Saving Country Music’s New Policy on AI Music for 2026
With the existential threat that music derived from Artificial Intelligence (AI) poses to human creators and the integrity of the music industry—and the threat it poses to the integrity of media coverage of music specifically—Saving Country Music is enacting a new policy that will affect all music coverage, and all music submitted to the website for coverage and review.
Beginning in 2026, all music submissions to Saving Country Music via artists, publicists, labels, or any other means of distribution must disclose whether the music was composed either in part or in full by AI (Artificial Intelligence), or if it is clean of AI use. Similarly, this information will then be disclosed to the public as part of any music coverage.
Furthermore, any music that is disclosed or found to have been composed by AI either through the majority of the lyricism (50% or more), or via ANY (1% or more) AI-derived music (meaning audible sounds), this music will be disqualified from receiving review coverage or other editorial opportunities at Saving Country Music.
For the record, this does not exclude AI music from being covered at Saving Country Music in total. As part of the outlet’s ongoing coverage of this rapidly growing phenomenon, SCM will continue to disclose and investigate how AI is affecting the music marketplace and the human creators within it.
Saving Country Music also strongly encourages all other media outlets to adopt similar policies to help ensure public trust in music media, and to help protect human creators. Though music media and the media in general continue to see a decline in agency, cultural relevancy, and public standing, media outlets can and should play a critical role in helping the public navigate this new paradigm and the threat on music’s integrity posed by AI’s wide proliferation.
Irrespective of any media outlet’s specific opinions on AI coverage, they should draft and enact similar AI policy statements and disclose them publicly to help ensure the integrity of the music marketplace, and clear guidelines for music industry professionals to follow.
Even with Saving Country Music’s policy, it is a possibility, if not an inevitability that at some point in the future, music composed by AI will be covered by Saving Country Music without prior knowledge of AI’s involvement. In these instances, this music coverage will not be taken down, but will be updated with this information as soon as it is confirmed.
This policy does not exclude music written by human creators who might use AI-based tools as stand-ins for dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias to derive or verify historical/geographical/current event information, or even to help rhyme a line or two of verse. However, the majority of written words comprising the composition must be authored by a human creator, and accompanied by no AI-generated sounds.
No different than disclosing Explicit Lyrics to songs sent to radio or streaming services, it is the assertion of Saving Country Music that all labels, publicists, and artists should start disclosing when music utilized AI technology in part or in full, or when music is “clean” of such content (i.e. marking tracks/albums “AI = clean”).
Similarly, it is the assertion of Saving Country Music that streaming service should mark tracks utilizing AI, or should mark tracks that are certified free of AI. Charting entities such as Billboard should enact similar policies, and segregate AI-created music from human-created music on charts, at least until the full effects of AI on the music marketplace are understood. Entities such as the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences (NARAS, i.e. Grammys) should implement tools and resources to help with the labeling of music, and the protection of human creators.
Due to the fresh nature of this policy, a 60-day grace period will be recognized when publicists, labels, and artists will be educated and requested to adhere to this policy before it will be enacted in full (beginning March 1st). During and after this grace period, specific queries will be made to artists and their representatives if necessary to confirm the use of AI in the music, or not. This new AI policy will also been added to Saving Country Music’s general Submission Guidelines.
AI music is here, and there is no stopping the proliferation of the music, the adoption of it by the public, and the disruptions this phenomenon will cause to human creators. AI music and its creators also should have some agency to share this music in ways that are responsible, and that do not adversely affect human creators directly. However, we all can take reasonable, responsible, and pragmatic steps to ensure the population of AI music into the music marketplace does not cause such catastrophic upheaval, it undermines and implodes the already fragile and inequitable ecosystem for recorded music.
– – – – – – – – – – –
If you found this article valuable, consider leaving Saving Country Music A TIP.
January 1, 2026 @ 7:29 pm
I hope that you will make an exception for Randy Travis. Please.
January 2, 2026 @ 3:12 am
Why? It’s not Randy Travis.
January 2, 2026 @ 10:52 am
That is how this mess got started.
People making exceptions for emotional reasons.
January 2, 2026 @ 3:32 pm
This mess got started with people making slop for financial reasons.
