Song lengths are getting ever shorter due to the influence of streaming and social media, but where does that leave ambient, a genre that has always enjoyed luxurious lengths? Three record labels offer advice for ambient artists on how to navigate an increasingly restrictive modern music industry.

The first album given the descriptor ‘ambient’ was Brian Eno’s Music for Airports. Released in 1979, it established what the genre could be. Importantly, the album’s four tracks were lengthy, with the longest clocking in at 16:30.

You get the feeling that the ‘songs’ on Music for Airports could have been longer if not for the physical limitations of the vinyl record, which allow for around 23 minutes per side without loss of fidelity. When CDs became available, Eno took advantage of the expanded length and released Thursday Afternoon, an album comprised of a single 60-minute track.

With the broad shift towards streaming, these artificial limitations to song length as defined by physical media no longer exist. And yet, due to the business practices of streaming that reward plays rather than sales, coupled with social media trends, we’re seeing songs with ever-shorter runtimes. It’s not uncommon for some new tracks to end before even hitting the one-minute marker.

Can ambient, a genre that has typically taken advantage of luxurious song lengths, survive in such a business environment?

Ambient has grown in popularity over the last decade. A not insignificant part of this interest in beat-less music is due to the health benefits it can provide the listener.

Science has proven it: an oft-quoted study found that listening to ambient can lower your heart rate, slow your breathing and decrease levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

The study found that Marconi Union’s song Weightless was particularly effective - a song that is eight minutes long, notably.

It’s not just the content of a song that matters; it takes time for health benefits to manifest when listening.

Entrainment, the phenomenon whereby your breathing and bodily rhythms fall in line with the song you’re listening to, seems to take about five minutes to happen. “(The song’s) eight-minute length allows for entrainment – where biological rhythms match external stimuli like music,” says the website Psychonephrology when commenting on the study.

Beyond entrainment, it can take time for other benefits to occur as well. The British Academy of Sound Therapy found that 13 minutes is the magic duration for effective relaxation, improvements in concentration and even to help release sadness. “It seems that 13 isn’t unlucky after all!” says the report. “Three of our recommended daily allowances for music was 13 minutes showing that just small amounts of time can make a big difference to your wellbeing.”

Clearly, the wellness element of ambient music can only manifest when listening beyond the length of a typical pop song. Despite this, however, modern streaming is pushing for shorter and shorter songs, a practice that is completely at odds with what ambient can do, never mind the artistic intent of the composer.

This is because the streaming business model is based on plays, not single sales. Every time a song is streamed, the rights holder receives a small amount of money. The more plays, the more pays. In practice it’s a little more complicated than that, but in theory, this is how it works. You’ll get a lot more money if your one-minute song is played 60 times in an hour than if a 60-minute song is played once.

This is more than just incentive, though, as streaming services seem to be actively pushing for artists and labels to deliver shorter songs.

“I get hit almost monthly with DSPs (Digital Service Providers) questioning or rejecting work because a piece exceeds what they consider an acceptable duration,” says ambient musician Zakè, who also runs the record label, Past Inside the Present. “I have had to fight for my own work and for PITP artists who create music outside of those parameters. At this point, it is almost comical.”

Kim Cascone, longtime ambient artist, author of the book Post-Digital Music (Essays) and head of the label Silent Records (full disclosure: the author releases music on Silent Records), agrees. “As an ambient label, we are not going to reshape the music around an expectation that every piece must conform to a short, track-oriented playlist streaming model,” he says. “Long-form work is central to what many of our artists do. Streaming can be part of the overall ecosystem, but it cannot determine the form of the music.”

Ultimately, song length should be an artistic decision, not an economical one. “A piece might need three minutes to say what it needs to say,” sums up Zakè. “Another might need forty minutes. Neither should be artificially extended or shortened because a streaming platform has decided what constitutes an optimal piece of music.”

Some ambient artists have found a way to work within the confines of the streaming environment. Michiru Aoyama, for example, releases a new album daily, with each track exactly 2:40 to maximise streams. But this approach is not for everyone. And, even if you were to try increasing the number of releases, you still may find yourself not getting paid - because you aren’t being granted access to playlists.

“More tracks do not necessarily mean more income,” notes Kim. “The playlist has become the new primary curatorial gateway, and unless a piece of music reaches a substantial audience through a prominent playlist, it may not generate even one dollar in meaningful revenue. The issue is not simply the number of songs available; it is whether those songs are selected, surfaced and played repeatedly.”

Length, that which is so important to ambient, works directly against the playlist-choosing algorithm in this regard, as musician and label head Jonas Munk, who also records as Manual and as part of Billow Observatory, notes: “With tracks over six or seven minutes it's very unlikely the algorithm will pick up on them and send them into rotation. With tracks over 10 minutes… forget about it, nothing's going to happen on streaming services.”

Even if your song did conform to the correct length, Zakè thinks it probably won’t get chosen anyway.

“There was a time when I could look through playlists and regularly see friends, colleagues and artists from our own community. Increasingly, those spaces are becoming saturated with anonymous, disposable and AI-generated material designed specifically to function within the streaming ecosystem.”

With streaming seemingly stacked against ambient artists, what can producers and label owners do? Kim, Jonas and Zakè all advised to not rely solely on streaming and to also sell directly, for example through Bandcamp, and to not discount physical media.

“My advice would be to build an ecosystem around your music rather than trying to engineer the music around the economics of streaming,” Zakè says. “Sell physical editions. Sell digital albums directly. I would rather release something honest that reaches fewer people than manufacture music specifically to generate passive streams.”

Along with digital streams, Jonas Munk also sells physical media through his record label. “With El Paraiso Records,” he says, “It's always been the other way around: we see very little streaming activity but vinyl sales have been healthy and steady over the years.”

Kim Cascone’s label is in a similar situation. “For Silent,” he notes, “streaming is not the foundation of the business. We see it as a seat at the table, a way of making the work available and reaching listeners who may not already be part of the Bandcamp audience. It is also a form of paid promotion, in a sense. But thankfully, we see more revenue through Bandcamp than through streaming.”

Another piece of advice that everyone gave was to not place all of your ambient eggs in one basket, as it were. Ambient is a niche genre, after all, with a limited listener base – despite the recent rise in popularity.

“I'm sure even some of the very best ambient artists in the world don't necessarily have a nice, steady income from their work,” says Jonas Munk. “The reason I've been able to make a living off my music for so many years is because I've spread out into so many areas of music: I've done a few soundtracks, recorded and produced bands, run a record label, done mastering work, etc. And that goes for a lot of the artists I know – they rarely make their money on one thing, rather it's a mosaic of income sources.”

“My advice is not to sacrifice your artistic vision or alter the length of your work merely to suit a platform’s economics,” says Kim Cascone. “But one also has to be realistic. For most independent artists, making a living from recorded music alone is no longer a viable expectation. The possibilities for earning some income still include performing, selling physical media, merchandise and cultivating a direct relationship with an audience.”

Zakè echoes Kim’s advice about finding an audience. “Build relationships with listeners. Play live when possible,” he says. “Build an audience that knows who you are rather than simply accumulating anonymous streams. Ten thousand people passively encountering a track on a playlist can look impressive on a dashboard, but a much smaller group of listeners who actually know your work, buy your records, attend your performances and follow what you create next can be infinitely more meaningful over the course of a career.”

It’s about more than just many avenues for monetary gain. They must also be authentically you. “If you want the work to be noticed,” says Kim, “create multiple points of exposure in the marketplace. Make compelling physical objects. Develop merchandise that has some real relation to your aesthetic, whether that is a T-shirt, a limited vinyl edition, a book, a cassette or something less conventional. The important thing is to build a world around the work rather than expecting a streaming platform to do that for you.”

Ultimately, you need to make the music that needs to come out of you. As the Bard famously said, “To thine own self be true.” To take that one step further, to thine own ambient be true.

“We make ambient music,” says Zakè. “If money is your primary driver, go start a pop band. I say that somewhat jokingly, but there is truth behind it. I think artists can get themselves into trouble when financial performance becomes the measurement by which they determine whether their work has value. Make the music first. Figure out how to monetise it afterward, not the other way around.”

“You have to channel your energy into making something that you personally find interesting,” stresses Jonas Munk. “When artists create from an idea about what other people like, or what will be successful, they generally produce their least interesting work.”

Says Kim: “Unless you are doing something distinct, compelling and genuinely your own, the chances of making substantial money from experimental or ambient work are unfortunately quite slim. That is not meant to discourage artists, but it is the economic reality they need to understand.”

Lastly, Jonas advises that you should never sacrifice your artistic vision. “People listening to your music have a way of sensing if it has been watered down for some external purpose,” he says. “Make it as good as it can possibly get, whatever that means to you. Once you start making some great tracks you learn how that feels, and that feeling will be your guide onwards – it's a unique resonance between yourself and the work, and you'll get better at recognising it the more you do it.”

What goes around comes around and the fortunes of venerable BBC TV sci-fi show Dr Who are perhaps TV’s greatest example of the adage.

The much-loved/equally-loathed sci-fi series was once a 1970s Saturday-night staple, but suffered a long, ignoble death in the '80s, before earning the 2000’s rebirth that put it back on top. Now, in 2026, it’s once again past its best, sitting in a stand-off stalemate, with a cancelled Christmas special and zero new episodes in production.

But let’s travel back in time to Dr Who’s first juicy demise and tell the story of what’s become officially recognised as the worst charity record of all time…

Despite having 22 annual series under its belt by 1985, Dr Who, the BBC’s former Saturday night centrepiece, was in trouble. In ‘85, the show was only ever earning diminishing returns with Doctor number six, Colin Baker, the ex-Shakespearean ‘ack-tor’, pulling in audiences of just three million, compared to the 16 million enraptured by Tom Baker during the show’s 1979 peak.

And with a thrifty, licence-fee-payer-funded BBC coming under fire for over-spending and a show visibly running out of budget, ideas and audience, the scene was set for the axe to swing. And on 25 February 1985 the BBC announced that the show would be placed on an “18-month hiatus” and, needless to say, for its fans, ‘hiatus’ equalled ‘cancelled’…

So far so fair-enough, but what was this? A gaggle of multi-talented, famous-name Dr Who fans swinging to the rescue? The great and the good of the entertainment world, ready to save Dr Who’s bacon? With a… charity record? Hurrah… What could possibly go wrong?…

Calling All The Heroes

In a sea of quick (but noble) cash grabs through the mid-'80s and beyond – with Band Aid’s inaugural December 1984 life-saver Do They Know It’s Christmas (released just three months earlier) being the crest of the wave – March 1985’s Doctor In Distress only ever dwells deep within Davy Jones’ locker. So deep, in fact, that it not only failed to appear on any charts ever but is equally absent from the CVs of everyone who took part.

The reasons for Distress being ‘the worst charity record ever made’ (a title it was awarded during a 2022 BBC Red Nose Day special) are manifold.

Firstly, there’s the star squad that the organisers – Dr Who producer John Nathan-Turner, production manager Gary Downie, K9 spin-off producer Paul Mark Tams and Jeff Weston, MD of UK Hi-NRG label Record Shack – put together. While big names (for the day) such as Holly Johnson, Elton John, and The Village People were mooted, when it came to the actual recording, each resoundingly failed to show.

Instead, the record housed a gaggle of Dr Who hangers-on and semi-stars of the day who weren’t so much disaffected Doctor Who fans sufficiently stirred to take arms, as a Band Aid B-team searching for a spotlight.

Thus we get Miquel Brown, Phyllis Nelson, Hazell Dean, Bobby G (from Bucks Fizz), John Rocca (from Freeez), David Van Day (from Dollar), Steven Grant and Julie Harris (from Tight Fit), Basia and Danny White (from Matt Bianco), Justin Hayward and John Lodge (from The Moody Blues), Warren Cann (er… the drummer from Ultravox) and Rick Buckler (er… the ex-drummer from The Jam).

PLUS ‘comedienne’ Faith Brown, actress Sally Thomsett, dancer Floid Pearce (from Hot Gossip), Richie Pitts (from the cast of Starlight Express), and [This can’t be right: Ed] Hans Zimmer.

Oh, and Jona Lewie. Yes THAT Jona Lewie.

Meanwhile, the show itself was represented by Colin Baker (Dr Who at the time), Nicola Bryant (his companion Peri Brown), Nicholas Courtney (Dr Who regular The Brigadier) and Anthony Ainley (aka The Master).

Let’s face it. They weren’t busy.

And special mention to those who dodged this sonic spanner by pure chance: Black Lace, whose train from Bradford got cancelled, and Gary Glitter [!: Ed] who’d dislocated his shoulder.

Phew.

And with the group duly assembled, that just left the song they would sing, and that too came via that Record Shack connection, with in-house producers Ian Levine and Fiachra Trench stepping up to the plate.

As to why so many stars of the mid 80’s UK Hi-NRG scene were sufficiently aroused to save Gallifrey’s finest son remains a mystery. Suffice to say it’s hard to imagine Iron Maiden or Motörhead giving much of a toss about Doctor Who’s demise. Though given that Levine and Trench had previously written the theme to Dr Who spin-off show K9 And Company, they were a match made in (London nightclub) Heaven.

And to ensure that the track hit the spot, the pair hired in Hans Zimmer, at that time a jobbing London session synth player who’d cut his teeth working with early electronic outfits such as The Buggles.

Yes. It's Hans Zimmer looking sheepish in the background of the video for their 80s smash Video Killed The Radio Star.

And Zimmer helped Levine and Trench build a ‘Proto’-typical (pun intended) slab of Hi-NRG fit for a Time Lord.

So far so ‘good’ but the wheels were soon to fall off their rickety rescue vehicle.

Despite being the product of Levine, a future 40-million-selling writer/producer for Take That, The Pasadenas, Bad Boys Inc and more, PLUS Zimmer, the soon-to-be multi-Oscar-winning soundtrack guru, it’s safe to say that Doctor In Distress was something of a rush job.

Levine himself was (and still is) a certified Dr Who nut, even at one stage being part of show’s continuity team, ensuring that its lore and canon be honoured. Thus, burdened by 22 years of Who history, Levine’s lyrics may have gone rather overboard. “It was pathetic and bad and stupid. I tried to tell the Dr Who history in an awful high-energy song,” he admitted to The Guardian years later.

And with a dubious cast and song duly assembled, one final stumbling block remained: Just who would get the money anyway? Was the record financing a new, independent series of the show? Or would Colin Baker and the show’s stars (of its most unpopular series yet) be trousering the cash? In short, just what was the point of all this?

Just as Band Aid’s millions came under increasing scrutiny following their success, so the final destination for Distress’s booty remained hazy in the public’s eye despite clear labelling on the sleeve that any millions raised would be going to Cancer Relief.

Why Cancer Relief rather than a children's charity or something more thematically linked to the show? Er… (Doctor) Who knows. And why on Gallifrey were the assembled supergroup christened Who Cares? Sure, it’s almost clever. But it’s actually hard to think of a worse name for a charity band.

By now, reportage as to the song’s chart performance feels like a low blow and we don’t want to (tar) dis’, but this joke needs a punchline.

Following the song’s release on Record Shack on 15 March 1985, Doctor In Distress by Who Cares? entirely failed to chart, generated zero cash for Cancer Relief and failed to recoup its costs, meaning that the label and Levine actually lost money for their efforts. "It was an absolute balls-up fiasco,” said Levine. “It almost ruined me."

However, there was a glimmer of light at the end of this particular time tunnel. Following the record’s release, Doctor Who DID subsequently return in September 1986… Series 22 was indeed followed by Series 23… And even series 24, 25 and 26 in the years to follow.

So, did Doctor In Distress turn back time and avert catastrophe? Or did the BBC simply follow through on its plan for an “18-month hiatus” as it had clearly announced in 1985, rendering the entire Who Cares? project even more redundant and ridiculous than it already was?

‘Who’ decide…

The Arts Council has launched a new fund that should be of interest to any up-and-coming artists, DJs, groups, producers and well, anyone who makes music who isn’t yet conspicuously successful.

It’s called the Music Creators Growth Fund and according to the public body it’s “a new investment programme designed to support growth across new music.”

The fund will offer “direct investment” of between £10,000 and £20,000 so that established music creators can pursue new opportunities and undertake "ambitious creative plans" in their careers.

The key word there is ‘established’. The Music Creators Growth Fund isn’t for absolute beginners. It’s open to artists, collectives, bands, musicians, DJs, songwriters or producers who in the words of the Arts Council, can "demonstrate a minimum of three years’ active music creation practice with a proven track record."

You also need to have earned £5,000 from music for at least one year in the last three and have professional support in place, which may include management, publishing, label representation, agent, lawyer. However, the Arts Council say that if you don’t currently have any of those, “you will have an opportunity to explain how you access professional advice, support or networks, and why a formal team structure is not currently part of your practice.”

The fund, which has a total pot of £3 million, is one of three funding schemes that the Arts Council are setting up as part of the government’s Music Growth Package, which was announced back in July.

In a statement, the Arts Council’s Director of Music Claire Mera-Nelson said: "Through our work to develop the Music Growth Package, we've heard about the vital role played by direct access to investment. Insights shared by the people who bring new, original music to audiences around the globe confirmed our belief that we could do more to realise the full potential of the UK's talented creators.”

“We look forward to receiving applications from artists and music creators across the country, working in every genre, and investing in sounds and voices that reflect the diversity of the UK’s communities."

The first funding round runs from October 1 to 29. For more information about the fund and the ins and outs of how to apply head over to the Arts Council website at artscouncil.org.uk.

Learn To Play, the annual event billed as the UK’s ‘biggest free music-making weekend’, is back in early October.

The event, run by the music charity Music For All, offers an opportunity for both adults and children to pick up a musical instrument and, well, just give it a go. It’s been confirmed that it will take place between October 8 and 11 this year.

“Many people would love to make music; they just need an invitation,” Music For All says in a statement.

“Whether someone is completely new to music, returning after years away, or simply curious to try something different, Learn to Play creates a low-pressure, welcoming first step. Research consistently shows the social, emotional and wellbeing benefits of music-making, and events like these help people experience that joy for themselves.”

The initiative already has a whole load of events programmed in across the UK. But they need more. You could organise, say, a drop-in instrument try-out, group lessons, a singing workshop or an opportunity to play with your ensemble. Anything that’s accessible and fun where people new to music might be encouraged to join in.

Why? Well, apart from spreading the sheer joy of music-making, it’s surely an ideal opportunity to spread interest in your own work, increase your teaching portfolio, encourage future audiences and raise your own profile in your local community.

And, of course, you could also be a participant in an event. You could try your hand at an instrument you’ve always been curious about – an ideal opportunity for networking and collaboration.

Anyway, if you’re interested in getting involved and organising an event, head over to the Music For All website at www.musicforall.org.uk. On there, and below, you’ll find a map of all the events that are happening up and down the country over the weekend.

The UK’s August Bank Holiday might signpost summer’s demise but the sun is not setting until Notting Hill Carnival, one of the world’s biggest street parties, takes over London.

