Fender's CEO Said Cover Songs Are 'Analog AI'. Guitar Players Are Not Happy.
Edward 'Bud' Cole compared learning cover songs and jamming with bandmates to how AI trains on data. The backlash was swift, and the timing could not be worse for the guitar brand.
Key points
- Fender CEO Edward "Bud" Cole told T3 magazine in May 2025 that cover songs and bandmates are a form of "analog AI."
- The comments resurfaced weeks later, adding to existing anger after Fender sent legal letters to guitar builders over the Stratocaster body shape.
- Cole's comparison ignores the enormous scale at which AI trains, which can involve millions of copyrighted songs.
- Some popular guitar YouTubers have said publicly they'll stop buying Fender products.
- Research suggests relying on AI tools for creative work can erode the skills needed to produce that work independently.
Fender's chief executive has given guitar players yet another reason to be unhappy with the brand.
In a May interview with T3, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Telecaster guitar, CEO Edward "Bud" Cole shared his view on AI and music. The comments passed largely unnoticed at first, then started circulating online and landed on a crowd already primed for outrage. Our earlier look at Suno's legal troubles showed just how raw the question of AI training on copyrighted music has become.
What did Cole actually say?
Cole told T3 that AI in music isn't new. When a beginner learns cover songs, he argued, they're doing something similar to what an AI does when it trains on existing music. Bandmates, he added, fill a comparable role by contributing ideas to a half-formed song.
"I actually believe cover music has been sort of analog AI for a long time," Cole said. He also said he believes AI will help people move "across the chasm" from learning covers to becoming skilled songwriters.
The logic sounds tidy. It doesn't hold up.
Why does the comparison fall apart?
Scale is the first problem. A person learns dozens, maybe hundreds, of songs over a lifetime. AI music generators like Suno are suspected to have trained on millions of copyrighted tracks. The gap is simply incomparable.
The second problem is what happens inside the process. A human learning a song makes thousands of tiny decisions shaped by emotion and physical limitation. A guitar player can't perfectly replicate another musician's work because their fingers and their past both get in the way. That imperfection is where originality comes from.
An AI generates output by spotting patterns across enormous data and predicting what should come next. It has no bad memories to channel, no muscle limitations, no instinct built from years of listening.
As guitarist and YouTube creator Steve Onotera pointed out in response to the story, those small human errors and physical constraints are precisely what stop any player from being a copy machine. A chatbot doesn't have that problem.
Cole's claim that AI will help beginners become master songwriters also runs counter to growing evidence that leaning on AI for creative tasks can make people worse at those tasks over time. Songwriting improves through repetition and failure, not shortcuts.
Why does the timing make this worse?
Fender was already fighting a PR fire. Cease-and-desist letters (legal notices demanding someone stop an activity) went out to independent guitar builders, claiming exclusive rights to the Stratocaster body shape. Craftspeople and players across the industry were furious. Cole's resurfaced comments landed directly into that controversy, and several influential guitar YouTubers have said they'll no longer purchase Fender products.
For context, Sony's fresh lawsuit against Udio over more than 30,000 allegedly copied songs, which we reported on 20 July, shows how hostile the legal climate around AI music training already is. A guitar brand CEO cheerfully comparing that process to learning a Beatles riff is a strange hill to plant a flag on right now. Fender did not respond to requests for comment before publication.
Common questions
Does this affect ordinary guitar players?
Not directly right now. No products are changing, and no new rules apply to anyone buying or playing a guitar. The controversy is about trust and how the company talks about musicians and creativity.
Is comparing human learning to AI training ever a fair comparison?
At a very loose level, both involve absorbing existing work to produce something new. The meaningful difference is scale and the irreplaceable human element that shapes what any individual creates.
