The group first surfaced just weeks ago, rapidly gaining traction on streaming platforms. Despite having no public backstory or known members, The Velvet Sundown have already garnered more than 1.1 million monthly listeners on Spotify and have appeared on several popular editorial playlists.

Since their sudden debut, the act has released two full albums – ‘Floating On Echoes’ (June 5) and ‘Dust And Silence’ (June 20) – with a third, ‘Paper Sun Rebellion’, set for release on July 14. The upcoming album is described as a blend of “cinematic alt-pop and dreamy analogue soul.”

Their swift rise to popularity and dense release schedule raised early questions about the authenticity of the band. Speculation intensified after the band launched a stylised, yellow-tinted Instagram account. At the time, The Velvet Sundown denied AI involvement on X, writing: “This is not a joke. This is our music, written in long, sweaty nights in a cramped bungalow in California with real instruments, real minds, and real soul. Every chord, every lyric, every mistake – HUMAN.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Velvet Sundown (@thevelvetsundownband)

However, suspicions were soon confirmed when streaming service Deezer flagged the project as 100% AI-generated, subsequently removing their album. Deezer stated: “In order to protect artists’ remuneration and guarantee an optimal user experience, Deezer currently excludes 100% AI tracks from its algorithmic and editorial recommendations.” On July 5, the band revised their Spotify bio to acknowledge their artificial nature: “The Velvet Sundown is a synthetic music project guided by human creative direction, and composed, voiced, and visualized with the support of artificial intelligence. This isn’t a trick – it’s a mirror. An ongoing artistic provocation designed to challenge the boundaries of authorship, identity, and the future of music itself in the age of AI.”  

The Velvet Sundown is a synthetic music project guided by human creative direction, and composed, voiced, and visualized with the support of artificial intelligence. This isn’t a trick – it’s a mirror. An ongoing artistic provocation designed to challenge the boundaries of… pic.twitter.com/8qwoFFOPNx — The Velvet Sundown (@tvs_music) July 5, 2025

Former Spotify data analyst Glenn McDonald offered insight into the band’s success, suggesting that streaming algorithms are now optimised to recommend tracks based on audio traits rather than artist identity – which could favour AI-produced content.

This ‘provocation’ may not be as clever as it thinks it is. The Velvet Sundown’s emergence comes amid growing concern over the rise of AI-generated music on major platforms. Many musicians and industry figures argue it threatens fair remuneration and undermines human creativity. As debate continues, music artists have begun speaking publicly about the implications of AI in music. Read our previous coverage on Thom Yorke’s views on AI here.

Famed for their hits ‘The Combine Harvester’ and ‘I Am A Cider Drinker’, The Wurzels turned to AI to help craft their latest track – a bold move that merges tradition with technology. The result is a song that’s both a nod to their rural roots and a tongue-in-cheek take on modern innovation.

Since their formation in 1966, The Wurzels have had three UK top 40 albums and eight UK hit singles, carving out a unique niche with their humorous portrayals of country life and West Country culture. Their charm lies in the playful way the comedy folk band embody regional stereotypes, famously singing lines such as: “I’ve got a brand-new combine harvester and I’ll give you the key.”

Today, the band is a lively mix of founding members – frontman Pete Budd and accordionist/keyboard player Tommy Banner – alongside a younger generation of musicians: Sedge Moore, Louie Griddle, and Leigh Delamere. Together, they blend classic folk sensibilities with youthful energy.

‘Wurzel Me Up’ explores the band’s own story, celebrating their Somerset roots with lyrics about “Somerset fields” and a signature “West Country twang”. The AI-written track introduces the band members by name and offers a satirical explanation of their decision to collaborate with artificial intelligence.

 True to form, the band brings their signature humour to AI itself, dubbing it “cuttin-hedge technology” and cheekily referring to it as “Agricultural Intelligence.” Despite the technological tools used, the chorus – a raucous chant of “Wurzel me up! Ooh-aar” – is unmistakably Wurzel.

