The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in music creation has sparked deep divisions within the music community, with musicians raising concerns that extend beyond economic impacts to questions about the very nature and value of music-making. Industry data reveals a surge in AI-generated music: an Apple Music executive reported in April that over one-third of streams on the platform were entirely produced by AI, while French streaming service Deezer noted a daily upload of 90,000 fully AI-created tracks in June—more than four times the volume from the previous year. A leading player in this field, Suno, an AI music-generation app, announced it was producing over seven million songs daily as of November last year.
Suno’s CEO and co-founder, Mikey Shulman, outlined the company’s mission in a January 2025 podcast interview as democratizing the experience of music-making, presenting it as a way to alleviate the time, skill, and effort traditionally required to create music. His remarks, however, sparked significant backlash among professional musicians, not primarily due to fears over lost revenue or copyright infringement but because of the philosophical implications about what it means to make music.
Critics argue that AI music generation promotes a "purely telic" understanding of music, treating the act of music-making solely as a means to an end—the final product of a song—rather than valuing the process itself. According to this view, the immersive effort and skill involved in creating music are integral to its value, both for performers and listeners. Musicians contend that eliminating the challenges inherent in music-making diminishes the fulfillment derived from overcoming obstacles and the unique experiences that arise during live performance or personal creation.
This perspective also emphasizes the experiential difference between human and AI-created music, highlighting that live audiences invest in witnessing musicians actively making music, not just in consuming the finished product. The opacity of AI music generation further complicates this dynamic since the process behind AI output remains unseen and unshared with audiences, making it improbable that people would value watching AI music creation as a performance.
Industry representatives have pushed back, suggesting that AI tools can serve as aids or democratizing platforms that provide broader access to music creation, and stress the involvement of musicians within their companies. They compare AI apps to traditional music technology, such as synthesizers, arguing that these tools expand creative possibilities. However, opponents differentiate AI music apps from conventional instruments and technology, stating the former produce finished works without human artistic participation, effectively commissioning music rather than making it.
Furthermore, critics argue that more effective and respectful ways exist to foster music engagement, such as enhancing music education and supporting musicians directly, rather than relying on AI systems trained on vast datasets—including potentially uncredited human-created work—to generate inexpensive content for commercial use.
Although AI music firms express respect for musicians and assert collaborative intentions, many observers see the industry's promotion of AI-generated music as undermining the identity and labor of musicians by diminishing the intrinsic value of human music-making. This moral concern, they argue, accompanies tangible risks to musicians’ livelihoods, creating a dual challenge to the traditional music ecosystem.
In summary, while AI music technology is advancing rapidly and reshaping the production landscape, its adoption raises foundational questions about creativity, skill, and cultural value. The ongoing dispute reflects a broader tension between technological innovation and the preservation of human artistic experience.