Are AI‑Generated Songs Acceptable in Today’s Music World? A Personal Reflection from the Writer Behind Too Many Whiskeys Under the Bridge

For as long as people have written songs, they’ve also wrestled with the tools used to bring those songs to life. From the first multitrack tape machines to drum machines, samplers, Auto‑Tune, and digital workstations, every new technology has arrived with a mixture of excitement, suspicion, and—eventually—acceptance.

Now we find ourselves at the threshold of another shift: AI‑assisted music creation. And the question many listeners, critics, and musicians are quietly (or loudly) asking is simple: Is this acceptable?

I’ve been asking myself the same thing.

Why I Turned to AI in the First Place

For years I’ve written country songs I genuinely love—songs with stories, melodies, and emotional colours that felt true to me. But I never quite felt I had the voice to deliver them in the way I heard them in my head. I tried once to assemble a session with live musicians, but the chemistry wasn’t right, and the cost was more than I could realistically sustain.

So I faced a choice:
Let these songs gather dust, or find another way to let them breathe.

That’s how River East River West was born—an AI‑generated band conceived not as a gimmick, but as a creative vehicle for songs I had fully written but never felt able to record myself. The music and lyrics are entirely mine; the “band” is simply a lens, a way of hearing the songs as I imagined them.

In my mind, it was like handing a tune to a group of musicians who’d never met me, letting them interpret it, and receiving their version back. Not a shortcut—just a different route.

But Here’s the Real Question: Should I Have to Explain Any of This?

This is where things get interesting.

Some people argue that AI‑generated performances are inherently deceptive unless the artist declares them upfront. Others feel that if the songwriting is human, the emotional core remains intact, regardless of the tools used. And then there are those who believe AI has no place in music at all.

So where does that leave artists like me—songwriters who use AI not to replace creativity, but to enable it?

Should we be expected to “come clean” every time a digital tool is involved?
Should transparency be a moral obligation?
Or does the music simply speak for itself?

What Do Listeners Actually Want?

This is the part I’m genuinely curious about.

Do music lovers care whether the singer is a real person, as long as the song moves them?
Do critics feel differently?
Does the knowledge that AI was involved change the emotional experience—for better or worse?

I’ve already heard a range of reactions:

• “If the song is good, it’s good.”
• “I’d rather know how it was made.”
• “AI feels like cheating.”
• “This is just the next step in music’s evolution.”

And honestly, I understand all of those viewpoints.

Why I’m Choosing Transparency

For me, being open about the process feels right. Not because I think AI is something to apologise for, but because honesty has always been part of my relationship with listeners. These songs—like Too Many Whiskeys Under the Bridge—come from real experiences, real emotions, real writing sessions. The technology simply helps me present them in the style I always imagined.

But I’m not here to preach. I’m here to ask.

So What Do You Think?

Is AI‑assisted music acceptable in today’s world?
Does it matter who—or what—sings the song, if the heart of it is human?
Should artists be transparent about their use of AI, or should the final result be all that counts?

I’d love to hear from music lovers, writers, critics, musicians, and anyone who cares about where music is heading. This isn’t a debate I want to win—it’s a conversation I want to start.

Because whether we like it or not, AI is now part of the creative landscape. The real question is how we choose to navigate it.

John Jenkins

Here’s my link to the song:

Digital Song Link

SOUNDCLOUD LINK