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?

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.

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

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.

NAMM 2026: We live in the era of multi-disciplined creators - many musicians are now equally adept at producing video content, for example - and, naturally, this is having an impact on the kind of products that are being designed and released. Korg’s new Liano Live! digital piano, for example, an evolution of its original Liano, which was released in 2022.

Built for pianists who want to livestream and/or record their performances, this promises to give you everything you need to make it happen. It ships with a mic and stand and has a built-in mixer, so you can set the volume and reverb levels of your vocals and the piano right from the instrument itself. It can be connected to your phone, tablet or computer with a single USB-C cable.

As if to reinforce the fact that this is a keyboard built for livestreaming, there’s an on-air button that triggers instant global muting. There are also 10 built-in rhythms and 76 one-touch sound effects, six of which can be assigned to dedicated buttons.

But what of the actual piano bit of the Liano Live!? Although the 88 keys don’t have a hammer action, they are full size and velocity-sensitive, and there’s 120-, 60-, or 40-note polyphony depending on which sound you have selected. There are eight of these (acoustic and electric pianos, organ, guitar, strings, bass/piano and drums/SFX), and they can be dialled-in from a clearly labelled knob.

Obviously, you’ll want to play the Liano Live! at home as well as to the online world, so a pair of front-facing speakers is onboard. It's also properly portable, running on six AA batteries for up to six hours when you’re away from a main power source. It’s compact and light, too - a mere slip of a thing at 7cm thin and a weight of 5.9kg.

Connectivity includes USB MIDI and audio, headphone, damper pedal, line in and line out (you can adjust the USB/line input level with a dedicated slider). As well as the mic and stand, you also get an AC adapter, pedal switch, cables and a music stand in the box.

There’s also some software - Korg’s Module and Gadget 2 Le apps - and a 3-month subscription to Skoove, the online piano lesson platform.

The Liano Live! is available now priced at $600/£549. Find out more on the Korg website.

Back in the noughties, such was the impact of the so-called ‘loudness was’ that they weren’t just something that music technology nerds talked about - consumers were noticing their impact, too.

Perhaps the biggest battle was fought over Metallica’s 2008 album Death Magnetic, which had been pushed so hard that fans complained of audible clipping when they listened to it.

There was a further twist when it emerged that the version of the album that was used in the Guitar Hero video game didn’t make the same dynamic range sacrifices and, to many people’s ears, sounded better.

But the loudness wars had been raging for many years prior to that, and in a new documentary, various key figures has been reflecting on them and what they meant for the music industry as a whole.

How Music Got Loud: The Untold Story of the Loudness Wars is produced by Waves, the plugin developer that helped to power the loudness boom. Speaking in the documentary, engineer Howie Weinberg - the man behind the mastering of Nirvana’s Nevermind and Red Hot Chili Peppers’ Blood Sugar Sex Magik, among many others - describes the release of the Waves L1 Limiter in 1994 as “the moment that everything kind of changed.” This was followed by the L2, which landed in 2000.

The average level of new albums started to go up, with engineers trading dynamics for loudness in a bid to outdo each other. “You either had L1 and L2 and you were able to get a loud mix, or you didn’t, and you were an amateur,” says Jesse Ray Ernster, who’s worked with the likes of Kanye West, Burna Boy and Doja Cat.

“It made the music sound like what I was hearing on the radio,” says Billie EIlish and SZA mastering engineer Dale Becker, while Waves CTO and co-founder Meir Shashoua remembers that he was accused of ruining music. “What can I say - it’s a tool, use it however you wish,” is his defence.

While it’s generally accepted that the music of today sounds different to what was being released at the peak of the loudness wars, opinion is split on whether they’re truly over. “People are still trying to constantly gain people’s attention,” argues Dale Becker, but he also suggests that things have improved.

“There’s kind of a sweet spot where we’re in now… people feel like they can hear the groove, they can feel the groove,” he says. “They can dance to the groove. They can hear the nuance.”

Others, though, say that attempts by the big streaming services to standardise loudness levels have only been partially successful.

“Spotify and Apple Music, they level out your songs and they claim that the loudness wars are over,” says Jesse Ray Ernster. “But as a mixer, I am always at war with the volume of the reference mix that I received to mix. That war will never be over.”

You can watch the documentary - which also features mastering legend Bob Katz and engineers Gavin Lurssen & Reuben Cohen - above.

After more than five years away, Spotify support has returned to mobile DJing apps - specifically, Algoriddim’s djay and AlphaTheta’s rekordbox.

For reasons best known to itself, Spotify removed support for third-party DJing apps back in 2020. There was a partial climbdown earlier this year, when it returned to the desktop versions of djay, rekordbox and Serato DJ, but only now is Spotify coming back to iOS, iPadOS and Android (phones and tablets, in other words).

The decision to exclude mobile devices always seemed strange - the kind of hobbyist DJs who use them would seem to be the people who’d benefit most from being able to mix streamed music in their app of choice - but at least it’s arrived in time for the party season.

“Integrating Spotify across djay’s entire mobile and desktop lineup marks an exciting new chapter for our users and anyone aspiring to DJ,” said Karim Morsy, CEO of Algoriddim. “Whether you’re using your phone, tablet, or laptop, you can now tap into Spotify’s massive catalogue and mix the music you love across all your devices, anywhere you go.”