Full of people, energy, steel bands, a parade and music, at its heart is the bass and huge speakers of more than 30 static sound systems powering the two-day party. Linett Kamala, an original founder, Notting Hill Carnival Board Director and one of the first women to DJ at the event during the mid-eighties, remembers many raucous years…

“I once had members of the crowd signal that there was smoke coming from one of the drivers of my speakers during someone’s DJ set,” she says. “I was prepared and had a fire extinguisher at the ready but sadly it was an expensive fix. I have kept the now defunct driver as a memory of the day.”

Some two million party goers are expected to attend, following the parade as it snakes its way around West London for this 60th birthday celebration. The afternoons on the Sunday and Bank Holiday are unmatched as a spectacle for the many attendees, with music coming from all angles. Daina Davidson-Shaw is daughter of George Watt, Killerwatt Sound founder, and works as a coordinator. She describes how it can be “a matter of survival” for sound systems on the day.

“The whole team has to be very switched on as it’s a free-flowing crowd and the energy can be unmatched,” she states. “From mosh pits to members of the public climbing on the speakers, the sound itself is usually well-looked after but there are external factors to consider. But this year will be extra special. It’s a jubilee and here in the UK, we do these kinds of celebrations in a very special way.”

2026 is certainly anticipated to be extra special, the 60th edition of an event that has had to change with the times as it has grown in size. But many of the systems involved are long-standing from Channel One and King Tubby’s to Gaz’s Rocking Blues and the eclectic energy of Rampage Sound. Veteran DJ and sound system operator Gladdy Wax is a regular at the event and has a long-standing connection to the Jamaican music he plays that stems from his family.

“My brother was an electrician and before we knew it, he had made a small amp at home,” he recalls. “We bought some speakers to play music on, then we’d be getting music from Jamaica to play. Many of the UK shops didn’t stock these records so we had to get them sent over.”

Originally based in Birmingham, Gladdy first played on the Leisure Sound System, then became part of Quaker City Sound collective when he moved to London. He opened his own Gladdy Wax shop before putting together his own system. When he first visited Notting Hill Carnival, he felt like his love of music and sensibilities around how music should be shared could find a home.

“Crucially, many of the sound system operators weren’t musicians and I was, I come from a musical family,” says Gladdy. “I listen to music to hear what all the musicians are doing as individual players. That wasn’t clear when I first went to Notting Hill - many just wanted more overpowering bass whereas I wanted to do something that people who appreciated music could listen to.”

Daina of Killerwatt describes how her father George, who first took his system to carnival in 1982, has a similar deep passion in music and interest in how speakers work. His interest in the mechanics of music led him to take his family’s gramophone apart when he was a kid.

“My dad ended up being the one at the family party who would DJ and that’s where his journey began,” says Daina. “He even took apart his mother’s own gramophone and he made his own speaker box out of it when he was younger.

“In a West Indian household, the gramophone is a sacred treasure and ripping this apart didn’t go down well but this is where he started, then going out to different commons and playing music to family and friends.”

Sound systems were born in Jamaica and landed in the UK via the Windrush generation of the post-war era. Due to the racial prejudice of the time many of those arriving from the Caribbean were not allowed into British bars, pubs and dancehalls. So instead they forged their own entertainment. These ‘blues dances’ would take place in homes and halls and feature Jamaican music to establish a new sense of community, despite many of the participants being so far away from home.

Sound systems had become a centrepiece of the Notting Hill Carnival by the 1970s, serving as tools for cultural empowerment.

Rooted in community, united by music, the ethos and values of coming together still stand for the participants. Linett Kamala, one of the original pioneers behind the event, has now diversified to establish her own LIN KAM ART creative hub and family-friendly chill out space at the event. While technology has changed down the decades, there are still essential elements that need to go into a system’s technical infrastructure.

“There is the common centre, the preamp which includes the frequency crossover, EQs and your FX input, such as where the mic is plugged into, then your high-powered amplifiers manage the amount of electricity that is going through the system and the turntables,” she says.

“The more visual aspect which people associate are the drivers or cabinets, these big boxes which contain the speakers. Typically made from birch plywood, you usually have your sub bass or scoops, mid-range kick bins, then your mids or tops. This is known as either four-way or five-way set-up. Rather than one speaker trying to do everything, each speaker is designed for a specific frequency.”

In the early years of sound systems, many operators would adapt whatever speakers they could find to play music to the masses. Fast forward to today, and many have embraced the latest technology to ensure their audio is of the best quality possible. Daina at Killerwatt describes how their four-way system is designed for an outdoor residential environment and provides the specific "weight, clarity, and presence" necessary to maintain the system's historical sonic identity.

“A common misconception in heritage management is that using modern technology ‘betrays’ the original tradition,” she says. “But Killerwatt’s philosophy argues the opposite: innovation is a continuation of tradition.”

Killerwatt’s rig features ten stacks and a four-way configuration to split the sound across the different frequency ranges. Powered and managed by Full Fat Audio hardware for maximum control and stability, four stacks will be on each side of the stage with two stage-left. The system features Noise Control Audio (NCA) IFLY Series units with the NCA 10TMT units for the high and mid, RGWs for the bass and kick with the VSB 218 systems utilised for the sub-bass.

“The idea is to ensure strong, consistent coverage for an audience that is constantly moving through the space and avoiding the need for extreme, concentrated volume levels that would be lost or distorted in a residential street setting,” Daina explains. “While the acoustic configuration ensures the sound reaches the crowd, the massive physical scale of the rig necessitates a critical logistical focus on power and reliability.

“Historically, sound system operators were always experimenting, modifying, and hacking gear to get extraordinary performance. Using modern digital processing and professional amplification is simply the 21st-century way to achieve those same original goals.”

If you’re on the corner of Golborne and Portobello Road at Notting Hill, then you will likely hear Gladdy Wax’s selections. He’s a stalwart of the event, having been located in the same spot for 37 years. Gladdy’s commitment has seen him receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the London Notting Hill Carnival Enterprises Trust in recognition of his decades of service.

“I’ve always been well received at Notting Hill, the only thing that’s tough is when it’s time to dismantle the equipment and you have to take the system home despite being totally exhausted,” he explains. “But apart from that, I love everything about it.”

There have been many favourite moments over the years for Gladdy including the year he played a Michael Jackson tribute. The star passed away in June 2009 and Gladdy responded by playing a mix of soul music instead of his usual classic reggae or ska.

“I’d never seen so much excitement”, he says. “But he was too important not to pay tribute to, and it was so exciting. I was a little scared at how crazy it was but we rocked the place and it was hard to stop the music.”

Gladdy has also represented the sound system community at an event with King Charles and Camilla at the Tabernacle in Notting Hill. The meeting took place in 2022 to welcome carnival back after a forced hiatus due to the pandemic.

“I usually wear white gloves to play my records so I took them off to shake Charles’ hand,” says Gladdy. “I thought it would be a matter of just saying hello but he wanted to know more about the music. I was playing The Skatalites’ reggae cover of The Beatles' song This Boy [aka 'Ringo's Theme'] and King Charles was really interested in finding out more about it, I had to relax and answer his questions.”

As the carnival has expanded, there have been different challenges to navigate. For Gladdy, it is adhering to the rigorous health and safety rules that have come into place alongside lugging his speakers to the event itself. Linett cites both physical and environmental challenges too including crowd management and the vibrations that can cause stacks to become unstable.

“You always need to ensure a consistent and reliable power supply source to drive the sound system, particularly if you are outdoors,” she says. “There’s also the ongoing concern of avoiding blowing your drivers during the event, not only does this compromise the sound quality but they can potentially damage the entire system too.

Still, no matter what the obstacles might be in making the event happen, the love for music is what keeps it moving forward. Much like Notting Hill Carnival’s parade, people and dancing, nothing stays still - there’s a process of constant ongoing evolution around it. At Killerwatt, the team are interested in exploring how they can retain the original spirit and energy but with the more modern equipment.

“We believe that authentic heritage lives in the knowledge, intention, and identity of the operators and the physical equipment is merely the medium for that knowledge,” she states. “By codifying these principles, we ensure the sound's survival and its authentic core persists - but now it has a rigorous professional approach so it can navigate the modern regulatory environment.”

This focus on the new generation is also a preoccupation for Linett who worked closely with young people on the LIN KAM ART Sound System Futures programmes back in 2024.

“It was one of my favourite years when I first brought out my beautiful custom hand built LIN KAM ART Sound System to the street in Notting Hill Carnival and we invited Deep Medi Musik to do a five hour takeover,” she says.

“We had Mala, Von D, Silkie, Commado, Shafique Rider and Sciara - the energy was incredible, and it was magic watching the reactions to those who couldn’t believe their eyes that that DJs who created some of their favourite dubstep tunes were there in person on the decks.”

London’s Notting Hill Carnival runs this weekend on the 30th and 31st August.

Two of the most influential figures in modern music have spoken up in favour of AI in music.

Jimmy Iovine and Dr Dre – for it is they – have given an interview with the New York Times, in which they were asked in detail about the technology. Iovine was positively gung-ho, saying: “I’m very pro-AI in music creation. I don’t see the downside at all. There will be some crappy music. There’s crappy music now. In the studio, when gifted people have AI, they’re going to make better records.”

“The AI companies have the worst public relations in the history of the world,” he pointed out. “I don’t know the history of the world, but let’s just put it this way: They have terrible communication skills. That’s why everybody is all up in arms.”

Meanwhile Dre says, somewhat nonchalantly: “I don’t see it as a threat. I think the only people that see it as a threat are the people who have trouble creating.”

It seems the producer views it as just another piece of gear: "I had a discussion with a few people a few days ago. They were against AI and I’m like, 'OK, you sound like the person that would have been against the drum machine when it came out.' Or synthesizers, right? It’s a new tool for creativity. Some people are afraid of learning new things. I’m embracing it. I can’t wait to see what’s going to happen with this.”

The two men have worked together since the early 1990s when Iovine’s Interscope label backed Dre’s solo albums, which rewrote the rules of hip-hop. In the Noughties, the pair launched the Beats By Dre headphones brand, which was acquired by Apple in 2014.

Both men say that they use AI. In fact, Iovine suggests that there are a lot of producers out there who are “closet” AI users. “They’re using it, they just don’t want to admit it,” adds Dre.

Iovine admits that he uses it all day. When asked what was the last thing he asked it, he reeled off a list: “The last thing I asked was what’s going on with democratic socialism. And another thing I asked was about David Byrne’s setlist. And about the absorption of iron in your body and the timing of it. And as far as iron’s concerned, shrimp versus tuna?”

As for Dre he asked how you put on muscle and lose fat. But revealingly, he says that the bot told him “nothing that I didn’t already know.”

Music has charms to soothe the savage beast, they say. And also to reduce teenage anti-social behaviour.

That’s the discovery of a Chesterfield branch of McDonald's which has started piping in classical music in an attempt to reduce the number of unsavoury incidents.

A year ago, the branch on Low Pavement in the town was a hotspot for anti-social activity – fighting, threatening staff and intimidating behaviour. At one point in August 2025, local police received 18 calls in a week about incidents at the branch. Franchise holder Walter Wright decided he’d had enough and, in an attempt to rid the branch of the louts, put in place a number of initiatives, including switching off wi-fi and charge points and, yes, playing classical music.

And in a BBC news feature, Wright claimed it’s done the trick. "It is important to me that everyone feels safe and welcome when visiting our Chesterfield restaurant, and we're encouraged by the impact these measures are having.”

"We're committed to being a good neighbour in the community and will continue to work closely with the police, council, and local sports groups to understand where we can provide support and play our part."

It’s a method that’s been successful at other McDonald's, in Wrexham, Welwyn Garden City and Stockport (though not Lewisham, whose local branch was once hymned by Mercury-nominated rapper Novelist). Northern Trains has tried the same thing in 48 of its stations, as have local councils in Barrow-in-Furness and Liverpool to disperse groups of teenagers.

However, in Liverpool this policy wasn’t supported by at least one of the city’s classical players. Speaking to the BBC earlier this year, Laura Macmillan, who plays violin in the Liverpool group Ian Prowse and Amsterdam, said that the council’s initiative made her “feel angry… There's always been this stereotype that classical music is for people who have lots of money and is too complicated for some people, and to weaponise it like this is appalling."

She added: "If you wanted to get rid of groups of young people, play something from K-Pop Demon Hunters, because no-one over the age of about seven wants to hear that song Golden anymore."

Beatport has become the latest online platform to ban AI-generated music.

The music store confirmed its new policy in an announcement which ways that it has updated its content guidelines to prohibit purely AI-generated tracks. Ones that have been created with ‘the assistance’ of AI will now also be tagged as such.

It comes after a deal between Beatport and Beatdapp, a software developer that specialises in music fraud detection, but another driver of the policy is customer research – 60% of Beatport users said that wouldn’t play AI-generated music in their sets, whilst 77% shared a "firm preference" for human-made music. Only 8% said they were open to playing AI-generated music.

In a statement, Beatport’s CEO, Matt Gralen explained the thinking behind the move: "Beatport exists to serve DJs, and empower artists and labels. While new production techniques have driven electronic music forward since the beginning, there is a difference between a tool that assists human creation and a system that replaces it entirely. Beatport is built on the former."

It comes as other streaming platforms and online music marketplaces have toughened up their stances on AI slop. Bandcamp has already banned all tracks made “wholly or in substantial part” using AI, whilst Tidal has blocked royalties from any tracks it has identified as being generated entirely by AI. Last week Spotify announced that it would start using an AI persona badge on acts that were AI creations.

The problem of AI slop – rivers of low-quality artificial musical gak created by nefarious individuals looking to cream royalties – has been a live one for anyone using online platforms these past few years. Is it too soon to hope that the platforms themselves are starting to get on top of the issue?

You can read Beatport’s whole statement on their website at beatportal.com.

Bad Bunny has become embroiled in a legal battle that could have huge consequences for the reggaeton scene and its producers.

It concerns a track called Fish Market, originally produced by Steely and Clevie back in 1989. Some parts of the song became components of the dembow riddim, which is one of the foundations of reggaeton as a genre.

Since 2023, Cleveland ‘Clevie’ Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe ‘Steely’ Johnson made a claim that could potentially affect over 100 artists and approximately 1,800 songs.

At a hearing in early July, US District Judge, AndréBirotte Jr determined that a jury should ultimately decide whether the musical combination identified by the plaintiffs is sufficiently protected by copyright and whether numerous reggaeton recordings copied those protected elements without authorisation.

However, last week Bad Bunny’s legal team and attorneys representing other artists succeeded in getting the judge to reconsider that original decision. Birotte Jr said that he would now need to take several weeks to make an order concerning the issue.

The case revolves around what actually constitutes the dembow riddim. The plantiffs contend that the dembow is derived directly from Fish Market.

However, Bunny’s attorney and others are arguing that the ‘Fish Market Elements’ in dembow do not constitute a continuous musical passage from a single composition. Instead, they say, it uses portions of different (but not continuous) sections of Fish Market along with another Steely and Clevie piece, Pounder (Dub Mix II).

Copyright protection, they argue, cannot be based on a musical arrangement assembled from different portions of different works when those portions do not appear together in the copyrighted composition. And in any case the composition copyright for Pounder belongs to another Jamaican producer Dennis ‘The Menace’ Halliburton, who is not a part of the lawsuit.

Yes, it’s all fiendishly complicated and clearly musicologists will have to be called in at some juncture.

The Bad Bunny songs that are affected include Tití Me Preguntó, Un Ratito and Una Vez, all of which use dembow. Other artists who have used it and thus could be pulled into this dispute include Justin Bieber, Daddy Yankee and Pitbull. Many other less successful artists and producers will also doubtless be on tenterhooks as to the judge’s decision in this complex case.

Suno has uploaded a blog post entitled ‘How We’re Building The Future of Music Responsibly’ to their website, in which they claim they’ll "soon" start to watermark songs produced on the platform, and limit "the ability to mass distribute songs on streaming platforms".

In it, the AI platform’s CEO Mikey Shulman says that Suno has a “clear set of principles” that are “always rooted in supporting artistry and creativity.”

It also attempts to distance the platform from any responsibility for the deluge of AI-generated slop that is increasingly clogging up streaming platforms. “Most of the music people make on Suno is deeply meaningful,” Shulman writes.

“A lullaby for a child, a song for a partner, or something made to preserve a memory. That music may never be released publicly, but it still has real value to the person who made it. That is fundamentally different from using generative technology to mass export content.”

Shulman’s intervention comes just days after Suno’s defeat in a German court, where it was found that in training its AI models without paying rights holders, the platform was in breach of both German and US copyright law.

In the post, Shulman indicates that Suno will put in place limits on downloads to prevent mass distribution on the platform – in theory, a move that may go some way to stopping the slop.

And there is no mention in the statement about finally revealing what music is used in its AI training and how artists and songwriters might be fairly recompensed for the use of their work in this way. They are unlikely to be placated by Shulman’s vague promise that “AI should help people create something new, not imitate someone else’s work.”

The company is still awaiting the amount it will have to pay in damages to the rights holders involved in the German case. They are also still fighting a legal battle with Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment over the “mass infringement” of copyright.

The German music rights society GEMA has won a major victory over Suno, with a regional court in Munich finding that the tech company had illegally trained its AI models on music GEMA represents, without obtaining a licence or paying the rights holders.

Some of the tracks that were effectively stolen by Suno include Forever Young by Alphaville and Boney M’s Daddy Cool. The court found that Suno’s use of the songs was in breach of both the German and US copyright law.

The victory is a significant one in that, going forward, other AI companies must now licence any music from GEMA’s repertoire. It also sets a precedent for other collective societies not only within the EU, but also in the US market.

Suno will now have to pay damages, though how much has not been determined yet. The AI firm has vowed to fight the ruling and in a statement, said: “We disagree with today’s ruling – which rests on a fundamental mischaracterisation of how Suno’s technology works, how it is used and how U.S. law applies - and are evaluating all available options, including an appeal.”

It’s not the first time the German equivalent of PRS has come out on top against a tech giant. You may recall that last November GEMA won a case against OpenAI which accused the tech firm of breaking German law by using copyrighted lyrics to ‘train’ ChatGPT.

This latest ruling is far more significant in that it covers GEMA’s core business – the licensing of playable music. It remains to be seen how the ruling will impact the other battles Suno is fighting - against both Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment in an action the companies took out in 2024 against the “mass infringement” of copyright by Suno and its market rival Udio, as well as a separate claim by the Danish collecting society Koda.

In a statement to Reuters, GEMA’s CEO Dr Tobias Holzmüller said: “Today, the Chamber made one thing crystal clear: AI models built on stolen intellectual property have no protection under the law.”

“AI service providers must pay for licenses rather than helping themselves to our members’ works free of charge. Today, the court’s verdict has significantly strengthened Europe’s position as a cultural centre.”

Meanwhile, GEMA board member Dr Ralf Weigand added: “Through this decision, GEMA has set an important precedent not only for its more than 100,000 members, but for creators worldwide. The fact that we can now enforce our rights in countries including the United States gives creators hope and confidence at a time of profound technological transformation.”

