Following Jean-Michel Jarre’s recent reflections and the debate on artificial intelligence at the International Music Summit in Ibiza, Stefano Primaluce shares his view on technology, creativity, digital platforms and the future of music.
In recent months, the debate around artificial intelligence in music has become increasingly heated. How do you experience it as a musician?
I experience it the way I experience all major technological changes: with attention, curiosity and caution. Every time a new technology enters the world of music, a very strong debate begins. It happened with synthesizers, with samplers, with computer recording, with digital editing, with autotune, with production and mastering software.
At first, there is always a part of the artistic world that reacts with fear, because it worries that the tool might replace human sensitivity. But the history of music teaches us that tools do not replace artists. At most, they expand the field of possibilities.
The real question is never simply “what technology was used?”, but “who is guiding it?”, “with what intention?”, “with what artistic vision?”, “with what emotional result?”.
Jean-Michel Jarre has described generative artificial intelligence as a neutral tool. Do you agree?
Yes, in the sense that a tool does not have its own morality. It depends on how we use it. A synthesizer can produce something cold and impersonal, but it can also generate deeply emotional music. An orchestra can perform a masterpiece or something completely soulless. The difference is not in the tool, but in the vision that passes through it.
Artificial intelligence, like any powerful technology, must be understood, regulated and used responsibly. But demonizing it entirely does not seem useful to me. It would be like judging all electronic music from the assumption that a machine cannot move us emotionally. History has proved the opposite.
In April you were in Ibiza, at the International Music Summit. Artificial intelligence was also one of the central topics there. What impression did you get?
In Ibiza I had confirmation that this is no longer a marginal or futuristic issue. At IMS, people were discussing it in very concrete terms: authenticity, rights, new economic models, the relationship between artists, platforms, audiences and generative technologies.
The interesting thing is that when the subject is discussed at industry level, the conversation immediately becomes more mature. It is no longer the usual simplistic opposition between “human” and “machine”. People talk about responsibility, transparency, value, economic sustainability and audience trust. That is where I believe the debate needs to go.
AI is not a passing trend. It is already inside the music chain: production, mixing, mastering, distribution, marketing, visuals, live experience. The question is not to pretend it does not exist, but to understand how to integrate it without losing artistic identity, rights and cultural credibility.
Jarre also said that, in a way, all artists “harvest” something from what they listen to, read and see. What do you think about this idea?
I think it touches on a central point of creativity. No artist is born in a vacuum. We are all the result of listening, reading, images, experiences, memories, encounters and emotions. A musician grows by absorbing languages, styles, solutions and atmospheres. Then, if they have a true identity, they transform all of this into something personal.
Creativity is never a pure substance, isolated from the world. It is always transformation. The difference between imitation and art lies precisely there: in the processing, the choice, the taste, the ability to give a new form to what has passed through us.
This was true before artificial intelligence, and it will remain true after it.
Many people, however, fear that AI could make music more impersonal.
That is a real risk, but it does not come only from AI. Impersonal music existed before. It existed with bands, with computers, with producers, with radio formats, with playlists designed to sound all the same. The problem is not technology itself. The problem is the absence of a recognizable voice.
An artist must have a vision. They must know what they want to say, what world they want to build, what emotions they want to generate. Without this vision, any tool becomes sterile. With a strong vision, even a new tool can become part of an authentic language.
So, in your opinion, authenticity does not depend on the tool being used?
Exactly. Authenticity is not guaranteed by the medium. An album recorded on analog tape can be empty. An album made with digital tools can be deeply human. Authenticity lies in intention, coherence, writing, sensitivity and the ability to build an identity.
In modern music, almost everything is already mediated by technology: microphones, preamps, editing, mixing, mastering, plugins, corrections, sampling, programming, digital production. Pretending that absolute purity exists is often a romantic simplification.
The more interesting question is understanding when technology serves the artist and when, instead, the artist disappears behind the technology.
Where is the boundary, in your view?
The boundary lies in artistic direction. If a technology is used to completely replace the artist’s thought, writing, taste and responsibility, then the result risks being weak. If, instead, it is used as part of a conscious creative process, then it can become a tool like any other.
In the end, the audience can sense whether there is a world behind the music or just a technical exercise. You can have the most modern production in the world, but if there is no identity, nothing remains.
Platforms are beginning to classify and label content generated with artificial intelligence. Is this the right path?
Transparency is important, especially when we are talking about content created in bulk, without a real artistic project, perhaps uploaded to occupy space on platforms or manipulate the streaming system. In that case, I fully understand the need to protect artists, audiences and the market.
But we must be very careful not to turn a complex issue into an automatic label. One thing is fighting musical spam, fraud and anonymous industrially generated content. Another thing is reducing recognizable artistic works, with direction, writing, production, history and human responsibility, to a technical category.
The risk is that some platforms, in their legitimate attempt to defend the market, may end up creating new simplifications. Music is not just a file to be analyzed. It is also context, intention, creative journey and identity. If an automatic system cannot distinguish between fraud, assisted production, artistic experimentation and a real musical project, then the problem is not only for artists: it is also a problem of technology claiming the authority to judge them.
For me, transparency must go hand in hand with competence. Otherwise, it does not become protection: it becomes algorithmic bureaucracy.
There is also a major legal and economic issue. How should it be addressed?
This is perhaps the most delicate point. If generative technologies are also fed by creative content produced by musicians, composers, authors, photographers, writers and artists, then it is only fair to open a serious discussion about rights, transparency and compensation.
I do not believe the answer is to stop technology. But I do believe we need clearer rules. Artists cannot be treated merely as material from which value is extracted. They must be part of the system, including from an economic point of view.
The future should not be a war between technology and creativity, but a new balance between innovation, rights and responsibility.
Do you think AI can generate new musical languages?
Yes, it is possible. Every important technology has created new languages. The synthesizer did not merely imitate existing instruments: it created a new imagination. The sampler did not simply copy sounds: it made another way of thinking about composition possible. Digital production changed the way we imagine arrangements, sonic spaces and structures.
It is likely that artificial intelligence, over time, will also contribute to the birth of aesthetics that we cannot yet define today. Some will be superficial, others may prove truly important. As always, time will separate fashion from language.
As a progressive musician, how do you look at this transformation?
Progressive music, by its very nature, should not be afraid of experimentation. It is music born from the idea of going beyond boundaries: between rock, classical music, jazz, electronics, metal, cinema, literature and technology. If progressive music became conservative by principle, it would betray part of its own identity.
Of course, experimenting does not mean accepting everything naively. It means questioning tools, testing them, understanding their limits and using them only when they truly help express something. Technology must serve the music, not the other way around.
So what is your final position on artificial intelligence in music?
I believe artificial intelligence is one of the great cultural issues of our time. It must be discussed seriously, without fanaticism and without hysteria. We should not idolize it, but we should not demonize it either.
For me, the central question always remains the same: does the artist have a vision? Do they have something to say? Do they have a recognizable identity? Can they transform the tools of their time into a personal language?
If the answer is yes, then technology can become part of the creative process. If the answer is no, no technology will be able to invent an artistic soul in their place. AI does not replace the artist. If anything, it replaces the absence of ideas.