Whether you’re using djay or rekordbox, you’ll need a Spotify Premium account if you want to take advantage of the compatibility, but once you’ve linked your account you’ll be able to access not only the entire Spotify catalogue but also your playlists (and those created by others, for that matter).

Find out more on the Algoriddim and AlphaTheta websites. If you use Spotify but don’t want to use a dedicated djing app, it’s worth bearing in mind that you can now create mixed playlists from within the mobile app itself.

Whether it’s over royalty payments, AI partnerships or the investment choices of its former CEO, Spotify has become a lightning rod for criticism in the streaming era. In that context, its expanded Song Credits and new SongDNA features could be viewed as an attempt to shift the narrative and do something that creators might actually appreciate.

“Now, more than ever, we believe it’s critical to spotlight the humans, creative process, and stories behind the music, so we’re building new ways for fans to see and celebrate the people and musical connections behind the tracks they love,” says Spotify. “The more fans understand the careful craft that underpins the music they love, the deeper their fandom grows and the more invested they become in the people who create it.”

While Spotify previously enabled you to see who performed, wrote and produced the song you’re listening to, you’ll now be able to view all the listed contributors to a track (engineers, for example). This information comes directly from labels and artist distributors, so relies on them keeping their databases up to date.

SongDNA, meanwhile, is a new interactive view that enables you to join the dots between different songs, showing collaborators, samples, and covers all in one place. If you’re thinking that this is the kind of service that’s currently offered by the excellent WhoSampled website, you’d be right - in fact, sample and cover information is powered by WhoSampled, which Spotify appears to have acquired.

“With WhoSampled’s community-built knowledge, fans can dive into the influences behind the music they love, while giving sampled and covered artists fresh ways to get discovered and celebrated,” says Spotify.

Looking ahead, Spotify also plans to roll out a feature called About the song, which will add swipeable cards to the Now Playing view. These will share stories of what inspired songs and their cultural impact, taking you behind the scenes of the creation process. We’re told that these stories will be “sourced from third parties”, though it’s not clear what these will be or how they’ll be credited.

You’ll start seeing the expanded Song Credits from today, while SongDNA will arrive for listeners later. Prior to that, there’ll be a Spotify for Artists Preview of SongDNA and About the song, so that the creators themselves can “check out the features first, redeliver your credits if there are inaccuracies, and give us feedback.”

Find out more in a blog post on the Spotify website.

A new “disruptive” streaming platform has launched that includes a social media element. Coda Music is saying that it's seeking to “democratise the music discovery process and restore the middle class in music.”

A key element behind Coda seems to be the idea that the best recommendations for music come from humans rather than algorithms and AI. Another is that artists deserve to be decently compensated for their work.

So what leaps out from the launch statement is that not only is Coda committing to paying the highest per-stream rate in the industry, but it's also putting in place an additional revenue stream for artists. Fans can send $1 of their monthly subscription to the independent or ‘qualifying’ artist of their choice.

And in a neat slogan, the company claims that the algorithm on Coda comes “from the crowd, not the cloud”. The idea is that listeners will congregate in communities and share music taste and playlists, much in the same way that friends used to pass around mixtapes back in the good old days.

In a statement, Coda CEO Randy Fusee says: “Coda was born from a belief that music deserves better than the copy-paste streaming models we’ve all come to expect. Every major platform runs on the same algorithmic logic - prioritising profit over artistry, and passive consumption over real connection. We’re rebuilding the middle class of artists and giving fans the power to shape what gets heard. It’s a return to authenticity, driven by community.”

“We’re not just building a platform; we’re leading a revolution,” continues the firm’s CCO Russell Gaskins. “Coda Music is the solution and the new standard for a fair industry. The revolution has begun, and we're inviting every artist to take a stand and take back their future.”

In terms of price, Coda compares well with Spotify – an individual plan is $10.99 per month, while a family plan works out at $16.99 per month.

Of course, some will claim that we have been here before. Tidal was supposed to be a high-quality, artist-friendly streaming service. But despite being launched in a blaze of publicity back in 2015, it never achieved market dominance. By then Spotify had an iron grip on the streaming market and Tidal was unable to make much of an impact.

What’s changed in 2025? Well, more people are now aware of Spotify’s pitiful royalty rates and we all now have a basic grasp of how the dreaded algorithm works. Coda’s social media element is an interesting addition. But the key thing is price – if Coda is able to be at least competitive or even undercut Spotify, while also offering the same breadth of music and level of service, some punters will vote with their wallets.

So far there has been just a trickle of Spotify deserters – King Gizzard, Xiu Xiu, Deerhoof. But Xiu Xiu have truly thrown their weight behind Coda, with the band’s Jamie Stewart saying in a statement: "[Music] deserves care and respect. Coda, within the rightly maligned but inevitable world of streaming, is working to give music fans and working musicians a home where they can find this care and respect."

Spotify has announced that Premium subscribers will now be able to stream lossless audio, a long-awaited feature that the streaming platform first promised users in 2021.

Spotify's Lossless feature allows "nearly every song" in Spotify's catalogue to be streamed in 24-bit/44.1 kHz FLAC, and the option is available across mobile, desktop and tablet, along with some third-party devices that support Spotify Connect. Lossless audio is only available to Premium subscribers at no additional cost.

