In 1964, Robert Moog introduced his first modular synthesiser in a move that would revolutionise music. By generating and shaping electronic sound waves, the technology enabled musicians to synthesise a range of sounds, eventually even from their living room if they wanted. Of course, with something so groundbreaking, it produced its fair share of concern and fear from traditional musicians. The fear surrounding the synthesiser was by no means uncommon, with the UK Musicians Union even going as far as to call for a ban in 1982.
Despite this, the technology would become an industry mainstay and have a hand in creating some of the most influential pieces of music to date. The birth of the commercial synthesiser broke down doors and barriers for young musicians and experimentalists. So, what makes AI such a worrying development in music, considering that computers have provided the impetus for positive change in the past? A far more insidious and corporate development: the introduction of AI music programmes such as Suno is a genuine cause for concern. These two technologies, so similar in origin and yet so different in trajectory and impact, are a prime example of how a technology made out of love and a technology made out of convenience can impact a medium.
Part of what made the synthesiser so threatening to the status quo was that it was an equalising force, providing a creative outlet for real humans with real experience, no matter their background; that is what scared the elitist world of classical music. Crucially, Robert Moog himself maintained that "I was never worried that synthesisers would replace musicians. First of all, you have to be a musician in order to make music with a synthesiser". However, AI is a completely different beast altogether.
Those who defend AI may argue that this technological development is an equalising force, when it is, in fact, the furthest from the truth. There is nothing egalitarian about AI, no doors that it opens, and no real artistry behind ‘the music’ it creates. Being an entirely corporate entity, there is no human interest or benefit to the use of AI in music, with nothing to be gained from the experience but the numbers in a view count or revenue. In an already oversaturated industry, the existence of a calculated corporate machine should be cause for concern. It doesn’t care about keeping the scene alive, and it doesn’t care that automating an entire industry with minimum effort keeps creatives out of the spotlight and out of work.
Art is, at its core, an expression of the self, and what music technology should do is enable that self-expression and aid in its proliferation. What benefit is there to a machine that ultimately limits our self-expression by confining it to what we can borrow and machine-learn from algorithmically selected pieces of art? All philosophy and ethics aside, does anybody really think AI music sounds that good? The vocals are god-awful, and the production value is so cheap. I digress. You couldn’t catch me bumping that trashy homunculus garbage, even on a guilty pleasure day.
Naturally, with the threat that AI poses to the real people in the industry, it’s disappointing to see beloved musicians use the technology in their art. Recently, Nile Rodgers has come under fire from critics over the use of AI in the upcoming music video for ‘The Christmas Song’. Doubling down in response to backlash, Rodgers argued that detractors were being ‘hypocritical’. This comes in the latter half of the year, when we’ve seen a dramatic uptick in the presence of AI in the music industry. The Rolling Stones also used AI-assisted deepfake technology in a video for ‘In the Stars’, a song from their latest album. Perhaps more infamously, Boy George came under fire for a vastly insensitive song written with AI, ‘We Will Dance Again’. The move garnered significant condemnation from fans and musicians alike, with Martyn Ware, founding member of The Human League and Heaven 17, adding, "George, you should be ashamed".
On the opposite end of the spectrum, many classic artists have remained steadfast in their ethics surrounding the use of AI in music. In the buildup to the release of 'Confessions II', Madonna critiqued the all-too-'commonplace’ use of AI in the music industry: "Working only in terms of algorithms and artificial intelligence doesn’t allow you to take risks, which is the complete opposite of making art".
Similarly, '70s Glam Rocker Alice Cooper aired his concerns about AI in an interview for SiriusXM, warning that "it only knows words...But it has no emotion. It has no heart, no feel and has no soul to it". Summing it up perfectly, Nick Cave also added his two cents: “They mock creation itself by rendering humanity unnecessary, taking the fruits of human striving and reducing them to mere products. It is, perhaps, our final, most soul-destroying humiliation”.
So, where do we go from here? A concerning report covered by NME revealed that in July 2026, AI was detected in 38.5% of more than a million music releases analysed by SubmitHub, news that does not bode well for the industry. Although the outlook is grim, musicians will persist, as they always have. Now more than ever, the answer to the impending threat of AI lies in grassroots music communities banding together to support local scenes and human creators. Steps in the right direction from platforms like Bandcamp and TIDAL are encouraging news, with Bandcamp banning music generated wholly or substantially by AI and TIDAL clamping down on royalties given to music made entirely with AI.
Hannah Stewart
@hanna_elizab3th
Image: Attila Szász, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0. Unmodified.