The UK’s Performing Rights Society welcomed the court’s decision and has sent a supportive tweet to GEMA - see above.

The shortlist for this year’s Mercury Prize has been announced and – as ever – it’s eclectic.

Designed to celebrate the best in British and Irish music over the past year, the 12-strong list includes one bonafide living legend, several artists who are arguably at their commercial peak, a revitalised Britpop-era band and a number of up and coming names. And, for the first time, a various artists compilation album is included.

The living legend is Paul McCartney, who probably doesn’t have the space on the mantelpieces of all his various homes for another gong for The Boys Of Dungeon Lane. Neither, arguably, does Raye, after all those Brit awards she took home the other year. Nevertheless, her second album, This Album May Contain Hope, is nominated.

Traditionally, the Mercurys’ panel has been shy of giving the award to conspicuously successful artists, though they bucked that trend last year with Sam Fender. So Raye could be in with a shout, as could Olivia Dean for The Art Of Loving and Jade, with her solo debut That’s Showbiz Baby!

Two previous winners have been nominated – 2019’s victor Dave is in there again with his third album The Boy Who Played Harp – as well as the revived Suede, who won the second ever Mercury way back in 1993.

Both, you’d say, would have to be outside bets (only one artist, PJ Harvey, has won the Mercury twice) as are Florence + The Machine, who have been a consistent presence in British pop for a decade and a half. With Everybody Scream now being their fourth Mercury nomination, they're probably not getting their hopes up.

Nia Archives might be a good bet with her second album Emotional Junglist, as might Kojey Radical for Don’t Look Down. Outsiders, you’d have to say, are the only Irish nominee on the list – indie folk fella Dove Ellis – and Knats. The latter are a Newcastle-based jazz trio, who certainly sound intriguing. But given that Sam Fender won in the first year the awards were moved to Newcastle, would the panel really give the prize to a North East artist for the second year in a row?

And finally there’s that Various Artists album. Help (2) is nothing if not a deserved nominee and, given that the project lacked the cut through its predecessor achieved 30 years ago, could certainly do with the publicity.

Inevitably, there's also been some chatter in regard to the albums that have missed out. Lily Allen's critically-acclaimed West End Girl and Harry Styles' Kiss All The Time, Disco Occasionally are two of the more notable omissions from the shortlist, though Styles' album wasn't greeted as warmly as some of his previous efforts, so its absence is less of a surprise.

The Awards ceremony will be held in Newcastle’s Utilita Arena on Thursday 22 October, with live performances from “many” of the 12 artists promised. The BBC are to provide coverage of the event, which will presumably include a TV broadcast.

Mercury Prize 2026 nominations

• Dave – The Boy Who Played Harp
• Dove Ellis – Blizzard
• Florence + The Machine – Everybody Scream
• Jade – That’s Showbiz Baby!
• Knats – A Great Day In Newcastle
• Kojey Radical – Don’t Look Down
• Nia Archives – Emotional Junglist
• Olivia Dean – The Art Of Loving
• Paul McCartney – The Boys Of Dungeon Lane
• Raye – This Music May Contain Hope
• Suede – Antidepressants
• War Child Records – Help (2)

The CEO of the Grammys, Harvey Mason Jr, has responded to BTS’s decision not to participate in the 2027 Awards due to the introduction of a new ‘Asian Pop’ category.

On Monday just gone (27 July), the South Korean megastars put out a message via Instagram simply saying: “We decided not to participate in the Grammys this year” and adding that they “hope that music can be heard and loved by itself rather than being divided by region or language.”

This was widely seen as a response to the announcement in June of five new categories, including ‘Best Asian Pop Performance’. Having released one of the biggest albums in the world this year in Arirang, BTS would surely have been favourites for the award. Their withdrawal arguably renders the category somewhat redundant.

Mason Jr has defended the original decision and said it was introduced with the best of intentions: “I am saddened to hear that BTS has chosen not to participate in the Grammy Awards process this year, but as a music creator, I understand and respect their decision.”

He continued: “I do want to clarify something that seems to be getting lost in the conversation. The Asian Pop category was created to celebrate the depth, diversity and extraordinary growth of pop artistry coming out of Asia. The spirit of this new category is to shine a dedicated spotlight on these important artists. More categories mean more artists’ work is recognised. It’s never to divide, but to expand who is recognised by our 15,000 Grammy voters.”

Mason pointed out that if artists submit music to the Asian Pop category that does not rule them out from being nominated in the more general high-profile categories: Record Of The Year and so on.

“As we continue to expand the reach, our membership and our awards, regardless of geography or language, I want to emphasise that we will continue to listen to the global music community and work to honour and celebrate all the artists whose music moves the world,” he explained.

The Grammys, of course, is known for having endless categories that ensures the actual ceremony itself can be something of an endurance test. There have been separate awards for Latin music going back to the first Awards in the late 1950s and a Best African Music Performance category was added in 2024.

But there has never been a ‘Best European Music Performance’ and perhaps this is BTS’s point. One man’s ‘dedicated spotlight’ is another person’s ghetto. Depending on where you stand on the globe.

The UK has a new Prime Minister from today, as Andy Burnham takes over from Keir Starmer. The former Mayor Of Manchester is known as a keen music fan – there is much evidence of his love of The Smiths, Radiohead and The Strokes online – and many in the music industry will be keeping a close eye on whether that (seemingly genuine) enthusiasm gets translated into policy.

Indeed, in a statement today, UK Music CEO Tom Kiehl has set out five key tests for the new premier regarding the music sector.

These are, in no particular order, “delivering on the Government’s manifesto pledge to root out ticket touts,” “Ruling out any new copyright exceptions in relation to AI,” “Ensuring that a strong and well funded BBC continues to showcase and support UK music,” and “Devolving power to grow music in towns and cities right across the UK.”

The latter is something Burnham will surely be on board with, since he has already made loud noises about dispersing political power more widely from London to the regions.

The final test - “removing costly and prohibitive barriers to touring the EU” - may well be more difficult given that it would involve negotiations with the UK's erstwhile European partners as well as a determined effort on behalf of the government to make a public argument for closer ties with the EU.

Kiehl has said in the statement: “We welcome Andy Burnham back in Westminster as the new Prime Minister and look forward to continuing our work championing the music industry with him.

“As a former Culture Secretary and big music fan, he has a deep understanding of what makes the music industry tick. He also knows the challenges facing a sector which is one of the Government’s best international calling cards with the £4.8 billion we generate in annual exports.”

Of course, it was less than a week ago that the Culture Secretary outlined the government’s Music plan, which included a cash injection of £15 million to fund new music projects, an extra £10 million for a mentoring scheme to give children and young children the chance to explore creative disciplines such as music, and reform of the licensing system for live events, which will increase the number of Temporary Event Notices.

There’s no indication that Burnham would row back on any of that. Indeed, given the sounds he has made about music and its importance in his life, one might expect him to, if anything, go further. But given the turbulence of UK politics over the last decade, it would be unwise for any of us to raise our hopes too high...

Leading music industry bodies such as the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) have launched a joint labelling program to help make fans aware of when generative AI has been used in recorded music.

The project sets out a unified approach to voluntary track labelling, with a distinction between 'AI-generated' and 'AI-assisted' labels, which will be used across digital music services and other partners.

This announcement comes after the revelation in April that a concerning 44% of all new music uploaded to the streaming service Deezer is AI slop. Meanwhile, Apple Music has confirmed that over a third of its uploads are 100% AI.

This move from record industry professionals is all about attempting to combat this significant shift.

“Fans want to know whether and how generative AI has been used in the music to which they listen," said Vikki Oakley, IFPI CEO and Mitch Glazier, RIAA Chairman & CEO, in a joint statement.

They continued: "Given how important human artistry and authenticity is to music lovers all over the world, these labels will provide an immediately understandable and easily scalable approach to transparency. We acknowledge the many ways AI is being used creatively, so we expect to offer fans additional information as adoption of generative AI labeling grows and technology evolves."

According to Noemí Planas, CEO of WIN (Worldwide Independent Network), “For artists and fans around the world, true connections and trust are everything. Clear labeling of AI-generated content is central to this: it gives fans the transparency they deserve and supports the human-centered, safety-first approach that the global independent community has championed through the WIN Principles for Generative AI."

Amid widespread controversy regarding anonymous AI-driven artists such as The Velvet Sundown, those behind the program will hope it can begin to clear up confusion about the origins of recorded music.

“As AI continues to be integrated into the creative process, artists and fans alike deserve a clear way to communicate how and when it’s being used," said Harvey Mason Jr., CEO of The Grammys. "This initiative ensures that creativity, authorship, and artistic intent remain at the center of every song. Giving artists the ability to tell that story strengthens trust and supports a more sustainable future for music.”

The next two weeks will see a change in British Prime Minister as Andy Burnham takes over from the departing Keir Starmer, but there is already movement regarding the government’s approach to the music sector with the announcement yesterday of a national strategy.

It’s called Turn It Up: Our Plan For Music and marks the first time a UK government has not only stressed the importance of music to the UK’s economy but backed it up with concrete investment and proposals.

The Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has said in a statement: “Music is our shared language. It brings people together, breaks down barriers and gives voice to every community. At a time when too many people feel disconnected, music has never mattered more.

“As the song says, 'Every generation throws a hero up the pop charts.' But pop is getting posher, and that must change. Talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not. After a decade of mindless vandalism that stripped culture and creativity from too many classrooms and communities, we are putting music back at the heart of education, investing in creative careers and backing grassroots music across the country.

“We believe music belongs to everyone, not just the privileged few. That's how we widen opportunity, strengthen our communities and ensure the UK's incredible fans and extraordinary musical talent continues to inspire the world for generations to come."

Fine words, but where’s the meat to back it up? Well, the Music Growth Package that was announced a while back will receive an extra £15 million from Arts Council England. There’s an extra £12.5 million for a Music In Libraries initiative that means libraries and Music Hubs will be able to apply for funding for free studio spaces and equipment.

There’s an extra £10 million for a Creative Mentoring scheme which will give children and young people the opportunity to receive mentoring from creative practitioners, and opportunities to explore creative disciplines such as music. There will also be reforms to the licensing system for live music events, increasing the number of Temporary Event Notices from 15 to 20 and total event days from 21 to 26. Festival licences will be extended – three-year contracts for new events and five-year for existing events.

There’s also more money for the Music Export Growth Scheme, which will continue up to 2029, and a 50% investment in the government’s music trade mission programme.

What there isn’t – as yet – is any proposal to alleviate the burdens of Brexit on UK musicians touring in Europe. But that is doubtless something that will have to be negotiated with the UK's erstwhile partners in the EU.

The plan also outlines already-announced measures such as the 15% business rate relief for live venues and the Every Child Can programme, which aims to open up opportunities for kids to take part in extra-curricular music and arts activities.

The great and the good of the music industry have reacted positively to the plan. Tom Kiehl, the CEO of UK Music, said: “It is welcome that the government have listened to our calls and are launching a Music Plan.”

"This [plan] comes at a time when it is more crucial than ever that we join forces to find solutions to the challenges facing our world-leading sector. These include the impact of artificial intelligence on music creators and companies, the barriers to overseas touring, the threats music spaces face, the challenges small businesses and freelancers experience, and the need to protect music in schools.”

Roberto Beri, CEO of the Ivors Academy said: "This plan is an important step, but there is much more to do. Songwriters and composers are the foundation of the music industry, and they must share fairly in the value they create while received the protections they are due."

There seems to be general agreement that the plan is a positive step. Whether it represents a genuine turning point or is just another sticking plaster remains to be seen.

This writer is old enough to remember the days when picking up a CD album emblazoned with that iconic black-and-white sticker; ‘Parental Advisory: Explicit Content', triggered a giddy rush of subversion.

If anything, the warning made us even more eager to take it to the till.

Here in the streaming age of course, those kinds of parental advisory warnings appear more subtly as tiny 'E' tags on Spotify and Apple Music. Indeed, in the era of smartphones, social media and grandiose world leaders, music’s power to shock has certainly waned.

But even so, we were quite surprised to learn just how much today's listeners no longer seem to be drawn to those acts that don't hold back lyrically…

A fascinating trend, spotted by pop culture data journalist Daniel Parris on his Substack (Stat Significant) has exposed that listeners have largely turned away from explicit lyric-fuelled music.

Back in 2018, 74% of Spotify’s top 50 songs were tagged as featuring explicit lyrics. In 2026, that number has plummeted to just 13%.

So what gives? When did we all become so puritanical?

Well, it transpires that this ‘clean-ification’ - as Daniel puts it - is largely the result of a pair of factors…

“The clean-ification of mainstream music can be attributed to two mutually reinforcing trends”, writes Parris. The first being the increased consumption of classic songs.

“Nostalgia strikes again! Increasingly, listeners are using Spotify to revisit older, radio-friendly hits like Fleetwood Mac’s Dreams and Michael Jackson’s Thriller,” he writes.

The second factor is the declining popularity of hip-hop relative to our now broader chart listening habits.

“Once a cultural behemoth, hip-hop is no longer the dominant force it was a decade ago, at least on Spotify,” writes Daniel.

It’s an unlikely place for the ‘explicit music’ label to end up, then.

It was back in the late 1980s when Tipper Gore’s Parents Music Resource Center campaign first proposed the sticker. After a bit of wrangling, the music industry would eventually relent to the pressure and roll it out across releases in the early 1990s.

But, as this writer and millions of other listeners can certainly attest to, the sticker had the reverse effect of drawing us ever closer to these potentially incendiary records.

As Daniel implies, Gore will surely be delighted by the modern shift away from explicit lyrics.

As these stats clearly indicate, seemingly perennial trends in music can suddenly change in often wholly unexpected ways.

So might we see a swing back to the type of parent-enraging acts of yesteryear? Or, are we all so fundamentally un-shockable now, that there’s little point even trying?

An array of bona fide A-listers was out in force at the funeral of Clive Davis in New York on Monday morning, paying heartfelt eulogies to the record company man who mentored so many huge-selling artists.

Bruce Springsteen, Jennifer Hudson, Dionne Warwick, Alicia Keys and Barry Manilow were all there at the Central Synagogue in Manhattan’s Midtown. Kenny G opened the service with a clarinet piece, and was followed by Hudson, who sang Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah and I Will Always Love You, a song made famous by Davis’s one time protege Whitney Houston.

Warwick sang Over The Rainbow and recalled how Davis convinced her to persist during a period in the 1970s she was considering leaving the music industry altogether. She also spelled out an acronym of his name: “Completely loyal, incredibly valuable and everlasting.”

“He was always asking, ‘Where’s my Dionne?’ Well, I’m here today, Clive, for you,” she said. “I’ll always be here for you.”

Another artist Davis mentored, Barry Manilow, who has been recently battling cancer, said in his speech: “A few months ago, surgeons removed a piece of my lung Last week, I lost a piece of my heart.”

It was Davis, he explained, who suggested he re-write his song Brandy, which became his breakthrough hit Mandy. “He would show me a song; I would turn it down; we would argue; I would rearrange it; I would record it. This went on for nearly 50 years. He believed in me from the very beginning.”

In an emotional eulogy, Alicia Keys said of Davis: “You saw the music that was still sleeping inside me, waiting for someone with the wisdom and the courage to call it forward. In a world that so often reduces art to commerce and genius to product, you held the line. You reminded me again and again that what we were doing was about truth and legacy and about the human heart reaching out to another human heart and saying you’re not alone.”

Springsteen remembered his own ‘golden moment’ with Davis, when he came into his office at Columbia Records in 1972 and played a couple of songs on an acoustic. “It’s the moment, the one where, if you’re talented, if you’re lucky enough, it comes but once in your life,” Springsteen said. “If the right man is listening to you from across that big desk. For me, now and forever, Clive Davis was that right man.”

After the speeches, Davis’s family left for a private burial with a string quartet serenading him on his way. His exit music? Houston’s I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Loves Me) and Springsteen’s Born To Run.

Blur drummer Dave Rowntree has lost an appeal against the PRS in a case over the distribution of so-called ‘black box’ royalties.

What are ‘black box’ royalties? Good question. Well, they refer to the increasing number of live gigs where PRS takes a cut from the ticket sales but has not been able to allocate it to the appropriate songwriters because of a lack of information about a setlist. And it’s a growing problem – according to PRS’s own website, there are over 106,000 gigs where performance royalties have been collected but not distributed. Most of these are from small-scale gigs in grassroots venues.

The amount in the so-called black box is a substantial one too. According to a news feature in the Guardian last year, it amounted to £2.7 million for one year – 2019 – alone. PRS distributes them to its members according to market share.

Rowntree’s action claimed that PRS was handling the black box royalties in a way that was favouring publishers more than songwriters, who make up the vast majority of the PRS membership, and because of the lack of transparency over them, they were breaking UK and EU competition law.

The drummer’s action was thrown out by the Competition Appeal Tribunal last August and has now been rejected by the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Miles said a "true" or "accurate" distribution of these royalties could not be known "because the root of the black box royalties problem is the absence of accurate information - and, conversely, if accurate information were available, the relevant royalties would be matched".

Essentially, because of the very lack of information, no PRS member can say they are entitled to any specific amount of the black box royalties.

"Once one accepts that the PRS has to adopt some rule of distribution for the black box royalties, the fairness of its chosen rule can only be assessed by comparison with some other rule," the judge added.

"In my judgment the reason why no counterfactual has been advanced, even in general terms, is manifest: it is that the very data failure problem which has given rise to the black box royalties means that there is no plausible basis for suggesting a more accurate, let alone fairer, distribution."

Rowntree has issued a statement saying he accepts the Court’s decision but said the action "succeeded in shining a light on the magnitude of PRS black box royalties".

He added: "I would welcome the opportunity to work with the PRS to find ways to shrink the value of black box royalties for the benefit of its 160,000 songwriter members. There must be better ways for royalties to be identified and paid to the correct songwriter, especially given the pace at which technology is evolving.”

Thomann’s beat-making contest has returned for 2026 and is officially open now.

Prizes are...well, a whole bunch of Thomann goodies, including a Shure large condenser microphone and EastWest Hollywood orchestra bundle. The aim, as ever, is to conjure up the best beat from the raw materials Thomann supplies you with in their sample pack.

Announcing the competition on their website, Thomann describes the pack thus: “From unique instrument recordings and live performances to unexpected textures, field recordings and pure sample magic: this pack is packed with sounds designed to spark ideas and push your creativity further.”

“All you have to do is create an original beat and turn these sounds into something entirely your own. Whether you make boom bap, trap, house, lo-fi, drill or experimental music – we want to hear your unique style and vision.”

The pack features recordings made by Paul Marx, Thomas Opstal, Olha Violinist, Gustavo Strauss, David Lap and Gnarly. Any genre is allowed – the only limitations are that your beat must be between 30 and 60 seconds long and you must use at least three samples from the Thomann pack.

Crucially, though, you are allowed to manipulate the samples in any which way you fancy: chop them up, stretch, reverse, pitch, layer, warp, add effects. Your only limit is your imagination.

The use of any software or hardware is permissible – as long as you use those three samples.