To enable lossless audio Spotify users should tap their profile icon in the top-left corner of the app, go to Settings & Privacy and hit Media Quality. Users can select where they'd like to enable the feature (on Wi-Fi and cellular connections, or only with downloaded audio) and can choose between Low, Normal, High, Very High and Lossless quality levels.

If you're using a Bluetooth-enabled speaker or pair of headphones, you won't be able to enjoy Spotify's highest level of audio quality. The technology doesn't currently provide enough bandwidth to transmit lossless audio, so the signal will be compressed – Spotify recommends streaming lossless music on Wi-Fi using wired headphones or speakers.

Spotify Lossless will be rolling out to Premium subscribers in Australia, Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, the US, and the UK over the coming weeks, along with more than 50 additional markets throughout October.

The arrival of Spotify Lossless addresses a common complaint among the streaming service's user base: rivals such as Apple Music, Amazon Music and TIDAL have offered lossless audio for several years. Spotify first announced its Lossless feature - then named Spotify HiFi - at 2021's Stream On event.

“The wait is finally over; we’re so excited lossless sound is rolling out to Premium subscribers,” said Spotify's Vice President of Subscriptions Gustav Gyllenhammar.

“We’ve taken time to build this feature in a way that prioritizes quality, ease of use, and clarity at every step, so you always know what’s happening under the hood. With Lossless, our premium users will now have an even better listening experience.”

The news arrives as scores of musicians pull their music from Spotify, including Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Xiu Xiu, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard and Deerhoof. Several artists have cited Spotify CEO Daniel Ek's recent investment in military defence company Helsing – a German manufacturer that develops AI-powered battlefield drones – as motivation for their withdrawal.

“We are currently working to take all of our music off of garbage hole violent armageddon portal Spotify,” Xiu Xiu wrote in an Instagram post. “Please cancel your subscription.”

Find out more on Spotify's website.

Goldman Sachs is predicting good times ahead, for some at least, in the music industry. According to the 2025 edition of their annual Music In The Air report, global music revenue is set to double to $200 billion in the next ten years.

Great news, huh? Well, let’s look a little closer. Much of that potential for growth resides in a few key areas. One of these is streaming in so-called ‘emerging markets’, ie not the West, which contributed 60% of new subscribers in 2024. In these areas streaming penetration is just 8%, which the report estimates will rise to 14% in a decade, “which still leaves an untapped audience of billions.” The report suggests that “these markets are often more price sensitive, so music streamers may have to work harder to turn listeners into paying subscribers. But the process is underway.”

Another area for growth, the report suggests, lies in streamers raising prices. The average US consumer spends $69 a month on video streaming but just $14 on music. “Our analysts believe there will be more regular increases in the future,” the report says. “Thus far, music streaming has lagged on-demand video streaming in terms of price; in the US, the monthly subscription price for streaming video has been rising by 15% nearly every two years for the past decade, whereas music streaming prices have been largely stagnant.”

More explicitly, Goldman Sachs's Eric Sheridan says, “We see increased confidence among industry participants that price increases will happen every 12-24 months going forward.”

Streaming platforms, as we know, are not known for their generosity towards the people who actually provide their content: the musicians.

The third area for potential growth is by exploiting, sorry, targeting the ‘superfan’. These are the people who will pay more for premium audio quality, early access to merchandise and exclusive content. Goldman Sachs estimates that the average US ‘superfan’ spends $113 on live music and $68 on physical music per month – among ‘average’ consumers those figures are just $39 and $19.

“Our analysts estimate that monetising these superfans better could add $6.6 billion to the industry’s revenues by 2035 - a 21% uplift to paid streaming revenues,” the report concurs.

In terms of live music, Goldman Sachs predicts that a 7.2% growth rate between now and the end of the decade, “underpinned by demand from millennials and Gen Z”. Indeed, despite a lack of growth in the overall economy, ticket revenue grew 76% between 2019 and 2024 – despite a 50% rise in ticket prices – the average ticket price for a concert in one of the top 100 worldwide tours was $136 in 2024, compared to $91 in 2019.

So in conclusion, whilst a doubling of global music revenue (if it happens) is undoubtedly good news, it’s especially good news if you’re a streamer, Ticketmaster or an A-list artist. Whether there will be a trickle-down effect to those toiling away at the grassroots is much more open to doubt.

Music distribution platform Bandcamp has launched Clubs, a new subscribe-to-own music discovery service that gives fans access to curated selections from DJs, journalists, label heads and collectors alongside exclusive artist-focused content.

For a monthly fee of $13, fans can subscribe to themed Clubs headed up by notable tastemakers, and will receive a new (digital) album each month chosen by the curator. Featured albums are added to a subscriber's Bandcamp collection to stream or download even after unsubscribing.

The platform is launching with four Clubs, though more themes and curators will soon be added. Hosted by BBC Radio host Jamz Supernova, Dance Around The World unearths boundary-pushing dance music from across the globe, while musician and producer Ajay Saggar's Kosmos Klub is described as an "adventure for the curious music listener", diving deep into psych, dub, krautrock, electronic and more.

The Jazz-ish Jazz Club, curated by journalist and DJ Tina Edwards, traverses the "global jazz continuum", exploring a variety of jazz-adjacent sounds that spans Latin grooves, UK jazz, left-field electronics and psychedelic soul. Led by NTS Radio DJ J. Bennett, the fourth Club is The Hard Stuff, celebrating heavy music in all its forms with a focus on punk and metal.

