A Creative Shortcut or an Artistic Deception?
The rise of artificial intelligence in music production has sparked both admiration and unease. While AI has become a powerful ally for content creators, its role in streaming platforms as a credited “artist” raises deeper ethical and artistic concerns. As a music producer, I rely on AI daily—but I draw a clear line between support and substitution.
AI as a Creative Assistant, Not a Replacement
Let’s start by acknowledging the obvious: AI is incredibly useful. I use it every day—for correcting grammar, enhancing syntax, translating content, and even generating visual illustrations. These tools help me work faster and smarter. In music, AI can suggest a bassline, generate an arpeggio, or provide harmonic ideas that unlock new directions in a track.
Tools like Scaler aren’t AI in the true sense—they don’t create autonomously—but they help trigger inspiration by suggesting chords and scales. You’re still in charge of the sound design, the arrangement, the feel. Just like buying a MIDI pack: a thousand people may use the same pack, but you’ll get a thousand different results, depending on the producer’s vision and touch.
But Streaming an AI Track as an “Artist”? That’s a Problem
Creating music means starting from silence—building something from scratch. It’s a process filled with doubt, intuition, and often imperfection. That’s the beauty of it. There’s intention behind every beat, every texture, every mix decision.
So what’s the artistic value when a track is fully generated by an AI and published on Spotify, Apple Music, or Deezer—complete with an artist name and cover art? Can we call it art when no human emotion or personal story was involved? Is that really music, or just data with rhythm?
Deezer’s AI Labeling: A Welcome Move
Deezer’s recent decision to flag AI-generated music and demonetize such content is a welcome step forward. It brings transparency to the table and sets a precedent for other platforms to follow. Listeners deserve to know whether they’re connecting with a human artist or just an algorithm spitting out patterns.
Let’s face it: if there’s no financial incentive, many of these so-called “AI artists” will vanish. No more quick monetization, no more soulless tracks flooding curated playlists. And honestly, good riddance.
Use AI to Spark Ideas, Not to Fake Talent
Using AI-generated music in YouTube videos, podcasts, or educational content is absolutely valid. Many content creators lack the budget to license high-quality music, and AI can fill that gap affordably and efficiently.
But releasing fully AI-generated tracks on streaming platforms and crediting yourself as the “artist”? That’s where things get murky. Art isn’t just about output—it’s about intention, risk, and identity. AI doesn’t take creative risks. It doesn’t feel. It doesn’t strive.
Conclusion: Keep the Soul in the Sound
Technology is moving fast, but authenticity still matters. If AI can help you explore musical ideas, perfect. But don’t confuse automation with artistry. Creating music should remain an expression of something human—even if it’s aided by a tool.
Let’s use AI as a creative catalyst, not a shortcut to fake success. Because when the dust settles, what remains timeless isn’t how the music was made—it’s how it makes people feel.
