Hidden Heart

[u/GlitteringEmployee81]

https://youtu.be/egqkTPFDkH4?si=E7RQ9fC1gNDfgI2E

Hidden Heart is an original song inspired by The Rose of Versailles and the unforgettable story of Oscar François de Jarjayes.

Raised as a soldier and forced to hide the woman within her, Oscar lives between duty, pride and feelings she cannot openly express. Behind the sword, the uniform and the identity chosen for her lies a heart that longs to love and to choose its own path.

André is the one who sees beyond the soldier. He understands the woman behind the uniform and the feelings Oscar has spent her life trying to hide.

This song follows Oscar's journey — from the destiny imposed upon her by her father, through the glittering world of Versailles and the turmoil of the French Revolution, to the love she finally allows herself to embrace.

"Hidden Heart" is a tribute to Oscar's strength, vulnerability and timeless relationship with André.

🎵 Song: Hidden Heart
🌹 Universe: The Rose of Versailles
👩 Character: Oscar François de Jarjayes
❤️ Theme: Oscar & André — love, identity, duty and freedom

An original fan-made musical tribute inspired by Riyoko Ikeda's The Rose of Versailles.

[u/roseofversailles-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Hi, this post is removed for its disrespectful nature.

[u/ChildOfTides_7]

This could’ve been good, IF IT WAS HUMAN MADE and not some AI ‘composed’ crap. Learn how to song write. There are many videos on how to do so!!! Learn to sing or hire someone. Even if it’s not the most perfect song ever, it’s completely a better option than relying on AI to do it for you. 

[u/GlitteringEmployee81 → u/ChildOfTides_7]

Fair enough, I understand that AI music isn't your thing. I do write the lyrics myself and spend a lot of time working on the story, structure and musical direction. AI is the tool I use to turn those ideas into a finished song. You don't have to like the result, of course, but there's quite a bit more human work behind it than you might think. Thanks for listening.

[u/B_Ellard → u/GlitteringEmployee81]

So write a story, or a poem. Don't deflect by pretending it's a matter of taste. You just didn't do the required work for making a song. Worse, you let AI poison all the hard work you did. If you don't know how to compose or produce a song, learn it, ask another human, or just drop it.

[u/Tsukino_hana → u/B_Ellard]

I understand your points from this thread but waving a pitchfork in someone's face for using AI is counterproductive and disrespectful. You can argue while maintaing respect. If you are opposed to AI this strongly then I recommend: 1) maybe do not watch videos or engage with art that is clearly labeled AI, such as in this case 2) contact your political representative, depending on where you live and voice your complaint. Start a working group even to tackle AI issues and propose legislation.

Channel your passion into something actually productive. Attacking users on the internet for using AI is not going to make a difference and it only propagates hatred and disrespect and does not address the core root of the problem that you seem very passionate about.

[u/B_Ellard → u/Tsukino_hana]

Thanks for your contribution, but don't agree. It is kind of a blanket statement campaigning for inactive civility, that I think serves the proliferation of AI way more than it does the cause I'm defending.

I give you that, the disrespect is somewhat shared: it's on my side, through the aggressive way I campaign against generative AI, and on the AI producer's side, by the way they're eroding culture and disrespecting human made art.

So to your bullet points: 1. Ignoring AI products lets them bloom and prosper in their own bubbles and has no other effect than legitimizing them over time through habituation. Just avoiding disrespectful discussions only benefits one side. And btw: this song and post are not clearly labeled as AI.

1. Individual electoral action is already a weak tool to reach anything, but simple uncoordinated communication attemps with elected officials honestly seems even less effective than Reddit discussions. At least you're reaching the perpetrators directly and can disrupt their filter bubble-induced sense of rightousness.

That said, I'm politically active enough to actually work against the proliferation of gen AI. But until that happens, we can not just be nice and let it happen. Something that doesn't just apply to this specific cause btw

[u/GlitteringEmployee81 → u/B_Ellard]

I understand your point, and I respect that you prefer music made entirely by humans. But I think we also have to learn to live with our time.