And most importantly, the deadline: you’ve got three weeks to get creative. The closing date for entries is July 12. Entries can be uploaded onto Instagram, Facebook, Youtube and TikTok as long as you use the #ThomannBeatmakingContest hashtag.

To get yourself a sample pack and for all the other relevant information, terms and conditions and all of that palaver, head over to the Thomann website at www.thomann.de.

Musical theatre has supplied a steady gig for generations of musicians, but an interesting – and alarming – feature in the Guardian today suggests that those days are coming to an end. Orchestras are shrinking and musicians are being asked to work harder – for no extra money.

Part of that is down to KeyComp, a piece of software that allows musicians to perform alongside prerecorded parts without sacrificing that live ‘feel’. It’s banned in New York and in Washington DC, but not elsewhere in the world.

In Australia certainly, it is making its presence felt – during the Lion King’s debut Sydney season in 2003 there were 17 musicians in the pit, now there are just 11.

Brisbane-based woodwind player Diana Tolmie is interviewed about the trend, which she puts down partly to the fashion of jukebox-style musicals, which require smaller bands, and partly to KeyComp.

“Years ago, you could learn the ropes safely with less stress being part of a larger section,” she suggests. “That’s all different now. Where there used to be four reed parts, there are now one or two; where there used to be six string parts, there is now one or two.

"Where there used to be percussion and drum kit, the expectation now is that a drummer does both. Some instruments are completely gone from the live pit – the oboe, the bassoon, even the upright and electric bass.

"That’s all due to KeyComp.”

The doubling-up doesn’t make for a better performance. Tolmie says she “hit a peak” last year when she ended up playing seven different instruments in one show - “It was hectic and rarely gave me any time to rest.”

Essentially, producers are turning to KeyComp to cut down costs. Understandable, you could argue, at a time when the cost of everything – theatre hire, transport, set-building – has been going up.

But some of the biggest shows gross huge amounts of money. James Steedman, the Federal President of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) in Australia, suggests that increased overheads are just an excuse. “Musicians are being paid around 20–25% less now than they were in 2003 if we adjust for inflation, so they are not the reason costs are blowing out.” He calculates that cutting six musicians might save £9,500 a week – peanuts, when you consider The Lion King is the highest earning musical of all time.

Worrying times, then. Tolmie warns that: “if we embrace KeyComp, the audience will no longer understand what ‘live music’ is, will not be discerning, and then that will extend to other areas of the music industry.

“For pit orchestras, we are out of sight – therefore the most vulnerable.”

Matchbox 20 frontman Rob Thomas has been paying tribute to the late Clive Davis – and giving us a fascinating insight into what it was that made him such a music industry legend.

In an essay for Rolling Stone, Thomas goes back to the making of Smooth, the 1999 smash hit single that he co-wrote and eventually performed with Santana. Both the song and its parent album, Supernatural, were released on Davis’s Arista Records label, and Davis was involved in the creative process almost from the start.

Smooth was Thomas’s first project with Davis, but he was originally intended to be just the songwriter, alongside Itaal Shur. After hearing his demo, though, Santana and Davis had other ideas.

“We were sitting in his office debating whether George Michael or Jon Bon Jovi should sing it,” Thomas remembers. But Carlos was like, ‘I like this guy’s voice,’ and Clive loved the idea of getting this older generation guitar player together with newer generations.”

Thomas has mentioned the George Michael possibility before. “It was George I had in my head when I recorded the vocals in the first place,” he told Billboard in 2017. “If you listen to the melody and the cadence, it’s an attempt to emulate his style in so many ways.”

Davis knew what he was doing, though: Smooth hit number one on the Billboard Hot 100 and remained there for 12 weeks. What’s more, Supernatural was stuffed with cross-generational collaborations, and went on to sell 30 million copies.

This is just one example of Davis trusting his instincts rather than going for the biggest name, and Thomas says that there was another during the making of another Santana album, 2002’s Shaman. It came when Davis was considering what to do with lead single, The Game Of Love.

“He played me The Game of Love with Tina Turner singing on it, before Michelle Branch came on,” says Thomas. “Only Clive would get the magic of Tina Turner on a track then have the wherewithal to say, ‘I’m not sure this is the right look for Carlos.’”

It was Davis’s willingness to go with his gut rather than listen to voices around him that made him so special, believes Thomas, and possibly the last of his kind.

“Losing Clive is the end of an era,” he says. “There were a handful of people like him, people like Ahmet Ertegun [co-founder and president of Atlantic Records] – the last ones who weren’t weren’t all about the algorithm.

“There are fewer and fewer people running labels today who are COMPLETELY guided by their own taste meter. If you come to a label or a management company today they present you with a five-page report on your fan base, how they skew, and what brands they buy.

“I’m sure Clive was aware of those things, but they never informed what he did. Even if everybody around him said, ‘I don’t get it,’ he would say, ‘You don’t have to get it.’”

StubHub has been ordered to refund more than 50,000 of its customers after they were shown to be underhand regarding hidden fees.

It comes after an investigation by the Competition And Markets Authority (CMA) in the UK which found that the ticketing platform was guilty of ‘drip pricing ’, where consumers are told about fees and charges on top of the initial price. The practice was banned in the UK last year.

The CMA found that between April and December last year many customers buying tickets for gigs and sports events via StubHub were required to pay mandatory costs such as delivery and service fees – ie unavoidable costs, but, crucially, only added at the final checkout stage.

In a statement, Emma Cochrane, Executive Director of Consumer Protection at the CMA said: "Hitting customers with hidden fees is illegal. It's not fair to draw people in with what looks like a good deal, only for them to find the real price is higher when they get to the checkout due to extra charges that can't be avoided.”

StubHub has also been fined, but because they admitted breaking the law, they have received a 40% reduction to their penalty, meaning that they will have to cough up just £900,000. Their customers are liable to receive, on average, a £10 refund – enough for a pint and a packet of crisps, then.

The platform has said it has taken steps to end the conduct, and said in a statement: "Our UK platform is designed to display all fees upfront," adding it had "identified and corrected the issue promptly, and all affected customers will receive an automatic refund".

The CMA have a number of organisations in their sight regarding the practice of drip pricing, including BSM Driving School, Appliances Direct and one of StubHub’s rivals: Viagogo. The CMA has said that its investigation into Viagogo over its fees was ongoing and that an update was due “later this summer”.

Meanwhile, Cochrane added that: "Going to a live gig or sports game is an event many people save for – and our action today means thousands of fans will get back money taken unfairly through hidden fees”.

"Our message to businesses is simple: be transparent on costs or risk CMA action."

PLUGIN WEEK 2026: Today's plugin instruments require a lot of processing power. Whether that be the latest analog modelling synthesizer with a sound that’s comparable to hardware, acoustic physical modelling for ultra-realistic violins without samples, or experimental instruments recreating physics and other state-of-the-art processes, your bog-standard CPU is getting increasingly more taxed by all of the heavy lifting. Now add that instrument to a DAW session with other synths and effects, and your poor computer is ready to throw in the towel.

Enter the GPU. The Graphics Processor Unit may have started as a dedicated pixel cruncher but, thanks to its unique structure, it’s now being pressed into all kinds of new duties, including artificial intelligence, neural networks, and lately, audio.

Because of this largely underused chip, powerful new processes are now becoming available to audio plugin developers willing to think outside the box.

We recently spoke with three of them - GPU Audio, Anukari and sonicLAB - to find out how they’re harnessing the GPU to create software instruments of astonishing realism, scope and power.

The GPU has traditionally done the work of rendering a computer’s graphics, and it does this very well. But lately, some very clever developers have been using it to process audio as well. Can it really make that much of a difference, though? We asked Chris D, the Head of Pro Audio Partnerships at GPU Audio, a leader in the field, about this.

“If you’re happy with one soft synth and a delay, there is probably not much call to get your GPU involved in audio processing,” Chris says. “What the GPU offers for audio processing is an almost unbound level of processing.”

The key to this, he stresses, is the GPU’s ability to process in parallel. It can handle multiple processes at any one time, unlike conventional DSP audio, which is sequential and therefore limited. “Think of the processes like cars on a motorway,” he explains. “Our CPU has one lane for traffic to flow; the GPU has thousands of lanes.”

Evan Mezeske of boutique developer Anukari points out that GPUs, such as the ones in Apple’s M-series chips of from company NVIDIA, remain largely unused when we work with audio.

That idle GPU could be tasked to push the limits of how many plugins or tracks we can run simultaneously, or for single plugins that require a lot of computational power. Evan’s instrument, also called Anukari, falls into the second category.

“I personally find category two more interesting,” he enthuses, “because it raises the question of what kind of plugins simply couldn't exist without this kind of processing power? I'm interested in new kinds of audio processing that haven't been thoroughly explored before because they were previously computationally infeasible.”

Markus Steinberger, GPU Audio’s R&D Scientist, sees this new evolution of computation as part of the ‘evolving spirit’ of Moore’s Law, an observation made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965 that posits that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles - and so gets more powerful - every two years.

Now, rather than relying just on more transistors, we can take advantage of smarter architecture and workload distribution. “By offloading demanding audio tasks to the GPU,” Markus says, “GPU Audio unlocks high-throughput, real-time processing that significantly outperforms conventional CPU-bound workflows.”

Evan at Anukari puts it this way: “Insofar as audio processing can translate transistor count into ‘audio goodness,’ this just means that to take full advantage of what modern processors have to offer, the GPU is becoming increasingly attractive. But it's not always so easy to turn more transistors into audio goodness.”

But isn’t this difficult to do? “Yes and no,” answers Evan when asked if it’s difficult to get the GPU to process audio. “The GPU is very, very different from the CPU, and to take full advantage of its power requires a different approach to how a plugin's DSP code is written.”

“Graphics cards were not designed to process audio,” points out Chris at GPU Audio, which has put in about 10 years of R&D on its tech.

“They are designed to continually pump out an insane amount of pixels across your computer screen. When you’re not playing games, or rendering complex images, your GPU does next to nothing. Imagine what could be done with all of the unused resources.”

Sinan Bokesoy, the founder of software company sonicLAB and parent company sonicPlanet, explains how he uses the GPU to calculate scene data in some of his applications, which is then used in audio calculations.

“Instead of calculating this data on the CPU alongside the audio waveform processing,” he says “I use the parallel processing structure of the GPU, which is very efficient for such scenic calculations. GPUs can work together with CPUs to calculate data that feeds audio algorithms efficiently and without low-level programming efforts.”

Ultimately, says Evan, “it's a question of creativity in terms of how to utilize the strengths of GPUs in an interesting way.”

Although gamers will try to get the best GPUs that they can, the good new for music producers is you don’t need a special GPU to process audio. The one you already have in your computer is likely good enough, such as an NVIDIA chip or the ones built into Apple’s M-series chips.

“Normal GPUs are fine,” explains Evan. “Generally, what you get when you pay more is a GPU that is a tiny bit faster, but is massively more parallel. But any modern GPU is pretty much a marvel of technology. All of the Apple silicon GPUs are incredible, and anything from the last few years from NVIDIA is great.”

GPU Audio recommends a minimum spec of NVIDIA Series 10 upwards on Windows, or M1+ for Apple. “NVIDIA released its series 10 GPUs in 2014 and the M1 came out in 2020,” says Chris, “so we’re not talking about the very latest hardware. Our aim is for as many people as possible to experience what the GPU can do for audio.”

Looking at diagrams of Apple’s M chips, especially the Pro and Max models, a significant amount of the IC is devoted to the GPU. That’s a resource just waiting to be exploited. “The Apple M chips have a dedicated GPU which we are harnessing for DSP on Mac OS,” Chris comments. “These parallel processing juggernauts are redundant when you’re making music. It seems crazy not to use the GPU!”

GPU Audio doesn’t make instruments itself; it partners with other developers, allowing them to use its technology to offload processing to the GPU. One of its partnerships is with Audio Modeling and its SWAM line of physical-modeled orchestral instruments. These include SWAM-B for brass instruments, SWAM-W for woodwinds, and SWAM-S for strings, plugins that offer a high degree or real-time realism that doesn’t rely on samples.

“A major advantage of the GPU in this context is its extremely high memory bandwidth,” says Markus. “While incoming audio typically arrives at 44.1 to 96 kHz, computing the effect of a room on that signal can require accessing trillions of contributing samples per second.” This can lead to bottlenecks; GPU to the rescue. “This makes GPU Audio a natural fit for high-fidelity, real-time room modeling and immersive spatial audio experiences.”

You can also access the company’s tech with the Vienna Power House add-on for VSL’s Vienna MIR Pro 3D and Vienna Synchron Player. This add-on offloads convolution processes to your graphics card, “which is otherwise redundant in music making machines,” says Chris.

GPU Audio has also recently made its SDK (software development kit) available to third-party developers, so we’re likely to see more instruments and effects that make use of the GPU in this way soon.

Now, let’s look in more detail at a few of the specific plugins that are fuelled by parallel GPU processing. Anukari 3D Physics Synthesizer is a unique physical modeling synthesizer that lets you build your own 3D instruments with various physics components like masses and springs as well as oscillators and the usual synthesizer bits. It’s incredibly flexible and powerful, sort of like a modular synthesizer but for physical objects rather than synth modules. Something this complex requires a lot of computational power, both visually and in terms of sound.

“Anukari is doing this great big complicated physics simulation, where the entire physics world needs to be stepped forward in time for each audio sample,” explains Evan, likening it more to the kind of physics engine that you'd find in a video game or something like the analysis tools that an automaker might use to understand physical stresses in a mechanical part.

“This fits very naturally into the way that a GPU works, where many calculations can be done all in parallel,” he says. “Anukari does virtually all of its audio processing on the GPU.” In terms of the audio, almost nothing happens on the CPU except commanding the GPU to do its work.

“Of course,” adds Evan, “that's really only half the story, because Anukari has these beautiful 3D graphics that depict the 3D instrument the user has constructed. The graphics also happen on the GPU, but that's not so interesting from an audio perspective.”

Another instrument that uses physics to help generate sound is Protean from sonicLAB. But instead of physical modeling, it uses a combination of additive and FM synthesis along with particle physics to create wild and experimental sounds, up to more than 1000 of them at a time.

“I use multi-core processing for audio algorithms in our Protean software since there are several hundred sine waves calculated simultaneously using multithreaded jobs,” says Sinan. “This is how parallel processing is implemented on CPUs using their multiple cores. A modern GPU might have thousands of cores versus a CPU's eight to 16 cores.”

In a recent article, we highlighted GPU audio processing as one way in which music production will change going forward. We asked the developers how they see this technology figuring into things.

“I would say that it's a part of the future,” agrees Evan of Anukari. “I believe there is still infinite potential with really simple stuff. But at the same time, I obviously am interested in what is possible now that really wasn't possible before.”

GPU Audio also sees it as playing a big part in tech moving forward. “If you want ultra low latencies, multi-channel spatial mixing, thousands of convolutions, and real-time machine learning then the GPU is the only way to go,” says Chris, pointing out that CPUs suffer from a physical restriction to their size and also processing capacity due to inherent thermal distribution. “GPUs on the other hand,” he notes, “are designed to be scalable, to run with multiple devices, and also to be used for cloud processing.”

Here is where things really get interesting. Cloud processing, which is something the GPU Audio team is looking into, could provide a way to not only shunt processing power over to another chip - but to another computer entirely. Says Chris: “This would be handy for example if your mobile device doesn’t have a powerful enough CPU but you still want to access incredibly high levels of processing.”

Another possibility for GPU audio processing is in hardware applications. “Imagine a mixing desk doing complex spatial processing on multiple live inputs,” says Chris. “There is scope for really advancing these existing technologies and harnessing the GPU for so many things.”

And, to take advantage of cutting-edge technologies like AI, we’re going to need the added boost of a GPU. “If we consider machine learning and live AI processing,” says Chris, “which is genuinely forging a new path for audio, these can only be processed in real-time with a GPU. So if you want a mixing desk which can de-noise your live space over multiple channels using live machine learning, it can only be achieved with a hardware-embedded GPU.”

The future just got a little brighter - and a little faster.

Tributes have been cascading in for Clive Davis, one of the great record company men, who died yesterday, aged 94.

Davis’s career stretched from the early 1960s – he joined Columbia Records at the age of 28 – to the 21^st Century. He’ll be best known as a nurturer and backer of talent who established close relationships with a number of artists across a wide range of genres. Among those he mentored are Bruce Springsteen, Patti Smith, Whitney Houston, Barry Manilow, Carlos Santana and Alicia Keys.

Springsteen has written in an Instagram post: “Over here on E Street, we mourn the death of the great record man and close friend Clive Davis. At 22 years old, he changed my life when he signed me to Columbia Records.

"He treated me with the same respect and kindness as a 22-year-old nobody as he did after all my success. A great man. All our prayers and love.”

Meanwhile, Patti Smith has posted, also on Instagram: "Thanking Clive Davis for transforming music, and on a very personal note, for believing in me, shepherding my efforts and a half century of your love and support."

And Alicia Keys has also paid tribute, saying: “To Clive Davis, the visionary who transformed dreams into reality, leaving an indelible mark on music and lives worldwide.”

Record companies are invariably portrayed (often by disgruntled artists) as being staffed by faceless suits who know nothing about music. Interestingly, Davis once remarked that he had “zero” interest in music before he joined Columbia and clearly learned on the job. "I didn't necessarily have an ear, but I think I developed one," he later said.

It was Davis who decided that the title track should be the lead single from Simon and Garfunkel’s Bridge Over Troubled Water album, much to the duo’s horror. "Yes, it was a ballad; yes, it was lengthy," he said in an interview with the New York Times. "But you've got to know when you have a home run. You can't play everything by the rules."

Davis also once advised Springsteen to step away from the mic when he performed. Talking to People magazine, Davis remembered: "I said, 'Don't do it if it's not natural for you, but I know that the potential of the songs would lend itself to more physical movement on your part,'"

Two weeks later he saw Bruce at a gig in Greenwich: "I was flabbergasted," he said. "He jumped on every table... He was a whirling dervish. It was not just the movement, it was the spirit of it. It was electrifying."

Other inspired Davis moves were adding an a cappella 40 seconds to the beginning of Whitney Houston’s monster hit I Will Always Love You, and persuading Carlos Santana to record an album of duets with contemporary artists: Supernatural sold 15 million and instantly rebooted the guitarist’s career.

If there was a secret to his long-lasting career, it was very simple he said in a 2016 interview with The Talks: trusting in music. “Music is a necessary ingredient in people’s lives. No matter what revolution is occurring in technology, it has to understand that music will not be obsoleted. People need music.”

“It’s a very, very natural basic ingredient that’s essential to the full enjoyment of life.”

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” is a famous paradox that has left many of us scratching our heads over the years. A similarly sticky question could be for music industry marketeers to ponder; if an artist writes a song and no one discovers it, how valuable can it be?

This is the rub of where business and art collide. Viewed via this lens, music marketing - the process of promoting and ultimately selling a song or composition to an audience - is an essential imperative for the industry.

