As AI-generated songs flood streaming platforms, artists are defending the human touch that algorithms can’t replicate
Press play. Music fills the room. The vocals sound impressive, the arrangement is polished, the presentation is clean and balanced. It has the familiar sheen of a recording studio release.
Press Play again. Another track comes in, equally assured, equally well produced. A question remains: which one was created by humans and which one was generated by artificial intelligence? For most listeners, the answer is increasingly unclear.
Music streaming platform Deezer reported in April 2026 that approximately 75,000 fully AI-generated tracks were being uploaded daily, which is approximately 44% of all new uploads to its platform. In a separate blind listening survey, 97% of respondents struggled to distinguish between AI-generated music and songs created by humans.
Artificial intelligence can now create melodies, compose lyrics, imitate voices and create an entire song in a matter of seconds.
Platforms like Suno and Udio allow users to create music from simple signals, while AI-assisted tools are widely used for mastering, transcription, arranging, and songwriting.
Yet despite the speed and sophistication, musicians and teachers insist that something essential is missing.
AI improves creativity but does not replace humans
Dr. James Boyle, dean of the faculty of music at Aswara, sees AI as part of the longer technological evolution of music.
From analog recording and synthesizers to digital audio workstations, music has always moved along with technology.
When asked if technology has improved creativity, he said, “It always has.”
But Boyle, the son of famed Malaysian jazz musician Jimmy Boyle, clearly believes that AI should remain a helpful tool rather than an option.
He said, “As far as creativity is concerned, AI is good as a tool for sketches and ideas exploring new possibilities, but it is not the end product. Human talent takes priority.”
He describes AI-generated music as still “formulaic and mechanical”.
Sharing a similar view, Universiti Sains Malaysia music department chair and lecturer Tan Jin Yin said musicianship depends on human judgment which machines cannot replicate.
“A composer still needs to decide what is meaningful, what is stylistically appropriate, and what communicates honestly,” she said.
While acknowledging that AI-generated music may sound technically believable, he said it is difficult to fake emotional depth.
“I’ve heard AI-generated songs with very skilled vocals and great production but they still seem to lack a certain real emotional depth.
Technically, the sound can be reassuring but emotionally it can feel a little empty or detached as if the music understands the shape of the emotion without actually experiencing it,” she said.
algorithmic vs organic
For Penang Jazz Society president Jerome Kwa, the difference lies in unpredictability.
“Humans are unpredictable. When it comes to creating music, everyone is unique in their own way, whereas AI is based on algorithms. AI creates from what already exists. Human creations can be something entirely new,” he said.
He emphasizes what he calls the “organicity” of music-making.
While AI is mechanical and predictable, he said human creation is “very organic and fundamental”.
When asked if AI could replicate emotion, lived experience, and interpretation, his answer was simple: “No.”
Quah believes that music is rooted in instinct, subconscious response, and emotional spontaneity – qualities that cannot be fully encoded.
He said, “AI is just a machine. It can never be like humans because it lacks subconsciousness and does not have a soul.”
Jazz as a last stand
For Quah, jazz is actually one of the hardest genres for AI to replicate.
Established in 2016, the Penang Jazz Society has about 50 members and runs weekly practice sessions, jazz training groups and bi-monthly jam sessions.
Its Penang Big Band has performed at regional festivals including the Thailand International Jazz Conference and the Hua Hin International Jazz Festival.
That said, jazz relies heavily on improvisation and shared instinct in real time.
“It’s an intuitive art. Composers rely on a combination of musicianship and inspiration at the moment. Maybe one day, AI will be able to replicate it, but replicating still means relying on algorithms that it already knows,” he said.
During live performances, jazz musicians respond to each other spontaneously, and shape the music in the moment. He argues that this interaction is still beyond artificial systems.
“So it will never be able to play jazz successfully,” he said.
However, he believes that AI could eventually aid in arranging jazz compositions for larger groups.
AI problem in education
If AI struggles with emotions in performance, it raises various concerns in education.
At USM, some students already use AI tools for music production, notation, composition, and research, though others still prefer manual composition and live performance.
TAN allows the use of AI, provided students are transparent.
“For me, the important issue is not just whether students use AI, but whether they understand what they are doing,” he said.
She warns that AI-generated responses may appear fluent but often hide a lack of understanding.
“In music theory, students cannot just give a beautiful interpretation.
“They need to understand why a chord progression works, how a phrase is shaped, or how certain musical elements work in context,” he said.
To test actual understanding, she probes students beyond their presentation.
“If students can clearly explain the answer in their own words, apply the idea to another example, or justify their musical choices, I know learning has happened.
“But if the student can’t answer basic questions about their own presentation, it usually shows that the work was copied and pasted without real understanding,” she said.
She emphasizes that AI should not replace the learning process.
He said, “In music education, the process of listening, analyzing, questioning, and making musical decisions is still very important.”
shortcut generation
While all three agree that AI has useful applications, they also warn about increasing dependency.
Boyle warns that convenience can quietly kill creativity.
“When the technology is there, the temptation to use it, or for some, even abuse it, is abundant and highly contagious. For some others, it may hinder their true creativity because of the unprecedented shortcuts being offered by AI,” he said.
Quah says young musicians may not be familiar with traditional, manual processes.
“The younger generation that uses all these tools has never experienced laborious physical work like the older generation.
He said, “They would never understand the mechanics of composing, which was completely manual.”
Still, no one rejects AI outright. Instead, they argue for balance.
Boyle offers a final thought: “Until we give everything to the machine, we will have the upper hand.”
For now, at least, the musician appears determined to keep it that way.
