Hopkins's Opinions on AI Music

Hopkins Director of Choral Music, Erika Schroth, explained that AI music currently has little influence on her teaching: “[AI music is] still pretty limited in its scope, and there are plenty of living composers to choose from,” she said. According to Schroth, traditional composition and analysis of music continue to be central to creating music. She acknowledged, “I do think there is cause for concern if someone uses AI-generated music that takes the place of what a composer could do.” While AI prompts could be used as a starting point, she noted that “even that seems unnecessary when composers are perfectly capable of writing original material.” From an instructional standpoint, Schroth indicated that AI does not currently pose a significant challenge in classes such as AP Music Theory, where students are evaluated on skills that require human decision-making and interpretation. Student perspectives, however, suggest a more personal response to the technology.

Some Hopkins students criticized AI music for sounding emotionless. Sophia Contreras ’28, a frequent music listener, expressed concern about how AI music affects artistic meaning. “My opinion on AI music is that it’s taking away the meaning of art,” Contreras said. She emphasized that music “describes indescribable feelings and adds color to people’s lives.” Jose Walters ’26 agreed and said, “Music is a form of art, and art is often rooted in self expression. Since AI doesn’t have a self to express, it can only produce a recombination of preexisting work. Humans connect to music because it in a way mirrors human experience and emotions in relatable ways.” Contreras also noted the lack of emotion in AI-generated music and said, “When AI makes music, it doesn’t feel. It doesn’t add a part of itself into the music, making [it] meaningless.”

To some at Hopkins, AI music isn’t a trend– it’s a threat to music. Brock Bowen ’27 said he has listened to AI-generated music before without realizing it was created by artificial intelligence. “It’d be a lie to say it sounds bad,” he said, noting that some AI songs are appealing and widely shared. Despite this, Bowen said he “avoids AI music due to ethical concerns.” He described AI-generated art as “the antithesis of the meaning and intention of art” and expressed concern that people may attempt to profit from music created entirely by AI. Walters similarly said, “If music is no longer drawn from lived experience, I don’t see the point of listening to it. I feel like overall AI has no place in music, art, or any creative spaces.” Contreras also claimed to boycott AI-generated music altogether: “Music is almost a feeling for me, and I basically spend all my life listening to music,” she said. As a result, she finds that AI music does not resonate with her in the same way as music created by people. Sofia Perez ’28, a violinist for the Hopkins orchestra, similarly stated that she “prefers listening to music made by people” and “does not actively seek out AI-generated songs.” 

According to Bowen, while AI-music may not directly affect most listeners, it has broader implications for artists and creative industries, as a person may think “they could make money off of getting AI to make music for them, which isn’t necessarily untrue, given that that’s exactly what's happening.” Contreras also raised concerns about the impact on student musicians like herself, noting that “for AI to take a part in [music] is like stripping [musicians] of their personality.”

Whether met with optimism or concern, one thing is certain: AI’s role in music is just beginning. According to Eric Fusscas ’26,“As AI tools continue to develop, their presence in music is likely to grow.” At Hopkins, students and faculty are either optimistic about the limit to AI’s ability to create music, or express concern for musicians and the future of music. Ava Salzano ’26 said, “While AI-generated music has not yet significantly impacted our music education on campus, it remains a topic of discussion within the Hopkins community.”