Ever since the supposed commodification of music and its growth into a global business, the sales cycle is a vital cog which, in theory at least, keep creatives in credit.

But some, such as music journalist John Tanners, have a cynical take on the tensions between music and money. As he writes, “[Record labels] are marketing-driven sales businesses whose product happens to be music”.

While there’s always been a kind of vague awareness that music marketeers have engaged in slightly underhanded methods of getting music on their roster heard, the recent debate surrounding the viral rise of New York indie success story Geese and their 2025 record Getting Killed has left some feeling incensed at feeling, for want of a better word, duped.

The controversy, highlighted by a widely-shared story by Wired, has focused on a paid marketing campaign by the Chaotic Good agency which involved utilising its network of linked social media accounts to generate an online buzz for the band.

In an investigative Substack piece by Eliza McLamb (the angle of which was later picked up by Wired for their eventual feature), the dynamic was summed up neatly; “If 100 people think your song sucks, Chaotic Good will create 200 people who think your song is awesome.”

Cue frenzied debate across the music world, all grappling with the question of just where the ethical boundaries lay when it comes to promoting music.

Is it ever fair to cultivate audiences via deceptive means?

One thing’s for sure, this certainly isn’t the first time controversy has arisen when revelations around ‘dodgy’ music marketing have come to the fore.

Defenders claim that, without a marketing strategy in place, some of the world’s best music may go unheard. In this context, Geese are working with experts who have an intimate knowledge of how they can cut through the noise of an oversaturated digital world.

When removed from the discourse, a simple question remains; is their music great? Yes, many love it. Critics have hailed them as ‘the new saviours of rock 'n' roll’ and their songwriting and musical talents are unquestionable.

However, naysayers would argue that the tactics of Chaotic Good and their ilk are underhanded. And, well, it's just not a good look for a supposed authentic indie rock band, like Geese.

But, in 2026 the walls between pop and rock, mainstream and underground, feel more flattened than ever. The very notion of ‘selling out’ is now seen as a somewhat antiquated idea.

And, as the defenders will repeatedly stress, these different kinds of marketing practices - some nefarious, others ingenious - have surrounded the music we love for years. Decades in fact. But does that make it alright?

In light of these recent discussions then, we thought we’d look back and highlight some similarly sketchy tactics, where they’ve been deployed throughout music history, and the resulting outrage when they’ve been found out…

1. Alan Freed and the payola scandal

In all kinds of sectors, financial bribes have always fuelled malpractice. The early days of the music business were no different to other industries.

It was back in the 1930s when Variety magazine invented the term, ‘payola’, to describe the concept of record companies offering gifts, favours and cash to orchestra leaders and DJs to give airtime to their releases.

Many of the early rock and roll acts were caught up in this, most infamously through was the extremely popular DJ Alan Freed in the 1950s.

Some say that it was Freed himself who was the first to use the term ‘rock and roll’, thusly, he was one of the most well-known figures to be caught up in the first U.S. Congressional Payola Investigations in 1959.

Chuck Berry’s track Maybellene was frequently championed by Freed during his broadcasts on WINS in New York. Championed for a price, that is, as Freed was gifted a lucrative songwriting credit on the release by way of saying thanks… much to Berry’s surprise.

It transpired this was a pattern that Freed had engaged in with other artists, too.

The DJ was caught out, ultimately blacklisted by broadcasters WABC and WNEW and famously quoted by Billboard magazine on his downfall as saying, “My career has gone down the drain.”

Sadly, that career never recovered. Indicted for tax evasion for unreported earnings which were speculated to be from his payola earnings, Freed became unemployable and ultimately resorted to alcohol. He passed away in 1965 from liver disease at the age of 43.

In the US, government legislation came into force in the form of the 1960 Amendments to the Communication Act which would make engaging in payola-type financial relationships illegal.

More than 20 years after his death, Alan Freed was better remembered for his role in shaping music history, when was acknowledged as he became one of the original inductees to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in his hometown of Cleveland.

2. Are they even a real band?

Prepare to be shocked, but many bands have been put together by shadowy Svengali figures, targeted at specific audiences…

And, well yes, there’s nothing at all controversial about that really is there?

The entire premise of shows like The X-Factor and American Idol based their often unkind structure on the brutal model of the industry.

Today, we also have the illusion of knowing our favourite artists better than ever via their personal social media channels, cultivating a facade of realism for even the most pre-packaged stars.

But in the past, the mechanics of manufacturing were often more shady and covert. The core of sixties pop band, The Monkees, and their associated controversy stems from their fabricated origins.

Put together as an American response to the rise of British export The Beatles, the four men - Micky Dolenz, Davy Jones, Michael Nesmith, and Peter Tork - were initially cast in an NBC sitcom, primarily for their looks and personalities rather than musicianship or songwriting skills.

Their first two albums, 1966’s self-titled debut and the following year’s More of the Monkees, were recorded by a group of legendary session musicians known as The Wrecking Crew.

When the latter was released, Nesmith spoke out, describing it as “probably the worst album in the history of the world”.

He was also quoted as telling a journalist: “I don’t care if we never sell another record … tell the world we don’t record our own music.”

Later of course, The Monkeys DID become a genuinely creative band who would compose their own music, beginning with 1967's Headquarters.

But, it would be a long time before they escaped the widespread perception that they were nothing more than a naff, manufactured conceit.

One of the most notorious examples of artificial pop going big is Milli Vanilli, a project which foregrounded vocalists Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus.

The duo launched their career with All or Nothing in 1988. The record was acquired by Arista in the US, retitled Girl You Know It’s True which was so good, it propelled them to global super-stardom.

After bagging a Grammy for Best New Artist in February 1990, the two men were outed as merely a front for German producer and songwriter, Frank Farian later that year.

He was the creator of disco-pop group Boney M and had discovered Morvan and Pilatus in a Munich club.

According to Los Angeles Times reporter Chuck Phillips, they didn’t even sing a single note on their debut album. They were credited with ‘visual performance’ however, with the real vocals being supplied by professional vocalists.

Once the word got out, they fell from fame, and sadly Pilatus tragically died from an alcohol and drug-related overdose in the nineties.

As Morvan later told Rolling Stone: “It’s like when you watch those mob movies, and the Feds have a chart on the wall with the faces. They go down from the top: ‘You got this dude, he’s the boss, then this guy’s a capo, that guy’s a worker.’ But the journalists never saw that - they just said, ‘Rob and Fab, you’re responsible.’ Nobody wanted to touch the powers that be.”

3. Manipulating the charts

Chart manipulation, also known as ‘chart buying’, has long been a challenge for the music industry to navigate.

During the heyday of physical sales, there were instances of marketing execs, labels and music industry professionals being caught out trying to tip the charts in favour of certain releases.

In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times reported on instances where retailers have attempted to falsify sales in a bid to manipulate the data system used to create the Billboard Top 100.

Elsewhere, label reps have been accused of providing certain stores with free promos, then paying to scan additional copies to push releases into becoming hits.

Here in the streaming age, the fraudulent practice of chart (or at least, statistical) manipulation is frustratingly in rude health.

But things are a little bit different in 2026…

Michael Smith, a 52-year old resident of North Carolina, pleaded guilty to using AI to create hundreds of thousands of songs, then automating programs to stream the songs billions of times across various platforms such as YouTube and Spotify.

“Although the songs and listeners were fake, the millions of dollars Smith stole was real,” stated US attorney Jay Clayton, as quoted by The Guardian. “Millions of dollars in royalties that Smith diverted from real, deserving artists and rights holders. Smith’s brazen scheme is over, as he stands convicted of a federal crime for his AI-assisted fraud.”

But the while the legal deterrent might dissuade similar human-directed schemes, the looming possibility of bots and AI agents eventually engineering a fraud of this nature themselves might result in an unmanageable hellscape of fake music being listened to by fake people, again and again, forever…

While we're not quite there yet, the influx of AI-generated tracks - and their mirrored AI listeners - is increasingly becoming the bane of real musician’s careers, particularly those self-releasing, and trying to get heard in an ocean of often artificial noise.

4. The pianist who wasn't

Classical music might be deemed to be one of the most highbrow genres within the musical world but it has still been susceptible to scandal.

Over her lifetime, British pianist Joyce Hatto was revered as a gifted and prolific pianist, with more than 100 critically-adored classical albums seeing release before she passed away in 2006.

However, an eagle-eared listener noticed that something wasn't quite right in one of her later releases.

It started when they placed a Hatto CD in their computer disc drive, and an online database identified it as the work of another artist. Suspicions were raised.

It was eventually revealed - following an intensive investigation by Gramophone magazine - that these were not her actual recordings.

Instead, Hatto’s husband, William Barrington-Coupe, had taken work by other musicians and made small audio edits to the tracks in a bid to convince customers and critics into thinking these were originally made by his wife, across a stream of CD releases. “If the allegations are true” said a BPI spokesman, as quoted by Time magazine in 2007, "this would be one of the most extraordinary cases of piracy the record industry had ever seen."

After his fraud was discovered, Barrington-Coupe said: “I became adept at this [fraud] and, as all too often happens, gaining in confidence, I took larger portions of ready-made material to ease the editing time. I am desperately unhappy that foolish decisions I made then to make her last months happier have dragged her name into the mire."

The editor of Gramophone, James Inverne was asked by Time why this wasn’t noticed before. He stressed that it’s impossible for everybody to be that familiar with the vast range of interpretations of classical music recorded by various performers. “The art and literary worlds are often hit by accusations of copying," Inverne said. "We've never experienced a scandal like this before."

5. Not quite human, not quite machine

The story of fake artists on streaming services such as Spotify has been rumbling on for the last decade, but has now become an unavoidable reality of the modern ecosystem.

The idea refers to music released by composers under pseudonyms without any social media or online presence in a bid to generate income via inclusion on key playlists.

According to reports, Swedish composer Johan Röhr has released music on Spotify under “50 composer aliases and at least 656 invented artist names”.

His music released via these pseudonymous artist accounts have been streamed approximately 15 billion times, making him one of Spotify’s most popular artists.

“Röhr published music across many different artist profiles and became a pioneer in the mood music space, which is hugely popular today,” said Niklas Brantberg of Overtone Studios, the record label that released his music onto streaming platforms, in an interview with The Guardian.

But is it ethical? “We maintain that diversely talented artists should be able to publish music across different artist names - which is commonplace in the industry - spanning various genres and vibes, with different collaborators, and at different points in their musical journey.”

Well, that’s alright then… isn't it?

As artificial intelligence (AI) advances, the lines between human output and AI’s facsimiles are frequently blurred for publicity or social experiments. Take The Velvet Sundown - one of the most headline-grabbing AI-generated bands of recent times.

This group, billed as ‘Not quite human. Not quite machine’, racked up hundreds of thousands of streams when their first two albums were released in June 2025.

With a bio feeling a little ChatGPT-coded, no real online presence beyond the streaming platforms, and obviously AI-generated imagery representing them, questions were raised with the fictitious band eventually being outed as “a synthetic music project guided by human creative direction”.

“The Velvet Sundown is a multidisciplinary artistic project blending music, analog aesthetics, and speculative storytelling," the ‘band’ officially stated. "While we embrace ambiguity as part of our narrative design, we ask that reporting on us be based on verifiable sources - not fabricated accounts or synthetic media."

As Roberto Neri, chief executive of the Ivors Academy, said: “AI-generated bands like [The] Velvet Sundown that are reaching big audiences without involving human creators raise serious concerns around transparency, authorship and consent.”

As technology continues to evolve, there will clearly be more opportunities - and means - to leverage dubious marketing tactics and strategies to get tracks listened to.

It’s just too tempting for some to not try to exploit these loopholes. Indeed some have even dubbed many of the aforementioned streaming-gaming practices as, fittingly, ‘payola 2.0’.

That being said, the outrage caused by these examples seems to underline that fundamentally, the vast majority of people just want to listen to real musicians, expressing themselves on an equal playing field, where talent and merit are the real barometers of success.

We can dream, can't we.

Join us for our traditional look back at the news and features that floated your boat this year.

We've heard some strange stories in our time, but this one sounds like a tale so long it must surely be made up. Only it's not. Back in 1982, the Musicians Union in the UK, while claiming to be working in the interests of its members, tried to ban the synthesizer and other tech music gear.

That's right: a union working for musicians banned a musical instrument. Well, things were a lot different back then…

In the early 1980s in the UK, the Musician's Union was often in the headlines. In 1981, for example, this most vocal of unions, along with the British Phonographic Industry and Music Publishers’ Association, took an advert out in The Guardian and The Times claiming that “Home Taping is Wiping Out Music”.

These ads were meant to wage war on evil pirates who were using cassettes to record vinyl records, threatening the livelihoods of the music business (which, from memory, seemed to be doing very well for itself at the time).

The problem was that the vast majority of the home taping was done by people like us who were recording vinyl we'd already bought, or making compilation tapes – remember those – for mates who, more often than not, would go onto buy the albums. If anything, home taping was spreading the word and promoting music.

The campaign was, then, essentially a waste of time, and greeted with dismay. Indeed, we also recall another ad aimed at evil home recordists titled 'Home Taping is Killing Music', presumably put out by the same team. But then some clever wag changed it to 'Home Taping is Skill in music'. That was the kids sticking one to the grownups in the '80s.

But in 1982, the MU went even further, again apparently in the interests of its members. The union decided to try and ban synthesizers and drum machines, which it feared were literally taking food out of the mouths of real players.

So how did this ridiculous state of affairs come about? Believe it or not - and we really do believe this - it was all down to crooner extraordinaire Barry Manilow.

Manilow had replaced several orchestral players with synthesisers for a tour – putting synth players in work while taking string players out of work. The MU was furious.

On the 23rd May 1982, Bob Moog’s birthday no less, the organisation passed a motion for an outright ban on synthesisers. In his excellent book, From Club Culture to Style Culture, the Story of the New Romantics, author Dylan Jones summed up what happened.

“By 1982, the synth had become so pervasive. When Barry Manilow toured the UK in January, he used synths to simulate the orchestral sounds of a big band, after which the union passed a motion to ban the use of synths, drum machines and any electronic devices ‘capable of recreating the sounds of conventional musical instruments’.

"They were particularly concerned about the possible effect on West End theatrical productions, imagining orchestra pits full of ‘technicians’ instead of musicians.”

According to MUHistory.com it was never actual MU policy, but an 'executive committee' did pass a resolution to ban synths later that year.

We're not quite sure how the committee intended to police the ban; whether it would merely ban synth players from being in the union or even try and ban the actual selling of synths.

Maybe the union even wanted to make it an offence to own a synth, driving the likes of Howard Jones, The Human League and Gary Numan into a seedy criminal underworld, only able to play in secret speak-easy venues, with audiences only discovering the gigs through whispered conversations with an underground network of Korg, Yamaha and Roland 'dealers'.

OK, we have overactive imaginations – but that would make a great film, wouldn't it?

Whatever they meant it to be, that ban actually being passed now seems like one of the most ridiculous acts in the history of music and technology. While that's easy to say in hindsight, it also riled actual synth players a lot at the time – many of whom were MU members – and they decided to set up an organisation called the Union of Sound Synthesists.

To be fair to the MU – and we're trying to be balanced here – we can see why synths that were trying so hard to imitate 'real' sounds (brass strings and so on) in the early '80s might annoy a musician's body fearing for the livelihood of its members.

But the NME called the MU 'Loonies', and we're not even sure that many orchestra players would have agreed with the ban, mostly because orchestra players tend to have very good hearing.

While the synths in question were trying to copy real instruments, they were absolutely rubbish at it – and orchestra players could probably spot that. Synths were much better at making their own sounds, which thankfully they did, for tracks like this classic from the year in question.

Nor was this the first time the MU had been involved in trying to ban something. The union had tried to stop the use of the Mellotron in the 1960s because of its string playing abilities. And, according to The Guardian the MU even once tried to insist that bands appearing on UK TV show Top Of The Pops would record their backing tracks the afternoon before appearing on the show – to provide proof they could actually play it!

Amazingly, the synth ban apparently stayed in place, although it was hardly enforced. We certainly can't find any reports of synthesizers actually being banned, nor Rick Wakeman and Nick Rhodes being given lengthy prison terms for owning them. Although, again, either of these scenarios would make for a great TV show.

Thankfully, the MU has become a much more welcoming and sensible organisation. In 1997, the body relaxed its anti-technology stance somewhat when it allowed DJs to join – we'll leave you with your own thoughts on that one. In the same year, the pretty ineffectual ban on synthesizers was lifted.

The irony is that this was pretty much the same year that software instruments first started being developed commercially. And if you look at how much they have advanced – orchestral libraries these days are amazing – they could have been seen as more of a threat to musicians than the synthesizer ever was.

Luckily, the MU seemed to miss the rise of the computer in music making - otherwise that could have been for the chopping block, too.

Since the MU's spat with technology, there have been several other run -ns between musicians and studio tech. In 2013, the Guardian ran a story about two high profile film composers complaining that 'synthesized orchestras' were taking over.

Carl Davis (who scored the World at War documentary series) apparently said that synthesised soundtracks lacked "the heart" of symphonic music. He'd clearly not seen Blade Runner, some three decades before.

Christopher Gunning (who wrote the Bafta-winning score for La Vie en Rose) was also quoted in the piece as saying, "A lot of television music has got to the stage where I have to turn it off. I find the music so blooming irritating. Part of that is, I am afraid, the poor quality of the musical composition."

More than a decade on from that, we're at the stage where software is perfectly able to recreate a lot of orchestral content, so where is the MU now? The truth is that hiring a 70-odd piece orchestra was always a costly exercise, and only the biggest budget films and TV shows have ever had the cash to do that, whether that was in the 1980s or now.

Orchestras are also hired – somewhat ironically – to produce the very orchestral libraries that are currently big business in the music technology world. We witnessed one such orchestra recording at Teldex Studios in Berlin for an Orchestral Tools library a few years back, and not one member of that orchestra was complaining about technology putting them out of work.

Of course, you could argue that the MU was right: technology has gone on to replace real musicians in certain areas of the music business. But another way of looking at it is that technology has increase the actual size of that business.

It has levelled the playing field so much that many more people can get involved and actually make music – it's not now just about those who can move a bow in the right way and at the right time; instead, all of us can have a go.

And on the other side of the playing dice, there will always be an audience eager to watch an 80-piece orchestra in full flow, and films with big enough budgets to record them.

Looking back, then, that MU decision seems – to put it politely – a little rash. But whatever you think, please don't tell any Musician's Union that we're in the grip of another technological explosion in music production. You can just see the headlines now: "Loony Tunes! MU bans AI".

The UK Musician's Union is thankfully now a much more welcoming organisation with lots of benefits for musicians and gear of all shapes, sizes and electrical persuasions. You can find out more about the excellent work they do at the organisation's website.

It looks like Spotify has jumped on board the AI music gravy train. It was announced yesterday (21 May) that the Swedish streaming giant has inked a deal with Universal Music that will enable users to create AI covers and remixes of songs from participating artists and songwriters.