Along with their monthly record, subscribers can also enjoy an exclusive interview with the artist in question and access a live listening party hosted by the curator that allows them to connect with like-minded fans. (Artists may also join the listening parties on occasion.)

Inspired by old-school record clubs and online spaces where fans came together to share music, Clubs are positioned a human-focused alternative to the algorithmic music discovery popularised by streaming services like Spotify, giving fans to the opportunity to discover new music curated by those in the know and creating a space for lesser-known artists to reach new audiences.

"Bandcamp has long been a champion of human discovery – whether it’s albums you discover as a result of our publication Bandcamp Daily, our Radio Shows, or from the people you follow via your Music Feed in the app, the idea is the same: There is no one better to turn real humans on to new music than other real humans," reads a statement on Bandcamp's website.

“Bandcamp Clubs are the latest way to directly support artists on and participate in a community around music on Bandcamp,” added Bandcamp's General Manager Dan Melnick.

“Vibrant music scenes are made up of DJs, journalists, fans, and artists, and Bandcamp Clubs reflect that. Instead of algorithms, fans get human-curated picks from some of the best DJs and journalists in their respective areas, exclusive interviews with artists, and community listening parties. As always, artists are paid fairly and sit at the heart of the experience.”

Find out more on Bandcamp's website.

Spotify and Apple Music have fought it out on multiple fronts down the years - sound quality, usefulness of recommendations, compatibility, etc - and it seems that the latest battleground is in-app mixing capabilities.

Both services have had simple automatic crossfading for some time, but as part of iOS 26 - coming this autumn - Apple is introducing AutoMix, a new feature that promises to “mix one song into the next, just like a DJ.” Already available to those using the iOS 26 beta, this is said to use AI to analyse the audio characteristics of songs so that it can create “unique transitions” involving both timestretching and beatmatching.

Not to be outdone, Spotify has hit back with its own Mix feature, which initial reports suggest could be even more sophisticated. As well as being able to use it to create unique transitions automatically, you can also customise the transitions with various presets (Fade or Rise, for example) and adjust volume, EQ and effect settings.

You can even view waveform and beat data - both key and BPM information is shown for songs in Mix playlists so you can easily find songs that will ‘fit’ together - and adjust the transition point so that you start to switch from one track to the next at the perfect moment.

While licensing restrictions mean that you can’t DJ with streamed music in public, mixed playlists could be a great option for house parties or for runners, who want to keep a consistent BPM going with no gaps. Obviously, you’ll get the best results if you choose songs that have locked-in tempos and beats, but it’ll be interesting to find out how the technology handles more complex mixing challenges, too.

There’s also a social aspect to all of this: your finished mixes can be shared with others, and you can collaborate on playlists with other Spotify users.

There are a couple of caveats - you’ll need to be a Spotify Premium user if you want to use the playlist mixing, and the feature is still in the process of rolling out so not immediately available to everyone (us included, at the time of writing).

What’s more, although automatic playlist mixing is new in Spotify itself, something similar was available via a third-party app - Serato’s much-missed Pyro - as long ago as 2016. However, Spotify pulled compatibility with this and all other Djing software that it had partnerships with (Algoriddim’s djay, for example) in 2020.

Prior to Spotify launching its own automatic mixing feature, it was rumoured last year that it was working on a set of built-in remixing tools.

As the major players in the music industry increasingly warm up to the idea of AI agents training on their enormous catalogues (for we imagine, enormous sums) the fear that music creators and rightful financial stakeholders will not be able to have a say in how their work is used is a more pertinent concern than ever.

We’ve previously reported on the legal issues surrounding generative AI music brands Udio and Suno - who are still in the midst of copyright infringement lawsuits levelled at them by 'the big three' major labels. Suno and Udio both offer users the ability to generate music via a text prompt. The resulting audio is constructed using an algorithm trained on a large quantity of (human) recorded music.

But a new Bloomberg report has recently revealed that the controversial AI firms have entered into discussions with the very same labels that originally sued them; Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment. The negotiations, it is understood, are an attempt to both draw a close to the litigation and establish a framework for how major labels can strike deals on catalogue-training with AI bodies.

The Bloomberg report has been fuelled by sources apparently close to the discussions, however the sources refused to be identified as the talks ‘could fall apart’.

The conversations orient around Suno and Udio harnessing the label's catalogues, and how that work is licensed, as well as how artists will be compensated.

The labels are also angling to receive equity from the AI companies. It’s hoped that an agreement will resolve the legal situation - and set-up a framework for AI licensing that the majors will be able to replicate in the future.

But getting this framework in place has not-so quiet echoes of when, back in the late 2000s, music creators were excluded from the negotiations between labels and major streaming platforms as to how much of a share various stakeholders received per stream.

That's an issue that’s still a huge bone of contention today - and very far from fair.

Musicians, creatives and industry professionals have already made their views clear about what the results of this negotiation could potentially mean for the future of music.

Music technology entrepreneur and Attack Magazie/Wavetick founder Sharooz Raoofi (aka Principleasure) stated on a lengthy post on LinkedIn that he predicted this chain of events would unfold, and that major labels would eventually cosy up to Suno and Udio.

“You can imagine what the next step in this process will be. The further devaluation of music by flooding major label controlled DSPs with major label owned generative AI fodder fed by major label catalogue,” Sharooz writes.

