I personally feel that goes against what this community should be about but I’d like feedback, especially on wording.
I don’t feel generative “ai” audio is fitting here but a eurorack/modular/generative sequencer type thing would be welcome.
Given a recent post I believe the general community agrees but I need help with wording.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
Edit: not the focus, but I do think stem splitting models are fine, but I would interested in discussion about that too.


“Was it possible before 2020?” is a decent rule of thumb. I’ve written procedural music for 4 MHz computers. It’s not good, but it’s fundamentally distinct from having a robot do the thing for you. It is entirely reasonable for any community to say no thank you to that kind of effortless content.
That said: I have no personal objections to the robot that does the thing for you. Too many comments and blog posts go ‘oh it’s terrible, I’d never tolerate this in my industry… anyway here’s how I use it in my hobbies.’ I don’t play those games. The tech is fine. It’s a jack-of-all-trades. People can and will use it to entertain themselves, and each other. Whatever grand philosophical declarations we can make about art - you can still do everything the hard way, for those high-minded goals. People putting on the uninterrupted smooth jazz channel while they read are not listening to music in the same mindset as whoever’s working that saxaphone.
I see your points. I feel like 2023 is the generally the accepted timeframe but it’s trickier for me. I like stem separation tools (even if I mainly use them in unintended ways). If the Beatles can use it I see no reason why we shouldn’t here.