Are AI-Generated Songs Ethical? Let's Talk About It.

[brozobob]

Hey everyone,

I recently experimented with AI tools like Claude for lyrics and Suno for complete song creation. The result? Two songs — "Detroit Dreamer" and "Fountain of Youth" — were created in under 30 minutes, with surprising quality and depth.

That got me thinking…

If I didn’t write a single lyric or play a note, is it still my song?

I’d love to hear your thoughts:

Do you think AI-generated songs are truly original?

Is it cheating… or just a new kind of artistry?

How should credit and ownership work when using tools like Claude or Suno?

Could this technology help or hurt real musicians?

Have you made music using AI? What was your experience?

Whether you’re curious, cautious, or already using AI in your workflow — let’s start a healthy conversation.

You can find my original post with the songs at https://dawtopia.com/2025/07/21/%f0%9f% ... ted-music/

[seangm]

del

[planetearth]

Hey everyone,

I recently experimented with AI tools like Claude for lyrics and Suno for complete song creation. The result? Two songs — "Detroit Dreamer" and "Fountain of Youth" — were created in under 30 minutes, with surprising quality and depth.

That got me thinking…
If I didn’t write a single lyric or play a note, is it still my song?

No. Technically, no one owns the IP and no one can copyright it (so far; this may soon change). If you had contributed to the chord progression and lyrics without just taking what the AI system gave you, you might be able to copyright it (based upon recent US court cases).

I’d love to hear your thoughts:

Do you think AI-generated songs are truly original?

Again, technically no. They are simply notes and words following each other based upon probability.

Is it cheating… or just a new kind of artistry?

A bit of both, I'd say.

How should credit and ownership work when using tools like Claude or Suno?

The courts are wrestling with this now, with the UK seemingly poised to go a different (and, I'd argue, better and more musician-friendly) way than the US.

Could this technology help or hurt real musicians?

It could hurt the ones trying to come up now, since it will be more difficult for them to get paid for their work.

Then, of course, there are messes like this, where Spotify publishes AI-generated songs from dead artists without their permission: https://www.404media.co/spotify-publish ... ermission/

Have you made music using AI? What was your experience?

Well, I asked Chat GPT and Gemini the same question, twice: Give me a chord progression in the style of Genesis during their "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway" era, and their "Foxtrot" era. In each case, both systems gave me the same chord progression for each era—and it was awful. Both systems explained their choice of each chord, and while their explanations made sense, the chords as a progression were effectively a "chord salad". So...no, I haven't made any music using AI.

Steve

[justin3am]

IMO, no you didn't make music. You wrote a prompt. If you performed those lyrics, you are getting closer to making music but you didn't write the song. You wrote the prompt and performed the robot's lyrics.
Ethical? Who can agree on what is ethical anymore? Did you enjoy yourself in the process? As much as I'm opposed to using chatbots for this kind of thing, I'm not in any position to say people should or shouldn't do it. We are all free to express our creativity (or not) as we wish.

With that said, if a potential client tells me they used a chatbot to help them write a song, I will tell them they should find someone else to help them record/mix/master it for them. If a vocalist had a chatbot write their lyrics, I may provide information about how to record their vocals but I would decline a vocal tracking session with them. I just don't want to be involved in that stuff. If someone releases music with clanker generated images for the album artwork, I'm not going to buy that music, even if it's an artist I like.

I'm framing this as decisions made on my part because that's as far as it goes. I'm not going to tell anyone how they should feel about this stuff. I can only control how I react to it.

[planetearth]

IMO, no you didn't make music. You wrote a prompt. If you performed those lyrics, you are getting closer to making music but you didn't write the song. You wrote the prompt and performed the robot's lyrics.
Ethical? Who can agree on what is ethical anymore? Did you enjoy yourself in the process? As much as I'm opposed to using chatbots for this kind of thing, I'm not in any position to say people should or shouldn't do it. We are all free to express our creativity (or not) as we wish.

With that said, if a potential client tells me they used a chatbot to help them write a song, I will tell them they should find someone else to help them record/mix/master it for them. If a vocalist had a chatbot write their lyrics, I may provide information about how to record their vocals but I would decline a vocal tracking session with them. I just don't want to be involved in that stuff. If someone releases music with clanker generated images for the album artwork, I'm not going to buy that music, even if it's an artist I like.

I'm framing this as decisions made on my part because that's as far as it goes. I'm not going to tell anyone how they should feel about this stuff. I can only control how I react to it.

But what if (as you say), a chatbot "helped" by providing a rhyme for two lines of lyrics and a chord progression that simply helped resolve a suspended chord to a major chord—or merely explained the Circle of Fifths to the writer, who then was able to finish the piece by himself? Would you still suggest they find someone else to record/mix/master it for them?

I'm not challenging you; I'm just curious to see if there's a limit as to how much the person had to write, compared to how much the chatbot "wrote". I probably wouldn't be too happy recording a completely AI-generated track (especially since a sufficiently advanced AI wouldn't even need anyone to "record, mix, or master" anything).

I haven't written anything from an AI's suggestion, and apart from the chord progression I asked for (again, out of curiosity), I haven't asked AI to help with any composing. I don't plan to, either.

Steve

[FranklyFlawless]

If I didn’t write a single lyric or play a note, is it still my song?

Sure, no one else is going to claim it otherwise.

Do you think AI-generated songs are truly original?

"Truly original" is subjective. I do not think music itself is original, since we are influenced/inspired by others. Even alone, we share heartbeats.

Is it cheating… or just a new kind of artistry?

The latter. Cheating would be more akin to plagarism and getting away with it.

How should credit and ownership work when using tools like Claude or Suno?

Whoever claims it first.

Could this technology help or hurt real musicians?

