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:
While there’s certainly a positive aspect to AI I’m finding it increasingly difficult to be objective when I’m being bombarded with AI generated content everywhere I turn. Music, art, movies, radio, the internet, etc. When I contacted a doctor’s office and an insurance company recently I was not given the option to speak to a live human, only AI.
Bedroom rising from an old growth tree
Bringing out the sawmill, cutting the 12 inch beams
Building a pattern, the reservoir to fill with dreams
Rings like Saturn telling their old story…
Big Thief “Red Moon”
It's a really interesting discussion John, see my other post in these forums. For me, the song itself sounds great but I don't know, it maybe sounds a bit clinical which is the AI effect, but that said, I'm not 100% sure I'd think this if I didn't know it was AI-generated. I think one of the issues I suppose is that AI is an end product but it comes from somewhere, it uses human ingenuity to be able to create things but without any of it ever being credited or remunerated.
Personally...I'm not sure it matters. By that I mean I can see the ringing of hands and the gnashing of teeth and the lamenting of whatever it is we've 'lost'. We can weep and moan as much as we like but the fact is the genie is not going back in the bottle. The technology is here and isn't going away. I see no point in bemoaning the situation - it won't do any good or make a jot of difference. Best thing to do is adapt and survive as best we can as creatives (I include myself in this - although I'm not a musician). Creativity will find an outlet. We'd be better placed in simply pursuing our own creative goals and hoping that others appreciate it.
Have to disagree with you there Paul, it's not benign, it hoovers up human produced content without creators getting compensated for it. There are lots of really good examples of workers becoming more involved in unions because of the impact - videogames being one very good example - and having some success. We invented chemical warfare but doesn't mean we have to use it (unless you're Israel of course).
No. AI in music is another step towards us all becoming robots.
Whether we enjoy their music or not, ‘manufactured’ bands through the likes of X Factor et al have often been bemoaned by artists who have had to work exceptionally hard & often live life on the bread line for years in the name of their vocation and inherent passion and belief in original music. AI in music takes the manufactured concept into the stratosphere.
I agree that the genie is out of the bottle, and, of course, in my opinion, AI has its place in medicine and manufacturing, for example. But absolutely not in music. Other than being able to use technology, where is the skill and real human emotion in AI music? The songwriting is only one aspect of that. True warmth, sensation and sentiment come not just from the lyrics of a song but from the genuine instrumentation and personal passion and experience that go into creating and playing the various parts that make a song what it is. The idea, often subconscious, that people, real humans, have poured their hearts and souls into creating songs for us all to enjoy is a huge part of the attraction and subsequent love for music, live or recorded. Use AI, and no matter how ‘good’ it might sound, you strip all of that away. Some might think that is okay, but in answer to the question, I don’t. Doesn’t mean I won’t like an AI-generated song when I hear one, but to find out that is how it was created would be a huge disappointment, for the reasons I’ve given.
Keep music true and keep it live.
I am finding the replies very interesting. Those that are clearly 100 percent against it I'd be interested in how they also feel about other musical technology inventions that made musicians weary of their future, drummers and programmed drums, click tracks with samples when bands are playing live? Etc
It is a very interesting topic for discussion.
I am not a musician, and so I guess I drive a bit of a hard bargain when it comes to this. However, I personally dislike anything 'false', such as programmed drums or backing tracks. I get the need for a certain amount of use, say when working on demos and experimenting with sounds and feels. But when it comes to playing live, particularly, I guess I am a 'purist', and I like to be able to see everyone who is playing and singing. Otherwise, for me, it is 'cheating' and can cast doubt on the whole performance.
I know almost everyone does it, but I find it disappointing when music can't be truly reproduced live because it has been so heavily manufactured in a studio. The exception may be huge stadium-type performances, which are essentially like theatre shows, but even then, they need to be as authentic as possible, or you may as well be watching a movie.
My daughter played me an AI generated song from the EDM genre, which I would guess is a bit easier to "fake" with AI than our sort of music. But it was obviously just stitched together from a variety of samples and other songs. there was no creative spark that even the most mundane human written music has...
I think that's a fair enough point John but I do think AI in music or creativity in the broader sense represents something altogether more bleak, the companies behind them haven't got a great reputation and I suppose at the end of the day I don't want my music produced by private equity. But I also take the point that it can democratise producing music where people don't have money to throw at it and also that it can provide an outlet for creativity for for example people with disabilities who might struggle to play an instrument.
It’s an important point you raise about people with disabilities. Not everything created or captured through AI needs to be commercially released; sometimes it simply exists for an individual’s personal enjoyment or creative exploration.
When I first began writing songs, my only real aim was to discover what might emerge from my own creative instincts. As time went on—and as I’d like to think my writing improved—I would imagine myself composing for other artists. But as an underpaid civil servant with no band, no studio access, and no realistic means of pursuing that dream, many of those early songs ended up abandoned in old scrapbooks or trapped on cassettes that probably no longer play.
Now, however, I finally have a way to bring that long‑held dream to life, even if only for my own satisfaction. It’s a small but meaningful benefit of AI. Of course, this is just one modest positive and doesn’t begin to address the wider concerns—mine or anyone else’s—that this particular Pandora’s box has opened.
Just saw this today and I thought it was relevant to this thread. American website Saving Country Music announcing a review policy for AI generated songs... https://savingcountrymusic.com/saving-country-musics-new-policy-on-ai-music-for-2026/
Seems sensible Paul although I do wonder how easy in reality it'll be to manage - how would they know?
@paul-kerr I am of the opinion it'll be like those early Queen albums that proudly boasted "No Synthesisers" before eventually releasing those horrible synthesised songs like 'Radio Ga Ga"
@markamericana Seems he's depending on submissions to self declare the presence of AI. I doubt that will work.
