Remote collaboration is already common among independent artists, while AI adoption varies sharply by survey population and use case. The figures below cover surveys conducted from 2024 through 2026 and should be read as descriptions of named respondent groups, not universal estimates of all music creators.
Contents
- Remote collaboration is mainstream for many independent artists
- What producers use remote software to do
- AI adoption differs by community and measurement
- Where AI is entering music workflows
- Music production and creator video are converging
- Expectations, resistance, and governance
Remote collaboration is mainstream for many independent artists
Soundplate’s 2024 Music Collaboration Survey found that 69.2% of more than 1,000 surveyed independent artists had collaborated with an artist they had never met in person. The same source also reported the result as 70% of surveyed independent artists having collaborated remotely with someone they had never met face-to-face. These are closely related published figures from the same survey, so they should not be added together. Soundplate: How many artists collaborate without ever meeting?
The important signal is the scale of collaboration that can happen without a shared room. Soundplate identified online collaboration tools and digital communities as relevant infrastructure after observing this pattern. For an independent producer, that infrastructure can support co-writing, file exchange, feedback, and production decisions across locations, even when collaborators have never met offline.
The Production Expert remote-collaboration survey provides a narrower but more workflow-specific view. Among its 188 respondents in 2024, 16% mainly streamed audio to clients for music mix review, 12% mainly recorded artists and streamed audio to clients for music work, and 10% mainly recorded artists remotely without the listed streaming-to-client workflow. Production Expert: Remote Collaboration Software Survey
These results describe a small, self-selected sample. Production Expert estimated that its wider audience was 75% music and 25% audio post-production, while the 188-person survey sample itself showed a different split. The figures therefore indicate the kinds of remote work being reported by respondents, rather than a market-wide adoption rate.
What producers use remote software to do
Remote technology adoption is not limited to music mix review. In the same 188-person Production Expert survey, 24% mainly streamed audio to clients for post-production mix review. Another 20% mainly recorded ADR or voiceover and streamed audio to clients for review, while 19% mainly recorded ADR or voiceover remotely.
The survey reported that 0% selected a workaround combining Zoom, email, or file sharing instead of dedicated collaboration software. That result applies to this respondent group and this question; it does not establish that general-purpose communication tools are never used by producers. It does suggest that, among respondents describing a principal remote workflow, purpose-built collaboration software was the reported route.
Timestamped comments ranked first as the most useful remote-collaboration feature in both the music-user group and the post-production group. The survey listed eight feature categories: talent recording, talkback, mix review, secure invites, video calling, multichannel audio, text messaging, and timestamped notes. Production Expert: Remote Collaboration Software Survey
| Remote workflow or feature | Published result | Respondent population and period |
|---|---|---|
| Audio streamed for music mix review | 16% | 188 respondents, 2024 |
| Recording artists and streaming audio for music work | 12% | 188 respondents, 2024 |
| Audio streamed for post-production mix review | 24% | 188 respondents, 2024 |
| ADR or voiceover recorded and streamed for review | 20% | 188 respondents, 2024 |
| Timestamped comments ranked most useful | 1st | Music and post-production groups, 2024 |
Together, the results point to a practical definition of collaboration technology: tools that make review, recording, and revision traceable. Timestamped feedback matters because it connects a creative opinion to a precise moment in an audio file. The survey does not quantify how much time or money that feature saves, so no efficiency claim can be made from these rankings alone.
AI adoption differs by community and measurement
AI adoption figures vary substantially because surveys measure different groups and sometimes define use differently. In May and June 2024, 38% of surveyed APRA AMCOS members had used AI in work involving music and creation generally. The same report classified 33% as using AI regularly and 5% as using it always or almost always. Its respondent categories were 38% AI users, 13% potential users, 20% preferring not to use AI, and 27% AI refusers. APRA AMCOS: AI and Music by Goldmedia
Age-group results in that APRA AMCOS survey were also uneven. AI use was 69% among members aged 45–54, the highest reported age-group rate. It was 42% among members aged 25–34, 42% among those aged 35–44, and 31% among members aged 55 or older. These figures describe the surveyed APRA AMCOS membership and the report’s definition of AI use; they do not show that one age group universally adopts technology faster than another.
For comparison, Soundplate reported in 2024 that 20% of surveyed independent artists had already used an AI tool to help make music. A further 10% planned to use one in the near future, producing the published 30% figure for artists who had used AI or planned to do so. Soundplate: How many artists collaborate without ever meeting?