The release of ‘Wurzel Me Up’ has prompted mixed reactions among the public. While some fans applaud The Wurzels’ inventive spirit, others raise questions about authenticity and the role of AI in the creative process.

Still, the band is clear about their stance. In a statement, they joked: “as the oldest band in the land, decided to have a dabble with AI”. Following this, Pete Budd shared that they “don’t agree with plagiarism in any form without some form of remuneration and so, in this case, we have strived to only plagiarise ourselves.”

With ‘Wurzel Me Up’, The Wurzels tread the line between novelty and nostalgia, raising serious questions through creating a unique and comic track. Can AI truly capture the heart of folk music – or outdo the poetic genius of “I am a cider drinker / I drinks it all of the day”?

Sony Music UK supports the ‘Make It FAIr’ campaign, calling on policymakers to respect UK copyright law and not let Gen AI companies train on music without permission. pic.twitter.com/7CS9iuIM80

— Sony Music UK (@SonyMusicUK) February 25, 2025

In a recent submission to a UK government consultation on copyright laws, Sony Music expressed concerns that potential changes in legislation could exacerbate the problem. Rob Stringer, Chairman of Sony Music Group, said: “AI is going to change the world, however, there can be no question that creators must be rewarded for being part of this technological revolution. Safeguarding the existing UK copyright model ensures AI developers and content owners can innovate whilst also recognising the value of the works on which their products are based”. Several celebrities have publicly addressed the issue of the proposed copyright law changes, including Elton John, Kate Bush, Paul McCartney, and Jimmy Page. These musicians have actively voiced their concerns regarding the unauthorised use of artists’ works in AI training, advocating for stronger protections within the creative industry.

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Jimmy Page (@jimmypage)

Executives at Sony believe that the 75,000 identified deepfake recordings are only a fraction of the total AI-generated content circulating online. Unlike traditional copyright enforcement, identifying and removing AI-generated material is a complex and time-consuming process that relies heavily on manual detection methods. Artificial intelligence has become an increasingly powerful tool in music production, enabling users to create hyper-realistic vocal imitations of popular artists. From AI-generated covers to entirely new songs mimicking famous voices, the technology has raised ethical and legal questions about intellectual property in the digital age. For example, here is an AI-generated Amy Winehouse singing Miley Cyrus’ ‘Flowers‘ in a jazz style:

Sony’s actions reflect broader concerns within the music industry about the implications of AI-generated content. The company has urged policymakers to implement stricter copyright protections, ensuring that artists maintain control over their work and are fairly compensated for their contributions. Several other major record labels have also voiced their concerns, including Universal Music Group (UMG) which is advocating for AI protections in licensing agreements with distributors like TikTok and Meta. The industry is now calling for more advanced content identification tools and clear legal frameworks to protect artists from exploitation.

As the debate over AI deepfakes intensifies, Sony Music’s efforts highlight the urgent need for regulatory action. With technology continuing to evolve rapidly, the music industry faces an ongoing battle to safeguard artistic integrity in an era of artificial intelligence.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jimmy Page (@jimmypage)

Page detailed his own journey from session musician to one of the most famous guitar players in the world, and said his path “was not paved by algorithms or data sets” but by spontaneous improvisation and the human spirit. He also described the government’s plans as a “free pass for AI to exploit creativity without consequence” and called for legislation that protects the rights of the artist.   

Page is just one of many UK musicians to voice their concerns, including Sir Paul McCartney, Elton John, Thom Yorke, Kate Bush, and Gary Numan. The former Beatle appeared on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg in January to voice his concerns, saying, “If they take the incentive away by not protecting the copyrights, I think you’d see a loss of creativity. That’s a great pity because it brings so much joy to the world.” 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Musicians’ Union (@wearethemu)

The Musicians Union has also voiced their own concerns and released a statement last month. “The MU’s position is to oppose the exception and rights reservation system, and request that copyright be strengthened with the introduction of a new AI training right in UK copyright law.”

