I love modern technology. I really do. There are so many ways modern technology makes life easier or just a little better.

But there’s a time and a place for everything. One modern convenience is starting to stick its face in where it doesn’t belong. And least, not from an artistic standpoint. Of course, I’m talking about Artificial Intelligence.

People are beginning to embrace AI like nobody’s business. In some ways, it’s kind of scary. I mean, have these people never seen The Terminator? Does the word Skynet mean nothing to you?

Seriously, though … we need to be careful with this.

I’d be lying if I said I’ve never played around with AI. Of course I have! I’m willing to bet more than 90 percent of us have, if only for a few minutes. The question is, where do we draw the line? And what can we live with?

A few people backed away from AI immediately. Some use it for certain things that might be difficult to detect by others. Still others are all in, and they use AI for any- and everything without regret or apology.

Artificial intelligence can help you build a resume, write a report, gather and present data for a business meeting, or (and here’s the scary part) help create music.

Within the music industry, the biggest argument against AI is that it completely removes the human element from one of the most human endeavors in this world. Music is about art. It’s about creativity. It’s about expression. Those elements driven by humans, not computers and all that come with them.

But it can be argued that AI has been used under different names for decades. Sequencers, drum machines, samplers, Digital Audio Workstations (or DAW) … all are out there. And they have been for quite some time. All have helped or are helping with the creation of music. All can be heard on records from just about any music genre named since as far back as the early seventies. I cite Pink Floyd’s “On the Run” or The Who’s “Baba O’Reilly” as examples. Their use of computer sequencing is common knowledge.

The pushback, however, is relatively easy. All of that gear is driven via human minds and hands. Without a person directing the machine and telling it what to do, the machine does nothing. However, others say once the human programs the machine, said machine’s intelligence ensures everything flows as it should.

It’s semantics to some but a hard line for others.

A friend and I love to share music with one another. We pass links back and forth all the time with songs classic and new, each trying to influence the other into trying something different. One day, I got a rather distressed text reading, “I was all excited to send you this new song I like, but then I found out it was completely AI-generated.”

Uh-oh.

I checked out the song anyway. It sounded far too real. AI managed to capture the riffs, hooks, fills, and vocals of a commercial metal song. It was a bit scary.

The machines are making music. People are listening, but not noticing. And they’re liking it.

We’ve entered an era where so much can no longer be taken at face value. This photo was doctored, the subject(s) in that video don’t really exist … it’s getting harder and harder to tell what’s real and what isn’t. Now music is in the midst of this phenomenon.

So, where is the line? How much AI should we allow into our lives, particularly as artists?

Can we argue that Google itself is a form of AI? And we use that every day! But we draw the like at music and other art forms? How much above “none whatsoever” is considered too much? Some people are fine letting AI do what it does. Others don’t want it within 500 miles of a recording studio or art gallery.

Me? I think it comes down to just how you plan to use AI. What is the endgame with that which you have created, or let AI create?

A guy on Facebook absolutely tore me a new one for making this the “cover photo” for my individual profile:

Dude was ready to burn me at the stake for witchcraft. For him, AI should never be used in any form of artistic endeavor. He all but ordered me not to use it. (I’m a veteran. I know an order when I hear one.) I’m not gonna lie … he pissed me off a little.

For starters, Dude was not my mother, my drill instructor, or a superior officer, so he’s not allowed to give me orders. But let’s put that aside for now.

The image comes from a photo I took of myself. No photographer is missing out on a paycheck. Secondly, I have no intention of selling this or any other renderings I’ve created commercially. Admittedly, I’ve assembled a collection of photos I took myself and turned them into the images one might see in a realistic-looking graphic novel.

Here’s the wrinkle: I will not be selling the book I’m assembling commercially in any way, shape or form. My only distribution plan is to offer a copy to any musician I photographed for free. That’s it. That’s the entire marketing plan. The only artist not getting paid is me. And since I don’t want any money, no one is getting ripped off.

A couple of years back, I saw a pencil drawing created by a friend. I was really impressed, and asked her if she could create one of me playing guitar. She agreed and gave me her fee, which I happily paid. An artist did work. An artist got paid for her work. And now it hangs proudly in my home.

Facebook Dude clearly didn’t understand my intent. And mind you, he was the only person to make a negative comment. I probably shouldn’t have let it stick in my craw. But there it is. Or was, anyway. I have no regrets. I know what I’m doing and I’ll see to it no human gets stepped on. And I moved on.

But what about music? Where do we draw the line? Or do we refuse to even bother drawing one because AI shouldn’t be allowed in the room to begin with?

I decided to conduct an informal poll with some musician friends. I asked them the “sequencer as AI” question. All but one of them said no, a sequencer cannot be AI because it must be controlled by humans. Randy McStine took things a step further.

Randy asked me if I was a fan of Wendy Carlos or Tomita. I said I was. I heard Carlos’s Switched-On Bach as a child, thanks to my mother. And Tomita’s take on Gustav Holst’s The Planets is a remarkable piece of work.

“So, there you have two incredibly brilliant, musical people reinterpreting great classical works through use of emerging technology and scientists,” he said. “Each note crafted by hand using machines. In 2026, you can have zero musical abilities whatsoever, but type in a prompt that allows you to create a hybrid of the life’s work of both of those artists (including every single person involved to make those records), and have a computer generate endless permutations in ten seconds!”

Randy’s point is well made. Technology might be able to make music but humans make music art!

Simply put, Artificial Intelligence has no real place in music. It cannot be allowed to replace the human element.

Scrutinize what you’re listening to. Literal lives (read, careers) are at stake.

We can’t let Skynet win this one.

#cirdecsongs

If you would like to have your music reviewed, contact me at cirdecsongs@gmail.com