Ai and The Illusion of Authorship.

Is prompting Ai the same as songwriting or producing?

In recent years, artificial intelligence has become an increasingly prominent tool in creative industries, particularly in music. With a few keystrokes, one can instruct an AI program to “compose a pop song about summer love,” and in seconds receive a fully structured composition, complete with lyrics, melody, and even instrumental backing. Additional prompts can yield a near-finished mix, ready for streaming or sharing. This technological leap has led many to question traditional notions of authorship: if AI can produce songs at this speed and scale, does using it make the prompter a songwriter or producer?

The answer, though uncomfortable for some, is no. Using AI to generate songs does not inherently confer the titles of songwriter or producer. Instead, it positions the user as a curator of ideas derived from an amalgamation of human-created works.

What is a songwriter?

The term songwriter is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a person who composes words or music or both especially for popular songs.” Similarly, The Songwriters Hall of Fame describes songwriting as “the art of creating lyrics and melodies that express the writer’s unique emotions and experiences” (Songwriters Hall of Fame, 2023). These definitions highlight a crucial element: songwriting involves original, intentional creation — the act of composing, not merely selecting.

When an individual instructs an AI system to “write a ballad about heartbreak,” they are not engaging in that compositional process. The AI draws on an extensive dataset of existing music — lyrics, chord progressions, and melodies created by countless human songwriters — and produces a statistically likely outcome based on those patterns. The user then curates by prompting, selecting, and approving the result. This is closer to the role of an editor or a playlist maker than a songwriter.

What is a producer?

The role of a music producer is similarly misunderstood in the AI age. The Recording Academy (GRAMMYs) defines a producer as “the creative leader of a recording project, responsible for overseeing the vision of a track, shaping its arrangement, guiding performances, and managing the recording process” (Recording Academy, 2024). Renowned producers from George Martin to Rick Rubin have been celebrated not for merely pressing buttons, but for making artistic choices that shape the final sound and emotional impact of a song.

By contrast, a person who types “produce an R&B track in the style of Beyoncé” into an AI program has not exercised that level of creative direction. The system generates a finished “production,” but the human has not necessarily engaged with arrangement, instrumentation, or the shaping of the emotional arc. They have simply requested a product.

The problem of ownership.

AI-generated music raises thorny issues of authorship and ownership. Large language and music models function by ingesting vast datasets of human-made works. As researchers have noted, “AI music generation relies on recombining patterns found in copyrighted and public domain works, making the origin of ideas difficult to trace” (Goodman & Li, Journal of AI and Creativity, 2023). When a user presents an AI-generated song as “their own,” they are, knowingly or not, putting their name on the blended echoes of thousands of others’ creative efforts.

Curation versus creation.

Curation is not inherently lesser; in many fields, it is a skill and an art in its own right. Consider museum curators: they do not paint the artworks they exhibit, but they are highly skilled professionals who research, select, and arrange pieces to create meaning and spark dialogue. In much the same way, someone curating AI-generated music and songs has the potential to bring intention to the selection and shaping of ideas, weaving disparate fragments into a cohesive aesthetic. This is not the same as authorship, but when done thoughtfully, it can be a legitimate and even specialised artistic contribution — provided it is recognised for what it is.

To collapse the distinction between these roles is to dilute the meaning of the terms songwriter and producer. These titles carry weight because they imply human agency, emotional labour, and the crafting of something that did not exist before.

Why preserving this distinction matters

Art resonates because it reflects human experience. A songwriter’s heartbreak, joy, or longing becomes legible through their lyrics. A producer’s sensibility shapes the way we feel a song’s rise and fall. AI cannot feel these things; it can only imitate the surface patterns of those who have.

If we begin to equate prompting AI with the act of songwriting or production, we risk eroding the value of the very human work that makes music meaningful. To call oneself a songwriter or producer should require more than writing a sentence to an algorithm — it should require the deliberate act of creation.

The work of The Songwriting Charity is profoundly important in reinforcing the role of human songwriting as a deeply personal and emotionally driven craft. Since its founding in 2011, the charity has delivered themed workshops across England and Wales—working with children in primary, secondary, and special schools as well as community groups—to support mental health, build self-esteem, and foster emotional expression through songwriting and music production. 

By guiding young people to write lyrics, compose melodies, record and perform songs that reflect their own experiences, the charity actively cultivates real creative agency and artistic confidence—precisely the traits that are diminished when AI does the writing instead of a human. Their programmes offer a hands-on alternative to algorithmic art: here, song ideas are born not from statistical models but from individual voices, stories, and human intention—showing why songwriters and producers remain creators, not merely curators.

In conclusion, prompting AI to generate songs does not make one a songwriter or producer. It makes one a curator — someone who selects, assembles, and presents the work of others, mediated through a machine. This distinction does not dismiss the potential of AI as a tool, nor does it disparage the value of curation. But for those who wish to bear the titles of songwriter or producer, there is still no substitute for the uniquely human process of making art.

Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.