January 3, 2026 @ 5:47 am
To be fair, that started in the late 90s. AI just makes it easier to create garbage.
January 4, 2026 @ 12:14 pm
Most nonsense comment ever. If there is ONE way that AI music should be produced, that’s the Randy Travis situation. Period. That has nothing to do with people creating fake AI artists, which is something that was going to happen anyway.
January 1, 2026 @ 7:52 pm
The same people that like AI music are the same people that loved bro country. Great work leading from the front Trigger . Label everything truthfully will solve most of our problems..
January 1, 2026 @ 8:28 pm
You are exactly right! I will not be spending ANY of my precious time listening to or reading about AI music! Why would anyone want to listen to that shit!
January 3, 2026 @ 5:49 am
The same people who like AI think Taylor Swift is country.
January 1, 2026 @ 8:07 pm
Someone has to take a stand on this nonsense.
January 1, 2026 @ 8:07 pm
Hey Trigger, just a suggestion for your country music DDS system. You could have 599.999 reserved exclusively for AI Generated Country. Just a place to shove it all into one number and call it a day.
January 2, 2026 @ 9:50 am
I’d go with 665.9.
“Couldn’t commit wholly to the devils side, his ink reads 665.9”. – Ray Wylie Hubbard
January 2, 2026 @ 2:36 pm
The cataloger in me wants to point out that 006.3 is the Dewey number for artificial intelligence!
January 3, 2026 @ 4:48 pm
This is the sexiest comment I’ve ever read on Saving Country Music.
January 1, 2026 @ 8:46 pm
Love this! Way to take a stand
January 1, 2026 @ 9:00 pm
Good Plan to be proactive.
Maybe I just have my head in the sand, but I’m hoping AI is just another Y2K.
So far all the AI music I’ve heard has been terrible
The AI written stories, just don’t sound like a real human has written them
The fake AI posts on Facebook about country artists being almost dead and going on their last farewell tours have 6 fingers and look nothing like them
AI is still too robotic and laughable for me to worry about it yet, but ask me in 5 years
January 2, 2026 @ 12:00 am
There is definitely a possibility that as an investment, AI is a massive bust, and ultimately plunges the world economy into a major recession, which it already is in aside from AI spending. But let’s remember that even as the dotcom bubble burst, that didn’t mean that the internet didn’t happen, or that the investment bubble even adversely affected the way the internet ended up getting built out.
What I will say is the proponents of AI have made a catastrophic mistake by making it so easily accessible, and easily implemented, aided by social media platforms who are developing their own AI infrastructure to the point where the majority of the public dislikes and distrusts the technology. Specifically, what Suno is doing with music has really soured the ecosystem with negative sentiment, while AI proponents seem to believe that promises of curing Cancer will make us all shut up about destroying creative communities, eliminating jobs, and killing local communities with data centers. Big Tech still holds the power, but they have completely lost public sentiment.
January 2, 2026 @ 3:19 am
If you have read any books flashing the names Harlan Coben, James Patterson or Tom Clancy recently (among several more names), then you read an AI written novel.
AI lower the bar. Music, movies, novels etc. Poor quality all over, one size fits all (or bust). The young ones grows up with this trash and it alters their mind.
We’re getting dumber.
January 2, 2026 @ 4:10 am
I totally agree. Those ads have infected Facebook for years now, and are obviously fake as you noted, along with the endless Reels of 800-pound blobs supposedly on ziplines, among others, with the Sora logo blurred out, and YouTube and other music streaming services being infected by supposed “groups” such as Annointed Family, it is just AI-written and performed crap and I will have nothing to do with it.
January 1, 2026 @ 11:49 pm
I agree with most everything. Only part I disagree is that artists should have to get a non-AI certification. I think it is very reasonable to notify when there IS ai use, but it seems overkill to say that there is not. Hope that makes sense🤞🏼🤞🏼
January 2, 2026 @ 12:04 am
The problem is that the AI huckseters are very unlikely to comply to any requests, or even regulations. If they’re willing to hack the personal accounts of Don Williams and Doc Watson to release fraudulent albums, we can’t expect them to comply with honor code rules, especially since it seems all major entities in music are asleep at the wheel with this issue. So it’s really going to be up to the human creators and those who represent them to certify what is real, and what isn’t. We’ll see how prolific AI music becomes. But if it goes as many are predicting, it’s going to dramatically dwarf the output of human creators, and potentially in a matter of months.
