AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

Bandcamp’s Policy and Why Many Support It

• Bandcamp now bans music “wholly or in substantial part” generated by AI, and AI impersonation of artists/styles.
• Many see this less as a moral stance and more as protection against being flooded by low-effort AI slop: thousands of prompt‑generated tracks that overwhelm search/browsing and erode trust.
• Users link this to broader “slopification” of creative markets (3D‑printed junk at craft fairs, AI Etsy goods, Muzak‑style Spotify playlists) and see Bandcamp as a rare human‑centric refuge.
• Some note legal/copyright risk: AI clones of popular songs or “X in the style of Y” could expose Bandcamp to claims.

Detection and Enforcement Issues

• Several posters ask how AI vs human music can be reliably separated, especially as quality improves.
• Current “tells” discussed: flat EQ spectrum, weak or shifting drum timbre, mid‑song BPM changes, warbly phrase endings, croaky/sandy vocals, odd lyric cadence, mushy high frequencies, very little stereo side‑channel content.
• Others reference detector work (e.g., Deezer, Newgrounds) using artifacts and “inhumanly average” statistical patterns, plus upload metadata.
• Many doubt such technical signals will remain effective as models and post‑processing improve; policy is seen as partly symbolic and partly aimed at obvious spam.

Human vs AI Creativity and Authenticity

• Strong camp: art is human intention, struggle, and “taste”; AI outputs lack lived experience, feeling, and narrative, and become “fake meaning” even when pleasant.
• Some say they would stop liking a song if they later learned it was AI; provenance is central to their engagement with art.
• Others argue creativity is recombination of influences whether in brains or models; if a track moves listeners, origin shouldn’t matter. Opponents call this anti‑human or nihilistic.
• There’s concern that generative tools cheapen the long, imperfect journey of skill‑building and may displace modest but meaningful handmade work.

AI as Tool vs Full Generation

• Many distinguish acceptable uses (stem separation, denoising, mastering assistants, idea generators, MIDI/drum helpers, learning tools) from pushing “generate song” and uploading.
• Some musicians describe workflows where AI suggests ideas which they then replay and record themselves; they view this as akin to a virtual co‑writer.
• Others experiment with Suno/Udio for family jokes, D&D soundtracks, or private inspiration but agree those tracks don’t belong alongside crafted Bandcamp releases.
• Grey areas (e.g., AI‑assisted drums, AI restoration of old demos) are highlighted as where “in substantial part” will get murky.

Platform Incentives, Spam, and Discovery

• Posters complain that Spotify/YouTube recommendation pipelines are already clogged with cheap AI or ghost‑produced “perfect fit content” for mood playlists, making serious discovery harder.
• There’s debate whether Spotify is actively steering listening toward ultra‑cheap catalog (AI or “ghost artists”) to reduce payouts; evidence cited is mixed and contested.
• Several note that even before AI, streaming platforms favored low‑royalty, generic background music, and that AI simply makes the volume problem far worse.

Shifts Toward Ownership and Human‑Curated Spaces

• Many describe canceling or sidelining streaming, moving to Bandcamp, Qobuz, CDs, vinyl, self‑hosted servers (Navidrome, Roon, Subsonic), and file syncing.
• Bandcamp is praised as a place for direct support, better liner‑note‑style context, and human curation, and this policy is seen as reinforcing that identity.
• A minority argues bans are shortsighted fads: once AI becomes ubiquitous and higher‑quality, such lines will blur and likely be relaxed; others counter that some AI‑free spaces will remain valuable regardless of tech progress.