Australia’s official music charts will begin excluding recordings created mostly or entirely by generative artificial intelligence from Friday, in one of the strongest moves yet by the local music industry to distinguish human-made recordings from synthetic music.
The Australian Recording Industry Association has changed its chart eligibility rules so recordings developed with generative AI will only qualify if they are “substantially human made”, created using authorised and lawful AI services, and free of concerns about artificial streaming or chart manipulation. The new rules take effect from Friday, August 28.
The change is not a blanket ban on musicians using artificial intelligence. Artists will still be able to use AI as a supporting production tool, provided human creativity remains at the heart of the finished recording.
But songs where AI generates the lead vocal or another central musical performance are likely to fall on the wrong side of the new eligibility test. ARIA told the ABC that recordings containing AI-generated lead vocals or key instrumental components would likely be considered ineligible under the international principles it has adopted.
The distinction mirrors a new global music-industry labelling system announced in July.
Under that framework, an “AI-Generated” recording is one where generative AI creates the entirety or primary creative elements of a track, including a lead vocal, major instrumental performance or a recording generated almost wholly from prompts.
An “AI-Assisted” recording, by contrast, remains substantially created by humans who perform the principal vocals and instruments while using generative AI for secondary expressive elements.
ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd said the aim was to give musicians and record companies a clear boundary while recognising that AI tools are already becoming part of modern production.
“This gives everyone who releases music in Australia a clear rule to work to,” Herd said.
She also called on other parts of the Australian music industry — particularly radio — to follow ARIA’s lead and place greater emphasis on human performers.
“We call on all parties who have a role in deciding the music played and promoted to Australian audiences, particularly radio, to support human artistry and implement similar changes across their own codes,” she said.
The timing is significant.
ARIA’s decision follows a heated industry debate sparked by Queensland producer Josh Fawaz and his version of Madonna’s “Like a Prayer”, which became the most-played song on Australian radio and reached number four on two ARIA charts in July despite questions about the extent to which artificial intelligence had been used to create it.
Fawaz initially defended his approach by describing AI as a creative tool rather than a substitute for musicians.
However, after scrutiny over the track’s unusually synthetic-sounding vocal and questions about who had performed it, the Spotify credits were subsequently updated to disclose that both the vocals and drums were AI-generated.
The track has nevertheless become a substantial commercial success. Recent reporting puts its Spotify streams at more than 48 million, while it also generated extensive Australian radio airplay.
And immediately before the new rules were announced, the recording was still performing strongly on ARIA’s specialised Australian charts.
For the week of August 17, “Like a Prayer” was ranked No. 5 on the ARIA Top 20 Australian Singles Chart and No. 2 on the Australian Dance Singles Chart.
ARIA has not publicly made a final determination that Fawaz’s track will be excluded under the new regime.
But because the recording now carries credits acknowledging AI-generated vocals and drums, it presents an immediate test of what ARIA means when it says charting music must remain substantially human-made.
The new framework gives ARIA power to remove recordings that fail eligibility requirements, recalculate or alter chart positions and revoke relevant chart recognition. Artists and their representatives will have an avenue to challenge eligibility decisions.
The Australian change is part of a much bigger international response.
On July 30, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry announced new global principles governing AI-generated recordings on official charts.
IFPI represents the recording industry internationally and developed the rules in consultation with record companies including major global labels.
Under its framework, recordings involving generative AI must satisfy six broad requirements to remain chart eligible: the AI service must be authorised and lawful; the recording must be substantially human-made; there must be no manipulation concerns; applicable copyright, personality and related-rights laws must be respected; use of the AI service must comply with its terms; and the use of generative AI must be properly disclosed to consumers where required.
IFPI said the rules were intended to draw a line between technology that assists artists and synthetic content that largely replaces them.
“Official music charts do more than just track sales; they celebrate human artistry and endeavour,” IFPI chief executive Victoria Oakley said.
She said properly licensed AI could become part of musicians’ creative toolkits, but charts should not reward recordings produced using AI systems that exploit artists’ work without authorisation.
ARIA is far from alone in adopting the principles.
IFPI says it is implementing them across charts it directly manages in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia, while working with more than 20 national chart organisations.
Those include the Official Aotearoa Music Charts in New Zealand, South Korea’s Circle Chart and national charts in France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria and other countries.
The rules therefore have the potential to establish an international dividing line: AI can participate in music production, but recordings primarily performed or generated by machines may no longer receive the same official chart recognition as work built around human performance.
The decision also highlights an increasingly complicated question for the music industry: when does AI stop being a tool and become the artist?
Modern recordings already rely heavily on technology.