The proposal comes as part of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is currently in the committee stage in the House of Commons. The changes, which have been described as the governments’ preferred approach, would allow AI companies to data mine copyrighted works without permission under an opt-out system, which as Page pointed out, is impossible in reality.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is headed by Dame Caroline Dinenage, who has described the government’s opt-in, opt-out stance as “the legislative equivalent of the hokey-kokey.” The Labour government’s own MP, James Frith, spoke out about the importance of copyright, enabling those who create art to also be able to make a living from it.

There is one week left to respond to the Government’s Copyright & AI consultation, which sets out damaging proposals to the UK’s world-leading creative industries.

Find out how you can voice your opposition here https://t.co/vhaVYD0htq pic.twitter.com/iA93EkYPYC

— BPI (@bpi_music) February 18, 2025

The debate has been growing, and just last week, over 1000 UK artists put their name to a silent album. ‘Is This What We Want?’ sent a stark message to legislators, with a track listing that spelled out ‘The British Government Must Not Legalise Music Theft To Benefit AI Companies’.  

Peter Kyle, Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology, one of the sponsors of the Bill, has defended the proposals. He told LBC that the aim is to create a market in the UK where AI companies respect domestic laws, arguing that loopholes are already being exploited in other countries.

“I will not be made to choose one industry over another.”@peterkyle speaks on @LBC about the recent AI Copyright Consultation pic.twitter.com/YTcr3OgHER

— Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (@SciTechgovuk) February 28, 2025

 The committee stage allows for amendments to be proposed based on various industry consultations. As the Bill moves into the report stage, it will be opened up to be debated in the House of Commons, further allowing refinements.

With time running out, the input of artists like Page will be crucial in shaping the Bill into something that works for those who rely on the protections offered by copyrights.

The album features a wide range of artists, spanning various genres. Damon Albarn, Kate Bush, The Clash, Jamiroquai, Hans Zimmer, and The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra are amongst more than 1,000 artists who have released a silent album in protest of the British government’s proposed changes to AI copyright laws. All profits will be given to the charity Help Musicians. The full list is available here.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kate Bush (@katebushmusic)

The track-listing for the record simply spells out the message: “The British government must not legalise music theft to benefit AI companies.” In 2023, the UK music contributed a record £7.6 billion to the economy. 

The album features recordings of empty studios and performance spaces which showcases what the future could become for musicians in the UK if the changes go ahead.

In a statement released alongside the album, the purpose of the project was made explicit: “In late 2024, the UK government proposed changing copyright law to allow artificial intelligence companies to build their products using other people’s copyrighted work—music, artworks, text, and more—without a licence. The musicians on this album came together to protest this.”

The project was organised and put together by Ed Newton-Rex. Newton-Rex was formerly the lead of the audio team at Stability AI, resigning in November 2023 over the company’s stance that training AI models on copyrighted work fell under ‘fair use’. The following January, he launched Fairly Trained, an initiative that recognises and certifies AI companies that obtain consent to data mine protected works.

A spokesman for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said in a statement: “The UK’s current regime for copyright and AI is holding back the creative industries, media and AI sector from realising their full potential – and that cannot continue. That’s why we have been consulting on a new approach that protects the interests of both AI developers and right holders and delivers a solution which allows both to thrive… No decisions have been taken, no moves will be made until we are absolutely confident we have a practical plan that delivers each of our objectives.”

The album comes just weeks before the end of the government’s consultation period on the issue. The government’s preferred approach is an ‘opt-out’ system, forcing artists to actively request for the removal of their work. Alternative proposals have been suggested, such as an opt-in, or a model which compensates the artists fairly for access to their work, as well as allowing them to profit from any projects which make use of their work.

The new plans fail to reimburse artists for AI recreating and copying their work, stifle creativity, and the proposed opt-out scheme places an unnecessary burden on artists, critics say. The petition was signed by Bush, Radiohead star Thom Yorke, ABBA’s Bjorn Ulvaeus and The Cure frontman Robert Smith.

Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney were also voices that spoke out against the law. During a recent interview on Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg, the former Beatles member said: “You get young guys, girls, coming up, and they write a beautiful song, and they don’t own it, and they don’t have anything to do with it. And anyone who wants can just rip it off … We’re the people, you’re the government! You’re supposed to protect us. That’s your job. So you know, if you’re putting through a bill, make sure you protect the creative thinkers, the creative artists, or you’re not going to have them.”

Response to the album online has been overwhelmingly positive. Yusuf/Cat Stevens shared the project on his X account, seemingly bringing the issue to a new audience. One user commented under the musician’s post, saying, “AI should be banned from harvesting the products of human creativity in the arts, music, writing, or painting. Limit it to diagnostics for science, tech, engineering, medicine, and housework. Free people to think and be paid for their creativity.”

AI should be banned from harvesting the products of human creativity in the arts, music, writing or painting.
Limit it to Diagnostics for Science tech, engineering , medicine, house work.
Free people to think and be paid for their creativity.
Grow the Arts economy don’t kill it.

— Phil (@PhilipBagLowe) February 25, 2025

The debate is raging in other countries too. Two weeks ago, a judge in Delaware ruled in favour of a copyright holder against an AI company who claimed their practices were covered by ‘fair use’.

With only two weeks of the consultation period left, ‘Is This What We Want?’ represents the final push to influence those who can really make a difference. Whether the project will be able to change the minds of a seemingly entrenched government position is yet to be seen, though the UK creative sector isn’t going down without a fight.

This article was co-reported and co-written by Lewis Pinto and Marie Choquet

McCartney’s remarks highlight a growing frustration among artists whose work is used to train AI without credit or compensation. “You get these artists coming through who write a beautiful song, and they don’t own it, and they don’t have anything to do with it, and anybody can rip it off. The truth of it is that the money is going somewhere. When it makes its way onto streaming platforms, somebody is getting the money and it should be the creator rather than some tech giant.”

His comments come as the UK government’s consultation on AI and copyright enters its final month, set to close on February 25. The consultation explores approaches like an opt-out system for creators. This approach was criticised by one of the shows panelists, Baroness Beeban Kidron, who likened it to a shop owner opting out of shoplifting in a House of Lords debate.

Kidron, who sits as a crossbench peer and advises the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University, used her appearance on the Sunday show to correct a figure repeated by the government. The claim is that AI could inject £400 billion into the UK by 2030. In fact, this figure was presented by an AI lobbying group, paid for by Google, and made up by generative AI as a global estimate.

Baroness Kidron is spot on here re. the UK government’s plan to give AI companies the life’s work of the country’s creators for free.

“It is shocking that a government that promised a period of rule of law is enabling theft at scale.”https://t.co/HsDvlCOkkq pic.twitter.com/yXMbNU7QQJ

— Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex) January 15, 2025

The Musicians Union have weighed in on the government’s consultation, cautiously saying: “A solution is available that will allow developers to comply with the law and license musical works that are willingly offered by creators for the purpose of training AI systems – in return for a fair share of the income generated from the exploitation of the output. The MU will be fighting to make sure this happens.”  

While the UK debates its stance, and government departments fight between themselves, other regions have already moved on with legislation. The EU implemented limited protections for copyrighted material in July 2024, and Tennessee passed the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act last March. The latter was criticised by AI companies, who claimed that the act’s language was overly vague, and therefore open to misuse.

McCartney’s plea for fairness was echoed in a petition he signed last year, which calls for governments to overhaul how AI companies handle copyrighted material. With over 40,000 signatures, the petition has garnered support from figures like ABBA’s Bjorn Ulvaeus and Kate Bush, as well as an assortment of actors and writers.  

However, McCartney’s comments go beyond policy, addressing the broader cultural implications of AI. “If they take the incentive away by not protecting the copyrights, I think you’d see a loss of creativity. That’s a great pity because it brings so much joy to the world.” 

