The Velvet Sundown AI band redefines viral success

Is The Velvet Sundown a genuine musical breakthrough or the most provocative AI art stunt of 2025? Within weeks of debuting two albums in June, the project soared to over a million monthly Spotify listeners. Yet all signs suggest the band is an entirely AI‑generated creation — lyrics, vocals, imagery and backstory included. The Velvet Sundown AI band now stands at the centre of a heated debate about authenticity, transparency and the future of music.

Deezer flagged Velvet Sundown albums with AI labels; Ircam Amplify’s detector identified 12 of 13 tracks as AI‑generated, all linked to Suno 4.5,The band initially denied the claims, later confirming its “synthetic music project” nature, while impersonator X account added confusion,The case has intensified calls for streaming platforms like Spotify to label AI music and protect human artists

AI detection and denial

Deezer’s AI detection system tagged both Dust and Silence and Floating on Echoes albums with messages stating “some tracks … may have been created using artificial intelligence”.

Music Ally secured results from Ircam Amplify, the French AI‑detection specialist, which found 10 of 13 tracks flagged as AI‑generated with 100/100 confidence, two more at 98, and only one “How Did This Go Wrong” scored as non‑AI at 73 confidence. All suspected tracks matched Suno 4.5, released in May.

Initially, The Velvet Sundown’s social account @Velvet_Sundown reacted indignantly, accusing journalists of baseless rumours and claiming Deezer would remove the label. Then cracks began to show: the tweets usually sourced by journalists came from an account that wasn’t linked on their official Spotify profile; instead, the official account @tvs_music went quiet until a new, more playful tweet emerged. It remains unclear whether journalists chased the wrong signature X account

Acceleration and anonymity: the mechanics of an AI hoax

Velvet Sundown posted three albums in under six months. Paper Sun Rebellion dropped on 14 July. Such productivity would strain most human bands, but is routine when using generative systems like Suno that can promptly output albums end‑to‑end. The music psychedelic folk with mellow vocals and vaguely nostalgic imagery has been described as inoffensive but emotionally flat, ideal for background listening rather than deep engagement.

Despite racking up over a million listeners and a verified Spotify profile, no evidence of live shows, studio sessions or real interviews surfaced. Official bios list fictional characters (Gabe Farrow, Lennie West, Milo Raines and Orion “Rio” Del Mar), yet no one could be traced beyond digital renderings.

Industry blowback and platform policy gaps

This case has intensified scrutiny on how platforms manage and label synthetic content. Deezer now flags suspected AI tracks, denies royalties for fraudulent streams, and is updating its detection models constantly. Spotify, by contrast, currently does not label AI‑generated music. A spokesperson stated that "all music, including AI‑generated music, is created, owned and uploaded by licensed third parties", underscoring a lack of clarity on disclosure.

Musicians and industry bodies have rallied for legal mandates. The Ivors Academy and BPI argue that AI content should carry clear labels to protect human creators and preserve informed listening. This aligns with broader discussions around the ethics of AI, as seen in efforts to establish new ethics boards and redefine responsible innovation.

What it reveals about creativity, ownership and listener behaviour

Beyond ethics, the Velvet Sundown AI band experiment reveals shifts in how content is made and consumed. AI music models can mint thousands of tracks quickly, with no emotional risk, creative doubt or economic cost. For listeners stuck in open‑plan offices or algorithmic playlists, such ambient, genre smoothed tracks perform well even if they lack soul.

As The Atlantic observes, the music’s bland familiarity becomes part of its appeal: it fits moods without demanding attention, simultaneously comforting and forgettable. It raises the uncomfortable question: does music need humanity to succeed? This debate resonates with the increasing prevalence of AI artists topping the charts.

Where next for artists and regulators?

For independent musicians already battling low streaming income, synthetic bands like Velvet Sundown pose another challenge. AI‑generated volume and algorithmic amplification could drown out real people. The growing trend demands collective responses from streaming platforms, regulators and trade associations.

Actions underway include emerging certification schemes like Humanable—verifying creators as real and free from AI content—and revised award standards. Velvet Sundown was recently disqualified from the Future Sound Awards for failing to meet responsible‑AI criteria. This highlights a critical need for policies, similar to how Spotify is rethinking its approach to AI music.

Sound policy will need to balance innovation with transparency, compensation and artistic ethics. Right now there are no consistent standards—but the industry is finally waking up.

The Velvet Sundown AI band might have been minted to challenge what we call music. It has certainly spotlighted painful gaps in transparency, intellectual property, and listener awareness. Whether it emerges as art experiment, marketing campaign or cautionary tale, this episode should prompt us to reconsider how we recognise, regulate and reward creativity in the age of AI.

No human may be behind the vocals, but plenty of human decisions are still playing out including whether we demand honesty, fairness and openness from the platforms we rely on.