January 2, 2026 @ 6:36 am
So I asked Google AI to read this article and here’s what it told me
“Saving Country Music’s AI policy, while taking a firm stance against AI-generated music, contains potential ambiguities and implementation issues that require further clarification.”
When I asked for further information, it said
Ambiguities and implementation issues in Saving Country Music’s AI policy requiring clarification center on verification, definitions, and enforcement mechanisms.
So, uhh, take that Trigger!
January 2, 2026 @ 6:38 am
On a more serious level, I wonder how this policy could apply to artists who seriously augment their voice or instrumentation using AI, especially in live performances, where some artists have been accused of using backing tracks or autotune while performing
January 2, 2026 @ 8:07 am
So whenever I am listening to an album or watching a live performance, if I hear Autotune being used, I’m going to call it out. If I see backing tracks being used, I am going to call it out. In fact last year, I called out Ian Munsick’s use of these things after “Rolling Stone” wrote a puff piece for Munsick proclaiming the authentic representation of Western music (paraphrasing).
To me, whether it’s Anteres Auto-tune or AI augmenting vocals or supplying backing tracks, it’s still an attempt at deception. So I guess this is where these two policies would overlap.
January 2, 2026 @ 9:31 am
Agreed. Fwiw i see it more egregiously with live performances than studio work, which I assume is subject to some production tweaking
January 2, 2026 @ 8:26 pm
Re: “attempt at deception.” All kinds of technologies get used to make the music “better” (in its creator’s judgment) and are not necessarily deceptive, they’re just tools. We can (and should) ethically critique what people say or don’t say. And we can aesthetically critique people’s artistic choices regarding technologies in their music. But those are totally separate issues in my opinion.
January 2, 2026 @ 6:38 am
Love this, Trigger! Thanks for beating the drum and being on the forefront of this while others are asleep at the wheel.
Whether in the comments here or in a subsequent article, I’d love to know more about why you went with the 50% rule for lyrics versus 1% rule for music/anything audible. To be clear, I’m not saying I disagree with that choice, just asking for help further understanding this new landscape that you’ve spent a lot more time thinking about than I (or most of us, presumably) have.
Getting into the weeds of what’s prompting this question, I’m curious why such a stark difference between say using AI to come up with rhyming lines that the artist couldn’t think of on their own (would not have to be labeled under this policy) versus adding an AI-generated thunderclap to a song about a storm (would have to be labeled). Again, not disagreeing with your policy; I’m asking to genuinely try and understand it better!
January 2, 2026 @ 8:14 am
So the reason for the 50% lyricism rule is an attempt to try and be as pragmatic and realistic as possible with this policy, understanding that songwriters are already using AI tools to help them write songs, no different than using a thesaurus or the internet, or a rhyming dictionary or word tool. The point of saying 50% is to eliminate any song that is written solely or majoritively using an AI prompt, but not making it where if someone used it to write one line or one word, it’s completely disqualified.
It’s similar to the use of Autotune in music. It’s one thing when an artist tweaks one note in an otherwise in-tune performance, just because they want to salvage that performance, which was the original reason to use Autotune. That’s a completely different thing from an artist who can’t sing in tune, and uses Autotune all the time as a crutch.
If it seems necessary, I can tweak that lyric percentage down from 50%. But I felt that was a safe place to start.
January 2, 2026 @ 3:36 pm
At what point would it need a songwriting credit if it was a person?
January 4, 2026 @ 1:57 pm
A lot less than 50%, as far as lyrics go. In for a word, in for a third is the standard.
Meanwhile studio musicians typically contribute large portions of the musical content with no attribution.
And recording software includes large libraries of sounds that are free to use.
So this 50%/0% ‘rule’ is very arbitrary.
For decades musicians have been training on copyrighted material and then creating new works developed from that training. I assure you labels and publishers don’t care whether the skills to create the valuable music product come from the woodshed or a laptop as long as they get the lion’s share of the proceeds.
January 2, 2026 @ 7:13 am
Does anyone think there will be an album that was 49 percent written by AI that will be worth listening to?
