<\/p>\n
Musicians in Kansas City and researchers raise alarms over the rapid surge of AI-generated music on streaming services, calling for transparency and new rules to protect human artists and cultural integrity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Kansas City musicians are calling for new rules to curb the rise of fully synthetic music on streaming services, arguing that generative artificial intelligence is displacing human artists and siphoning income from those who create music professionally. According to the report by KCUR, Shaun Crowley, founder and executive director of Manor Records, told KCUR\u2019s Up to Date that \u201cThe industry now is using AI as the musician, taking real musicians completely out of it,\u201d and warned that platforms are \u201cmaking money off the streams and the uses on TikTok, taking a huge chunk that would go to an artist.\u201d [2]<\/a><\/sup>, [6]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Their concerns are echoed by academic research showing a rapid influx of AI-created tracks on major platforms. A Duke University study estimates about 25% of music on Spotify is now fully AI\u2011generated and rarely labelled as such, a surge the study\u2019s authors say raises urgent questions about transparency, artist compensation and the future of cultural labour. Industry-focused analysis from Duke\u2019s tech policy programme similarly frames Spotify as a \u201ccanary in the coal mine\u201d for wider platform-driven change. [2]<\/a><\/sup>, [3]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Musicians cite practical harms as well as principles. Kansas City singer\u2011songwriter Joshua James Warren told KCUR\u2019s Up to Date that after long nights of practice and performance \u201cthe human element\u2019s completely removed when you just give it to a computer prompt.\u201d Local artist Jamogi Bridges argued AI songs should be excluded from competitive charts and has moved his catalogue off Spotify to Tidal; Alison Hawkins made a similar switch in 2022, telling KCUR she prefers services that better support human creators. [6]<\/a><\/sup>, [4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The inability of listeners to reliably tell synthetic from human-made music intensifies the problem. A Deezer survey found 97% of participants in blind tests could not distinguish AI tracks from human ones, with 71% surprised by the results and 52% uncomfortable; the same research reported strong consumer support for transparent labelling and the option to filter out fully AI-created tracks. Deezer itself has said that more than 30% of new uploads to its platform are AI-generated, though such tracks apparently account for only around 0.5% of overall streams , a nuance that suggests volume of uploads and actual listening behaviour may diverge. [4]<\/a><\/sup>, [5]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Experts and reporting warn of a parallel \u201cAI slop\u201d dynamic in which mass-produced, low-quality synthetic tracks flood platforms to game royalties and visibility, a phenomenon documented in industry commentary and platform enforcement actions. Those patterns have prompted calls from musicians, researchers and some consumer groups for regulation requiring clear labelling, new copyright and payment rules, and platform accountability to protect sustainable livelihoods in music. [7]<\/a><\/sup>, [3]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Streaming platforms acknowledge both the creative possibilities and the challenges. When KCUR asked, a Spotify spokesperson told the outlet that \u201cAI technology is advancing quickly, bringing both new creative possibilities and challenges for the music industry. It\u2019s critical for the music industry to join forces and act together to protect creativity while enabling innovation,\u201d and noted AI-generated content also exists on competing services. Musicians interviewed said commercial and regulatory responses should prioritise transparency , clearly labelling AI usage , and consumer support for owning music rather than relying solely on streaming. [6]<\/a><\/sup>, [2]<\/a><\/sup>, [5]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Story idea inspired by:<\/strong> [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\nSource Reference Map<\/h3>\n