🌀 Algorithms on the Charts

Somewhere right now, a teenager is typing a sentence into a text box and getting a fully produced song back in under a minute. Vocals, drums, melody, mix. Meanwhile, a Nashville songwriter who spent a decade learning her craft is watching those same tools climb the charts. Deezer reported last November that over 50,000 fully machine-generated tracks were being uploaded to its platform every single day. That's not the future. That's breakfast.

Your inbox is flooded with newsletters. Your feed is chaos. Somewhere in that noise are the insights that could transform your work—but who has time to find them?

The Deep View solves this. We read everything, analyze what matters, and deliver only the intelligence you need. No duplicate stories, no filler content, no wasted time. Just the essential AI developments that impact your industry, explained clearly and concisely.

Replace hours of scattered reading with five focused minutes. While others scramble to keep up, you'll stay ahead of developments that matter. 600,000+ professionals at top companies have already made this switch.

Join them today, for free.

Every time a new technology enters music, it triggers the same argument: Is this a tool or a threat? The answer, historically, has always been "both, and also something nobody predicted." Think of it this way: When photography was invented, painters didn't disappear. But painting changed. The camera freed artists from the obligation to faithfully reproduce what they saw, and Impressionism was born. Technology doesn't just replace what came before; it reshapes what we value about the thing it threatens. In sociology, there's a useful idea that industries don't just sell products; they sell the meaning attached to those products. A song isn't just sound waves. It's someone's heartbreak, someone's identity, someone's Saturday night. So the real question about machine-made music isn't "can it sound good?" It's "can it mean something?" And who gets to decide?

The dream of machines making music is older than most people realize. In 1951, Alan Turing's room-sized computer at the University of Manchester played "Baa Baa Black Sheep,” making it one of the first recorded examples of computer-generated music. Six years later, the ILLIAC computer at the University of Illinois produced the "Illiac Suite for String Quartet," a piece composed entirely through algorithms. It sounded like what it was: a math problem set to music. Interesting, but nobody was crying in the audience.

For decades, this stayed in the world of academic curiosity. David Cope's 1997 program, Experiments in Musical Intelligence, could generate compositions that mimicked Bach convincingly enough to fool listeners in blind tests. The cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter called the experience "baffling and troubling," admitting that if music could be reduced to statistical patterns, then "music is much less than I ever thought it was." But Cope's program still needed a human to feed it existing compositions. It was a very sophisticated mirror, not a creator.

The real turning point came in the mid-2010s, when deep learning allowed machines to stop following rules and start recognizing patterns on their own. Google launched its Magenta research project in 2016. OpenAI released MuseNet in 2019, capable of blending genres and instruments in ways that felt genuinely surprising. Then, in April 2023, a track called "Heart on My Sleeve" used cloned voices of Drake and The Weeknd to create a song that racked up millions of plays before being pulled down. That was the moment the conversation stopped being theoretical.

Today, platforms like Suno and Udio let anyone generate a polished, radio-ready track from a few words of description. By the end of 2025, Suno had evolved from a simple prompt-based tool into a "generative audio workstation" with stem editing and vocal uploads. The major labels, after suing both companies in 2024 for training on copyrighted music without permission, started settling and signing licensing deals instead. Universal Music struck an agreement with Udio. Warner Music made deals with both Udio and Suno. The industry's posture shifted from "stop this" to "how do we get paid?"

The numbers tell a staggering story. Spotify removed over 75 million "spammy" tracks in the twelve months leading up to September 2025. Deezer found that machine-generated uploads accounted for roughly a third of its daily intake, though only about 0.5% of actual streams.

In November 2025, an entirely synthetic artist named Xania Monet debuted on a Billboard airplay chart, a first. And music creators, according to industry projections, face cumulative losses of over $10 billion between 2023 and 2028, while the market for generative music content is projected to grow from roughly $3 billion to over $60 billion in that same period.

But here's what the numbers don't capture: how people actually use this music, and what it means to them. A Deezer survey found that 97% of listeners couldn't tell the difference between human and machine-made tracks. Yet 80% said they wanted machine-generated music to be clearly labeled. People want to know if a human was involved, even when they can't hear the difference. That gap between perception and preference is where the real cultural tension lives.

There's an uncomfortable flip side to the "machines are stealing from artists" narrative. For every professional songwriter watching their livelihood erode, there's a fourteen-year-old in Lagos or Lahore who just made their first song without needing an instrument, a studio, or a decade of training. These tools are, without question, the most radical democratization of music creation in history. Grimes understood this early. She released her own voice model in 2023, inviting anyone to use it and splitting royalties 50/50. Holly Herndon has built her entire artistic practice around transparent, consent-based collaboration with machine intelligence.

The question nobody wants to sit with is this: what if the same technology that threatens professional musicians also unlocks creativity for millions of people who were never going to get a record deal anyway? Democratization and displacement are not opposites. They're the same force, seen from different seats in the room.

Every revolution in music has been a fight over the same question: who gets to make it, and who gets to say what counts? The machines have learned to sing. What they haven't learned is why anyone would want to listen. That "why" is still ours. For now.

If this made you think, share it with someone who needs to hear it. And if you want more cultural decoding each week, make sure you're subscribed.

Subscribe to Culture Decoded for weekly insights on modern behavior.