January 3, 2026 @ 10:44 am
Isn’t that the norm the last 20 years or so? It sounds that way, at least.
January 3, 2026 @ 11:15 pm
I am reminded of the saying that a good singer could sing the phone book and it would sound great, so while I disagree with AI, there is a very real case for someone selecting an AI written song and perfoming it it how they want to.
January 2, 2026 @ 7:48 am
Tilting at windmills, friend. So is using ProTools going to put an artist into AI purgatory? And how would anybody determine lyrics are 50% AI in an iterative writing process? Nobody wanted electric guitars in folk music either, until they did.
As for the quality, there’s AI slop out there but I’m sorry, we can also produce good stuff based on public domain principles. I applaud your effort but I’ll take decent roots music where I can find it, even if I have to make it myself.
Happy New Year. I’ll keep checking in for new music, no matter.
January 2, 2026 @ 8:18 am
“So is using ProTools going to put an artist into AI purgatory?”
The idea that using digital studio tools is basically synonymous with anyone using AI to in total compose songs within seconds without even having to step into a studio or record anything is ridiculous. And maybe I am tilting at windmills. But I’d rather err on the side of being alarmist as opposed to being permissive and watch the entire music industry evaporate before our eyes by the end of Q2, 2026.
As for the 50% rule, you’re correct it’s going to be hard to police. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. And DistroKid does have tools already in place to detect AI use, including in writing. I encourage the widespread use of this technology, and for all distributors, streaming services, organizations like the RIAA to adopt it.
January 2, 2026 @ 9:45 am
I’ve read a bunch of comments on Suno-related Facebook posts and this is the same argument made by a bunch of other lazy and talentless hacks. It’s always people who think their shitty poem set to computer-generated music and vocals is legitimate art just the same as studio produced music.
It’s not.
Virtually no one cares about your AI-created music. It’s sonic spam.
January 2, 2026 @ 8:21 am
The problem might be relying on those that submit music being honest. In truth, I am not sure I would always know if something is AI. It is growing. I do not excuse Randy Travis from using it. I do not like it. I do think charts/streaming services should make clear if something is AI but they will depend on contributors being honest and I am not sure they really care. Sadly, I cannot help but feel it is a fight against the inevitable. I applaud your efforts.
January 2, 2026 @ 9:15 am
The systems to report and detect AI are already in place. They just need to be implemented industry wide. Whenever any song is uploaded for distribution, you are asked if it includes explicit lyrics or not. Whether you mark it “yes” or “no” so this data can then be presented to the public through streaming services, the song is then run through a series of checks to see if explicit lyrics are present. In this same process, it is also checked to see if it’s previously copyrighted material. For DistroKid, they already have software that also detects if AI was involved in the creation of the track.
Is this system flawless? No. Will stuff that’s AI still slip through undetected? Of course. This also happens with explicit lyrics and copyrighted material. But it works most of the time, deters dishonest or outright fraudulent behavior, and helps consumers make choices about what they listen to.
The Grammys already asked anyone submitting music this year if AI was involved. The RIAA “certifies” sales and streams for music before giving a single Gold or Platinum status, meaning running a song through a rigorous accounting process.
All these systems are already in place. They just need to be brought to bear on AI.
January 2, 2026 @ 9:22 am
I did not know that and I struggle with AI altogether. With such systems in place, one can hope they will be used. Surely, it has to be in everyone’s interests to ensure real creativity is recognised and rewarded. Keep up the good fight.
January 2, 2026 @ 9:52 pm
I just hope it’s not as hilariously incompetent at catching AI as it is at catching explicit lyrics, since catching AI is a lot more important
I don’t know if this is still the case, but for awhile the song “Who Are You” by The Who wasn’t marked explicit despite having several f-bombs, but their song “Daily Records” WAS for the horrifically graphic line “my balls are achin’”. Makes me laugh every time I think about it, but it wouldn’t if the AI detector worked the same way
January 2, 2026 @ 9:56 am
AI music is sonic spam. That’s all it is.
I don’t know if AI music will flood the market and drown out legitimate music in the same way social media and the internet destroyed physical music sales but it’s quite obviously playing into the worst of human nature which is giving every moron with a badly written poem the delusion that a computer generating a music track and vocals with that is somehow music.