Comment byu/kaychyakay from discussion innews

A similar sentiment was shared by synth-pop pioneer Gary Numan last week, who optimistically predicted that audiences may eventually turn their backs on AI art in favour of work born from real human experiences. This was backed up by a fan responding to the McCartney interview, who said: “In the long run, I hope that the need for human [spontaneity] will be valued for what it’s worth.”

This debate isn’t just about copyright; it’s about the future of culture. As Foreign Secretary David Lammy recently said, soft power—driven by the UK’s creative industries—is fundamental to the nation’s global influence. For McCartney, protecting that power starts with protecting the creators.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by BBC News (@bbcnews)

The results of the consultation will be pivotal for the UK’s artists and creative industries. As McCartney said, governments should be protecting everyday people first and foremost, “so protect them!”

Blitzed magazine is out today and, amongst many other excellent things, has an interview with me and another with @raven_numan https://t.co/mki8IhDh1O pic.twitter.com/kSos0RNw8B

— Gary Numan (@numanofficial) January 3, 2025

In an interview with UK magazine Blitzed, a publication dedicated to the New Romantic movement and wider alternative 80s cultures, the musician described his emotions towards the technology as a mixture of fear and hope.   “

The new album I’m working on now is devoted entirely to AI and how it might impact humanity. I’m fascinated and horrified in equal measure,” he teased. Fans have speculated about the AI-themed project since at least October 2023 on Reddit, following a hint during a Patreon Q&A.

Comment
byu/ToastRiposte from discussion
inGaryNuman

In the interview, Numan was fair, acknowledging the ever-increasing potential of AI. “I fully expect AI to write great songs, paint extraordinary paintings, and write amazing books. There will be AI pop stars and actors who will become as popular, if not more so, than any human.”

He even drew comparisons to ABBA Voyage, which has contributed £1.4 billion to the UK economy since its debut. AI-assisted shows like Elvis Evolution, launching in London in May 2025, suggest this trend is only beginning, though the origins of it can be traced back to hologram shows featuring Roy Orbison and 2Pac in the 2010s, if not even further.  

Numan’s concerns extend beyond the technical capabilities too. He fears a loss of the “human element” found in art’s greatest pieces, predicting that audiences will eventually seek the imperfection and emotional depth that only humans are capable of. “They will look for something real that resonates with their own lives,” he said. One Reddit user summed the argument up best, saying “nobody will travel to the Louvre to see AI art.”

Comment
byu/GenAdmiral_Aladeen from discussion
inArtistLounge

AI is already causing debate across creative industries, and Numan isn’t the first artist to have shared his views. While the Beatles’ final track, ‘Now and Then’, used AI to restore old tapes rather than generate new material, it still sparked controversy, prompting Paul McCartney to clarify the role of the technology. Ed Sheeran spoke out about the potential loss of jobs back in 2023, when he called AI “weird”.

McCartney joined other artists in signing a petition calling for the government to change it’s approach to AI copyright issues, asking that it replace its opt-out system for an opt-in system, allowing more control over their own work. The government has outlined three objectives in their recent consultation: control, access and transparency.

Meanwhile, the UK government remains divided on how to regulate AI, particularly in balancing economic growth with protecting creative industries. Head of DCMS Committee Dame Caroline Dinenage has warned that any gains from AI innovation could be offset by a loss of jobs and revenue from artists, calling it a “zero-sum game”. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Dame Caroline Dinenage MP (@caroline4gosport)

Given his role in embracing synthesisers, an instrument that would shape entire genres of music, and dominated the sound of the 80s, Numan’s cautious warning serves as a damning indictment for the future of AI. 

While AI continues to evolve at an alarming rate, so does the debate over its place in music, art and wider society. Numan ended on a note of hope: “If we survive long enough, I hope and suspect that people will slowly return to human-created art.”

The House is now sitting, starting with questions to @SciTechgovuk ministers.

Watch today’s proceedings live

— UK House of Commons (@HouseofCommons) January 8, 2025

Responding to East Thanet MP Polly Billington, Bryant emphasised: “We are absolutely determined to make sure that copyright and intellectual property is protected, as it always has been in this country. Our consultation is designed to do two specific things: ensure legal certainty for AI developers and creative industries alike, and to increase licensing of copyrighted material by AI developers.”  