“The end result - rights holders get paid even less, nobody has the right to opt in or out and as artists we have zero visibility on what these license details will entail or whether we’ll even receive a royalty for being training fodder”

Chair of Ivors Academy Tom Gray spoke to Complete Music Update; “In these deals, it appears recordings would be licensed to AI companies to ingest music-makers’ work without their permission and without reference to their personality or author rights”, Gray stated. “These licences appear to not offer creators an ‘opt-in’, an ‘opt-out’ or any control - whatsoever - of their work within AI”.

Tom also points out the seeming hypocrisy of the major labels supporting the Make it Fair campaign, set-up to demand AI companies respect the copyright of artists.“The same companies who have stated they wish to ‘make it fair’ seem instead to be ‘on the make’” stated Gray.

As the Bloomberg report makes clear, however, these talks could indeed not come to any tangible resolution…

Or, alternatively, this could be the moment that establishes a whole new paradigm for musicians - and creative human professionals in general - as we plummet further into an increasingly AI-saturated age.

Speaking at their annual Open House event in Stockholm last week, Spotify gave journalists the opportunity to ask questions up close and personal, with the company’s growth plans, its stance on AI and concerns about their high-profile Wrapped promotion being front and centre.

In brief, many Spotify users took to social media to share their Wrapped results this year – as they do every year and as Spotify loves them to do – however this year it wasn’t so much to boast about the extreme brilliance of their diverse musical taste but rather to wonder what the hell had happened.

Many users complained that the last Wrapped – the annual recap of your listening habits that Spotify calculates for every user and which points them back at what they’ve been listening to reveal their favourite, artist, song etc, often with surprising results – was more surprising than usual in 2024.

I.e. The last Wrapped – released 4 December 2024 was – for many users, full of inaccurate data and tracks and artists that users hadn’t been listening to or expressed any kind of preference towards.

Diabolical data?

Was there some foul play afoot? Were Spotify intentionally feeding you leads to tracks that they (for whatever reason) would rather that you listened to rather than what you actually did listen to? And what data/knowledge was it basing its suggestions on? Had they helped themselves to data that users had unwittingly let slip elsewhere?

After all, Spotify is famously a platform built on algorithms. Why listen to the same old music when there’s so much new stuff out there? Allow it to serve you the songs it thinks you might like, based on your previous listening data or… whatever else it can get its hands on… and it’s all good. Go with the flow and enjoy.

However, approach it with a specific intent to listen to a particular artist, or – heaven forbid – the complete works of an artist, in album order by date of release, and the number of hoops you have to jump through to prevent the algorithm butting in and ‘helpfully’ feeding you what it thinks you want instead can – even in 2025 – be maddening.

In short, is Wrapped a nostalgic recap of what you listened to so you can do it all again (as users seem to think) or an annual usage-increasing ploy designed to surface new music ‘that you’re going to love’? And with continued growth and the acquisition of new users being the metric by which Spotify’s new-found profitability is now measured, that’s not a hard conclusion to come up with.

So what went wrong?

It’s thought that Spotify’s stream counting – tallying how many times tracks were streamed rather than the listening time spent enjoying an artist – may be to blame, with the work of artists who favour short tracks (think Charli XCX and Pink Pantheress) being increasingly (and unevenly) surfaced as a result.

Did Spotify simply nudge their Wrapped-calculating algorithm in ever so slightly the wrong direction in 2024?

The arrival of more high-profile releases in Wrapped playlists teamed with increasing worries around data security and privacy concerns collectively heightened users’ questions and suspicions. And – it’s claimed – the garish, ever more social-friendly graphics and imagery used, this year has proved something of a turn-off.

If the aim was to encourage Spotify users to share the fact that they use (and love) Spotify to their friends then this particular tactic would appear to have backfired.

But Spotify are keen to point out that they’re already all over the ‘problem’.

“If you look at the numbers it was the biggest Wrapped we’ve ever had,” explained CPO and co-president Gustav Söderström. “But there was more negative feedback than we’ve seen before,” he admitted. “So, we just need to do better – there’s a lot of pressure for this year’s Wrapped to be a much better version.”

“I think people just wanted something newer, something that wasn’t there the year before. There was also some feedback that some of the things people loved from years before were not there,” he continued.

“We didn’t just want to tack on everything that we ever did – maybe we should have.” But with Wrapped 2025 already in progress, Söderström stressed that Spotify is “working hard on making it the best that it’s ever been.”

A new Pro tier?

Also on the table for discussion were hot topics such as a rumoured new, higher priced paid for ‘Music Pro’ tier for ‘superfans’.

“If you’re an artist and you have a big fanbase, you actually do want to talk to them too. But how do you scale it? And how do you make that so that it’s not then an exclusionary thing?” asked CEO Daniel Ek.

Citing the service’s Fans First features – where artists can send their fans invites to buy tickets or merch – Ek pondered: “What more things can we do like Fans First that scales, and that provides a great experience for the artist, and provides a great experience for the consumer? That’s how we think,” he said.

“But I do agree that the need – the creator need or the artist need – exists. And the consumer need is there too. The question is just how do you create a great experience?” he asked while asserting that they’re “incredibly right” that this is what superfans want.

AI music: Welcome or not?

And what exactly is Spotify’s stance on AI-generated music? Rival service Deezer is actively on the rampage to delete and ban AI-made tracks from polluting their streams. Meanwhile, Spotify is seemingly less militant…

“This is the early days of creativity [with AI’s help]. We want more humans to make it as artists and creators, but what is creativity in the future with AI? I don’t know. What is music anyway?” asked Ek.

