AI, Artistry and Me

Here is a back-and-forth muse on the subject, not a thorough examination or even hardcore answers from me -but I think some feet-on-ground questions and principles worth considering.

So Artificial Intelligence might be defined as programming computers with a mass of information pertaining to just about anything, then asking any number of questions to get a result. The result/s can then be used or not by the computers and human handlers for whatever gains they deem important and useful. Or at least powerful.

I won't get much into the deeper discussion of great things AI may truly prove to be wonderful and beneficial for here- and there are some. A number of my friends are using it to help write (words) and work with photos, but for me, my music, lyrics and writing are straight up -off limits-... zero AI for me in those areas.

In this piece I want to offer a few thoughts on how AI might particularly enhance or blur/fog the distinctiveness of a music or visual piece and thus begs the question if it's a machine or the person creating the art? That's as important as it may be hard to discuss with words: AI and "the stuff of the soul".

Cosmic, ain't it- heh?! What did you expect from an old hippie?!

In very simple terms when one considers what computing and the digital world has brought to music in terms of recordings and distribution as well as music gear, then drawing/painting, photography and film -and especially when it comes to design, production and distribution re. linking with the internet... it's pretty obvious most everyone reading this uses computers to help... a LOT!

This is not to say AI is directly responsible for any of the great and progressive tools music and digital artists bring to the world (digital sound and effects patches for example) but of course when one adds elements of it I can point to some very cool stuff. Then comes the question of how much "soul" a human being is able to bring to an artwork that largely or even mostly a machine conjures up "by itself".

Being mostly a blues player I have often thought at some point I may record an entire record of songs with -zero- effects, just guitar through an amp with NO pedals, pure and simple, guitar-and-amp. In blues especially that can work and it surely affects how one plays as well as records and thus shapes the final product.

As cold as the world often is, I as well as many others young and old have gone back into analog music gear, letter-writing and posting, pencil and basic drawing, back-to-the-country-life sort of elements and plenty of us think it's due to the machine-age and raw industrial approach, all about ratcheting up sales which can be a turn-off to an artist. Not that profit is wrong but that consumerism shouldn't be WHY we produce art. Vinyl records, old tech and older art-making approaches, zines and the like have made a comeback over the last several years. It can seem less daunting, a fun re-learn of how to do things that may seem more simple, closer to hand and heart, warmer and so on. I get that.

Well let's think about this "machine conjuring" stuff element for a moment.

When a guitarist uses an effects pedal or two... or ten chained together... when in recording all sorts of digital and even analog effects and gear are utilized (all "outboard"), when the wide and deep elements of keyboards, digital patches for drums, vocal harmony affects and various hybrids of electronic music and other music styles delve often quite deep into "machine" territory and have for decades, where does the "soul" begin - and when does the digital essentially take over? OR, does the digital stuff used actually inspire the soul of the musician, producer, creative person/s?

How about music samples where mashups happen as an artist laces other artist's song portions within a new song? Much like the more recent AI, there is a blur between the artist and these enhancing elements, no?

Hendrix (quite analog -non- digital in those days of course) used guitars, amps and volume along with a few early effects pedals and also creative recording techniques in innovative ways that brought fresh and exciting sounds and songs to the world. I know artists who use elements of AI after coming up with their own creative ideas fed into the mix of artwork to then enhance digital pictures for cd covers or online adds and so forth. You might use the term "hybrid" even though 80 or more percent of the work is their own and not AI created.

Just in terms of creativity- what is "selling out" and what is inspiring when using non-purely-human assistance in the arts?

I suppose one question is the percentage of what's truly them, theirs, fully original and not borrowed or even plagiarized work in the finished piece. But who determines what's ok and not, or even legal (think intellectual property) and this entire concept gets quite muddled and frankly, something of legitimate concern.

I believe there is reality in some recent comments that "AI is the biggest theft in history"- the reason being that it's core information base is all snatched with little-to-no respect of copyright of the original creator/s, the info from all quarters with profit and not compensation in mind.

These are the current deep and wide debate issues I'm reading about constantly in autumn, of 2026.

Plenty who have studied the original music and lyric writers of the earliest blues records note how people heard a song, largely or only slightly changed the lyrics and/or music and played it regularly often recording it as -their- song. A good many of the old blues tunes were recorded, re-done and re-titled that were clearly spawned from the original tune.

Then of course the vast majority of musicians are not going to gain wealth and many cannot even begin to meet basic needs of survival to keep a career going.

So something like a hundred years prior to AI folks who got inspired and with a good heart simply recycled ideas to come up with something of a hybrid, a new piece "of their own".

See how deep this gets?

Now in the age of lawyers, lawsuits and copyright infringement -read capitalism and MMMMMMMONEY... AI and digital elements used by both visual and audio artists becomes quite an issue.

"So what are your solutions Glenn?" you may be thinking.

At this stage I think be careful to whom and what you listen to and beware of borrowing! Take pains to pray, read, listen and look before you create and put things out in public- especially to sell. Give credit where it's truly due.

I'm writing this on an alternative operating system (Linux) and Grrr Records is a small indie label doing things slowly and carefully. I don't release stuff in public that will register much attention from big companies or big money in the first place, and I live in such a simple manner that finances for basic everyday living don't rule my choices as a creative artist.

What I do -not- want is AI, any particular sound affect or recording approach to "lord it over" my creative output. I tend toward lo-fi more than most realize but in the end in terms of the creative musical process I trust instinct, emotional intelligence and heart toward God and human beings far more for inspiration than any machine -nor do machines have a human soul with the sense of compassion and care that God has gifted us each with.

A slight touch of AI here or there may be helpful to some in the arts but at present I myself largely avoid it.

Most know I'm a default bluesman at core- and yet I've experimented with electronic music and have considered doing a full-on electronica-based project for years... so a Luddite? Not this ol' dude! But I love doing things in alternative ways and so don't have any need for AI re. what I personally create, full disclaimer.

One-size-fits-all solutions to this issue? I cannot offer such.

So for what it's worth or not, this is how I think about the matter at present and likely, future.

As always, thanks for stopping by. -Glenn