Sure, it can do either or both.

Have you made music using AI? What was your experience?

No.

[Saffran]

Have you made music using AI? What was your experience?

I did some songs and posted them here.
I was prepared for negative replies and got them. Wanted only to showcase what i could do with AI and didn't engage in deeper discussion, so it was a well behaved topic.
Those songs where ok but was missing that "mojo" thing.
In my opinion, all of our human made songs in this forum also is ok and missing that "mojo" thing.
.
It is equal hard to find that "mojo" when you do a song with AI or manually, using instruments you play yourself.
.
One thing that could lead to positive events is if we let these AI songs multiply and drench the internet. Maybe that would force a person to come up with a brand new music style. Less dependant on 4/4. An AI could not invent something completely new, it has to have something already made to work with.

[enroe]

Hey everyone,

I recently experimented with AI tools like Claude for lyrics and Suno for complete song creation. The result? Two songs — "Detroit Dreamer" and "Fountain of Youth" — were created in under 30 minutes, with surprising quality and depth.

That got me thinking … If I didn’t write a single lyric or play a note, is it still my song?
I’d love to hear your thoughts:

Haha, there have been many discussions about AI in the past, with very
different outcomes. But to your questions:

1. Do you think AI-generated songs are truly original?

No.

Because no one person has composed exactly "that song." The
human emotions, the sweat of composing, writing, performing, etc.,
are only indirectly present in the song — if at all — by piecing
together many fragments from the internet.

2. Is it cheating… or just a new kind of artistry?

It is pure deception.

The AI puts pieces together according to its algorithm.

3. How should credit and ownership work when using tools like Claude or Suno?

The creator simply wrote a prompt line, varied it slightly, and that
was it. Of course, he has no copyright. Just like the AI, which simply
compiled what was already there, doesn't.

4. Could this technology help or hurt real musicians?

AI will not only harm musicians. It will revolutionize the entire music
business and music as a whole, and in its own way, wipe it out.

Why?

Because AI-generated songs devalue the genuine composition of
songs by real musicians. Why should a major label pay a musician
when AI can do it too — even for free?

AI will take over composing, and musicians will become obsolete
in the business. All that matters now are catchy pop songs that
many people enjoy — generated and optimized by AI.

The "real" musician is left with only an autistic bedroom and hobby
room existence, which no one else will be interested in anymore.

5. Have you made music using AI? What was your experience?

No.

We - the band "enroe" - indulge in the old craft that exists:
genuinely composing ourselves, playing ourselves, recording
ourselves, mixing ourselves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AI will trigger an even greater revolution in the music business
like the Internet once did: Everything will change - almost
everything will be based solely on AI.

Of course, there will also be a "Live Acts" section, where the
audience demands real people on stage. But here, too, AI is
already at work in the background.

Things are getting very tight for the "real" musician who composes
and performs his own songs. He's a dying breed. Looking back,
one can say: There was a time between 1950 and 2025 when he
once existed.

[Scoops]

As time progresses, humanity in music is de-evolutionized thru the use of the computer.

I remember in the early days of home DAW's, people would put out midi music, and claim were are a musician. Technically yes. Realistically, have they played in front of an audience? Probably couldn't

A while ago, there was the "Cher Effect". Nowadays, everything is pitch corrected. Is this the real person. NO.

Now we have AI.
You know my answer here

Edit: Sure use the stuff, but don't take the credit.

[eassae]

I really don't understand how a person could make a database(of stolen material) request, and claim the output is theirs or in anyway creative.

[Tiles]

AI does not steal. It also does not rely on a "database". That's not how AI works. It learns. Like you. Well not exactly like you. It's a super musician, knowing all songs made, knowing all instruments. And knowing what song is mainstream and what songs makes people happy. Hard to beat.

What it cannot do though is to have the mood that you had when you wrote your songs.

[koalaboy]

AI will not only harm musicians. It will revolutionize the entire music
business and music as a whole, and in its own way, wipe it out.

It will revolutionise the music industry.

I will not wipe out music as a whole - that won't change.

People making money from music, will be affected.

People just enjoying making music, will not (unless they choose to be).

AI kills businesses and jobs - not the ability of a human to actually perform an action or be creative.

[koalaboy]

I really don't understand how a person could make a database(of stolen material) request, and claim the output is theirs or in anyway creative.

If we ignore the 'stolen' aspect, it's exactly the business of record companies, just with some compensation back to the artist.

'Entrepreneurs' around the world will gladly sell anything to make money, and most aren't overly concerned with how they acquired/achieved it... just how likely they are to get caught in the act.

Think why big record companies take ownership of music they didn't create, or why big tech companies take ownership of software they didn't create... they are not creative at all but simply 'buy' and re-sell at a higher value, what they want. How is that different to someone using AI ?

If the argument is simply 'stolen', then what will be the argument when models trained 'ethically' start producing music... "There's no way they could achieve that !" ??

(There are some smaller record companies/businesses that are more ethical, for sure.)

[eassae]

AI does not steal. It also does not rely on a "database". That's not how AI works. It learns. Like you. Well not exactly like you. It's a super musician, knowing all songs made, knowing all instruments. And knowing what song is mainstream and what songs makes people happy. Hard to beat.

What does AI "learn" from?…a database(dataset if you prefer) of music. I don't believe that the majority of musicians that contribute to this database, at least knowingly(TOS fatigue), agreed to have their music used as input.

[eassae]

If the argument is simply 'stolen', then what will be the argument when models trained 'ethically' start producing music... "There's no way they could achieve that !" ??

Stolen wasn't or isn't my main concern or point, that's why I put it in parentheses, my main point is that it's not creative and the prompter should not be able to claim ownership in anyway.