If A.I. took the place of musicians, would you listen to it?

I agree with @sns when he mentions "sentience" as important in distinguishing real human minds from computer simulacra, but then he goes on to say "If people perceive it as a sentient being isn't it a sentient being?" This assumes something like the Turing Test, or "Imitation Game," as sufficient for determining machines as genuine minds. I think this is mistaken (as does Searle, Chomsky, Chalmers and many others). Again, see my essay linked above for a full discussion, if you're interested.

The overwhelming majority of music is not the work genius.  It's work and involves craftsmanship, but it usually involves working within forms that is fairly well defined and providing small variations to those forms.  For most listeners likable music has to sound somewhat familiar without sounding exactly like something else.  Music has to sound like you expect it to sound and when it doesn't it's hard to engage with.  AI should be really good at creating most music types and some of this generated music might actually sound "good".  But just like most human created music, most it won't sound "good".

In the late 1990s computers started beating grand masters at chess.  Somehow people still play chess.

I’m not sure that AI would affect my listening habits much. Almost everything I listen to is from the 50’s through the 70’s. 

If it sounds good it’s good. I’m sure a goodly amount of music is manipulated at the bench so to say, what’s the difference. Instruments are man-made someone that can’t sing can’t sing…or run it through the process, bingo a star is born ! So get used to it, shellac 78 records are toast. 

No AI interest for me, I guess that's why I was born in the middle of last century. On another note, I noticed the administration has cut off our ability to directly communicate to eachother with the blue @ gizmo. They must figure it to be a way to cut down on nasty blog interaction.