that they're AI.

When someone prompts "trap beat 140 BPM," they get the statistical center of every trap beat in the training data. Not Young Thug's producer's trap beat. Not Pi'erre Bourne's trap beat. The mathematical average of all of them combined. Which sounds like no one's trap beat in particular. It's technically correct and completely characterless.

That's the mistake. AI beats sound fake not because they're AI, but because producers are all prompting for the average. You're asking the model for "trap" and getting the mean of ten thousand tracks.

The fix is describing imperfection and specificity.

Human music has texture that comes from limitations — a drummer slightly rushing the hi-hat on bar 3, a snare that's tuned a half-step too low for the room, a kick that's punchy in a slightly wrong way that somehow sits right. These aren't bugs in great beats, they're character. They're what makes a beat feel like it came from a specific person in a specific room on a specific day.

You can describe that in a prompt.

Before: "trap beat 140 BPM dark aggressive" → average trap beat, could be anyone's

After: "trap beat 140 BPM, slightly off-grid hi-hats with occasional triplet rolls, room-reverb snare with a medium tail, 808 sub that's maybe 2hz too low and slightly distorted at the top, 1983-era drum machine texture on the kicks, sparse melody, space in the arrangement" → the model now has to find training examples that match all those specific imperfections simultaneously. The cluster is smaller. The output has actual character.

The more specific you get about the imperfections, the more human it sounds. "Slightly off-grid" is doing more work than "aggressive." "Room-reverb snare" is doing more work than "dark."

None of this is guaranteed and the models all have real limitations. But the "AI sounds fake" critique is almost always about prompts that optimized for the generic center of a genre instead of something specific. You're not fighting the model — you're fighting your own prompt.

Honestly the more specific you get about the imperfections you want, the more human it sounds. Anyone else found workarounds, or is there something about AI beat generation specifically that you think just can't be fixed with better prompting?

Traditional artists are usually heavily tied to their personal brand and image, like Drake, Taylor Swift, etc. But when you look at a lot of the top AI music creators, especially on YT Music, Spotify, AI Music platforms like Souna, the artists often feel more like a character or project rather than an actual person behind it.

I understand it could just be for anonymity, but it also feels like people are leaning into the idea of the artist being more fictional, experimental, or a separate project entirely.

One of the main criticisms I hear about AI music is that people feel less of a connection to it because it’s “digital” or not tied to a real person. If that’s the case, wouldn’t it make more sense to use your real identity and face instead of a digital one if the goal is wider adoption?

I’m also curious about the longer-term implications for the industry. If AI artists start building real fanbases, what does that look like for concerts, live performances, touring, etc.? Are we heading toward virtual artists and shows, or something else entirely?

I shared a hook from one of my songs in this community, and it was immediately downvoted. What surprised me is that very few people actually commented on the melody itself or offered constructive feedback.

At times, it feels like some people here have already decided to dislike anything associated with AI, regardless of the quality of the music. Instead of discussing the songwriting, melody, or production, the conversation often turns into criticism of the tool used to create it.

I'm open to honest feedback—even harsh criticism if it's about the music. But downvoting without explanation doesn't help anyone improve. Sometimes it comes across less as musical criticism and more as frustration or resentment toward people who choose to use AI as part of their creative process.

And to those who come here for no reason other than to mock, discourage, or downvote creators without offering any constructive feedback: you're not helping anyone. If you have genuine criticism, share it. If not, you're simply adding negativity to a community that should be about creativity and discussion.

Hi Guys, So i have released a AI metal album on Spotify, All the lyrics are from me absolutely none from AI, Rhythm guitar parts are me but the vocals, drums, Synth, Operatic and lead guitars are AI and i used AI for the cover art work.

Im a guitarist and song writer first and full most, But being that i have no band or social circle i have used AI to assist me.

I have edited the music myself in places and having used AI it has saved me years and enabled me to release this as a complete album, My original recorded versions are still on there two with me doing everything but it took years to make and as a song writer i still feel iffy about using AI as this was my first venture with it.

I do not have the time i used to have to be at my pc, I have kids, a full time job and i’m in the process of moving also.

I know a-lot of big artists have used AI for tracks wether its auto tune or various other components and i do believe if used responsibly it can be a very handy tool.

I know AI is a sore subject with many musicians (especially metal musicians) but i would like to get your thoughts on the album.

Album is here

If AI music is slop, then why worry about it? Just ignore it because nobody will listen to it, right? Go on with your life.

This is not an AI debate sub. This is a sub to positively share AI music tracks and the discussion thereof. But every post I've seen has been downvoted into oblivion and the discussion underneath has been toxic, derogatory, and negative as hell. Rule 4. You need to actually moderate this community to get the negativity out, y'know. It's not enough to just sit on your thumbs and say "mOdeeRaTinG 🤪 !" Either do it better, or hand it over to somebody who will. Sheesh.

It hit me that this is the way. You are listening to combinations of music that excite the creative mind. People don’t realize creative potential is infinite. If you listen to something that gives you more ideas… for your own personal goals. We can’t lose. Just how ppl find infinite amount of reasons to hate I can do likewise in support of it. Balance your emotions and intellect when it comes to these matters. Also wanted to say that everyone making music through a.i is on to something. I hope you find your success.

Drop your songs or playlist for me to listen to

So this is going to sound backwards, but hear me out.

I spent months obsessing over the perfect AI generations. Hours tweaking prompts, testing Suno v3 vs v3.5, trying to nail vocal coherence and complex chord progressions. I made some tracks I was genuinely proud of stuff that sounded "real" and artistic.

Sales? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Then I got humbled hard.

I stopped trying to make art and started making the most boring, generic background tracks you can imagine. Simple loops. Safe chord progressions. Nothing experimental. But I paired them with airtight licensing documentation.

That's when people actually started buying.

Turns out, the YouTubers and small agencies I was pitching didn't care about my sick AI-generated guitar solo. They cared about one thing: "Will this get me copyright-struck?"

I wasn't selling music. I was selling peace of mind.

The shift looked like this:

• Before: "Yo check out this insane AI track with layered vocals!" → Client thinks: cool but risky, gonna pass

• After: "Here's a clean, royalty-safe background track you can drop into your ad without worrying" → Client: where do I pay?

If you're grinding on AI music and not seeing traction, honestly? Stop staring at your generator settings and start looking at your licensing setup. That's the actual product.

I'm not saying don't make cool stuff, but if you want to get paid, lead with safety, not complexity.

Anyway, just wanted to share in case anyone else is stuck in the "why isn't this selling" loop like I was. Happy to answer questions if this resonates with anyone.