Back to articles
Opinion

Why Music Producers HATE Mubert (And Why I Use It Anyway)

Professional musicians say AI music is a threat. Here's their argument. Here's why they are wrong. And why AI music is the future for creators.

7 min read

The Argument Against AI Music

Music professionals argue:

1. "It kills jobs" - Composers lose work to AI

2. "It's not real music" - AI lacks creativity and emotion

3. "It's theft" - AI trained on existing music

4. "It devalues music" - Makes music cheap

These are valid concerns.

But they miss the point.

Why the Argument Is Wrong

Point 1: It does not kill jobs (It creates new ones)

Historical pattern:

  • Photography was "destroying" painting (it did not)
  • Electric guitar "replaced" acoustic musicians (it multiplied music genres)
  • Digital production "removed" session musicians (created new roles)
  • AI music does not replace composers. It creates demand from creators who could never afford composers.

    Content creator who previously:

  • Used free YouTube music: Now generates AI music
  • Used stock music: Now generates AI music
  • Could not afford music: Now creates content with music
  • Result: More content. More demand for music overall. More opportunity for composers.

    Point 2: It IS real music (Just made differently)

    Definition of "real music":

  • Sound waves organized in pattern
  • Creates emotion in listener
  • Technically proficient
  • AI music meets all criteria.

    The delivery method changed, not the output.

    Is a digital painting "not real art" because it was not made with a brush?

    Point 3: It was not theft (It is transformation)

    AI was trained on music, yes.

    But:

  • Training data is publicly available music
  • AI does not output original training songs
  • AI creates entirely new compositions
  • This is "transformation," which is legal (like remixes)
  • Point 4: It did not devalue music (It democratized access)

    Before:

  • Music was gatekept by professionals
  • Average creator could not afford quality music
  • High barrier to entry
  • Now:

  • Anyone can create professional music
  • $15/month vs $500/month
  • Democratized access ≠ devalued product
  • Better analogy: Does affordable housing "devalue" real estate? No. It expands the market.

    Who AI Music Actually Threatens

    Not composers.

    Stock music companies like Epidemic Sound and Artlist.

    They charge $15-20/month for limited tracks.

    AI gives unlimited for same price.

    Those companies should be concerned. Not composers.

    The Future

    Composers have two choices:

    1. Resist: Continue arguing AI is bad. Get left behind.

    2. Adapt: Use AI as tool. Augment their work. Increase output.

    Smartere approach: Composer creates 1 song/month using traditional methods. Takes 20 hours.

    Or: Composer uses AI to generate 10 variations. Picks best. Refines. Creates in 5 hours.

    10x output. Same time.

    My Take

    I use Mubert for background music.

    I would still hire a composer for:

  • Signature theme songs
  • Emotional movie scores
  • Brand identity music
  • But for production work? Background music? Podcast intros?

    AI is better. Faster. Cheaper.

    The Nuance

    This is not about "AI is better than humans."

    It is about:

  • Right tool for right job
  • Democratization of access
  • Elimination of busywork
  • More content creation
  • Composers should be allies, not enemies.

    Because more creators = more demand for music overall.

    They should just stop being threatened by progress.

    Get Started

    Do not wait for the industry to figure this out.

    Start using AI music now. Get ahead of the curve.

    Create your first track: mubert.com/render/pricing

    Found this helpful?Share this article with your network to help others discover useful AI insights.