This year, the battle for song of the summer has been overshadowed by a more complicated debate: not “What’s the song of the summer?” but “Is the song of the summer even real?” Among the top contenders is Fenix Flexin’s Rubberz, a single released in June that reached No 58 on the Billboard Hot 100 and has amassed over 35m Spotify streams. The track, a noirish 80s-inspired synth-pop song unlike Fenix’s usual trap style, has drawn comparisons to Morrissey and Men at Work’s Down Under, and has an uncanny, off-sounding quality.
Controversy and Admission
Almost immediately, skeptics accused Fenix of using AI to create the track. He and producer Purps on the Beat initially denied it, with Fenix claiming he’d used Auto-Tune and a phoney British accent. The dispute culminated when indie DJ-producer Medasin posted a video that he said proved Rubberz was made using the free generative music tool Treblo. Medasin demonstrated how Treblo could produce a track eerily similar to Rubberz. After further back-and-forth, Fenix finally admitted to using AI, writing: “never said I didn’t use AI, i said it had nun to do w recording process.”
According to Wired, the platform’s open-source classifier, Was This Made With Treblo?, finds Rubberz to be “very likely Treblo.” Treblo co-founder Ryan Tremblay confirmed to the Guardian that the classifier returns a very high probability score, indicating Treblo generated the song. “We built Treblo for everyone, from normal people experimenting at home to charting artists looking for new sounds,” Tremblay said. “Some artists appear to have used our model to find a sound that millions of people connected with, and that’s exciting.” Fenix’s representative declined to comment.
Record Labels Respond
The uproar coincided with a major development: on 29 July, several record companies, including Universal Music Group, Sony Music and Warner Music Group, issued a proposal calling for global music charts to disqualify AI-generated tracks if they did not meet certain criteria. Under their suggested guidelines, a song could enter the charts only if it was properly authorized, lawful and substantially human-made, and did not raise concerns of streaming or chart manipulation. The issue, as the record companies stated in a press release, is that a significant number of AI-generated tracks have used tools trained on artists’ music without consent and are often linked to fraudulently boosted streaming numbers.
At the same time, all the major labels have announced partnerships with companies like Nvidia, Spotify and Stability AI to develop AI music tools, with BMG announcing a partnership with Suno this week. Rapper Tyga, a labelmate of Fenix, proudly told Vibe magazine that his new album $tarface was created with AI, saying: “There’s nothing wrong with using technology as a tool.” The album received Pitchfork’s first 0.0 review in nearly two decades.
AI Acts on the Charts
Rubberz is the first AI-generated single to crack the Hot 100, but not the first to land on Billboard charts. In November, the AI act Breaking Rust hit No 1 on the country digital song sales chart with Walk My Walk. That same month, AI-powered R&B singer Xania Monet became the first AI act to enter a Billboard radio airplay chart, later climbing to No 1 on the R&B digital song sales chart. She reportedly landed a multimillion-dollar record deal last fall.
Billboard reported that at least six AI-generated or AI-assisted artists had debuted on its various charts in 2025, though the tally could be higher. A study by Deezer and Ipsos revealed that 97% of participants couldn’t tell the difference between AI-generated and human-made music.
Artists Protest
The proliferation of AI artists has struck a nerve with human ones. SZA told i-D: “I feel like I’m at war because of AI.” She slammed AI generators like Suno, alleging they were trained on her songs without permission. “If you’re a musician and you support this degenerate shit? You’re disgusting and there’s nothing you could ever say to me to make this OK,” she said. Jack Antonoff called AI-music makers “godless whores”. Billie Eilish, Bad Bunny, Kate Bush, Annie Lennox, Nick Cave, Sting, Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney have all protested against heavy use of generative AI in music.
A report by Luminate showed that listeners, especially gen Z and gen Alpha, are increasingly uneasy with AI-generated songs. The study found that 44% of US respondents felt less inclined to listen to a song if it involves generative AI. “Consumers are net negative,” a Luminate analyst told NPR in May.
Universal, Sony and Warner are not demanding an outright ban. Though all three sued Suno and Udio in 2024, Universal settled with Udio and Warner settled with both last year. Warner executive Robert Kyncl said the deals would foster “new creative and commercial possibilities”, adding: “Now, we are entering the next phase of innovation. The democratization of music creation.” Universal, Sony and Warner did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comment.
Some artists support AI as a tool. Björk wrote on X: “With new technology, I try to use it as a tool to grow, not a crutch. If there is no soul in tomorrow’s music made by AI, it is because no one put it there … So it is not about the tool – it is what you do with it.” McCartney used AI to isolate John Lennon’s vocals for the Beatles’ Now and Then.
Guardrails and Hope
In January, Bandcamp banned all music fully or substantially created by AI. Tidal allows fully AI-generated songs but tags them with an “AI” label, and they cannot collect streaming royalties or direct-to-fan sales revenue. A coalition including the Grammys and the RIAA announced steps to notify listeners of AI use. Spotify said it would label AI artists with an “AI Persona” tag and exclude them from personalized recommendations, while its “AI Credits” feature allows artists to note AI use.
Per the record companies’ proposed criteria, such AI Personas would not be chart-eligible. Deezer’s 2025 survey showed that 80% of respondents agreed that entirely AI-generated music should be clearly labeled, while 52% thought such songs should not be included alongside human-made songs in the main charts. Author CJ Farley argued in Time that AI releases should be called “AI products” and confined to their own chart “away from human musicians with real lives and with real financial obligations”.
If Rubberz is a joke, Fenix might have been testing how much he could get away with. But there are AI products with more nefarious purposes, created by impostors attempting to steal others’ work. Artists’ livelihoods and legacies are on the line. If we don’t act now, tomorrow’s song of the summer may just be a sad, hollow shell of yesterday’s.
