Go talk schit somewhere else, huh?
Look, if you’re going to pick fights about technology in music, at least base it on real history instead of mythology.
First off, people absolutely
did complain about autotune when it first showed up in the late ’90s but it didn’t stay taboo. It quickly became a normal production tool, and now plenty of artists use it intentionally as an effect, not just hiding bad singing. That’s exactly the same way guitarists use pedals or synth players use filters and envelopes.
And about your Alphaville example let’s get the facts straight. Their song
Forever Young was recorded back in 1984 with analog synthesizers, sequencers, drum machines and engineer choices, long before autotune even existed. They trimmed the arrangement to vocals and pads because the producer felt the stripped‑down vibe worked best that’s studio editing.
Marian Gold himself worked with the band and producers to shape the vocals, even getting help with pronunciation to fit the sound they wanted. It is pretty "selective" and sure it would be unfair to call it cheating, but that is exactly what they did to the song for that "perfect" studio version.
So sure, you can act like
anything electronic equals apocalypse, but that’s just ignoring decades of music history where producers and artists have used tools creatively. Technology doesn’t erase artistry. It gives artists more choices and most people don’t hate that, they just hate gatekeeping rhetoric more than autotune itself.
Also, if you think “real” artists don’t use automation, you might be a bit thick. Automation in music isn’t new it’s been around since the 1950s in experimental composition, and in studios it was used for volume fades, panning, and effect tweaks long before computers were in every home. Synth pioneers like Wendy Carlos or bands like Pink Floyd in the ’70s were using studio automation and sequencers to create sounds no human could perform live manually. Every time a mix engineer adjusts levels, pans, or triggers tape loops, that’s automation.
And yes, I’ve been making AI music for several months now, so if you think it’s soulless or low-effort, you’ve been living under a rock. You can literally control every aspect of the performance, choose the voice, the style, even create a full persona, and then sculpt every nuance pronunciation, tone, inflection, phrasing, even whisper or emphasize specific lyrics. You can upload your own composition or sounds and build on them, producing something entirely unique. Effects like echoes, delays, panning, stereo/mono output, or vocal chops can all be specified in detail.
It seems you think you know something about this, but honestly, you don’t. The idea that AI music is “easy” couldn’t be further from the truth. Sure, anyone can crank out a bad AI song, but making a
good one actually requires serious musical knowledge and precision. For example, with Suno you have a strict 1000-character limit to describe what you want. That’s barely enough space to articulate exactly where you want a build, a breakdown, a vocal chop, or a pan effect. You have to condense everything: which lyrics are rapped, whispered, or sung, where the synths hit, what style each section needs, and more. If you’re into synthesizers, you need to understand those too, how they interact with the style you’re aiming for.
So yeah, making a good AI track is anything but effortless. The process demands the same thought, precision, and creativity that any serious producer would put into a traditional track. You think it’s easy? Bitch, please.
And if you think only “non-artists” use Suno or other AI music platforms, you’re in for a surprise. Quite a few
real artists actively use it, especially songwriters creating demos. Suno even has
stem exports—so, yes, real artists are taking AI-generated stems and integrating them into professional DAWs for full productions. Some artists even upload their own vocals to create personas for future projects, demos, or experimentation.
The irony isn’t lost on me. Here you are, moaning about AI music while defending “real” artists, yet you’re completely ignorant to how these tools are actually being used. They aren’t just for memes or lazy tracks they’re legitimate production tools that give musicians creative flexibility that wasn’t possible before. So please, spare me the gatekeeping lecture.
The irony is rich coming from you Considering I am talking ****........righhhhht how about a little history lesson...........
Some early Queen albums famously declared “No Synthesizers!” on the sleeve notes essentially a statement that they were committed to traditional instruments and
not electronic keyboards. That was a
stance in opposition to synth use at the time.
In the early 1980s, the UK Musicians’ Union passed a resolution to ban synthesizers and drum machines from use, out of fear that these electronic tools would replace real instrumentalists. That’s essentially the
same panic you see about AI now tech threatening human jobs.
Across genres in the late 1960s and ’70s, critics often dismissed synths as
cold or
inhuman, accusing electronic sounds of replacing skill or diluting music. Some traditionalists in jazz and rock derided machines for reducing the need for trained instrumentalists.
Even within bands like Rush, there was internal tension as synthesizers became more prominent in the ’80s. Some members felt sidelined because keyboards were layered early in the process, displacing guitars and traditional parts. That reflects a resistance to technology changing the creative balance.
Punk rock and early hip-hop eras had their own purist disdain for anything electronic beyond basic instruments, with fans and critics alike insisting synths and drum machines weren’t “real music.”
Yeah go on have a cup of STFU and welcome to Loserville. lol yeah...ppffft....bye bye
www.theguardian.com