Regardless of whether I’ll receive credit I feel vindication for my absolute revulsion of pitch correction (live and in the studio) because it was a direct stepping stone to this AI nonsense. It’s been nearly 2 decades where a majority of top artists are releasing and performing music that is not their true vocal free of computer manipulation – and few noticed or cared. All this lowered the bar for who could be an artist. Now entire studio quality lo-fi tracks can be produced by AI and everyone with a shitty poem (like I said before) thinks they can be a contender.
We are racing towards a future where there will be a handful of legit live bands competing with a completely fake AI world that people can create for themselves to feed their desire for nostalgia. Maybe I’m wrong but most of us scroll thru Instagram now with a feed that looks eerily similar to the TV’s in Idiocracy.
January 2, 2026 @ 10:30 am
Amen Trigger!!! Thank you for helping us separate the real from the fake music!
January 2, 2026 @ 11:47 am
Trigger,
Requiring transparency about AI use is a great step. But why refuse to review all products of its use? If as I expect most AI generated music is mediocre or worse, reviews demonstrating that should protect and elevate human creation. On the other hand, what if some AI generated music is good? If it turns out that AI is better at identifying dangerous tumors in scans or landing airplanes safely should we refuse to use it to protect human radiologists or pilots?
We need to try to increase the compensation of non-superstar creators and performers and, more generally, to figure out how to protect people whose livelihoods, voices, or IP are threatened by AI. But I am not sure that refusing to evaluate critically the results of AI use is the best way to do that. Explaining why specific pieces of AI generated music suck might be more powerful and you are excellent at ranting.
January 2, 2026 @ 12:32 pm
Hey Beltway Kid,
I understand your concern. That is why I put the caveat in there about how I’m not going to act like AI music doesn’t exist. I am still going to doggedly cover AI music with just as much zeal as I have before, if not more. This policy is specifically about artists, publicists, and labels submitting their work to Saving Country Music for review and coverage, and how that music will be handled. AI music can still be submitted to Saving Country Music. I might even decided to cover it. But the fact that it’s AI must be be disclosed, while AI music be recused from being included on playlists, or for end-of-year accolades.
January 2, 2026 @ 8:45 pm
Maybe I’m taking this too literally (apologies if so) but given the “policy” language… I’m wondering if you can clarify. The policy says music that goes over your definition “will be disqualified from receiving review coverage or other editorial opportunities at Saving Country Music.” Here you say it “can still be submitted to Saving Country Music. I might even decided to cover it.” This is not a gotcha 🙂 just trying to understand if you’re adding a caveat in this comment, or if I’m misunderstanding what “review coverage or other editorial opportunities” means, or what. Thanks.
January 2, 2026 @ 11:32 pm
So along with writing and publishing articles, there is an incredible amount of time that is spent on the back end of the website receiving and screening through music submissions for albums and singles, and other requests for coverage. Saving Country Music can receive upwards of 300 emails a week. Publicists, labels, and unsigned artists reach out directly to submit their music for coverage consideration. To do so, they follow a set of submission guidelines that Saving Country Music lays out. This AI policy explains how all submissions now must address the AI question before being considered for coverage, and if you have an album that was completely composed by AI, there is no point in submitting it, because it will be rejected through that process.
That said, let’s say that in the next few months, an AI album goes #1 on the Billboard Country Albums chart, which is not entirely unlikely. Am I not going to review/talk about that album because of this new policy? Of course not. If anything, I would be compelled to talk about it. But that is beyond the process of songs and albums being submitted to Saving Country Music requesting coverage. I am going to continue to cover the AI music phenomenon, but I do not want AI albums competing with human made albums for review attention through the submission process.
January 2, 2026 @ 2:37 pm
As someone who has no shame admitting I write all of my own lyrics but also dresses them up on AI-generative music platform Suno (and discloses in the credits in every song I post there that the music is AI-generated)…………I fully support this policy. =)
January 2, 2026 @ 3:41 pm
I’ve wondered about this as a cheaper way to get a demo done for songwriters without the musical chops to record
January 2, 2026 @ 5:35 pm
With all due respect, if you are a songwriter and you can’t perform your own song well enough to cut a demo, you’re not much of a songwriter.