Musicians routinely use digital production software, sampling, pitch correction, synthesised sounds, drum programming and automated mastering. Generative AI adds another layer because it can now create entire vocal performances, instrumental passages or complete songs from relatively simple instructions.
ARIA’s solution is not to judge a track simply by whether AI touched it.
Instead, it is attempting to determine whether the principal creative performance remains human.
That approach aligns with the separate international labelling standard welcomed by ARIA in July, which explicitly distinguishes AI-generated content from AI-assisted human work.
Herd said at the time that transparency would be increasingly important as fully synthetic music becomes more common on streaming platforms.
“Australian music fans, like fans everywhere, deserve to know how the music they love has been made,” she said.
“Human artistry and authenticity are integral to what makes music so powerful.”
The issue is not limited to artistic authenticity.
Record labels and musicians are also fighting a much larger battle over copyright and the material used to train generative AI models.
Many sophisticated music-generation systems require enormous datasets to learn musical structures, voices, genres and production techniques.
The recording industry argues some developers have trained those systems on commercially released music without seeking permission or paying rights holders.
IFPI has warned that unauthorised training poses a threat to performers and record labels because AI systems can then produce enormous volumes of synthetic recordings that compete directly with the musicians whose work helped train them.
That concern is reflected directly in the new chart rules.
A recording may fail eligibility requirements not simply because it contains AI-generated elements, but because the generative AI system used to produce it was not properly authorised or lawful.
The Australian Government is now dealing with the same issue at a policy level.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced in July that forthcoming Australian AI standards would include stronger protections for creative industries, saying writers, musicians, journalists and other creators should retain ownership and control over their work.
The government says creative material should not be used to train AI without the creator’s control, with Albanese later telling ABC Radio that artists’ work “can’t be used” without both control and payment.
ARIA welcomed that position, arguing copyright must continue to give artists the ability to decide whether their work is licensed to technology companies and on what terms.
Herd said the underlying principle was straightforward: artists, rather than governments or technology companies, should decide the value and conditions attached to their work.
Streaming services are moving in a similar direction, although their responses vary.
Spotify does not currently ban all AI-generated music. Instead, it has introduced AI credits, stronger policies against unauthorised vocal impersonation and systems designed to detect spam and mass-produced low-quality content.
Spotify said last year that it had removed more than 75 million spam tracks in 12 months, as generative tools made it increasingly easy for operators to upload huge quantities of music in attempts to capture streams and royalties.
This month Spotify announced another major change: from mid-September it will begin applying “AI Persona” badges to artist profiles that represent photorealistic AI-generated people rather than real human performers.
Music from those AI personas will ordinarily be excluded from Spotify’s editorial and algorithmic recommendations unless listeners deliberately demonstrate an interest in them, such as by following the artist.
Spotify stresses that the persona badge relates to the identity being presented to listeners rather than automatically proving that the underlying music was AI-generated.
An AI persona could theoretically release human-made music, while a real human artist could use generative AI extensively in producing a track.
That distinction illustrates the difficulty confronting regulators, platforms and chart compilers.
There is no longer a simple dividing line between a “human song” and an “AI song”.
A musician could write lyrics and melody personally but use AI to create backing vocals. Another could perform the vocals while generating orchestral accompaniment. Another could provide prompts and allow software to create virtually every audible element.
ARIA’s new test places the emphasis on whether the final recording remains substantially human-made, with lead vocals and primary instrumental performances likely to carry particular weight.
The rule also addresses streaming manipulation.
Generative AI makes it possible to manufacture large numbers of recordings cheaply and rapidly. Combined with automated streaming or other fraudulent techniques, that creates the possibility of artificially generated tracks climbing charts or diverting royalty payments from genuine listeners and artists.
IFPI’s global framework therefore makes freedom from chart and stream manipulation one of the core conditions of eligibility.
For Australian musicians, the immediate effect is potentially substantial.
From Friday, accumulating millions of streams will no longer necessarily guarantee a place on an ARIA chart if the recording itself fails the human-authorship test.
And AI-generated vocals — potentially the most recognisable and emotionally important part of a pop record — appear likely to become one of the clearest grounds for exclusion.
The controversy surrounding “Like a Prayer” has shown why that matters.
A recording can now become a major radio and streaming success before many listeners have any idea that a central “performer” they are hearing may never have stepped inside a recording studio — or may not exist at all.
ARIA is effectively saying commercial popularity alone is no longer enough for official chart recognition.
The association still wants artists experimenting with new technology, but it wants Australia’s charts to remain primarily a measure of human musical achievement.
That leaves Friday as an important dividing line for the Australian music industry.
AI will not disappear from the studio.
But if the machine is singing the lead, playing the defining instruments or creating most of the song, Australia’s official charts may no longer be willing to call it a chart hit.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