When pushed by Billington on how those who rely on copyrighted works will still make a living if companies that train AI could use their work, Bryant used the Artist’s Resale Right (ARR) as an example of how this government would ensure “that there is a future revenue stream for every artist in this country”. In its current form, the ARR applies to physical art such as sculptures, paintings and ceramics, and is only enacted when those pieces are sold through an official market or auction. It allows for a continuous revenue stream, even after they sell their work.

The UK government AI and Copyright Consultation opens today. We want to hear from a wide range of voices. Respond to the consultation to share your views. [Link]: https://t.co/0Aq3JNwyTp pic.twitter.com/bnbXPKTrLV — Intellectual Property Office UK (@The_IPO) December 17, 2024

As part of the government’s response, they have launched a ten-week consultation, promoted by various government accounts on X, in order to gather opinions on how they should respond to the threat AI poses to the UK’s creative industries. One piece of supplementary material provides the government’s objectives, and outlines the four approaches they have considered. 

Their objectives are split into three ideals: control, access, and transparency.

Control protects the artist, allowing them to choose what work is available for data mining, and also control over the licensing agreement. This will benefit smaller AI companies who may not have the funds to license material from an artist like Dua Lipa, but could find an agreement with a smaller artist.

Access is about allowing these data mining companies access to high-quality material, without legal and administrative headaches, and therefore making the UK a more attractive place to establish an AI presence.

The final objective, transparency, aims to benefit both sides, with the artist having a full understanding of how they can license their work, and how exactly AI companies can use said work. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Musicians’ Union (@wearethemu)

As part of this consultation, the government revealed that their preferred approach would be an “opt-out” licensing system, explaining that this approach achieves all three of their objectives. This approach has drawn criticism from high-profile figures in the creative industry, including Sir Paul McCartney and Kate Bush, who argue it undermines artists’ control over their work. Many advocate for an “opt-in” system, requiring explicit consent before materials can be used for data mining, thereby ensuring artists fully understand the risks and benefits, and can come to their own agreements on how their work is used.

The government’s consultation is set to close on March 15, and the results could shape the future of both AI and copyright laws in the UK. While the debate will continue, there is mounting pressure to ensure that an opt-out system will benefit creators, and allow them to continue making a living from their art.

Sir Chris Bryant opened the debate, emphasising the potential harm to creators if their works are used without permission. In his opening statement, he referred to the challenge as “an existential question” to artistic integrity and livelihoods. “We believe that there is a potential win-win solution, and that the UK, with its strong traditions of copyright and technological innovation, is in a unique place to deliver it,” he stated. 

“In, out, in, out – it’s like the hokey cokey of policy making!”

The PM confirms to me @CommonsLiaison that the Government think an Opt Out is ‘the right proposal’ for creators having their works scraped.

I think our world-leading creative industries would beg to differ… pic.twitter.com/89TkNmMUPi

— Caroline Dinenage MP (@cj_dinenage) December 19, 2024

MPs are split on how to deal with the future of AI, with Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, openly criticising the Department for Science, Research and Innovation (DSRI) only a few weeks ago. Dinenage accused the department of focusing too heavily on AI’s economic potential while overlooking the negative impact on creative workers. “It’s a zero-sum game,” she argued, warning that the financial gains from AI risk being achieved at the expense of artists. Dinenage recently discussed the issue with PM Sir Keir Starmer.  

A proposed “rights reservation” system, allowing creators to specify how their works can be used, has drawn criticism too. Many see it as a rehash of flawed opt-out systems like LAION-5B, which reportedly included vast amounts of copyrighted material without explicit consent. Advocates for an opt-in system argue this would better protect creators by ensuring their work cannot be used unless they actively permit it. Opt-in will also mean that this who chose to will understand the inherent risks.

