Is AI Killing Music?
By Zachary Kim
A song called “Celebrate Me” performed by an R&B vocalist named IngaRose climbed to number one on iTunes charts across the US, UK, and France in April 2026. The track boasted hundreds of thousands of social media followers and garnered over 300,000 TikTok videos.
The problem? IngaRose doesn’t exist. She’s a synthetic creation of generative AI.
According to a recent study by Kapwing, the top ten AI-generated artists have collectively brought in over 2.3 billion streams across Spotify and YouTube, generating an estimated $6.1 million in revenue. AI generated music is landing hundreds of chart entries and building followings in the tens of millions.
Platforms like Suno and Udio allow anyone with a prompt to generate a track. This has led to a wave of generative AI content that threatens to devalue the currency of music.
Deezer recently revealed that AI-generated tracks now account for over half of all new daily uploads on its platform. At Suno alone, an estimated 700,000 new songs are generated daily. With over 253 million tracks now available on streaming services, the market is experiencing what analysts call a “content inflation.”
In response to this rapid rise of AI music, “walled garden” advocates, led by Universal Music Group, demanded that AI platforms like Udio and Suno protect the music industry by preventing users from exporting and distributing the tracks to major streaming services. UMG argues that this is necessary to prevent the dilution of royalty pools by endless AI content.
On the other hand, tech optimists like Suno reject the “walled garden” model. Suno’s Chief Music Officer Paul Sinclair argues that locking music into closed systems stifles innovation. Spotify, the world’s largest streaming platform, has signaled neutrality, arguing that a growing catalog is ultimately “very good for us.”
In June 2026, a worldwide coalition of artist groups, including the Music Artists Coalition and the Ivors Academy, wrote an open letter accusing labels of “hypocrisy.” They argue that while record labels demand payment for AI companies to train their catalogs, they are refusing to grant artists the same right to consent or compensation.
The conflict escalated into a federal lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) against Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. The union claims the labels violated collective bargaining agreements by licensing recordings to Suno and Udio without paying the session musicians who played on them
The debate is forcing a fundamental reckoning for the music industry. For fans, the rise of AI raises questions like: Can machines replicate the lived experience, the soul, and the “sweat” of human artistry?” Some platforms, like Bandcamp, have responded by outright banning AI-generated music.
However, experts warn that attempts to simply label or ban AI music are short-sighted. As Drew Thurlow, former SVP of A&R at Sony Music, notes in a guest column for Billboard, the line between “AI-assisted” and “human” is blurring. If modern production tools like pitch correction and mastering software are classified as “AI,” then nearly all modern pop music would require a warning label. It’s important to define the line between what constitutes Generative AI music.
https://musictech.com/news/industry/ai-music-earnings/
https://www.billboard.com/pro/ai-music-labels-songs-why-proposal-flawed/
https://www.billboard.com/pro/can-ai-music-be-stopped-walled-garden-streaming-debate/
https://www.billboard.com/pro/ai-music-deals-musicians-letter-artists-rights/
https://www.billboard.com/pro/ai-music-labels-songs-why-proposal-flawed/