The new tool will apparently be a paid add-on for Spotify Premium subscribers and, once tracks have been created, all Spotify users will be able to stream them. However, Spotify has not yet revealed any details about the AI technology that will be used in the new feature, nor mentioned a launch date.

“Solving hard problems for music is what Spotify does, and fan-made covers and remixes are next,” Alex Norström, Spotify’s Co-CEO said in a statement. “What we’re building is grounded in consent, credit, and compensation for the artists and songwriters that take part.

“Through each technological transformation, we have worked together with Sir Lucian (Grainge, chairman of Universal) and his team to evolve the music ecosystem into a richer, more beneficial experience for fans and a more rewarding outcome for artists and songwriters.”

For his part, Grainge said in his statement: “The most valuable innovations in the music business always bring artists and fans closer together. That principle is at the heart of this pioneering AI-enabled superfan initiative, which is designed to support human artistry, deepen fan relationships, and create additional revenue opportunities for artists and songwriters… this initiative is firmly artist-centric, rooted in responsible AI, and will drive growth for the entire ecosystem.”

It's the latest agreement that Universal has struck regarding AI-generated music. Last October it settled its copyright lawsuit against Udio and agreed to collaborate on a licensed AI music creation platform. The idea of this, it seems, was to create a ‘walled garden’ outside of which AI music cannot be downloaded or distributed. A similar approach seems to be behind the Spotify deal.

It should be reiterated that the Spotify system is opt-in and will only be available for songs from artists and songwriters who have specifically agreed to take part. So, whilst it might well generate a whole avalanche of AI slop, at least it would be legal AI slop that the original artists are being paid for.

Record companies were breathing a sigh of relief this week, after the news that a lawsuit about performers’ property rights to the Jimi Hendrix Experience’s albums was defeated in London’s High Court.

The case was focused on the deal Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell had signed in 1966. The relatives of the two musicians, who died in 2003 and 2008 respectively, were arguing that they were owed a slice of the performers' property rights relating to the three Experience albums – Are You Experienced?, Axis: Bold As Love and Electric Ladyland.

As with The Police royalties case earlier this year, this is another lawsuit where a fresh light is shone upon agreements that were signed decades before the advent of streaming, a revenue, ahem, stream that the three Experience members could not have conceived of when they first signed a record contract.

Sony – who these days has custody of the three albums – argued that back then the band signed away the rights to exploit ​the recordings "by ⁠any method now known or hereafter to be known". It also cited the fact that Redding and Mitchell both dropped similar lawsuits in the early 1970s.

Judge Edwin ⁠Johnson ​agreed and ruled in Sony's favour. He dismissed the relatives’ claim, ​saying in a written ruling that the deal Redding and Mitchell signed "was not limited to any ​particular methods for the delivery of music".

Had the Redding and Mitchell estates been successful, it would have opened up a slew of similar lawsuits from relatives of other dead musicians. For the music industry, it very much represents a bullet dodged.

You may have wondering what the Music Venue Trust has been doing with all those £1s it's been saving up from the levy some arena and stadium artists have been placing on their shows.

Well, good as its word, it's announced that it'll be putting the money to good use. Yesterday (27 April) it launched a coordinated programme of infrastructure upgrades for small venues across the country.

The first of what it's promising will be a number of campaigns is the Raise The Standard project, which is focused on improving the essentials that every working venue needs: sound systems, lighting rigs, backline and microphones (ie, the things that actually make a gig work).

In a statement, Beverley Whitrick, Strategic Director of Music Venue Trust, said: “Grassroots music venues cannot keep being expected to survive on goodwill and admiration alone. If the UK music industry is serious about protecting the talent pipeline, then it has to get serious about the economics that underpin it.

“This funding and the initiatives we are delivering are about practical change, lowering costs, improving infrastructure, rebuilding touring and creating a sector that is more resilient, more investable and fit for the future. Our goal is clear; don’t just fund problems, fix them.”

Other initiatives, it says, are in the pipeline. There is Stay The Night, which is designed to make it easier for artists to tour by providing accommodation for them. Announcing this via social media, the MVT said: “ This is about fixing some basic problems. Hotel costs are rising. Touring margins are shrinking. Bands are playing less shows per tour. Too many artists are out there trying to make it work without proper rest or support.”

Meanwhile, there is the Off The Grid programme, which the MVT hopes will ease and ultimately eliminate the long-term energy costs that many small venues face. As well as all this there is the Emergency Response Hardship Fund which targets small venues that are in immediate financial distress.

Last year only 8.8% of arena and stadium shows were signed up to providing the levy, the main refusenik thus far being Live Nation, who as we know is the dominant commercial force in live music all over the world.

The UK government has so far waited for the music industry to do the right thing regarding the levy. With a new King’s Speech due next month, it will interesting to see if it feels the time is finally right to legislate to make it compulsory...

Thomann has announced that during May they will be throwing open their legendary campus in Treppendorf, Germany, for a series of events that “will bring the live event sector to life” and “create an inspiring meeting point for professionals, creators, and tech enthusiasts alike.”

It’s called Live Days and in a statement, accompanying the announcement, Thomann says that: “Renowned manufacturers will be on site to present their own technologies as well as exclusive product launches at dedicated trade show booths, giving visitors the chance to experience innovations and engage with industry experts in person, as well as gain first-hand insights into current trends and solutions in the world of event technology.”

“In addition to traditional exhibition formats, the event offers a wide range of networking and content creation opportunities, with the unique setting of the Thomann Campus providing the ideal environment for participants to expand their knowledge, establish new contacts, and gain creative inspiration.

Aside from the opportunity to buy gear and network, there will also be a number of workshops – both paid and free – training sessions and talks from leading industry figures, including Anselm Görtz, Toni Kern, and Thomas Mundorf.

It runs from May 11 to 30, but within that timeframe, there are a number of what Thomann calls ‘focal topic areas’.

The first week is reserved for training and educational sessions, May 19 to 20 sees the focus move to pro audio, networking, and lighting and on May 22 to 23 on to in-ear technology.

If your particular interest is microphones, mark the dates May 26 to 27, whilst May 29 and 30 is all about loudspeakers, lighting and video technology.

Full Live Days schedule

11–18 May and 21 May: Pre-Live Days with a focus on training
• Training sessions, talks and seminars for pre-registered customers with d&b audiotechnik, L-Acoustics, Truss Academy (Global Truss), t Academy, HKademy, TW Audio, Yamaha, DiGiCo, Avid und ChamSys, MA Lighting, ETC and Obsidian Control Systems

19 and 20 May: Focus on Pro Audio, Networking & Lighting
• Training sessions, talks and seminars for pre-registered consumers, professionals, rental companies and theatre professionals
• Lighting and sound equipment manufacturers in the Expo Area and line array demos at the PA Playground

22 and 23 May: Focus on In-Ears
• Training sessions, talks and seminars for pre-registered consumers, professionals and musicians
• In-ear and accessory manufacturers in the Expo Area

26 and 27 May: Focus on Mics
• Training sessions, talks and seminars for pre-registered consumers, professionals and musicians
• Microphone and accessory manufacturers in the Expo Area

29 and 30 May: Focus on speakers, lighting and video technology
• Training sessions, talks and seminars for pre-registered consumers, professionals and musicians for rental companies, consumers and bands
• Lighting and sound manufacturers in the Expo Area and a large PA system demo at the PA Playground

• Head over to the Thomann website here for more details >>

• To register for Thomann's Live Days head to Eventbrite here >>

Bill Ackman, one of the most well-known investors in America, has made an offer to buy Universal Music Group (UMG) through his hedge fund Pershing Square Capital at a staggering $63bn (£48bn).

UMG is the largest music label globally, with an estimated 31-38% market share and is home to huge stars including Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, Adele, Post Malone, Kendrick Lamar and Drake to name but a few. It’s one of the ‘big three’ major record labels, alongside Sony Music Entertainment (20-25%) and Warner Music Group (15%).

In the past, UMG has made unprecedented acquisitions itself, including a monumental $1.9bn (£1.2bn) takeover of EMI back in 2012. The corporation owns many smaller record labels such as Republic Records, Interscope Records, Columbia, Geffen Records and Def Jam under the UMG umbrella. So it’s perhaps not too surprising that it’s valued in the tens of billions of dollars.

If the deal were to be accepted, it would see UMG sold to Pershing Square Capital for a record $63bn and its stock market listing would also be moved from Amsterdam to New York, where Ackman’s hedge fund also has its headquarters. Shareholders would receive $11bn in cash and 0.77 shares in the new company for every UMG share currently owned.

The company’s share price is clearly very central to the deal. UMG shares, which have been listed in Amsterdam for the past five years, have lost 25% of their value in just the last year alone. Ackman hinted that the poor share price performance was in part due a delay of UMG’s listing in the US, but that its “languishing” share performance was “due to a combination of issues that are unrelated to the performance of its music business and importantly, all of them can be addressed with this transaction.”

Referring to UMG’s current CEO, Sir Lucian Grainge, Ackman said he had done “an excellent job nurturing and continuing to build a world-class artist roster and generating strong business performance”.

One of the most powerful executives in the music industry, Grainge has held the title of CEO at UMG since 2010 and was paid a €4.4m base salary last year with an additional €30m in bonuses.

Universal Music Group issued a statement on Monday saying its board of directors will “review the proposal in accordance with its fiduciary duties and analyze its implications for shareholders, employees, artists, songwriters and other stakeholders.”

“The Board of Directors has complete confidence in UMG’s strategy and the leadership of Sir Lucian Grainge and the Company’s management team,” the company said. “UMG will have no further comment on the proposal until the Board of Directors completes its review.”

The question ‘Is mayonnaise an instrument?’ has beguiled the minds of the greatest thinkers ever since it was first posed by that inimitable starfish Patrick, way back in a 2001 episode of SpongeBob SquarePants. A few days ago, some of Northumbria University’s top minds finally concluded, yes Patrick, it absolutely is.

We know what you’re thinking, ‘Ah - look at the date, this is an obvious April Fool’s gag’, but we’re genuinely reporting hard fact here.

Four of the British university’s professors have come together to explore the ways that mayo could be harnessed as an instrument. Giving a whole new definition to the term 'egghead'.

It's putting academic rigour behind a slightly silly idea which has had a long, viral second life ever since that SpongeBob episode. Becoming a recurring internet meme, TikTok and Instagram Reel creators in particular have been conducting their own research for years.

“Music has always evolved through experimentation,” said Dr Rachael Durkin, the Head of Global Music Technologies at Northumbria University and one of the four co-writers of the report. “When you look at the core principles of how instruments create sound, you realise the possibilities for unconventional materials are endless. Exploring something like mayonnaise isn't just about fun; it challenges our assumptions and invites us to think far more creatively about what music can be.”

In collaboration with leading mayo brand Hellmann’s, the four professors at Norhumbria University have produced an interim report, which breaks down exactly why they’ve agreed that mayo can be an instrument across six distinct categories.

“Organology - the scholarly study of musical instruments - has long recognised that instrument status is not reserved for purpose-built objects,” the report states as part of its breakdown. “What matters is whether an object can produce or modify sound in a controlled, intentional way. Mayonnaise can.”

Further evidence is elaborated upon under various sub-sections which underline that mayo ‘becomes’ an instrument the moment it is played.

Most interestingly, they also highlight that mayo has some distinctive acoustic and material properties, while also citing examples of other out-there, food-based artwork from the likes of Ed Ruscha and Dieter Roth.

“The Hornbostel-Sachs system - the global standard for classifying musical instruments - organises instruments by what vibrates to produce sound. Mayonnaise in a jar, mayonnaise in a squeeze bottle, and mayonnaise without a vessel each behave differently and each maps onto a different part of the classification system. Far from resisting categorisation, mayonnaise turns out to be remarkably versatile: it can be classified in more ways than many conventional instruments.”

In conjunction with this report comes an entirely mayo-constructed track, squeezed, scraped and swirled to life by Andy Arthur Smith. You can hear the results below.

“Seeing people actually make music with mayonnaise and turning it into a real track has been wild. It shouldn’t work, but somehow it does,” Smith said of his collaboration with Hellmann’s. “We’re bringing a new texture to music!”

Perhaps the most interesting point on the report is the fourth, which explores in more detail the niche properties of mayo when applied as an instrument;

“Food science and acoustic research shows that mayonnaise has measurable, reproducible acoustic properties shaped by its physical composition. The sounds it produces are not arbitrary - they are determined by its structure as an emulsion. More remarkably, sound actively changes mayonnaise at a physical level, meaning that playing it alters it. This two-way relationship between object and sound is a hallmark of musical instruments.”

While this is all clearly tied to a fun marketing campaign by the mayo giant, the university report does leave us pondering our assumptions about what qualifies as an ‘instrument’ and where the boundaries between music and just making a squidgy-sounding racket lay…

It’s actually got us thinking quite deeply about what else in our fridge could form the basis of our next track.

Northumbria University’s full report should be published shortly. We’ll life the lid and scrape out the findings as soon as it drops.

If you're as much of a music nerd as we are, then you take pleasure in not only listening to songs, but discovering the stories behind them, the tangled web of creative collaboration and cross-fertilization that led to their existence.

First previewed in November last year following its acquisition of WhoSampled, Spotify's SongDNA feature is designed to do just that. An "immersive music experience" that gives listeners an insight into a song's creative lineage, SongDNA has now rolled out to Premium users worldwide in beta as of yesterday (March 24).

Hit the SongDNA icon in the Spotify app's Now Playing view, and you can now check out a list of the writers, producers, engineers and collaborators that worked on a song, discover the origin of any samples it uses, find out which other songs have sampled or interpolated it and even see which artists have covered it.

An interactive map that links a song to its broader creative context, SongDNA lets you click on a songwriter or producer and see a list of other artists they've worked with, following the connections between tracks to "see how artists, eras and genres intersect".

SongDNA draws on a combination of artist-provided information and community-sourced data from the WhoSampled database. As the feature continues to be developed, artists and labels will be able to review and manage SongDNA information in their Spotify for Artists profile.

SongDNA complements Spotify's existing Song Credits view, which shows you who performed, wrote and produced a song, and the recently launched About The Song feature, which displays story cards for certain songs that reveal "interesting details and behind-the-scenes moments" and explore the meaning behind the music.

“SongDNA is designed to make a song’s creative lineage more transparent so fans can easily explore the people and influences behind the music they love,” said Jacqueline Ankner, Spotify’s Head of Songwriter & Publisher Partnerships.

“By bringing collaborators, samples, and covers together in one place, we’re making it easier for fans to discover new music and see how songs connect and come to life—while giving songwriters, producers, and rightsholders meaningful recognition for the role they play in creating it.”

SongDNA is now rolling out in beta for Premium users globally on iOS and Android devices, and will become available to all Premium users throughout April.

Some good news regarding AI in music. The government has announced that it is dropping plans to let tech firms train their AI models on copyrighted works without artists’ permission.

You may recall that at the end of 2024, the then-new Labour government opened a consultation on copyright and AI. It presented three options, one of which was the government’s preferred outcome of allowing tech firms free rein to train AI copyrighted works, but to only allow artists and musicians an opt-out. When the outcome of the consultation was published last year, an overwhelming majority (88%) backed tighter copyright laws, with a minuscule 3% preferring the opt-in approach.

Anyway, the government appeared to have performed a U-turn on this (as they have on many other issues). In a statement, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall confirmed the decision, saying: “We have listened. We have engaged extensively with creatives, AI firms, industry bodies, unions, academics and AI adopters, and that engagement has shaped our approach. This is why we can confirm today that the Government no longer has a preferred option.”

This will come as some relief to most artists within the music industry.

In a statement, UK Music Chief Executive Tom Kiehl said: “We’re delighted the Government has scrapped what would have been a deeply damaging change to the use of copyrighted works. We urge them to go further and rule out resurrecting this plan throughout their period in office."

“It remains vitally important that the Government does not now consider any kind of alternative copyright exception that would negatively impact creators and rights holders in the music industry.”

He continued: “The 220,000 people in our sector which generates £8 billion for the UK economy should be entitled to work and earn a living without the constant fear that the fruits of their labour could effectively be taken by AI firms without payment or permission."

“We support the Government’s decision to push the reset button on the debate on AI and copyright. This now gives us the opportunity to engage in a more detailed discussion with the Government about key issues such as digital replicas, transparency, labelling and independent creatives.”

The climb down represents a significant victory for the music industry. A number of high-profile artists openly criticised the proposed plans, including Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, Dua Lipa, Kate Bush, Annie Lennox and Damon Albarn: a multi-generational show of strength. A number of these ‘contributed’ to last year’s protest album Is This What We Want?, a collection of silent tracks that drew attention to the possible outcome of unregulated AI.

For the UK government, it’s back to the drawing board. In her statement Kendall said they would indeed be looking at the labelling of AI-generated content, creator control and transparency and the issue of digital replicas among the “next stage” of their work. She said there will be another consultation on the latter this summer.

The vinyl revival still shows no sign of stopping – it’s been reported that US sales of records have topped $1 billion for the first time since 1983.

According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sales of the format totalled $1.04 billion in 2025, with 46.8 million records sold. That’s the nineteenth consecutive year of growth. And also a rise of 7.9% from the 2024 total of 43.4 million.

And guess who is being credited as the figure behind this most recent surge? Yes, that’s right: Taylor Swift.

The Life Of A Showgirl was 2025’s best selling album on vinyl with 1.6 million sales. But then the record did come out in eight vinyl variants including one exclusive for the Target store with unseen photos, a poster and a poem penned by the artist herself. All catnip for the more obsessive Swifties out there.

Swift also worked the CD and cassette markets as well. In fact there were 34 variants of the album for sale in total. Is that exploitative? A discussion for another day, perhaps.

But it wasn’t just Swift. Sabrina Carpenter’s Man’s Best Friend shifted 292,000 copies in vinyl and Kendrick Lamar’s Grammy-winning GNX sold 272,000. Even Carpenter’s 2024 album Short n’ Sweet sold 262,000, a remarkable figure given it had been out for a year at that point.

And it seems that fans are buying vinyl versions of classic albums too: Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours and Thriller by the seemingly un-cancellable Michael Jackson were also amongst the US Top Ten vinyl sellers.

Many industry pundits assumed that the vinyl revival would plateau as prices for the format have risen over time, and the cost-of-living crisis has continued unabated. But in an era when so much of our engagement with music is conducted via a phone screen, it turns out that punters still very much like tangible, tactile, wonderful things. Who’d have thought it?

In a statement, the RIAA Vice President of Research Matt Bass said he welcomed the findings, saying: “Fans are consuming music from the artists they love in more ways than ever, and that passion is reflected in today’s report.”

“U.S. recorded music has demonstrated sustained growth globally, reaching $6.4 billion alone in paid subscriptions and tallying 50% of global vinyl revenue, leading the way for fans to listen and connect with their favourite music whenever, wherever and however they want.”

The USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative has published its annual Inclusion in the Recording Studio study, which examines the representation of women and people of colour in the Billboard Hot 100 Year-End charts as artists, songwriters and producers.