“You can now generate full-on videos entirely… Does that mean you’re a lesser artist than someone who hand-drew all of these things yourself?” asked Ek, while head of artist and industry partnerships, Bryan Johnson suggested that there is “infinitely small consumption of fully AI-generated tracks on Spotify”, and that “there is no dilution of the royalty pool by AI music.” Yet…

Perhaps wary of shareholders’ thoughts, their need for profit and an unwillingness to turn their back on tech’s hottest growth zone, the company line appears to be – at present – let AI live.

“We’re excited about GenAI because it gives us English language input for the first time… It’s now not just clicks on streams,” said CPO and co-president Gustav Söderström, predicting the rise of prompts and requests, powered by AI, becoming the main way in which users will listen.

Price hikes?

So, will the newly profitable Spotify be putting its prices up soon? Spotify’s chief financial officer Christian Luiga explained the pros and cons of cashing in at this stage. “The day we start to compromise on the value-to-price ratio… then we are going in a totally different direction.,” he suggested. “We don’t even want to think about that day, because that’s not part of our DNA,” he said.

“Increasing prices, then losing 10% of subscribers is not worth it for us, because that’s not our strategy. We don’t even discuss those things in our management team.”

It’s an odd paradox in 2025, that with the sheer quantity of music at our disposal, the formerly magical process of music discovery has been quietly neutered.

Though algorithm and AI-driven suggestions might feel helpful for shunting us towards artists that our listening behaviour believes we should like, many of us have started to feel increasingly locked away in these personal silos.

It's especially isolating for those for whom music was always an inherently social passion.

Aiming to put the humanity back into music discovery comes Music League. An app or browser-based game that allows users to get into select groups with friends - or strangers - and participate in various self-constructed rounds.

These rounds consist of players submitting songs that fit a particular theme (i.e - ‘songs with a killer guitar solo’, or ’the best songs written for a film soundtrack’). The kinds of things that you and your music-obsessed friends would typically converse about at a bar.

Essentially then - you're all building out a playlist which is then distributed around participants.

Participants then get the option to vote on which track best fits the theme (or simply vote in terms of quality) and add comments to each track.

The more points your track has - the more points you have as the various rounds progress until the league is completed and a winner is crowned.

It sounds fairly simple, but the direct appeal of Music League could be the perfect antidote to anonymous platform-curated playlist creation.

It also sounds like fantastic music conversation-starter - something that has seemingly slid out of the daily lives of many.

To find out more, and dig into what further applications Music League could have, we spoke with founder Eric West.

MusicRadar: Hi Eric, firstly can you talk us through Music League and what the motivation was to design such an experience?

Eric West: It actually started amongst a group of co-workers who were having that age-old argument about who had the best taste in music, who had discovered that band first, who made the best playlists - as people tend to do.

So it was those people who created the bedrock of the game, which then evolved into what Music League is today.

I came along [a bit later] on the business side a few years after that. I decided to build a business around it and develop the mobile apps, and then a [refined] version of the web app.

I came to it because I really loved the concept. Even today, I don’t think there’s a unique music discovery platform anywhere [like this] that brings the human element back into it.

Ideally you’ll play with friends, family or co-workers - but we’ve also had a lot of uptake on the open leagues where you’re playing with strangers.

MR: It definitely seems like a good counter to the modern, algorithmically-driven discovery experience of music streaming. I guess that’s a downside of having everything on-tap. This seems to facilitate actual conversation around songs…

EW: Yeah. Of course it’s a great way to discover new music. It breaks through the algorithm and lessens the noise of having a billion tracks that you can access narrowed down to 10, 12 or 15.

It also drives ‘intentional’ listening.

People are so used to pushing play on their Spotify playlists which often just run in the background for many people. Maybe some listeners are really tuned in, if they’re searching for an artist or a particular playlist to match whatever mood they’re in at that point then they’re certainly more likely to listen intently.

With Music League, it’s almost like when you’d get a text from a friend saying ‘hey, you’ve got to check out this band’. You then listen to a band because your friend told you to do it.

Music League is like an entire playlist of friends telling you to listen to this band (or song). And you do it because you also want to play the game, and be fair about it.

Players want to vote accordingly and with comments - they want to show [they’re engaged] and put heart into their thoughts.

It’s a really good way of not just being exposed to new music - but to actually listen to it, talk about it and debate it to decide who has the best taste in music.

MR: Do you think passive streaming consumption is playing a part in sapping music’s power and culturally-central status?

EW: I think it’s key to differentiate ‘listening’ vs ‘consuming’. But how do you define that difference?

People consume [music] all the time, like when you’re out shopping at a grocery store. You’re hearing the music [on their speakers] but not really listening.

I feel like algorithms have sort of turned every playlist into grocery store background music.

At the same time, I do listen to those kinds of ‘mood’-based playlists - if I can’t find a Music League playlist to match it in that moment. So, they do have their purpose.

But I genuinely don’t think there’s a better way to discover music than this platform.

MR: What are some of the most fun ways to play Music League?

EW: There’s two paths to play. One is - we say - that there’s a parallel with fantasy sports. And that’s that you play it when it’s convenient. Though you do have a deadline to take action.

But the action is either to submit a song or vote on songs, and you play generally with people close to you. You all have respect for the songs and for the people that are playing - you respect their musical tastes.

