Column: AI can perform a song, but can it make art?
The most insulting thing about the success of Breaking Rust, an artificial intelligence “artist” that topped Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales Chart this week, is the titles of the hits.
“Walk My Way.”
“Living on Borrowed Time.”
The EP — which is also on the charts — is called “Resilient,” as if Breaking Rust spent years playing for tips in empty bars. And maybe Aubierre Rivaldo Taylor, who is credited for writing the songs, did. But the bluesy voice we hear singing about pain and suffering did not overcome anything.
In fact, you could say this completely computer-generated country singer found chart success by mocking people. A year ago, a handful of loud industry folks in Nashville questioned whether Beyoncé, who was born and raised in Texas, was country enough to do a country album. Good times. Today AI-generated “performers” such as Breaking Rust and Xania Monet, which hit the Billboard R&B charts, are suggesting you don’t even need to be human to fit into those genres.
Eric Church, whose latest release “Evangeline vs. the Machine,” was nominated this month in the best contemporary country album category at the Grammys, told me he’s not too worried because fans still want to see live shows and “AI algorithm is not going to be able to walk on stage and play.” He says that the best thing the industry can do is establish AI music as its own genre and that award shows should establish a separate category.
“I think it’s a fad,” he said, adding that he finds it fun. “When people like a song or connect with an artist the ultimate thing for them is then to go experience that artist with people who also like that artist, that’s the ultimate payoff. You’re not going to be able to do that with AI.”
Church wraps up touring on Saturday at the Intuit Dome in Inglewood. In addition to promoting the new album, this year his foundation began providing housing for victims of Hurricane Helene using funds from a benefit concert. The North Carolina native also released a single to raise funds to help his neighbors. You know, things only a flesh-and-blood artist can do. Regarding Breaking Rust, he said: “The better thing we should be doing is making the general public aware that it’s AI because … I don’t think they know that.”
“The biggest problem is the ability to deceive people or manipulate people because it looks real, it sounds real, it’s pretty disingenuous if you didn’t say it,” Church told me. “I’ve seen stuff from me that is online.… They take my face and they put it on another body.… My mom sent me one and I was like, ‘Mom, that’s not me.’
“That’s where it gets dangerous and that’s where it gets scary.”
If AI-generated “musicians” like Breaking Rust are a passing fad, as Church suggests, it’s one that’s been 50 years in the making. While use of the voice box on recordings goes back to the 1960s, it was the 1975 recording of Peter Frampton’s double live album, “Frampton Comes Alive,” that popularized its use. In the 1980s Zapp had a string of gold albums with front man Roger Troutman using the voice box technology to make his voice sound futuristic, and in the 1990s AutoTune went from being a tool producers use to fine-tune a singer’s pitch on a recording to being the featured sound on a recording. This gave us Cher’s global chart-topper “Believe.”
Over the decades, technology in the studio has made it possible for the vocally challenged to usurp craftsmanship and talent.
Before MTV debuted in 1981, we were warned that video was going to kill the radio star. That obviously didn’t happen. And now, AI-generated video can theoretically replace filmed human performances. But even that should not be a threat to real stars.
As with most things in life, when expertise is devalued, it’s easier to pass trash off as treasure. AutoTune and AI are enabling people who lack musical talent to game the system — like audio catfish.
When an artist like Church sings of heartbreak, listeners can identify with his lived experience. However, Breaking Rust is on the top of the charts with a song called “Walk My Way” … and the entity singing those words has never taken a step.
That’s not to say an AI ditty can’t be catchy. It most certainly can be. I just wonder: If the artist isn’t real, how can the art be?
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- AI-generated performers mock genuine human experience by performing songs about heartbreak, suffering, and resilience without having actually lived through hardship, presenting false authenticity to audiences[1].
- The public should be made explicitly aware when content is artificially generated to prevent deception and manipulation, as the current landscape allows industry professionals to obscure the artificial nature of performers.
- AI technology enables individuals without genuine musical talent to bypass craftsmanship and expertise, allowing them to game the system by presenting artificial content as legitimate art on the same charts as human musicians.
- Authentic art requires lived human experience; without that foundation, AI-generated performances cannot create genuine artistic expression or meaning, regardless of how commercially successful they become.
- The industry should be concerned about how technology is devaluing expertise and allowing untalented creators to present what amounts to “trash off as treasure,” undermining the credibility of music as an art form.
Different views on the topic
- The success of AI-generated content has garnered mixed reactions from audiences, with some music fans finding entertainment and enjoyment in artificially generated songs despite their artificial origins[1].
- Some industry perspectives view AI music as an interesting experimental phenomenon to explore what is possible with emerging technology, rather than characterizing it as inherently problematic or threatening[1].
- Audiences ultimately value the live performance experience and direct human connection with artists, suggesting AI-generated performers face natural limitations that prevent them from truly replacing human musicians in the marketplace.
- Rather than opposing AI-generated music categorically, some suggest establishing it as a separate genre or distinct award category to differentiate it from human artistry without eliminating either form from existing simultaneously.
- The integration of new technologies in music production has historical precedent, with innovations from voiceboxes to AutoTune coexisting with human artistry without destroying the value of authentic musical talent.