I'm curious to know what it is about "high tech" that makes it so prone to claims of diminished quality? where is that cut off in the history of tech? To classic musicians and composers that had to suffer through the invention of radio and the record player, was the quality of that tech superior to going out and seeing a real ensemble play live? Did music become better or worse with the application of EQ and compression? Did Pro Tools kill music?That would probably be used to drive purchasing behaviour by more targeted "pulling on emotional strings", when people are at certain stores or looking at certain websites.
I've heard compelling arguments that all the hightech workflows drive the old-school analog guys out of the creative roles in big productions and that is detrimental to the bottom line quality of the product. The argument was made for 3D graphics tools that were introduced in the last 2 decades (zBrush etc.), but in the context of discussing deep learning AI as tools for artists.
It's a bit hyperbolic, but every generation seems to fight change, and the next generation defends it until their norm becomes outdated, so I'm trying to understand when music officially was killed by technology. It's a very old regurgitated line. What academic standard sets the quality of music? While we sit here condemning the concept of AI music, we might find that in another 50 or so years, academia might be studying it in depth and teaching about how new complex musical concepts were born from it. Wouldn't be the first time.