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

Yeah, that's about right, but it's not a yes/no proposition.  The intent of the artist can add to a listener's appreciation of the art work and it can also be completely irrelevant.  Can a person enjoy the music of Charlie Parker without knowing anything about the chords and scales he's using?  Can you enjoy Max Roach or Sonny Rollins without understanding the Civil Rights Movement?  Can you listen to Bach and not be a monotheist? 

A freight train is rolling on the tracks and the engineer in accordance with Federal train regulations sounds the train horn as he approaches a road crossing.  As Warren Zevon put it, "listen to the train whistle whine".  In and of itself it's music and the train whistle has inspired people to create even more music.  It's a wonderment!

I can foresee a time when humans won't make  qualitative judgements vis a vis human vs. AI. Over time the lines will blur as to human vs. AI content, we won't be able to differentiate between the two. The vast majority of human interactions are relatively mundane, the expectation there is some essence of humanity we can intuitively sniff out isn't a consideration in most of this interaction, we are operating at a reflexive, ephemeral level. It is at this level AI will slowly infiltrate our perceptions and/or need to differentiate AI from human. Once it reaches this level (already in beginning stages) we will then be less sensitive to the need to differentiate at more complex, intimate levels of interaction. In the future AI will be able to replicate human expression far more than we can know at this point in time. The question becomes, will we know or care whether we are interacting with AI or another human?  And If we as humans could have sustainable, intimate interactions/relationships with AI, what would be the need for other humans?  Bottom line, could AI make humans obsolete? AI involvement with music is the least of our worries?

I can foresee a time when humans won't make  qualitative judgements vis a vis human vs. AI. Over time the lines will blur as to human vs. AI content, we won't be able to differentiate between the two. 

Given the way we are already prone to dehumanize others about more important things today, I have to agree that most people will run, not walk, to replace human artists with machines that pleasure them without getting tired. They will accept the AI text from their spouse, friend, or child and think, "Who cares if it's really them? As long as I'm hearing what I want, nothing more satisfying can be imagined or desired." That's the point at which jumping off bridges will be very popular, too.

We will have other problems after WW III in a situation of deteriorating climate, no one will even think about AI then. But we will need robots, no doubt of that.

@inna Of course, AI is a huge energy user, so I'm glad you mentioned climate.

A.I. use is directly responsible for carbon emissions from non-renewable electricity and for the consumption of millions of gallons of fresh water, and it indirectly boosts impacts from building and maintaining the power-hungry equipment on which A.I. runs. As tech companies seek to embed high-intensity A.I. into everything from resume-writing to kidney transplant medicine and from choosing dog food to climate modeling, they cite many ways A.I. could help reduce humanity’s environmental footprint. But legislators, regulators, activists, and international organizations now want to make sure the benefits aren’t outweighed by A.I.’s mounting hazards.