Can a human-created song that uses Synthesizer V as a vocalist be pitched as "AI-free?"
- Thread starter Brice J. Bentley
- Start date
- Watchers 8
OP
OP
Brice J. Bentley
New member
I agree. My controversial "AI-free" opinion is designed to separate legitimate music creators from Suno button pressers. I'm a songwriter and producer. I'm not using AI to write or compose anything for me. If having one AI-driven virtual instrument track requires me to use an AI label the same as a musically-experienced kid who prompts Suno to create an entire song from scratch, then the labeling system needs to change.
To me, Synthesizer V is a virtual instrument library like any other synthesizer virtual instrument because that's exactly how I use it. Since that's how I use it, I won't allow the technology that drives its sound to stigmatize my music with an implied association with Suno button pressers.
That's the $100,000 question. In my opinion, if we must use blanket AI assistance labels, then...
- The AI-driven virtual solo violin, which you wrote and played note for note, which is buried in your human-written original song, makes your song require an AI label.
- The sample library you used on your human-written virtual song, whose scripting was aided by Chat GPT, makes your song require an AI label.
- If you used an AI-driven plugin to mimic a Fairchild compressor on one instrument track of your song, then your song requires an AI label.
- If you were inspired by a musical phrase you heard in someone else's AI-assisted song and adopted a similar phrase to in your own song, then your music requires an AI label.
I'm just getting a jump start on saying "no" to stigmatic, blanket AI associations, and yes to a more sensible labeling system.
If the public demands songs with virtual vocals labeled, that's understandable, but let's not make it a an AI label. Let's make it a specific Virtual Vocal label. Then let's relegate AI labels only to music whose creative content has been generated or assisted by AI. Until we do that, I am not going to stigmatize my 100% human-invented songs with any association to AI just because one virtual instrument or vocal is driven by AI technology which may or may not sound better than a sampled or synthesized library.
Well, I have stated before (in the VI-Control forum) that to me, Synthesizer V is nothing more than just another virtual instrument. I use it as a tool, adjusting it exactly to my wishes, so I deem the results to be my own creation.
But it’s definitely employing its own voice(bank) and AI to construct its performance, and even though I have paid for the legal use of it, I couldn’t rightfully label it „AI free“. And I guess the same is (or will shortly be) true for many more if not all VST instruments, orchestras and even the widely employed NotePerformer.
So, many of us have become AI-music creators now — not in the writing, but in the performance part of the process, and we may have been so for a long time, using Ozone, Neutron and Waves IDX and such. Nobody cared … until now, as gazillions of AI-generated clips can be produced by the minute to drown out everything else.
Realizing that platforms like Spotify & Co. need to do something about it, in order to not kill every last bit of human creativity (and lose their customers in the process), I really wonder what kind of regulations they could possibly carve out to help matters. Whatever they do, I’m afraid they won’t be able to assess conformity of every single track unless they introduce pretty simple, easily verifiable rules.
Which probably will be the point where nobody cares for my own personal distinctions about the kind or the amount or the grade of AI involved…
Or do I get this wrong?
I googled „music industry standard for ai disclosure“, and this is what popped up:
https://savingcountrymusic.com/saving-country-musics-new-policy-on-ai-music-for-2026/
I‘m not sure how relevant they are, but they are stating exactly what I‘ve feared:
„Beginning in 2026, all music submissions to Saving Country Music via artists, publicists, labels, or any other means of distribution must disclose whether the music was composed either in part or in full by AI (Artificial Intelligence), or if it is clean of AI use. Similarly, this information will then be disclosed to the public as part of any music coverage.
Furthermore, any music that is disclosed or found to have been composed by AI either through the majority of the lyricism (50% or more), or via ANY (1% or more) AI-derived music (meaning audible sounds), this music will be disqualified from receiving review coverage or other editorial opportunities at Saving Country Music.“
…
„This policy does not exclude music written by human creators who might use AI-based tools as stand-ins for dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias to derive or verify historical/geographical/current event information, or even to help rhyme a line or two of verse. However, the majority of written words comprising the composition must be authored by a human creator, and accompanied by no AI-generated sounds.“
And they go on:
„No different than disclosing Explicit Lyrics to songs sent to radio or streaming services, it is the assertion of Saving Country Music that all labels, publicists, and artists should start disclosing when music utilized AI technology in part or in full, or when music is “clean” of such content (i.e. marking tracks/albums “AI = clean”).
Similarly, it is the assertion of Saving Country Music that streaming service should mark tracks utilizing AI, or should mark tracks that are certified free of AI. Charting entities such as Billboard should enact similar policies, and segregate AI-created music from human-created music on charts, at least until the full effects of AI on the music marketplace are understood.“
To me, this very much sounds like „let’s get rid of ANYTHING AI until we know better“, effectively putting an end to all producers without the means to hire musicians or even orchestras. Or at least putting them into the same box as the „Suno button pressers“.
