All Activity

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point. NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Larry already covered the major issues and while there is a preponderance of source material usage this time, the production quality is below the bar. Given this is in direct violation of our Submission Standards, namely 2.3, 7.1, and 7.2: And considering you weren't truthful or forthcoming about the usage of prompt-based generative AI tools in the creation of your submissions, I am no longer interested in being polite about them. Unless you plan on honing your craft as a composer, arranger, and mix engineer, shove this slop where the sun don't shine and never darken our digital doorstep again. NO