So the playlists being generated are presumably pretty good, or at least you're motivated to listen to them [actively].

The open leagues are similar in the way that the leagues are made up and the cadence of play. The difference is, generally speaking, you’re not going to know who you’re playing with.

In a lot of ways, I think that’s probably a strong music discovery tool than playing with friends and family. Because, you know, playing with people you know might risk having some quite homogenous tastes.

If you’re friends already, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll share musical tastes already. Yet in the open leagues, it’s just wide open.

You might scroll through the lists and look for a genre, a league that revolves around a genre that you like - but then you’ll be playing with people from all over the world.

About 60% of our market is US-based, so more than likely you’ll end up playing someone in the US, but up to 10% is UK. I play with people from the UK quite a bit!

The social component of this is something I love. You’ll find people who like the same obscure band that you didn’t think anybody else liked.

They’ll put a song into a playlist and it’ll just blow your mind - because you thought for sure you’re the only person who liked that band.

All of a sudden you’ve made a friend who also likes that band.

We want to really lean into that. You loved playing with that person, and you want to play with them again, talk and just have an online chat and get to know them.

We want people to be able to do that more easily, so they can find their tribes. You can find people who love the same niches.

The more you submit songs in various leagues throughout the world, the more people you’re going to realise also like that band. We could kind of develop a community around a band or an individual artist - or even obscure genre - which is really exciting.

MR: That’s interesting that you mention obscure bands. I was wondering whether there could be applications of ML that would be useful for new bands and artists, trying to get heard and audience build?

EW: We certainly hope so.

Perhaps when there’s a big enough group of fans of an ‘obscure’ (or unsigned) artist, one of them could reach out to the band and invite them [to participate] or say hello.

They could maybe play a round or two with some of their fans in a very public way, and all the fans are watching the league unfold.

I know artists are pretty tired of being forced to make content that isn’t music. I’d be annoyed too.

I think what separates this is that it’s a game that people can enjoy playing which could also [give insight] into the band or artist.

Artists could create themes that are like ‘songs that inspired our first album’ - the kinds of stuff that fans just eat up.

Artists aren’t being interviewed or forced to write any long-form response - they just submit a song. Fans are going to engage with that band and listen to their playlists.

There’s all kinds of ways for the industry to get into Music League and use it, without corrupting it.

MR: So is that fan-building aspect - the social side - something you’re going to push further as Music League develops?

EW: Yes, we need to raise a little bit of money - not too much - to help us build some new features that lean into that social component.

Social music has been a tough nut to crack - and I’m not saying that we’ve found the magic formula, but I think we’re closer than most have got. We’re coming at it from the angle where there’s actually something to do. There’s a fun game to play, and it just happens to revolve around the discovery of music. I feel like we’re on to something.

We’re going to iterate based on audience and industry feedback.

MR: Music League uses Spotify as its library source - could Music League be integrated more directly into Spotify down the line perhaps?

EW: There's not been direct discussions about anything beyond what we're currently doing.

We are certainly aware that Spotify doesn't have a sterling reputation, and I think some of that's unfair, but we're aware of that. And, they have the largest catalogue and biggest user-base. It just makes sense to work with them, and they’re kind enough to allow it.

MR: What are your current objectives as a business?

EW: We've been very lucky in that our fans love this product, and they're the ones who have spread the word for us. Then a chunk of those new users turn around and do the same thing.

That’s [led to] some very organic growth all through word of mouth.

I think our focus is more on enhancing the current experience, adding some features that we would love to see in the game.

We hear fairly regularly from our users that there's five or six features that are really kind of the most obvious things for us to build in. And we're excited to do that.

MR: We haven’t really seen anyone else doing anything like what you’re doing. Do you think you’ve carved out a new niche for music discovery for music fans?

EW: I certainly hope that we’ve tapped into something that will last and is unique.

I’ve not seen anything like it either.

I think one of the most appealing things about it is the ability to get that dopamine hit of somebody saying ‘You’re right - I love this band! Thank you for exposing me to them’. It really feels good you know.

I think there’s a real chemical reaction to getting that validation from somebody.

Then on the other end, if you’re a kid and your mum has been telling you your whole life that you should check out the Beatles, but you’re reluctant to listen until you’re exposed to them via Music League. Then you realise you love them. There’s a big generational [communication] component.

And vice-versa, that kid could be nagging their mum to check out Skrillex - and she’d not be interested. But then, lo and behold, your mum’s listening to Skrillex in Music League. It’s a great route for people to discover music in every direction that they never would have otherwise.

For more information on Music League, and to download the app, head over to the official website.

Spotify's Loud & Clear is an annual report compiled by the streaming platform that aims to to demystify how artists earn money through streaming and explore how the global musical landscape is evolving by analysing data on royalties.

Today, Spotify shared some UK-specific insights that reveal royalties generated by UK artists have reached over £810m in 2024, more than doubling since 2018.

The report also found that over 75% of all royalties generated by UK artists on Spotify in 2024 were from listeners outside of the UK, and that UK artists had seen a 28% increase in overseas streams year-on-year, confirming that British music continues to be hugely popular with global audiences. (No surprises there.)

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the report, though, was a list of 10 international genres Spotify has identified as growing in popularity with UK listeners, showcasing the increasingly diverse tastes of British audiences.

