It's 6 p.m. on the night of Thanksgiving, you are standing in line with hundreds of other shoppers waiting for the doors to open. Thanksgiving is the holiday in America where we gather around the table with loved ones, say what we are thankful for, and enjoy a tasty feast. The last thing people should be doing on Thanksgiving night is pushing their way through a large crowd to get a $100 television.
This all raises a question: why do people feel that they “need” to purchase all these items? The answer is simply in sociology: America is developing into one of the most hyper-consumerist countries of the world. In certain contexts, consumerism is definitely a positive thing; without consumerism, businesses would fail and the economy would decline. It’s clear that if nobody bought any items, the economy would be doomed. America, however, is exceeding the needs of the economy and taking it way too far. The idea of hyper consumerism is the practice of buying more than we need or want, and often more than we can afford.
Black Friday is a day that shamefully expresses our hyper consumerist ways. People aren’t buying just what they need, but what they want— sure, it’s always great to treat yourself and loved ones, but that’s not what my point is. Black Friday many years ago consisted of the stores opening around midnight on the morning of Black FRIDAY. Now, doors open at 6 p.m. on the night of Thanksgiving. To me, this just seems very inappropriate.
Sure. I will admit, I have been Black Friday shopping before. Have I enjoyed it? Yeah, the deals are wonderful. But that’s not the point of this. After surveying my peers, family, and friends, I found that along with myself, roughly 39% of people were definitely not hitting the stores Thanksgiving night. On top of this, the another 16% said they were unsure. Its clear that these new Black Friday rules are making stores lose some consumer patronage. When I went Black Friday shopping in the past, my night went like this: on Thursday I’d spend Thanksgiving (all day and night) with family and friends, then go home and get some sleep. On Friday, I’d wake up anytime between midnight and 2 a.m., and head out to the stores. Even though 2 a.m. isn't ideal, its way better than leaving my family on Thanksgiving.
Nowadays if you were to go Black Friday shopping, your night would look like one of the two situations: on Thursday, you head to see your family around noon and have a Thanksgiving lunch instead of dinner so you could go shopping. Once your done eating, you leave your family for the stores— even skipping the football game. On Friday, you just sleep all day, because Black FRIDAY doesn't exist anymore. OR! On Thursday, you head to see your family, then leave and skip Thanksgiving dinner to make sure you get those Target door busters. Then on Friday, once again, nothing. Black FRIDAY simply doesn't exist anymore.
It's all about the timing. Taken from my survey, 45 percent of my sample reported that they disagreed with the times that the stores open (if you need a refresher, this year was about 6 p.m.). Another 29 percent said they were indifferent because they didn't go Black Friday shopping. Along with this, 84 percent of my sample stated that they did not think stores should be open on Thanksgiving because it took away from family and holiday time. Its clear that consumers believe the timing is an issue, however, nobody is willing to stand up against it.
This year was the first year I didn't do any Black Friday shopping. The holidays for me (and I'm sure you as well) have always been about family. The gift giving and receiving has always just been a bonus. In other words, the materialistic side of the holidays never meant too much to me. I would much rather see my family than receive a gift. Sure, the gift giving and receiving is another large part of the holidays and Christmas, but that’s not the TRUE meaning. 91 percent of the surveyed individuals agreed that shopping is indeed a large part of our holiday season in America. People are always worrying about the amount of presents under the tree, rather than the meaning of gift giving. The saying “its the thought that counts” is slowly fading away.
Depending on your religion, the holidays in America highlight different religious beliefs for many different people. These beliefs and/or celebrations were meant to celebrate a religious holiday, not the fact that you got a $100 flat screen TV from Wal-Mart. Sure, everyone celebrates the holidays differently, but this year, I encourage you to focus on what really matters.
Hug your grandparents, spend some extra time playing with your little cousins, and watch some classic holiday movies. Put aside the fact that you’ll be getting some cool new things on Christmas morning, enjoy your holiday celebration, and focus on what really matters.
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
