Colin 
UPDATES: This article has now been updated three times – after the BBC reply, after the response from Papi Lamour, and again today to include expanded analysis on the wider impact of AI music on real artists, streaming platforms, and the environment. All previous update notes remain at the bottom of the article.
BBC Introducing has always been one of the few national platforms still dedicated to giving unsigned musicians a voice. Presenters champion new sounds, spotlight regional talent, and offer artists their first radio play. Many now-established names started there. It remains a vital part of the UK music ecosystem. Which is why this latest mistake feels like a betrayal of everything it stands for.
Last week, BBC Introducing West Midlands aired an interview with Papi Lamour, who openly stated that all his music was created using AI prompts. The segment aired at around 1 hour 14 minutes into the show and is still on BBC Sounds at the time of writing. According to a post by Mollyxo on TikTok, the artist confirmed the use of AI-generated material without any human composition or performance.
This was not a live segment. It was pre-recorded. Producers, editors, and presenters had the opportunity to review the content before broadcast. Someone listened, signed off, and decided to put it out anyway. In doing so, BBC Introducing handed its most prominent regional platform slot to an artificial act, taking valuable airtime away from real musicians.
A platform built for people, not programs
TuneFountain has praised BBC Introducing before for keeping grassroots music alive. It has supported local creativity and innovation when few other outlets cared. But this decision directly undermines its mission. The whole premise of BBC Introducing is to showcase human artists. Those hours on air are meant to nurture careers, not promote algorithms.
Every second of airtime counts, especially now. BBC Introducing teams have faced deep cutbacks over the past few years. Local programmes were merged or dropped entirely. Many talented producers lost their jobs. The few remaining shows have limited space to feature new acts, and competition for those slots is fierce. To see one of them handed to a system spitting out AI-generated songs instead of a musician working nights and weekends to record their debut is indefensible.
Even setting the AI issue aside, the track itself was ultimately disappointing. The single was anodyne and cliched, a generic blend of production tropes that sounded like a shallow imitation of modern pop trends. There was no hook, no emotional pull, and nothing to distinguish it from the thousands of other forgettable tracks uploaded daily. On quality alone, it should never have reached BBC Introducing’s top feature slot.
AI is crushing real music careers
AI is now flooding streaming platforms at a pace no human artist can compete with. Tens of thousands of synthetic tracks appear every day, burying musicians who spend months writing and recording their work. Search results, playlists, and algorithm-driven recommendations increasingly favour keyword-perfect audio designed for performance metrics instead of songs with lived experience and emotional truth. Labels and investors back data centres rather than people with stories, and brands replace paid composers with instant, prompt-generated jingles. When artificial output becomes cheaper than hiring session players, producers, or writers, another part of the music economy collapses under the weight of convenience.
The damage reaches beyond income. Models trained on vast music libraries imitate voices, styles, and identities without consent, creating soundalikes that crowd out entire communities and niche genres. Aspiring musicians see institutions like BBC Introducing give space to AI acts and some will choose not to learn instruments or develop craft because they believe a machine will always be given the advantage. Music becomes a stack of interchangeable files instead of something rooted in people, places, and real experience.
There is also an environmental cost. AI systems rely on energy-hungry data centres and repeated model training cycles that consume enormous amounts of electricity. Some research shows that a single large-scale model run can generate emissions comparable to multiple petrol cars across their lifetime. When this power is used to mass-produce disposable music, the cultural loss is matched by real-world environmental harm.
Pre-recorded, preventable, and unacceptable
Because the segment was pre-recorded, there is no excuse. If this had been a live slip-up, the BBC might reasonably plead ignorance. But this was an edited broadcast. They had total control. Someone heard that the “artist” admitted to using AI to make everything and still approved it for air. That means either the production team did not care, or they failed to understand what they were platforming.
In either case, the outcome is the same. A show built to give emerging artists a break gave its top slot to a computer model trained on other people’s work. Independent musicians are being priced out of studios, ignored by labels, and struggling to make streaming income. BBC Introducing was supposed to be their refuge. Instead, it gave them one more reason to lose faith in the system.
AI has no rent to pay. It has no stories to tell. It does not dream of performing at Glastonbury or feel nervous before a gig. Giving that kind of act a title intended for humans sends the worst possible message: that effort no longer matters, and authenticity is optional.
BBC accountability
The BBC must address how this happened. The decision to air the segment was not an accident. Editorial standards exist to protect audiences from misinformation and uphold fairness. In this case, fairness means protecting the limited opportunities still available to real, working musicians.
If BBC Introducing wants to feature discussions about AI music, it should do so transparently. Invite experts. Host debates. Ask artists how they feel about synthetic competition. But never reward AI-generated material with honours designed for human creators.
If you’re angry about this then go support real independent musicians such as Mollyxo who featured during the same BBC Introducing show. Thank you to Bldsugr for highlighting this story.
UPDATE 12:31 14th November 2025
The BBC have responded to our request for comment saying “Each track is considered based on its musical merit and whether it is right for our target audience, with decisions made on a case-by-case basis”.
They add that it is still early stages with AI/music projects and they are keeping a close eye on developments and their priority is supporting the UK music industry, and that they are focused on new music and new artists for their audience.
They also say “We would always make it clear to listeners if we were playing AI, as in this case where the broadcaster made it clear that AI was involved in the construction of the song.”
So – there we are – a response that is as disappointing as the fact that the AI track and interview were included in a show that should be dedicated to REAL artists and new music. It’s a show about the future talent in the UK and for an AI produced song to take up any space in the show is an insult to every working musician who is struggling to get their music heard. BBC – you must do better, and even more so I’m shocked that the music industry press isn’t currently shouting about this as loudly as they can. Where are the big music publications who claim to be supporting new musicians holding the BBC to account when they’re clearly unable to do it themselves?
I’m proud that TuneFountain is taking this stand against AI generated music, but more needs to be done industry wide and unless the voices of the people affected most are heard then we’re fighting a losing battle. Independent musicians are the ones being hurt most by this travesty and they are the ones that we should all be platforming now more than ever.
We’d also like to correct the article and state that Papi Lamour was not named Artist of the Month – that plaudit went to Lahlia Cole with her wonderful ‘Leave Me Alone’. The ‘Artist of the Month’ soundbite followed her track, preceding the interview with Lamour and this was the source of confusion.
UPDATE 17:09 14th November 2025
Papi Lamour has posted a comment on TikTok: “This week has been a wild one. I woke up to a full comment storm, people shouting at their phones about A.I, talent, and who they think I am. The funny thing is many of them haven’t even heard the song. They throw words like “slop”, “fake”, and “waste”, but can’t make a beat to save their day.“
Papi Lamour himself confirmed that he would be unable to perform his track himself live so throwing shade at real artists who actually do create their own music is definitely an unexpected flex.
He went on to say “Still, I’m calm. I’ve been named Featured Artist of the Month, and that seems to have melted a few minds quicker than British snow. But I’m still here, making music, drinking my tea, and staying true to my craft.“
As we noted below Lamour was never named Artist of the Month, despite his claims – that accolade went to someone much more deserving.
Rounding off his ‘defence’ he added “If bitterness paid bills, some of them would be millionaires. But I’m on the BBC, creating, growing, and rising. I wish them peace, joy, and better days. I’ll keep shining.”
Phil Wolvin