I'd like to begin by saying that I always appreciate my mom and all she does. But, like many of us, it takes an absence of something to truly appreciate it, and given that my mother is moving my sister into her new life, I really appreciate everything she does as I am now the only one doing it. I didn't sit down for multiple hours today because I was running around the house, emptying the trash, doing the dishes, doing the laundry, cleaning the bathroom, picking up prescriptions, getting gas, making a grocery list... and it will all. Start. Again. Tomorrow. How my mother manages and managed to do all this plus raising four kids for the past thirty years is absolutely beyond me. She truly is a superhero and a real-life fairy godmother. I am forever grateful for all she does and continues to do for me....so you can imagine my anger and frustration when people have the audacity to say she doesn't have a "real job." A "real job"? Excuse me? I'd argue that she has one of the hardest jobs around; shaping some of the future generation. She works her backside off every day not only to keep the house in order and maintain the quotidian necessities of life but also to instill morals in her children and help them become good humans/neighbors/sisters/brothers/friends/etc. It's a 24/7, 365 days-a-year job with no salary, no breaks, and no benefits. Yet she and so many other women do it graciously and well. In researching for this article, I saw a quote that said: "being a stay-at-home parent is a luxury, but it's not luxurious." I think this sums it up well--my family was blessed with the capability for one parent to work and the other to stay at home and raise the kids. Not everyone has that capability. I acknowledge that privilege and honor/respect those who don't have such a choice, as well as the sacrifices and hard work to which stay-at-home moms/dads commit. However, I don't acknowledge the validity of the argument that being a stay-at-home mom is anti-feminist. My mother actively chose to be a stay-at-home mom; she did not make this decision because she felt pressured to or because that was "her place as a woman." She had the privilege to be able to choose whether or not to stay at home with her kids, and she chose to. It is this choice and free-will decision-making that truly characterizes feminism. My mother chose to do and does what she wanted and felt was most important: to raise her kids at home. She is one of the strongest women I know, and much of my emphatic feminism comes from her guidance and example. Anyone who says that a woman has to work outside of the home to be a "true feminist" needs a refresher course in one of the core tenets of the feminism: the freedom and inherent right to choose. So don't forget to thank you fairy godmother, whoever that person is/however they identify/relate to you. Because without them, no happily ever after has a chance.
The Illusion of Creativity
AI-generated music is often marketed as “artistic” or “educational.” But what does it really teach?
- That style can be replicated without understanding.
- That emotion can be simulated without feeling.
- That effort can be bypassed with a prompt.
For young creators, this sets a dangerous precedent. Why learn to play guitar when an algorithm can do it faster? Why study harmony when AI can generate chord progressions in seconds? The risk isn’t just laziness — it’s the loss of depth, discipline, and the tactile joy of creation.
I have listened to several AI-generated music covers. My initial reaction was one of considerable impressiveness, particularly regarding the reimagining of classic pop hits in diverse genres with novel arrangements. Here is one good example a-ha — Take On Me
However, after engaging with several such Ai generated song covers, a sense of emotional detachment emerged, attributable to the perceived absence of human artistry and genuine sentiment, resulting in a technically flawless yet ultimately soulless auditory experience.
Copyright in Crisis
What does the copyright law say about AI generated music, especially in field of music covers. Who is liable for copyright in this case, AI developers, people who used AI to generate music or people who published it on music platforms?
Recent lawsuits show that the music industry is pushing back hard:
- Universal, Sony, and Warner sued AI music platforms Suno and Udio in 2024 for allegedly training their models on copyrighted songs without permission Ars Technica The Lyon Firm.
- They’re seeking up to $150,000 per infringed song, arguing that the AI outputs resemble famous tracks and voices (e.g., Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson).
- These lawsuits target the developers of the AI tools — but they raise broader questions:The legal gray area is training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use Sites at USC.
But who’s liable?
Role | Legal Risk | Why |
AI Developers | ✅ High | For training on copyrighted material without licenses. |
Users | ⚠️ Moderate | If they intentionally recreate protected works. |
Publishers/Platforms | ✅ High | For distributing infringing content. |
The grey area lies in training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use. Meanwhile, AI-generated works themselves aren’t eligible for copyright unless a human provides substantial creative input — leaving them in legal limbo.
The Educational Mirage
Some argue that AI music helps people learn genres, production styles, or vocal techniques. But this “education” often lacks context. It’s like learning to paint by watching a printer — technically impressive, but creatively hollow.
True musical education involves:
- Struggle and iteration: Learning through mistakes.
- Emotional connection: Expressing what words can’t.
- Cultural lineage: Understanding the roots of sound.
AI shortcuts bypass all of this. And in doing so, they risk flattening the rich terrain of human creativity into a sterile landscape of algorithmic mimicry.
Why This Fight Matters
This isn’t just about music. It’s about the future of art, storytelling, and human expression. If we allow machines to dominate creative spaces, we risk turning culture into content — optimized, monetized, and devoid of soul.
We must ask: Do we want a world where art is made by machines, or one where machines help humans make better art?
5 Key Takeaways
- AI-generated music blurs the line between innovation and erosion in the creative arts
- AI-generated music raises questions about copyright, culture, education, and artistic expression
- AI-generated music can replicate style without understanding, simulate emotion without feeling, and bypass effort with a prompt
- AI-generated music sets a dangerous precedent for young creators by potentially leading to a loss of depth, discipline, and joy of creation
