The arrival of artificial intelligence in music is often framed as a creative issue: tracks generated in seconds, vocal imitations, endless catalogs, and potentially unmanageable competition for artists and songwriters. But the most critical front could lie far from the recording studio. What will be put to the test, according to Jorge Brea, CEO of independent distribution platform Symphonic, is the infrastructure that delivers a track to platforms, attributes its rights, and manages its revenue.
In an op-ed published by Music Business Worldwide, Brea argues that lowering production costs is not in itself an anomaly in the industry’s recent history. Accessible recording, production software, and streaming have already expanded the number of people able to release music and reach an international audience without passing through traditional industry gatekeepers. Each breakthrough has fueled fears of saturation, but has also opened up opportunities for a new generation of independent artists.
However, AI changes the scale of the phenomenon. If generating a track can become virtually cost-free, the number of files sent to Spotify, Apple Music, and other digital services could surge well beyond the volumes current processes are accustomed to handling. Within that flow, there will be legitimate musical projects, experimentation, and new working models. But there will also be material released to exploit loopholes in distribution, monetization, and discovery systems.
The problem is not just how many tracks arrive online
A larger catalog does not automatically doom streaming to chaos. Digital platforms already coexist with enormous quantities of content and products; user friction arises when search stops working, rules appear easily circumvented, and the quality of oversight becomes opaque. In music, this resilience depends on a precise chain: identifying who delivers the content, verifying who owns the rights, associating accurate metadata, detecting anomalous activity, executing takedowns, and paying the individuals or companies entitled to royalties.
From the outside, distribution may seem like a straightforward process: uploading the master, selecting digital stores, publishing, and reporting earnings. Behind that procedure, however, lies compliance work involving intellectual property, platform regulations, payment systems, dispute management, and fraud prevention. A mistake in any of these steps does not remain confined to the distributor that caused it: it can become a problem for DSPs, rights holders, and the artists whose names or repertoires are implicated.
This is the perspective put forward by Brea: AI does not just make it easier to produce music, but also enables the rapid construction of the appearance of a music company. Today, a small team or a single operator can build customer-facing tools, marketing workflows, customer support, and polished interfaces with far fewer resources than in the past. This accessibility can foster useful services and new businesses. However, well-presented software does not prove that adequate procedures exist behind the scenes to manage rights, payments, and abuse.
Identity verification becomes an industrial step
The greatest risk involves actors who leverage the speed of AI to scale up attempted manipulation. Automated generation makes it possible to create large volumes of tracks; increasingly accessible tools can facilitate the impersonation of artists; account networks can fragment activity that is difficult to link at first glance. In such a context, a distributor that prioritizes only speed of access and friction-free onboarding can become a weak link in the entire supply chain.
This is why Brea points to identity verification and account review as essential pillars, rather than bureaucratic burdens to be minimized. Knowing who is delivering a recording, which entity controls the associated rights, and what relationships exist between different accounts is a form of risk management. The goal is not to raise indiscriminate barriers for independent creators, but to distinguish direct market access from a lack of accountability.
The issue is a sensitive one for an industry that has built much of its recent growth on openness. Streaming has made it easier to distribute a single globally, while aggregators have made releasing music viable even for those without a record deal. Tightening checks can introduce additional steps and slowdowns, especially for emerging artists. Leaving verification insufficient, on the other hand, shifts the cost of damage onto compliant artists, more structured distribution partners, and platforms forced to remove problematic content post-release.
Trust between distributors and platforms
In Brea's view, streaming services must also be more selective about which intermediaries they grant access to. The relationship between DSPs and distributors is not merely a technical pipeline for transferring files: it implies trust in the partner's ability to enforce requirements that impact catalogs, rights holders, and payouts. If those delivering music lack credible verification and monitoring systems, the platform takes on a level of risk that should have been caught upstream.
This shift has tangible implications for competition among distributors as well. An offering built around instant onboarding or the promise of frictionless releases may seem more attractive in the short term, but it cannot replace the operational capacity required when disputes, suspected fraud, or ownership issues arise. Less visible infrastructure—dedicated teams, procedures, analytics technology, and relationships with platforms—thus becomes a benchmark of commercial reliability, not merely an internal cost.
The issue goes beyond works created entirely by generative models. A song produced by humans can also enter a pipeline compromised by fake credentials, manipulated metadata, or fraudulent practices. Likewise, AI content can have legitimate uses if the uploader is identifiable, the rights are clear, and the platform's terms of service are respected. Separating creative origin from industrial conduct is essential to prevent the debate from devolving into a blanket yes-or-no on generative music.
A maturity test for digital music
Brea’s position remains that of an executive active in independent distribution and should be read as an industry perspective, not as a neutral forecast for the entire market. The merit of the argument lies in shifting attention to a point that risks being overlooked in public debate: the ability to produce endlessly does not, by itself, cause the damage. What determines it is the robustness of the systems tasked with attributing, organizing, and remunerating that production.
For independent artists and labels, the consequence could be greater weight placed on the choice of distribution partner. Dashboards, costs, and release speed remain relevant, but so do the protections offered when a release is contested, when irregular activity is detected, or when royalties must be reconciled. For platforms, the next step will be to verify whether the standards required of the supply chain are robust enough for a market where content and operators can emerge at an unprecedented pace.
AI does not eliminate the need for intermediaries: it underscores the difference between those who merely route files and those equipped to take on the responsibilities that come with music distribution. The stability of streaming, at this stage, will also depend on that distinction.