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Human Artistry Campaign (@humanartistrycampaign)

International comparisons were also discussed during the debate. The United States is considering the NO FAKES Bill (Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe), which would prevent unauthorised use of a person’s likeness or work by AI. Bryant referred to Tennessee’s ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security). Like the UK, Tennessee has a rich musical history which it is keen to protect, with its music industry contributing over $5 billion to their local economy.

MP Rupa Huq also used the debate to voice concerns about her own Bill, the Sale of Tickets Bill, and potential “filibustering” by other MPs.

The debate comes as high-profile figures, including Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Ringo Starr and Kate Bush, have spoken out about AI’s impact on the music industry. McCartney recently warned that AI could threaten young composers and writers, potentially wiping out opportunities for them to establish careers. While McCartney himself has used AI to enhance the sound quality of old recordings, such as restoring John Lennon’s vocals for ‘Now and Then’, he has been careful to distinguish between using AI as a tool and allowing it to replace human creativity.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Beatles (@thebeatles)

Despite these conversations, the reality is that AI is becoming increasingly embedded in the creative process. A 2024 Youth Music report revealed that two-thirds of 18-24-year-olds now use AI tools to support their artistic endeavours, often to overcome barriers like time and cost.

The debate reflects a broader struggle to balance technological progress with ethical considerations. Should AI be regulated to support creators, or does this risk stifling innovation? With the creative industries employing millions and contributing significantly to the UK’s GDP, and the UK government pushing a pro-growth agenda, the stakes are high.

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

A post shared by Musicians’ Union (@wearethemu)

As Parliament continues to deliberate, one thing is clear: the decisions made now will shape the future of the entire creative sector for years to come. Whether the focus remains on protecting artists or embracing AI’s economic potential, lawmakers face the challenge of ensuring that innovation does not come at the expense of artistic integrity.

McCartney warned, “We[’ve] got to be careful about it because it could just take over and we don’t want that to happen particularly for the young composers and writers [for] who, it may be the only way they[’re] gonna make a career. If AI wipes that out, that would be a very sad thing indeed.” His comments come at a time when the use of AI in music creation is under scrutiny, particularly for its implications on copyright and creative integrity.

McCartney’s concerns align with broader discourse in Parliament. During a House of Lords debate on the Data Bill, Baroness Beeban Kidron emphasised the threat AI poses to creators, referencing a petition signed by nearly 36,000 individuals and organisations in the creative sector demanding protection against unlicensed use of their works for AI training.

The legislative response includes a proposed bill by Baron Chris Holmes in 2022, which would require anyone training AI to report and gain permission for using protected material, ensuring compliance with intellectual property and copyright laws. However, this bill has not yet progressed beyond its third reading.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Dame Caroline Dinenage MP (@caroline4gosport)

There appears to be a significant discord between the UK government’s Department of Science, Research and Innovation and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regarding AI’s role in the creative industries. Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, has criticised the DSRI for being overly enthusiastic about AI, potentially at the expense of creative workers. She pointed out that any financial benefits from AI in music would likely come at the cost of income for artists, framing it as a zero-sum game for the wider economy.

On the creative front, AI’s integration into music production has shown both benefits and controversies. A 2024 report by Youth Music revealed that two-thirds of 18-14 year olds use AI to support their creative processes, helping to overcome barriers like time and financial constraints. However, the use of AI to simulate voices or produce ‘covers’ of unreleased songs often leads to copyright infringement issues, with videos being swiftly removed from platforms like YouTube.

The distinction between using AI to enhance existing material versus creating new works from scratch underscores the debate. McCartney himself has used AI to salvage John Lennon’s vocals for the Beatles’ song ‘Now and Then’, originally recorded for the Anthology project in 1996 but abandoned due to poor audio quality. The AI’s role was to remove background noise like the 60 cycle hum, not to generate new content, which McCartney clarified by stating, “nothing has been artificially or synthetically created. It’s all real and we all play on it.”

The ongoing debate reflects a tension between innovation and the protection of artistic integrity, with McCartney’s voice adding significant weight to the conversation about how AI should be integrated into the music industry to support human creativity, rather than replace it.