I'm having a really hard time determining if you are debating me in good faith here. It is virtually indistinguishable from willful misunderstanding.

Anyway, I'm all for the benefit of the doubt. ❤️

So a musician who doesn't fully and directly control all the sounds in their music is not an artist?

Exactly. A pianist who can't control the outcome of which keys they play on their piano is not a "pianist", in my opinion. Same for any instrument, that I can think of.

Likewise, a singer who can't control the outcome of which notes they sing, or which words they sing, is not a singer. Barring oddities like singers with Tourette's Syndrome, or a completely tone deaf (or regular deaf) person. Those types of things don't count, I suppose.

Likewise for electronic music created with the help of a music-making program where you just drag and drop sounds. You are still in complete control of the outcome.

Many big artists would fall short of your definition in that someone who isn't them is controlling the lyrics, music production, final mix and so on.

Yeah, no, it's not on that level. You are both going too deep and too high with this. Again, too extreme in interpretation.

I still don't see the difference if someone has an idea in their mind and they are able to create that idea in the world with tool A vs tool B

Well, it's about specifics in the music, then, I guess. If your "idea" is "I want to make a rock song", you are not a creative artist. You are a prompt kiddie. That's my take. Take it or leave it.

But if you have a musical idea, like a melody in mind, how do you prompt that? Can you play or hum a melody as a prompt? Why would you even? Are you trying to get it to finish the song for you? Why? You already have the inspiration in the form of a melody. Finish it! Know what I mean?