LANDR’s global-community survey, conducted September 30–October 6, 2025, reported a much higher figure: 87% of 1,241 music makers used AI somewhere in their workflow. LANDR’s sample and wording differ from the independent-artist and APRA AMCOS measures, so the percentages are not directly interchangeable. LANDR: How Musicians Really Use AI
Where AI is entering music workflows
The APRA AMCOS survey shows that adoption is distributed across production and business tasks. In May–June 2024, 17% of surveyed members had used AI for recording, editing, mixing, or mastering. The corresponding figures were 16% for marketing or promotion, 14% for creative work with music generally, and 6% for creating music videos. APRA AMCOS: AI and Music by Goldmedia
Expected future use was considerably higher than reported current use in the same analysis. Respondents expected AI adoption at 69% for promotional-content creation and 69% for lyric writing and the broader creative process. They expected 65% adoption for creating entire songs, 63% for recording, editing, mixing, and mastering, and 59% for marketing activities. These are expectations, not observed adoption rates.
LANDR’s September–October 2025 survey adds detail on the tool categories that attract interest. Song generators were used by 29% of respondents, while 40% were interested in trying them. More than 80% either used or wanted to use AI for cover-art creation, target-audience research, stats analysis, or promotional-strategy design. The survey also reported that 69% were using more AI tools than in the prior year; among that group, 90% planned to use more AI in the following year. LANDR: How Musicians Really Use AI
The contrast between current use and intended use is useful for interpreting adoption. A producer may experiment with a generator, use AI for promotion, or plan to try a tool without placing AI at the center of songwriting or recording. The available figures support separating those use cases rather than treating “AI adoption” as one uniform behavior.
Music production and creator video are converging
Berklee’s 2026 national survey of 1,003 participants measured the overlap between music and video creation. It found that 75.3% of musicians had felt pressure to create video content alongside their music. At the same time, 92.2% of respondents had integrated their own original music into video projects in some form. Berklee: In Sync: Music and Video 2026
The survey also reported that 83.7% had chosen a trending sound before shaping video content around it. This places music selection inside a broader creator workflow: audio can be the starting point for a video concept, while video production can become part of a musician’s release and promotion work.
AI-generated audio was present but not universal in the Berklee results. Some 32.7% had used AI-generated music as the final audio track in published content. That is a specific published-content measure, not a general estimate of AI use across all music-making activities.
Expectations, resistance, and governance
Adoption does not mean unqualified acceptance. In the APRA AMCOS survey conducted in May–June 2024, 65% of members said AI risks outweighed its possible opportunities, and 82% were concerned that AI could prevent music creators from making a living. At the same time, 83% agreed that AI-generated work made visibility and discoverability on streaming platforms increasingly important. APRA AMCOS: AI and Music by Goldmedia
The same respondents expressed strong preferences about platform treatment and training data. Some 88% believed human-made music should be promoted on streaming platforms. A further 97% wanted AI providers required to disclose the use of copyrighted works as training data, while 95% said copyright holders should be asked for permission before works were used as AI-system input.
Tracklib’s June 2024 survey of 1,107 self-identified music producers showed a similar split between expectation and resistance. Seventy percent expected AI to have a large or massive future impact on music production, 29% expected some impact, and 1% expected no impact. Music Business Worldwide: Tracklib producer survey
Among Tracklib respondents who were not using AI, 82.2% cited artistic or creative reasons for non-use. Quality concerns were cited by 34.5%, cost by 14.3%, and copyright concerns by 10.2%. Nearly 75% of Tracklib respondents who used AI tools used only free tools. The survey therefore links non-use to creative judgment as well as practical and legal concerns.
The APRA AMCOS analysis forecast that 23% of music creators’ revenues in the covered analysis could be at risk from generative AI by 2028, with cumulative potential damage of AUD$519 million from 2024 through 2028. These are forecasts, not observed losses. APRA AMCOS: AI and Music by Goldmedia
For producers and independent artists, the clearest pattern is therefore two-sided: remote collaboration is a practical, already-reported workflow, while AI adoption is expanding alongside unresolved questions about creative identity, discoverability, income, and permission. The percentages above are most useful when kept tied to their respondent populations, measurement periods, and specific definitions.