Peking Duks AI-Reworked High Highlights Growing Debate Over AI Music and Australian Radio

When Peking Duk posted an artificially reworked version of their 2014 hit “High” on Instagram, the caption read, “When you re‑record your own song with AI so australian (sic) radio will play it.” The post feels less like a promotional push and more like a tongue‑in‑cheek jab at the rising tide of generative AI in music production and the fraught relationship between Australian artists and commercial radio.

The original “High,” which featured vocalist Nicole Millar, climbed to number five on the ARIA Singles Chart and earned a triple‑platinum certification. It also took home the 2014 ARIA Award for Best Dance Release. Peking Duk’s 2024 remix is a satirical statement that asks whether a synthetic makeover can match the radio traction of a human‑crafted track.

The duo’s stunt follows a recent controversy involving DJ Josh Fawaz’s AI‑assisted cover of Madonna’s “Like a Prayer.” The track has topped Australia’s national airplay chart for four weeks and surpassed 38 million Spotify streams. After an ABC investigation, Fawaz added credits for generative‑AI vocals and drums, citing Suno. Spotify has rolled out a beta feature that encourages artists to disclose AI usage, following the removal of 75 million “spammy tracks” last year.

The debate has spilled into the political arena. On 15 July, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the creation of an Office of AI and Australian Standards to shape national AI policy and protect creators’ rights. APRA AMCOS CEO Dean Ormston welcomed the speech, stressing that the government must ensure “permission and payment” for AI training on protected works. ARIA CEO Annabelle Herd emphasized that artists retain control over licensing and valuation of their work, urging AI companies to negotiate licensing.

Industry stakeholders see the developments as a signal that AI‑generated music will continue to receive commercial exposure while regulatory frameworks evolve. The Australian government’s focus on licensing, combined with Spotify’s transparency push, may set a precedent for other markets. For creators, the debate underscores the need to clarify ownership and compensation when using AI tools.

Spotify’s own experimentation with AI is evident in its 2026 AI DJ, which curates playlists based on user listening habits. The feature uses generative models to generate transitions and suggest tracks, including AI‑produced songs. The company has also begun requiring artists to declare AI usage in metadata, a move that aligns with its broader effort to increase transparency after removing large volumes of low‑quality tracks.

Suno, the platform used by Fawaz, has faced legal scrutiny. In 2026, the Recording Industry Association of America filed a lawsuit alleging that Suno used copyrighted material from major streaming services for training its models. The case highlights the growing tension between AI developers and rights holders over the use of existing works in generative models.

Radio stations have begun to incorporate AI‑generated tracks into their playlists, citing increased listener engagement and cost efficiencies. However, industry bodies warn that the lack of clear licensing frameworks could expose broadcasters to legal risk. The Australian government’s new AI office aims to address these gaps by establishing standards for AI‑generated content.

Peking Duk’s AI remix of “High” illustrates the current tension between creative technology and traditional media gatekeepers. The release, the success of AI‑generated tracks, and the government’s new AI office all point to a period of adjustment in how music is produced, licensed, and consumed in Australia.