The report's conclusions are troubling, finding that 2025 saw "no progress" for women in music, with a decrease in participation across every single category measured. The percentage of female artists dropped by 1.6% year-on-year to 36.1% in 2025, while the percentage of women credited as producers fell from 5.9% in 2024 to 4.4% in 2025.

The USC Annenberg report also found that more than 90% of 1400 songs evaluated across 11 years did not feature a female producer – in comparison, only seven of those songs did not credit a man in a producing role.

The numbers are even less encouraging when it comes to female representation in songwriting: the percentage of women credited as songwriters decreased from 18.9% in 2024 to 14.5% in 2025, a ratio of 5.8 male songwriters to every one woman.

"There has been no change for women songwriters since we began this research," the report summary reads. "The numbers are going backward and now are not significantly different than the 11% of songwriters in 2012 who were women. Half of the songs on the Hot 100 Billboard Year-End Chart were missing women songwriters entirely. Across 14 years, women held 13.9% of all songwriting credits."

“The lack of women songwriters does more than prevent women from working,” added USC Annenberg's Dr. Stacy L. Smith. “It means that some of our most culturally pervasive ideas and beliefs are crafted by men and exclude women’s creativity and perspective. Of the 1,400 songs we examined, 11 men were credited on 21.7% of those tracks. This gives a very small group incredible influence to shape culture and ideas.”

While the report's findings on gender representation in the music industry are concerning, the overall picture is a little more heartening when it comes to race and ethnicity. Of the 147 artists on 2025's Hot 100 Year-End Chart, 42.2% were white and 57.8% were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. Although that demonstrates a 13.2% increase from the previous year, it's still 3.2% down from 2023, a year in which the percentage of underrepresented artists in the Hot 100 peaked at 61%.

On the surface, it's easy to assume that female representation in the music industry is stronger than it really is: we live in an era dominated by hugely successful female popstars like Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish, producers like PinkPantheress are being recognized at the BRIT Awards, and songwriters such as Amy Allen are penning Grammy-winning tunes for the likes of Harry Styles and Sabrina Carpenter.

But, as the USC Annenberg report makes clear, the reality is much bleaker, and there's still much more to be done. "Change can be created by viewing each song as a means of improving the trends reported here," the study concludes.

"Over half of songs are missing women songwriters, and more than half are without women producers. Changing the constellation of personnel working in the recording studio is a significant step toward changing the industry. To do this, it means the industry must evaluate a variety of factors and find a new path forward.

"This includes who participates in songwriting camps, who is identified to work with talent, and whether artists are given the chance to work with women. However, by viewing each song as a way to create long term change, executives, managers, and artists can begin to take the steps needed to ensure an inclusive industry."

The UK's Creative Industries Minister has called on Live Nation to “step up” and help Britain’s ailing grassroots music scene by paying into the arena and stadium levy, and said that a failure to do so will force the government to make it mandatory.

The minister Ian Murray was speaking to NME about the levy – a £1 surcharge on tickets for arena and stadium gigs that goes back to supporting grassroots venues. It is needed because of the ongoing crisis in UK live music, which we’re sure you’re all aware of – in the year to July 2025, we lost 30 grassroots venues in the UK and 6,000 jobs, with half of the venues that remain surviving on zero profit.

So far, the £1 levy is voluntary. The plan was that half of arena and stadium gigs would be paying it by the end of 2025, but in the end, that target was missed. The deadline has been extended to the end of June 2026 and many in the industry, including the Music Venue Trust CEO Mark Davyd, have blamed the failure to reach the target on Live Nation.

“It is clear that there is more to do,” Murray said. “At present, only 30 per cent of tickets for 2026 shows are currently supporting the voluntary ticket contribution. More major venues, tour operators, agents and artists need to step up. In particular, while several major promoters have thrown their unequivocal support behind the Trust, a small number have not.”

“Live Nation, given its hugely influential position in the market, could make a major positive impact if it changes its stance. I urge them to reconsider and step up to help the next generation of talent. The government has consistently said that we are prepared to explore legislative options to ensure the sustainability of our world-leading live music industry, and I would reiterate this message to those promoters who can make a real difference.”

It adds to the pressure on the music industry giant. Speaking at the launch of the Music Venue Trust’s annual report, Mark Davyd praised those live music platforms that have supported the levy, but said: “Live Nation, you know, and the whole industry knows, you are not. If the voluntary levy fails, it will not be the fault of the companies who have already embraced it, or Music Venue Trust, or the government, or any will to do it on behalf of individuals, artists, managers, agents, audiences or anyone else.

“It will be a direct consequence of the overwhelmingly dominant force in the arena and stadium market deciding not to deliver a voluntary levy. That’s your choice, Live Nation, and everyone in the industry hopes you make the right one.”

A new study has found that the number of road traffic accidents increases on days that a major album has been released.

The paper - entitled Smartphones, Online Music Streaming and Traffic Fatalities - has been produced by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the US, with research being conducted by a team from Harvard Medical School.

How did they do that, we hear you ask? Well, Spotify streaming data, you see. Looking at the period between 2017 and 2022, on days of major album releases, smartphone use rocketed by 40%. But so did traffic fatalities – by 15%.

The presumption is that some drivers get so caught up in hearing their favourite artist’s new album that their attention wanders and they make mistakes at the wheel. This theory does have a certain logic behind it.

But Friday is also the start of the weekend and a far busier time on the roads than earlier in the week anyway. The study, sadly, was not able to look back more than a decade. It was only in 2015 that release dates for new music were synched up around the globe. Prior to that, they varied from territory to territory. In the US, Tuesdays were the day to look forward to. In the UK, it was Monday.

(Incidentally, if you want to blame someone for this dull homogeny, then look no further than Beyonce. She released her self titled album on Friday 13 December 2013 reputedly because she wanted her fans to listen to it over that weekend, after which the music industry gradually began to shift its release dates as a result.)

Anyway, the study also found that fatalities were also more likely on days with good weather, perhaps because drivers are less likely to concentrate than if it’s raining. Also deaths were higher among single occupant vehicles on release days. Presumably because they had no passengers to fiddle about with the stereo.

So the message is… drive especially carefully on Fridays, kids. You can have a look at the Smartphones, Online Music Streaming and Traffic Fatalities paper by clicking here.

It's perhaps the most criticised player in the modern music ecosystem, but also its most central. Today, the world's biggest streaming platform, Spotify has redoubled its efforts to dampen claims that its payouts to artists have been unsustainably small.

In the latest Loud & Clear report, the streaming giant has emphasised a few key areas where it, you might be surprised to learn, has massively increased the proportion of royalties paid out to a wider array of artists and rights-holders.

Spotify’s Loud & Clear reporting began back in 2021, as a way of demystifying the way its royalties and payouts are actually allocated - and stressing Spotify’s central position in the global streaming economy.

Some have criticised Spotify’s previous Loud & Clear reports, arguing that the numbers provided headline figures and overall growth which actually buried the day-to-day struggles (and typical returns) of being an artist in the streaming eco-system. Loud & Clear, some say, has been more of a PR exercise than a genuine attempt to really dig into the granular detail that makes up most artists' true experience.

That being said - and taken at face value - the numbers provided by Spotify in the report are undeniably impressive, and do much to build a more agreeable perception of the company as being concerned about widening economic distribution.

We've yet to fully scrutinise, but on paper these metrics certainly paint a picture of genuine progress in terms of making sure more genuine rights holders (including artists) are rewarded.

The key headlines from the new report are listed below, with Spotify’s own claims quoted beneath:

1. More artists making at least $100,000 a year
“In 2025, there were more than 13,800 artists who generated at least $100,000 a year from Spotify alone - nearly 1,400 more than last year.”

2. More millionaires
“A decade ago, the very top artist on Spotify reached $10 million in annual royalties for the first time. Today, the 80 top artists each generate over $10 million annually from Spotify alone.”

3. 50% more international listeners
“Only two years after debuting, artists already see more than half of their royalties coming from outside of their home countries, on average.”

4. More language variation
“Today’s biggest hits speak more languages than ever. In 2025, songs in 16 different languages reached Spotify’s Global Top 50 - more than double the number in 2020.”

5. The growth of the ‘100,000th’ artist
“In 2025, the 100,000th highest-earning artist generated more than $7,300 in royalties from Spotify alone. In 2015, the artist in that same position generated about $350. That’s more than a twentyfold increase in just a decade.”

6. Fresh Finds aiding financial rewards for artists
“More than 1 in 10 artists generating over $100,000 annually on Spotify today were first playlisted on Fresh Finds. That’s more than 1,600 artists who Spotify helped break early, and who have since gone on to build six-figure careers.”

7. More DIY artists finding success
“In 2025, more than a third of artists generating $10K or more in royalties from Spotify were DIY or started their careers as DIY (meaning they self-release their music through independent distributors)”

8. Spotify is the highest-paying retailer globally
"For another year, Spotify was the highest-paying retailer globally - paying the music industry more than $11 billion in 2025. This brings total lifetime payouts to nearly $70 billion."

9. $1.5 Billion in ticket sales
“By the first half of 2025, Spotify had driven $1 billion in gross concert ticket sales for artists. That total has now exceeded $1.5 billion.”

10. More songwriter payouts
“2025 marked the largest annual music publishing payout in Spotify’s history. Over the past two years alone, Spotify paid approximately $5 billion to the publishers and organizations representing songwriters”.

One aspect that we were somewhat surprised wasn't mentioned was Spotify's efforts to tackle the scourge of AI artists flooding the platform, and the contributing issue of botted playlists artificially inflating stats and chart positions.

Despite it not being a factor in these headline Loud & Clear stats, Spotify has been cracking down on bots, hitting hard at streams that ‘don’t reflect genuine user listening intent’ and trying its best to prevent botted listens from contributing towards royalty payments or chart positions.

With regard to AI music, Spotify has recently began paying more attention to impersonation violations (AI voice clones etc) and a new ‘spam filtering system’ that cracks down on mass uploaders.

It has also enabled users to disclose that they’re using AI on their tracks with industry-standard credits. Whether these moves will ultimately lead to a reduction in AI-generated tracks on the platform - and a more human-weighted landscape - remains to be seen.

You can read the full Loud & Clear 2026 report here

In the latest skirmish between big tech and the music industry, video game platform Steam is being sued by PRS, the UK's music rights collection authority, for using music without a licence.

It’s an action that has been a long time coming. Since launching in 2003, Valve has never obtained a licence for its use of rights-managed music. They’ve had plenty of time to sort it out.

Valve - Steam's owner - is a big player in the video games market. Its digital distribution service encompasses 75% of the PC gaming market, with 147 million monthly user and over 120,000 games.

Many of those are some of the biggest video games of all time – including the FIFA/ EA FC series and Grand Theft Auto, which you'll know, even if you are casually acquainted with the gaming world, feature a significant presence of music.

The PRS has said that they have made efforts across “many years” to come to an agreement with the games platform similar to the ones they have in place with Sony Interactive Gaming and Microsoft Gaming, despite the alleged absence of “appropriate engagement from Valve.”

They’ve confirmed that the legal action will go ahead “unless Valve Corporation engages positively with discussions and takes the necessary license to cover the use of PRS repertoire, both retrospectively and moving forwards.”

Dan Gopal, the Chief Commercial Officer of PRS For Music said in a statement: “Our members create music that enhances experiences and PRS exists to protect the value of their work with integrity, transparency, and fairness.

Legal proceedings are not a step we take lightly, but when a business’s actions undermine those principles, we have a duty to act. Great video games rely on great soundtracks, and the songwriters and creators behind them deserve to have their contribution recognised and fairly valued.”

It’s been reported that there has been a settlement in the US Justice Department’s action against Live Nation that could have resulted in the company being broken up under antitrust laws.

The Politico website has broken the story, which suggests that the deal – which is expected to be announced today (March 9) – involves Live Nation having to make a number of comprises in the form of changes to their business.

One of them is that Ticketmaster (which is owned by Live Nation) will be required to open up its platform to rival ticketing companies and allow third-party sellers such as Eventbrite to list tickets directly through Ticketmaster’s technology.

The deal will also place limits on the long-term exclusivity contracts that Ticketmaster has historically used to lock venues into its system. Henceforth, those agreements will be cut to four years and venues will be allowed to allocate a portion of their tickets to competing platforms. Live Nation will also be required to divest of “more than” 10 amphitheatres which they own.

So whilst this isn’t quite the fall of the house of Live Nation many were licking their lips at in anticipation, it does constitute a clipping of its wings.

“This will revolutionise the ticketing marketplace,” said one of Politico’s anonymous sources. “These are innovative technological solutions to a very difficult problem with prying open the marketplace.”

Live Nation will also be required to pay millions of dollars in damages to the US states that joined the Justice Department in suing the company in 2024, a joint action that was in the range of $200 million - $300 million. The Department argued the company has gradually built an illegal monopoly over its control of ticketing, venues and artist promotion which it used to squeeze competitors and ultimately drive up prices for artists and fans.

The deal will still require signing off by a federal judge, and even if it receives the go-ahead, it doesn’t mean the end of the legal action. A number of state attorneys general have said they plan to continue their suits even if the government reaches a settlement.

Indeed, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James confirmed as such in a statement, saying: “We will keep fighting this case without the federal government, so that we can secure justice for all those harmed by Live Nation’s monopoly.”

Marshall has launched a membership scheme to raise funds to support grassroots music venues.

Sign up to the Amplify initiative, and the British guitar amp giant will donate 1 per cent of your order on its official web store to partner venues.

Amplify members get a number of benefits, including free shipping on all orders, plus priority support on customer service and early access to limited run launches and special offers. Marshall CEO Jeremy de Maillard described the Amplify scheme as a long-term model to support partner venues.

“For over 60 years, Marshall amplified live music, from local independent venues to the world’s biggest stages” says de Maillard. “Small venues are where the next generation of musicians turn first time listeners into lifelong fans. Through Amplify, Marshall is building a long-term model to support the future of live music.”

The scheme arrives at a time when grassroots music venues are struggling. In the UK, the Music Venue Trust’s annual report made for stark reading, describing the sector as “fragile” and just “one shock away from a crisis” – and independent venues face similar challenges across the world.

In the US, the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA) says rising costs, such as artist fees, insurance and rent, are “eroding already razor-thin margins” and pushing many small venues to the brink at a time when ticket revenues are being threatened from “forced ticket transferability, unchecked secondary resale, and unfair platform practices”. Income from beverage and alcohol sales are “under pressure” too.

“When both of these primary revenue streams are squeezed, there’s no backup plan,” read NIVA’s 2025 report on the independent live sector.

Marshall says it will support grassroots venues by funding live events, providing backline and by establishing long-term partnerships, with partner venues selected for their contribution to local music communities and emerging artists.

“Independent venues aren’t just part of music history - they’re where the future is written,” says Nick Street, CMO, Marshall. “Amplify is how we connect our community more closely to that future. As Marshall grows, grassroots music will grow with us.”

• “Marshall has knocked it out of the park with this one”: Marshall Studio JTM ST20H 20W head & ST212 cab review

Supersonic, in Paris, is one of Marshall’s grassroots partners. Its comms director, Cecilia Sparano, says its partnership with Marshall provides “genuine support for the fragile economy” of small venues, and is vital for the Parisian venues festival programming.

“This partnership represents genuine support for the fragile economy of small concert venues,” says Cecilia Sparano, communication director, Supersonic. “It plays a key role in allowing festivals such as Supersonic’s Block Party and They’re Gonna Be Big to continue to exist. It is a real pleasure to work with a brand that truly respects our DNA and places full trust in us when it comes to both the actions we lead and the programming we curate.”

Amplify is free to join – and you can sign up over at Marshall.

Have you ever bought anything from Thomann? Do you have an interesting or inspiring story about that instrument you bought? If so, you might be interested in a promotion that the German retailer is running.

They’re calling it the Thomann Customer Stories campaign. Apparently, they’re searching for “the most emotional, powerful, and extraordinary real-life experiences from musicians - stories that truly move people and spark inspiration.”

It could be anything. In a statement launching the campaign, they suggest: “Maybe music helped you overcome a major challenge, brought your family closer together, or led you to craft a completely unexpected sound?”

“Stories from across Europe already show just how transformative music can be - from a blind multi-instrumentalist who turned his home into a recording studio, to a drummer who picked up the sticks again after 20 years and positively influenced the course of his Parkinson’s disease.”

They continue: “Maybe someone is recording icebergs in the Arctic? Maybe you play music for animals at a sanctuary? Maybe you found a way to play despite physical limitations? We want to find the hidden musical magic across Europe.”

You get the idea. It’s moving, inspirational stuff they’re after.

Those musicians whose stories fit the bill will be filmed and recorded and become part of the Thomann Customer Stories campaign, which launches in June across all of the firm’s media channels.

And what’s in it for you? Well, anyone who’s filmed will receive a €1,000 Thomann voucher as well as an invitation to a ‘special, one-of-a-kind’ event at Thomann later this year. In addition to this, another 20 entrants will be randomly selected to receive a €50 voucher.

Submissions should include a short description of the music story as well as a photo. You might want to add a short video. That’s not essential, but Thomann say that it gives “a better sense of the participants”.

There doesn’t appear to be a hard deadline to get submissions in: February/ March, according to Thomann. So don’t leave it too late.

To enter, head over to the Thomann blog here.

Reaction to Amazon MGM's Melania documentary has certainly been divisive – it currently holds a critics’ rating of 11% on Rotten Tomatoes, but an audience rating of 98% – and that sense of polarisation was also evident during production, when producers were sourcing music for the film.

After Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood claimed that he wasn’t consulted about the documentary’s use of a portion of his score from Phantom Thread, the 2017 movie that was directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, Melania producer Marc Beckman – who’s worked with Melania Trump for more than two decades – has been speaking to Variety and giving his account of what happened both in that case, and those of several other artists.

Beckman insists that he and the rest of the Melania crew created “a nice film that doesn’t get into any kind of political policy or anything like that,” but accepts that others might take a different view. He’s satisfied, though, that all the music rights issues were handled correctly.

Discussing the Jonny Greenwood/Phantom Thread issue, he says: “We work with the best lawyers; this is Melania Trump. We spent top dollars for all that music, and we’re thrilled to have that song included in the film. If they’re trying to distance themselves from us, for political reasons, that’s just unfortunate. But, honestly, I’ll still remain a fan and listen to [Radiohead’s] music every single day.”

Beckman says that Trump herself chose all the music for the film, but admits that not every request for usage was accommodated.

“For example, the guys from Guns N’ Roses split down the middle politically,” he claims. “There was a beautiful song we wanted to use, and one of the guys – I don’t want to name, it’s not fair – said, ‘You got it. Go.’ And the other one was basically like, ‘There’s just no way.’ We needed everybody’s approval to get it in the film.”

Grace Jones was another artist who refused permission for her music to be used – “She apparently couldn’t get over the political hurdle, notwithstanding the fact that the film is not a political film,” says Beckman – and then there was the music from Prince’s catalogue.

The complex approval route that needs to be navigated if you want to use Prince’s music in a film or TV project was highlighted earlier this year when The Duffer Brothers wanted to incorporate two songs from the Purple Rain album in the finale of Stranger Things (permission was granted in the end), but in this case, Beckman claims that he fell at the final hurdle.