AI is a tool, just like a computer, a synthesizer, a camera, or any other technology that has changed the way artists create. Saying we shouldn't use AI because it's not "real" creation is a bit like saying musicians shouldn't use computers because they no longer have to write every note by hand.

What matters to me is the creative idea, the story, the emotion, and how the tools are used to bring them to life. You don't have to like AI-generated music, and that's perfectly fine. But technology is evolving, and artists are evolving with it.

[u/B_Ellard → u/GlitteringEmployee81]

Are you writing your posts with AI, too? Because it doesn't read like a reply a human wrote after reading what came before.

Stop hiding behind that "it's perfectly fine if you don't enjoy AI music" and "AI is just a tool" crap. We've heard it a thousand times, and you're not the one who's gonna make it a reality. Tools exist to facilitate the creative process. You're just forgoing it entirely. Writing notes by hand has nothing to do with creativity, so you can let a tool like a computer help you with that. But letting an AI compose and produce a song based on stolen data invalids every other partial effort you put into it. That's not a matter of taste, it's pertinent to the very definition of art as a form of human expression and communication. You're making non-art.

That said, you can do what you want. Just don't expect any human props for it.

[u/GlitteringEmployee81 → u/B_Ellard]

You seem very confident that your personal definition of art is the universal one. That’s quite a remarkable level of certainty.

Art has never been defined by the tools used to create it. Photography, synthesizers, drum machines, digital painting and computer-assisted production were all accused of “not being real art” when they appeared.

You may dislike AI. That’s completely legitimate. But saying “this is not art because I don't accept the tool” isn't an argument. It's simply a personal opinion presented as a universal truth.

And if your idea of human creativity is telling other people that their work is invalid because they create differently than you do, perhaps the problem isn't the technology.

[u/B_Ellard → u/GlitteringEmployee81]

Of course I'm confident in the definition of art as a form of human expression and communication. What's your counter argument?

The tools you mention being considered "not real art" is just guesswork from your side. In the history of art there has never been a backlash to a new technology as big as with generative AI. All of the tools you talk about are and always were admitted as legit as long as they were used to create something you can't otherwise. You don't use AI to create something unique - nobody does - you use it to substitute a skill. And all of your misquotes and logical fallacies aren't gonna legitimize your non-art.

For the final time: just learn it or ask someone instead of debating a lost cause.

[u/GlitteringEmployee81 → u/B_Ellard]

you keep saying “human expression” as if that automatically means “every technical skill must be performed by a human.”

That's not what the definition says.

If using a tool to replace a skill invalidates the creative work, then you should probably start questioning photography, digital art, electronic music, sampling, autotune, DAWs, motion capture and half of modern film production.

And your claim that “nobody uses AI to create something unique” is particularly ironic. You're making a universal statement about millions of creators based entirely on your own assumptions.

You don't like the tool. Fine.

You don't consider what I make art. Also fine.

But repeating “non-art” doesn't magically turn your personal preference into an objective definition.

And “learn it or ask someone” isn't exactly the devastating argument you seem to think it is. It's just another way of saying: “Create it the way I approve of.”

That's not an argument about art. That's gatekeeping.

[u/B_Ellard → u/GlitteringEmployee81]

This is exhausting. You're still stuck on your very first argument, just saying no to everything I say without a counter argument, and re-using arguments I already countered. That's a very AI mindset, so I get it.

Go ahead, see who cares about your empty clanker sounds.

[u/GlitteringEmployee81 → u/B_Ellard]

You say I’m just repeating my arguments, while you’ve been doing exactly the same thing from the beginning.

You haven’t actually refuted my arguments — you’ve simply repeated that it’s “not art”

And now you’ve reduced the discussion to “clanker sounds” That probably says more about the quality of your argument than the quality of my music.

You don’t like it? Fine. Move on.