January 3, 2026 @ 6:54 pm
Many of the publishers are no longer funding demos at studios now. They require demos to be done via AI. Very few now will give a budget for live musician demos. They also do not want you setting with a guitar as the demo, they need the full band demo to pitch. A lot of the studios in town have been hit by this but it’s the way things are going these days.
It isn’t a matter of talent, I’ve met writer who don’t play instruments or sing but they can write amazing songs. It is an extremely narrow view with little intellect backing it to say a writer has to be x y or z. I have met a lot of different writers out there.
January 3, 2026 @ 9:42 pm
I also know several writers who can’t play an instrument but are incredible (and successful) writers. Liz Rose and Marla Cannon come to mind. These folks are anomalies, though.
All I’m saying is, if in 2026 you can’t sit down with a Pro Tools rig and cut a pitchable demo for a song you’ve written, the music business may not be the business for you. It’s not a narrow view. It’s an informed view with more than enough intellect behind it.
January 2, 2026 @ 6:10 pm
If a songwriter wants to take lyrics they wrote and render it into a song via AI to send to folks on a personal level so they get the idea of the song in fleshed out form, I’m not necessarily opposed to that. I’m also not against using AI as a tool to help creators. The concern is if it replaces creators. A lot of performers started out as demo singers, including Garth Books. But the whole “demo” world has kind of imploded at this point, so I’m not sure how much harm that might do.
January 4, 2026 @ 4:44 pm
More than enough intellect is subjective at best isn’t it, even if you are “successful”. What I was saying was, to make a blanket statement like that isn’t appropriate for something as interpretive as the arts, can we agree on that? I am not sure there really is a formula to what is or isn’t anymore, maybe other than determination and will. Yes talent is a factor, but it’s another subjective piece to an extent.
I am going to venture I am just as informed as you and I just have a different view on this is all. Maybe I am just more understanding and not as hard nosed when it comes to art, who knows. Always up for a coffee and a friendly debate though.
January 2, 2026 @ 3:53 pm
A fuckin men. As an independent musician just trying to get stuff out there, it’s becoming nigh on impossible to get through the sheer volume of this stuff. We can’t knock out music as quick as the worst of the AI slop out there; it takes time. Man, I get steel guitar from a guy in Georgia, I do most of the rest myself then track drums elsewhere too. Fiddle from another source and so it goes on. Can’t keep up man. So, I say fuck it. I wish nobody any harm and if it makes them smile making AI music, fair enough but anything to level the playing field works for me.
January 2, 2026 @ 4:36 pm
All you small independent artists out there, know now that if you use AI graphics on your album art I’m just going to assume you and your music are not real.
Fair?–maybe not, but that’s a big red flag.
January 2, 2026 @ 9:03 pm
0101010101
January 3, 2026 @ 4:49 am
I ran across a video on YouTube that is supposed to be a duet by George Strait and Chris Stapleton. The picture is a pretty good approximation of each of them but the track is definitely not them, not even close. It is totally AI, and probably done without permission from either of the artists. This type of AI crap should not be allowed, period, end of story. The use of AI to reproduce the voice of someone like Randy Travis, who is aware and on-board with the method of reproducing his voice to make new content is just fine, but this is totally another thing.
January 3, 2026 @ 6:57 pm
Was it Honky Tonk Hall of Fame? That was them. Even saw them perform it on stage together.
January 4, 2026 @ 4:55 am
No, it’s He Heals the Broken
January 4, 2026 @ 11:33 pm
So I write songs. Lyrics, melodies, changes etc. and I make my own rough demos, but I’ve been using AI to “produce” the songs to hit specific sounds I can’t make due to the ceiling on my singing and certain instrumental abilities. I’m nowhere near Nashville, and no one ever responds to band posts where i am located unless you’re metal or punk or blues or indie rock style alt country. I’m starting to get decent AI results, based on my demos, that sound the way I want without losing the compositional or performance intent of the song. To me this seems like a fair use of AI. I’m not asking it to write the song. I’m treating it like a band I don’t have access to IRL.
January 5, 2026 @ 1:56 pm
I wrote about this awhile back, I think you’ll find this of interest from my blog, OF AMERICAN ORIGIN. https://johnlomaxiii.substack.com/p/where-did-music-come-from