Because of course I speak for everyone.
1. If a computer touched it, it does not count. Even if you wrote lyrics, arranged sections, edited takes, and produced the mix, the moment a model is involved, the output becomes "not real art."
2. You must suffer for the song. If the process did not include at least one of the following, it's invalid: calluses, heartbreak, debt, rejection, trauma, band drama, or hauling gear up stairs.
3. Effort is only effort if it looks like effort to me. Clicking buttons is always lazy. Tweaking prompts for hours is still "clicking buttons."
4. Inspiration is fine, training is theft. Humans listening to music and learning patterns is "influence." A model learning patterns is "ripping off musicians," even when no exact song is copied, because vibes are copyrighted in my heart.
5. But also, it's theft even when I move the goalposts. Learning without direct permission and payment is theft. Obviously everyone learned The Star-Spangled Banner from Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock with a paid ticket.
6. No voice cloning, ever, unless it benefits me personally, then it's "parody." Using someone's voice without consent is uniquely evil. This condemnation extends to cases where the artist trained the model on their own voice.
7. You must be economically pure. If AI threatens musician incomes, your use of AI is immoral by default, regardless of your own budget, disability, or lack of band access.
8. Quantity proves worthlessness. If AI makes it easier to create a lot of tracks, then all of it must be garbage, because scarcity equals value. More music available equals less meaning. Math.
9. Flooding is your fault, not the platforms' fault. If streaming services get flooded, I will blame "AI music" as a concept, not the incentive structures, botting, or platform policies.
10. If it is not performed live by humans, it's not music, it's content. Never mind that the song can be played live by real people with real instruments.
11. You must play at least two instruments, one of which must be inconvenient. Laptop producers are suspicious.
12. You may use technology, but only vintage technology that I romanticize. Drum machines are fine because history. Autotune is fine if my favorite artist used it. AI is not fine because I need one scapegoat. Consistency is optional.
13. If the song is good, it's because a human saved it. If it's bad, it's AI. This rule is essential for maintaining my worldview.
14. You are not allowed to learn faster than I did. If your tool compresses years of trial and error into weeks, I will call it cheating.
15. All ethical nuance must fit into a single angry sentence. I will simply declare: "AI music is not real music."
16. You may be "allowed" to make it, but you must not call yourself a musician. You may call yourself: "prompt person," "AI user," "content generator," "fake," or "cheater."
17. Exception clause: if I like the song, the rulebook disappears. I will claim I "can tell" if it's human or AI, because I need to preserve the belief that my ears are a truth machine.
18. See rule 1.