May 21, 2026
Why it’s the perfect time to finally start making music
Imperfection — not an aesthetic choice, but a requirement for new music.
As of the current music industry, AI feels like a “threat” to music, and to many industries beyond it. Someone will show you a song that sounds just like what’s “hot” right now, and then reveal to you that it was made through AI prompts. Certain AI accounts on Spotify are gaining mass-traction, with monthly listener counts passing 7 figures.
I just finished my degree at NYU like a week and a half ago, and throughout the 4 years, more than a couple teachers were preaching the use of AI for creativity, even pure AI generated work, as if to over-compensate for their age. One of these teachers was wholeheartedly claiming that his AI music was just as much his art as something made from complete scratch — he would go above and beyond to defend that claim. There is some room for discussion in that area, but I want to focus more on how AI may interfere with human art in the decades to come, and why it might be a good thing.
AI is not actually a major threat to music as I see it, at least for the next half-century. I mean, it is undoubtedly a threat to mediocre impersonation — those pop musicians who make music with the sole aim of trying to get placements on streaming playlists. But is it really a threat to authentic human creation?
An important distinction to make is between art and craftsmanship. I didn’t come up with this, it’s from (I know we all have our opinions on him, but the idea is useful) Rick Rubin’s The Creative Act. The rough distinction, as I remember it, is that art stems from the question “what if?”, an act of experimenting with subconscious influence. Craftsmanship, on the other hand, more refers to the act of building something derived from a formula, like creating “type” beats or consciously replicating details that relate to a specific genre. Of course, no creation is without influence, but the distinction more so boils down to conformity.
wanna keep reading?
No sign-up! Just enter your email.
New browser? Re-enter email to re-gain access.
Error text
I say this all because I will go on to mention “art” a good amount of times, and by that word I mean authentic human experimentation, not mere genre or artist impersonation (there’s some good songs from that category still, though I couldn’t name them). Another thing to note is that I’m not claiming some fine line between “art” and “not-art”, in fact a lot of my favorite music seems to be a hybrid of cultural influence and innovative expression. Where I draw the line (unintentionally dramatic) is when the creation derives purely from cultural influence and lack of experimentation, where any unique quality was a result of a failure to properly conform.
As I mentioned before, AI already seems to be pretty good at impersonating popular artists, which makes sense, as a lot of music we hear today is just humans doing the same thing. Lucky for us, AI has not yet figured out how to replicate human experimentation. How could it replicate something that doesn’t yet exist? Maybe someday it will be able to take influence and create something truly nuanced, but that seems like it’s a long ways out.
The idea of imperfection as an aesthetic tool is not a new one, take lo-fi or punk music for example. But now, I think the argument could be made that human imperfection, artifacts, and true experimentation are becoming necessary to distinguish ourselves from AI. In order to separate ourselves from the bots, and retain ownership of music as a human art form, it’s more important than ever to emphasize raw, experimental sounds. Imperfection — not an aesthetic choice, but a requirement for new music.
To some extent, this is not a new concept either. Our monotonous culture of impersonation and replication has often driven music lovers towards more imperfect music, music that feels authentic and non-conforming. With the threat of AI, this experimentation and imperfection might actually become a necessity, if there is any desire to preserve human vs. “robot” music.
It is already clear that music-lovers have begun desiring this very rawness that’s missing in corporate music. Nina Protocol, for example — a platform that enables smaller artist discovery, almost in a revolt against major streaming platforms and their corporate focuses. Soundcloud, known for being the home to demos not available on major platforms, has seen a resurgence over the past few years. Culture-journal Perfectly Imperfect platforms those outside of the corporate pay-to-play bubble, and their public success displays its modern necessity.
Before now, so many have stopped short of creating, as a result of the pressure to sound like a certain genre, or be “as good as” major artists. I feel this too when I make music, still years later. I remember sometimes liking what I made, but just disregarding it because I felt it was unsuccessful in sounding ‘close-enough’ to popular music.
Countless people look at other artists and say “oh, I can’t do that”, as if there is some inherent skill that they are missing. Today, this struggle that may have pushed artists away, might now serve as a point of encouragement. People are sick and tired of the same droning music — where before you may have felt disappointed in not sounding like the rest of the industry, nowadays you might be disregarded if you sound too much like someone else.
This is good news if you’ve ever wanted to give music a try — imperfection, the thing we need in today’s industry, is inherent in any beginner’s creation, so long as you are willing to experiment. Now, as music is forced to become more and more human, relatable, and less over-produced, it is the perfect time to dive in.
And, because of AI, you will have to be more authentic, experimental, and flawed, if you want to make music that other people connect with. It’s kind of a blessing in disguise. There has never been a better time to experiment, free from the polished shackles of genre-conformity.