And using the wording „clean“ feels kind of unpleasant to me, too.
(A sudden afterthought: what will happen to Hans Zimmer?
Not that I‘d be concerned…)
But it’s definitely employing its own voice(bank) and AI to construct its performance, and even though I have paid for the legal use of it, I couldn’t rightfully label it „AI free“. And I guess the same is (or will shortly be) true for many more if not all VST instruments, orchestras and even the widely employed NotePerformer.
So, many of us have become AI-music creators now — not in the writing, but in the performance part of the process, and we may have been so for a long time, using Ozone, Neutron and Waves IDX and such. Nobody cared … until now, as gazillions of AI-generated clips can be produced by the minute to drown out everything else.
Realizing that platforms like Spotify & Co. need to do something about it, in order to not kill every last bit of human creativity (and lose their customers in the process), I really wonder what kind of regulations they could possibly carve out to help matters. Whatever they do, I’m afraid they won’t be able to assess conformity of every single track unless they introduce pretty simple, easily verifiable rules.
Which probably will be the point where nobody cares for my own personal distinctions about the kind or the amount or the grade of AI involved…
Or do I get this wrong?
I googled „music industry standard for ai disclosure“, and this is what popped up:
https://savingcountrymusic.com/saving-country-musics-new-policy-on-ai-music-for-2026/
I‘m not sure how relevant they are, but they are stating exactly what I‘ve feared:
„Beginning in 2026, all music submissions to Saving Country Music via artists, publicists, labels, or any other means of distribution must disclose whether the music was composed either in part or in full by AI (Artificial Intelligence), or if it is clean of AI use. Similarly, this information will then be disclosed to the public as part of any music coverage.
Furthermore, any music that is disclosed or found to have been composed by AI either through the majority of the lyricism (50% or more), or via ANY (1% or more) AI-derived music (meaning audible sounds), this music will be disqualified from receiving review coverage or other editorial opportunities at Saving Country Music.“
…
„This policy does not exclude music written by human creators who might use AI-based tools as stand-ins for dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias to derive or verify historical/geographical/current event information, or even to help rhyme a line or two of verse. However, the majority of written words comprising the composition must be authored by a human creator, and accompanied by no AI-generated sounds.“
And they go on:
„No different than disclosing Explicit Lyrics to songs sent to radio or streaming services, it is the assertion of Saving Country Music that all labels, publicists, and artists should start disclosing when music utilized AI technology in part or in full, or when music is “clean” of such content (i.e. marking tracks/albums “AI = clean”).
Similarly, it is the assertion of Saving Country Music that streaming service should mark tracks utilizing AI, or should mark tracks that are certified free of AI. Charting entities such as Billboard should enact similar policies, and segregate AI-created music from human-created music on charts, at least until the full effects of AI on the music marketplace are understood.“
To me, this very much sounds like „let’s get rid of ANYTHING AI until we know better“, effectively putting an end to all producers without the means to hire musicians or even orchestras. Or at least putting them into the same box as the „Suno button pressers“.
And using the wording „clean“ feels kind of unpleasant to me, too.
(A sudden afterthought: what will happen to Hans Zimmer?
Not that I‘d be concerned…)
Reid Rosefelt
Well-known member
I was listening to tech journalist Kara Swisher on her podcast "Pivot" today and she said that instead of labeling things as "AI," we should instead label everything that doesn't use AI as "real."
I think she was talking about AI pictures and videos, which are always fully generated (music is more complicated, as this thread proves) but still, an interesting perspective on how bad things have become, particularly on social media. There is so much AI content, particularly in short form video, that one thing I see a lot on Facebook is that real people are often labeled by some commenters as AI.
I think she was talking about AI pictures and videos, which are always fully generated (music is more complicated, as this thread proves) but still, an interesting perspective on how bad things have become, particularly on social media. There is so much AI content, particularly in short form video, that one thing I see a lot on Facebook is that real people are often labeled by some commenters as AI.
That’s my main concern exactly — that they are going to break it all down to „AI or non-AI“ and this will be the only distinction they are willing to make.
And in this world of today, there will always be someone to tag your creations with „non-genuine“ (or „non-real“) just because they can and get away with it.
And the tag, be it rightful or not, will stick.
However, I am experiencing the opposite tagging, too: when my nephew who is a 28 year old teacher is laughing at me for not having my messages and letters (and lyrics, for that matter) written by Siri or ChatGPT. The young people seem to think it’s silly not to take the shortcut and be done with it. So maybe an AI tag will be a quality seal one day