“I think Prince sold the rights to Primary Wave [Primary Wave actually acquired a stake in the Prince estate in 2021, more than five years after Prince’s death], and the Primary Wave guys were like, ‘Oh yeah, we’d be happy to go ahead and give you guys the rights to this Prince song.’ But in that instance, it’s my understanding that the deal was such that the estate now needs to approve what Primary Wave does with it.”

“Literally we were ready to go, and this lawyer that manages the estate was like, ‘Prince would never want his song associated with Donald Trump.’ And we’re like, ‘But it’s not a Donald Trump film! He comes into the movie once in a while, but this is all about Melania. It’s not political.’ And that guy blocked it. It’s so ridiculous.”

Variety says that representatives of both Guns N’ Roses and the Prince estate were contacted but didn’t provide comment on Beckman’s claims.

Despite these disappointments, Melania does also have some undeniable musical wins – the use of The Rolling Stones’ Gimme Shelter at the start, for example. It’s worth noting that the rights to this are owned by ABKCO, so the band would have had no control over its usage, but Beckman claims that Mick Jagger “was actually involved” and “gave his blessing”.

Representatives for the Stones told Variety that they “couldn’t speak directly to Beckman’s account of the group’s approval.”

An instrumental version of Tears for Fears’ Everybody Wants to Rule the World is also included; in this case, Beckman denies that the lyrics were removed because there could be an implication that Melania’s husband has some kind of ‘king complex’.

Beckman also claims that the Melania team spoke to “a lot of the classic rock artists that were true freedom fighters in the ‘60s,” who would have been happy to let their music be used but had permission blocked by rights holders. None of these artists are named.

Having previously put in the hands of users from the US and Canada, Spotify is now rolling out its Prompted Playlists feature in the UK and Ireland.

This enables you to create custom playlists from text prompts, and could be viewed as Spotify’s attempt to address concerns that, increasingly, its algorithm is dictating what people listen to. Instead, says the company, “it’s a new way to put meaningful control of the algorithm directly in your hands, with your ideas, your logic, and your creativity.”

Prompted Playlists are based not only on “real-time information about the world of music” (trends and charts, for example), but also – gulp – your entire listening, which may lead you to discover that your tastes aren’t quite as ‘credible’ as you thought they were.

Trying to find your ‘most-played’ songs at certain times in history might also highlight another problem: if you often have Spotify’s ‘functional playlists’ on in the background (for studying and sleeping, for example), you’ll quickly realise that some of the tracks on these are the ones you’ve listened to more than any other, despite the fact that you don’t even know what they’re called.

In this case, you might have to think a little bit harder about the kind of prompts you’ve giving, as just asking for lists of favourites probably won’t give you the results you were hoping for.

As you’d expect, you can use the new feature to create broad ‘mood’ playlists, but you can also be more granular in your approach. You could, for example, use a Prompted Playlist as the starting point for a DJ set – both BPM and key information is accessible, making it possible (in theory, at least) to find collections of songs that will work well together.

We’ve tried this and have to say that the results have been hit and miss so far – some of the supposedly ‘mix-friendly’ Prompted Playlists we’ve generated would probably lead to a very odd atmosphere at a house party – but the good news is that prompts can be edited at any time. You can also set Prompted Playlists to update automatically (either daily or weekly) so that the same prompt will keep delivering you fresh results.

“We hear from listeners all the time that they love playlists, but making their own can feel daunting,” says Sulinna Ong, Global Head of Editorial at Spotify. “Our editors spend a lot of time thoughtfully curating playlists, and that level of intention can be hard to replicate when you’re starting from scratch. Prompted Playlist offers a more intuitive entry point, letting users begin with moods, moments, or ideas in their own words, and build something that feels personal.”

Currently in beta, the Prompted Playlist feature can be accessed via the Create option in Spotify. Find out more in Spotify’s blog post.

If you live in the UK, you will have doubtless heard much about the death of the British club scene and dire warnings about the future of the night-time economy. However, a new report into UK electronic music has revealed a much more nuanced picture.

The Fourth Electronic Music Report has been produced by the Night Time Industries Association and uncovers some interesting stats. Whilst UK clubs are undeniably struggling – since March 2020 we’ve lost 36% of our nightclubs, leaving just 823 in the whole of Britain – electronic music as a whole in the UK generated £2.47 billion in measurable economic activity in 2025, a rise of 3% on 2024.

In terms of the actual music, the UK continues to be one of the most influential countries in the world. It ranks second in the world for electronic artist development, with 13 of the global Top 100 DJs and 72 in the Top 500 and 11% of the global electronic music creators.

Breaking that down within genres, the UK has 30.5% of drum n’ bass artists and 14.7% of dubstep producers. Britain’s dance music exports account for some £86.8 million, an increase of 8% from 2024 and a cause for some cheer considering the increases in cost and red tape that Brexit has produced.

That’s the good news. Against that, clubs – traditionally the laboratories for dance music – are in difficulty. Just 15% of UK venues could now be described as ‘mid-range’, the crucial 500 – 2,500 capacity clubs. Below those, grassroots venues are operating on shoestrings – their average profit margin is just 0.48% - with their operators taking home an average £26,000 whilst working 60+ hour weeks. The super-club era of the 1990s seems a long time ago.

But people still want to dance. The survey has picked up a significant increase in free parties – a rise of 34% since 2024, with more events taking place in cafes, art galleries and record shops. Free events now account for 15% of all electronic music programming.

And the North is leading the way in this. For the first time since the survey began, a majority (51%) of dance music events take place outside London. The Northern region has seen an overall increase of 93% between 2022 and 2025, with events in Newcastle growing 72% between 2024 and 2025 alone.

In a statement about the survey, Michael Kill, CEO of the Night Time Industries Association said: “Electronic music remains one of the UK’s most powerful cultural and economic assets, but the domestic ecosystem that sustains it is now in crisis.

“We are seeing free parties rise, mid-tier venues disappear and audiences pushed out of licensed spaces - not because demand is falling, but because the sector is being squeezed by sustained economic pressure.”

He continued: “At the same time... this report shows extraordinary resilience, but resilience is not a policy. Without urgent reform - from VAT alignment and business rates relief to meaningful planning protections - we risk dismantling the very foundations that made the UK a global leader.”

Some new research published by Live DMA, a Europe-wide network that represents promoters and live music stakeholders, has revealed the grip just four companies have on European live music.

Those four are Live Nation (surprise, surprise), AEG, CTS Eventim and Superstruct Entertainment Together, they apparently control 150 of the continent’s largest festivals. Of those, Live Nation is the dominant player, controlling some 120 European subsidiaries and with a turnover of $16.7 billion. Superstruct controls more than 80 festivals across 10 countries and CTS Eventim has generated $1.9 billion across more than 20 countries.

The research also shows that the big four are tightening their grip. Between 2022 and 2025 the number of festivals linked to Live Nation increased from 74 to 78, and to CTS Eventim from 42 to 51. Meanwhile, both AEG and Superstruct almost or succeeded in doubling their share, increasing from 5 to 10 and 34 to 63, respectively.

And of course, a crucial factor in this control has been ticketing. "Ticketing appears as another key node in this configuration,” Live DMA explains. “Several major live music groups also control or operate large ticketing platforms, raising questions already documented in policy and market analyses regarding speculative resale, high-demand events, and access.”

Then there is the increasing tendency of the big four to own the venues as well. AEG owns London’s O2 Arena and Berlin’s Mercedes-Benz Arena and the much-loved Hammersmith Odeon hasn’t been the official name of the Hammersmith Odeon for years. It’s now the Eventim Apollo.

Live DMA said in a statement that whilst their research does not claim to be “exhaustive...(it) makes visible a reality that has long been overlooked. They invite institutions, professionals, and citizens to ask a simple question: when we buy a ticket for a festival or a concert, who do we really support, and what kind of ecosystem do we want for live music in Europe?”

That, really, is something for Europe’s policy makers to get to grips with. Reacting to the research, Emma Rafowicz, the MEP and Vice Chair of the Committee on Culture and Education said in a statement: "More than ever, the growing concentration in the live music ecosystem, highlighted by this new map and study, threatens cultural diversity and the independence of artists and producers."

"Europe must take action by limiting vertical integration, separating activities across the value chain, and restricting the ownership of multiple events within the same country or across Europe single operator.”

The research can be found on the Reset Network website here.

Campaigners are trying to change the law so that artists’ lyrics cannot be used against them in a court of law.

At present, this is the case, and indeed, there have been incidents where drill artists have had their own words or even appearances in videos used as evidence that they are affiliated to a particular gang.

So a group calling themselves Art Not Evidence is arguing for an amendment to the Victims and Courts bill, which is currently making its way through parliament, that would prevent police from being able to present lyrics as evidence except when they are “literal, rather than figurative or fictional”.

In a statement, Baroness Shami Chakrabarti, who is tabling the amendment, said: “We’re in a ridiculous position at present where somebody’s musical taste is somehow probative of their criminal intent. It is like saying that my love of Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather makes me a mobster. It’s extraordinary.”

It also makes no allowances for the idea that often an artist is adopting a persona in a song, or that they might be presenting an exaggerated version of themselves, often blown up to ridiculous proportions.

Take, for example, Snoop Dogg’s Drop It Like It’s Hot, in which the now-cuddly 50-something rapper says ‘I’m a gangsta/ but you knew that’ before affirming his allegiance to LA’s Crips gang. At the time of release in 2004, Snoop had been a major recording artist for over a decade, rather than an, ahem, ‘gangsta’.

Anyway, the Art Not Evidence group has sent an open letter to Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, arguing: “These creative expressions have no connection to the serious crimes alleged, and are used to paint a misleading and prejudicial picture, conflating art with evidence.”

Chakrabarti also said they wanted to end the practice of ‘independent' witnesses with little or no knowledge of the music in question being used in such cases. She said that often they amounted to “retired police officers enjoying a nice little side hustle as independent experts on rap and drill, which is where something that is abusive becomes positively absurd.”

For their part, the Crown Prosecution Service has said that it “has never prosecuted anybody solely on the basis of their involvement with drill/rap music” but that “drill/rap music may be of specific relevance to the case against a suspect, in which case it may be used as evidence.”

It’s known that between 2020 and 2023 there have been more than 70 criminal trials in which lyrics, videos and audio recordings have been used to police and prosecutors.

There’s a well-established part of the popular music canon that mythologises the ’27 Club’. That oddly numerically-aligned group of famous artists who all died at age 27.

Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain and Amy Winehouse all passed away at that particular age. While scientific research has disproven that 27 is in any way a statistically relevant age for the passing of musicians, the notion of ‘live fast, die young’ is persistent.

Musicians and other music professionals may not be statistically dying at that specific same age, but it does transpire that they are at an increased danger of an early death, with one study finding American musicians’ lifespans 25 years shorter on average than the general population. Alarming stuff.

Neil Young once sang that it’s better to ‘burn out’ than to ‘fade away,’ but this actually may be happening to musicians more frequently than they realise.

According to research, musicians are dying statistically earlier than the rest of society. An Australian study done in 2016 (titled, Life expectancy and cause of death in popular musicians: Is the popular musician lifestyle the road to ruin?) seemed to show that musicians who’ve attained popularity have shortened life expectancy.

Furthermore, it showed that overall mortality rates were twice as high compared with the population when averaged over the whole age range.

Interestingly, it found that mortality impacts differed by music genre, with excess suicides and liver-related disease observed in country, metal, and rock musicians, and - startlingly - excess homicides seen in six of the 14 genres, in particular hip-hop and rap musicians.

“This is clear evidence that all is not well in pop-music land,” said the author Dianna Kenny of the University of Sydney in The National, with findings indicating that American musicians die up to 25 years earlier than the general population based on seven decades of death records from 1950 to 2014.

Another study looked at mortality across a wider variety of musicians, including not just singers but also classical musicians and conductors. It found that rock musicians on average lived shorter lives than classical musicians.

The science is in: musicians tend to live less than the general population. But just what is it about musicians in particular that leads so often to an early grave.

MusiCares is an affiliate of The Recording Academy, the organisation that gives out the Grammy Awards, and supports music professionals with health and welfare needs. According to the organisation’s 2024 Wellness In Music survey, limited access to preventative healthcare services remains a major hurdle for those in the industry in the United States.

While 87 percent of survey respondents reported having health insurance (a figure close to the 93 percent national coverage rate), only about half have dental insurance because of the extra cost involved.

“Because so many music professionals work freelance or gig-to-gig,” says Theresa Wolters, MusiCares’ Executive Director, “access to comprehensive employer-sponsored healthcare is limited. Many do have insurance, but it’s often catastrophic or bare-bones coverage that doesn’t fully support ongoing or preventive care, such as dental, vision, or mental health services.”

This can cause music professionals to put off treatment until it becomes a major issue, which can lead to severe impacts on health.

For example, according to the survey data, 70 percent of people aged 45 and over missed recommended colonoscopy screenings, and 62 percent of female respondents aged 24 and older went without cervical cancer screenings.

“Music professionals are not accessing preventive health care and treatment services at the same rate as the general public,” continues Theresa. “Data from our Wellness in Music survey shows that 40-70 percent of people in music are not accessing routine, preventive care.”

Another issue that ties into the difficulties faced by music professionals is financial insecurity.

“Financial instability is deeply tied to the gig-based nature of the music industry,” explains Theresa. “Many music professionals rely on freelance or project-to-project work, which can be unpredictable even in the best of times. Work in music is also incredibly physically demanding for many roles, and vulnerable to so many elements that can affect a gig happening. For example, if the lead artist or a key member of the band gets COVID, that can result in the cancellation of a gig affecting dozens of individuals. Missing even one pay-check can mean missing rent, utilities, or access to basic necessities.”

More than just the loss of a pay-check, though, financial instability can have grave health consequences. “Financial instability and health are deeply interconnected,” notes Theresa. “Our survey data shows that 30-40 percent of music professionals attribute their stress and anxiety to financial issues. Chronic financial stress can significantly impact mental health, increasing anxiety, depression, and feelings of hopelessness. Over time, that mental strain can manifest physically, affecting sleep, immune health, cardiovascular health, and overall well-being.”

Particularly alarming is the prevalence of suicide within the industry. Kurt Cobain, Avicii and Ian Curtis of Joy Division are just three high-profile instances of musicians who took their own lives.

According to MusicCares’ survey, 8.3 percent of their respondents had serious thoughts of suicide in the previous year, a figure that is unfortunately higher than the 5 percent rate among the general population.

“The music industry can be incredibly rewarding, but it can also be isolating and emotionally demanding,” explains Theresa as to why this might be the case. “Music professionals often face intense pressure, irregular schedules, and long periods away from support systems, all while navigating financial uncertainty. When those stressors accumulate without adequate support, they can significantly impact mental health. What the survey underscores is not a lack of resilience, but a lack of systemic support.”

Academic research has also shown that suicide rates are high among music professionals. In fact, according to a 2025 study, musicians, actors, and entertainers rank among the five occupational groups with highest suicide mortality in the United Kingdom.

“The statistics are alarming - shocking,” said study co-author Dr George Musgrave in the Guardian. A sociologist at Goldsmiths, University of London. “The rates of suicide among musicians … paints a picture of a music industry which is demonstrably unsafe. No other industry would tolerate this level of loss of life and neither should we.”

The study also found high rates in the United States, with the arts, design, entertainment, sports and media category, which includes musicians, having the highest female suicide rate of any occupation group in 2012, 2015 and 2021. Men in the same category had the third highest rate, at 138.7 per 100,000 population, a figure that is almost 10 times higher than the national average.

“Multiple occupational and psychosocial stressors characteristic of music careers warrant examination,” says the study, “including exploitative industry practices, financial instability, heightened social media exposure, performance-related anxiety, internal achievement pressure, and irregular sleep patterns.”

Substance abuse has been an undeniable factor in a great many early deaths of many high-profile musicians, and can also be seen as a contributor within the broader study.

“Musicians as an occupational group have been seen to use illicit substances for various social, cultural and artistic/creative reasons, as well as exhibit higher levels of problematic drinking compared to non-musicians,” says Musgrave and additional author Dr Dorian Lamis in an editorial commenting on the study.

“Both alcohol and drug use disorders have been shown to be associated with suicide in empirical studies, and more work on this potential association among musicians is needed.”

Beyond just being a musician, fame itself has been shown to be a contributing factor to early death.

The study, entitled The price of fame? Mortality risk among famous singers ), conducted last year, discovered that famous singers had a 32 percent higher mortality risk compared with less famous singers.

“A 32 percent increase sounds dramatic because it is a relative number,” explains study co-author Michael Dufner of the Witten/Herdecke University. “Personally, I find a different metric more intuitive: on average, the famous singers in our study died about 4.6 years earlier than the less famous ones. That is a non-trivial difference, but it is not extreme. In terms of size, it is comparable to established risk factors such as light smoking versus non-smoking.”

According to the study, the results, “offer the strongest evidence to date linking fame with a higher mortality.” Some possible contributing factors suggested include increased stress levels, an unhealthy lifestyle, substance abuse, or a combination of these factors.

“Future research should try to disentangle these possibilities by taking factors such as childhood experiences, eating and sleeping habits, stress and drug abuse into account and by looking more closely at different causes of death,” says the study.

So, what can we do?

The data paints a bleak, and emotive picture. The particular industry-specific conditions that musicians and other music professionals have to navigate certainly seem to increase their risk of mortality. It’s far beyond time that we start addressing this problem.

Professor Dufner recommends targeted interventions: “Our findings suggest that elevated mortality risk among highly famous musicians may warrant increased attention to preventive measures. Potential interventions might include structured recovery periods during tours, access to mental health and stress-management resources, and programs designed to maintain social connectedness.”

Theresa from MusiCares recommends that music professionals themselves be aware of their own needs.

“Staying healthy starts with recognizing that wellness is not a luxury, it’s essential,” she says. “Prioritizing sleep, nutrition, and hydration while on the road can make a meaningful difference. Just as important is building in mental health check-ins, staying connected to trusted people, and asking for help early rather than waiting for a breaking point. Using available resources is a sign of strength, not weakness.”

To reduce the number of suicides within the industry, Dr Musgrave and his colleagues suggest that the industry adopt the seven-part approach provided by the Zero Suicide Framework framework, which includes calling on industry leaders to facilitate conversations about suicide prevention; encouraging training programs within musicians’ wider networks; identifying risk factors and warning signs; engaging those at risk of suicide with proven interventions; musicians maintaining care with providers when coming off tours; and continually improving “through data-driven research to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in this understudied occupational group.”

Sums up Theresa: “Longevity in music isn’t just about sustaining a career, it’s about sustaining a life. The industry thrives because of the people who pour their creativity, labour, and passion into it, often behind the scenes. If we want music to continue enriching our lives, we have to care for the people who make it possible. Supporting the health and well-being of music professionals isn’t optional, it’s essential to the future of music itself.”

If you’re a struggling musician or music industry professional, please reach out to an organisation like Help Musicians in the UK or MusiCares in the United States.