You've heard of drill, but have you heard of sexy drill? This amorous subgenre comes in right at the top of Spotify's list of the fastest-growing global scenes, seeing a 1460% increase in UK streams.

Pioneered by rapper Cash Cobain, the style is an uncharacteristically sensual take on drill that infuses the typically hard-edged genre with influences from R&B, pop and Jersey club. "It's drill music, but imagine it being about sex," Cobain told Mixmag late last year.

"Instead of [rapping] about killing each other, mine is about having a good time, having sex, meeting somebody you like and saying to them in all so many words what you want to do to them. It’s a groove where you can dance and move your body."

Though sexy drill was born out of New York, spearheaded by artists like Ice Spice, Bay Swag and Chow Lee, the genre has been taken to new heights by Texan rapper Don Toliver and even adapted by UK-based artists: Northern Irish artist Jordan Adetunji's KEHLANI is a prime example of a British spin on the sound.

Elsewhere on Spotify's round-up of international genres blowing up in 2025 is reggaeton chileno, a Chilean variant of the explosively popular Latin American genre represented by artists like Cris Mj and Floyy Menor that's seen a 446% increase in popularity with UK listeners.

Reggaeton chileno is closely followed by seresta, a traditional Brazilian style known for its distinctively romantic and nostalgic vibe, and lagu timur, a genre originating in Eastern Indonesia that blends traditional instruments like the sasando and tifa with synths and electric guitars.

Find the full list of Spotify's fastest-growing international genres in the UK below or read the full Loud and Clear report over at Spotify's website.

• Sexy Drill (1460%)
• Reggaeton Chileno (446%)
• Seresta (312%)
• Lagu Timur (300%)
• Indonesian Pop (261%)
• Afro House (258%)
• Elector Corridos (249%)
• Lagu Jawa (237%)
• Dangdut (230%)
• Indonesian Indie (213%)
• Malay Rap (203%)

Things are looking up at Deezer, the European music streamer locked in a battle with Spotify and Apple Music, to win the hearts and minds of music lovers and help support artists globally.

The company's latest financials show that profits and subscribers are up and while the growth in their home territory of France is particularly impressive (up 4.5%) the company has bold intentions everywhere else too.

The company made €134 million in the first quarter of 2025 - numbers that are up 1.1% on last year – and the service now has over 9.4 million subscribers.

Deezer, of course, is famously on the side of the musician, working hard to spread the word that more of your subscription cash reaches the pockets of your favourite artists than is the case with their big-name rivals.

Spotify has been increasingly under pressure from artists to liberate more of their money in the direction of the people who make the music they sell, and are now regularly on the warpath to point out the blame elsewhere.

Legally obliged to pay rights holders rather than artists, Spotify points out that it's the rights holders who are withholding cash due to the poor deals the artists signed, rather than it being the fault of Spotiy themselves.

Nevertheless, Deezer still claim a win here with their “artist centric model” and in January of this year Deezer signed a major contract with SACEM, the Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers of Music and announced the adoption of the artist centric payment system (ACPS) for publishing rights on Deezer in France.

Their new way to calculate and deliver payments is, they claim, the world’s first update to the remuneration model for publishing since streaming was introduced over a decade and a half ago.

New features = new users?

Similarly, Deezer is at the forefront of the battle against AI music, another contentious issue that’s much in musicians' minds, placing them as the only streamer to actively take a stance against AI-generated musical ‘spam’ and actively working hard to keep real music by real artists front and centre.

Deezer’s proprietary AI detection now blocks and deletes 10,000 new AI-generated tracks being uploaded to the service every day.

And alongside the new numbers come innovative new features for the service, designed to let users see and hear the Deezer difference.

Recognising that each music lover is uniquely passionate about their taste and choices Deezer will shortly be updating their app with new customisation features allowing users to alter and re-order the look of the app and workings of its suggestion algorithm to create their own more personalised player.

And by solving one of music streaming’s biggest problems – the ‘lock-in’ of song and playlist sharing between friends – Deezer hopes to break down streamer’s ‘walled gardens’, remove a potential barrier to entry for new users and “set their music free”.

Now, when sharing a track or playlist from Deezer with friends, Deezer users are able to share it in Spotify- or Apple Music-compatible form. Get the link, click the link and the music will play in your chosen service, whether you’re a Deezer subscriber or not.

"We are fully focused on executing our new strategic direction, introducing bold and innovative music experiences designed to create long lasting value for fans, artists and our partners," says Deezer CEO Alexis Lanternier.

"New features are already live, with intuitive personalization and universal sharing, setting the tone for what we continue to build."

PRODUCER WEEK 2025: In 2023, a poll revealed that almost three quarters of music producers feel that AI music generators could replace them in the future. This is a scary thought. And when you consider just how much more advanced AI is now than there was in 2023 - and how much it’s already infiltrating music streaming platforms - there’s more cause than ever for alarm.

But an alarm is not a death sentence.

Yes, AI is here and AI is changing things, fast. But it’s not the end for music producers, not by a long shot. Here’s why AI won’t replace human music producers - despite what the AI CEOs may be insisting.

AI is here to stay
For better or worse, the age of AI is upon us and no amount of hiding our headphones in the sand is going to make it go away. “I believe the AI era for music is here,” said Sonarworks CEO Helmuts Bems in a recent blog post on AI and music production.“It is already much bigger than most people dare to think.”

The company may be best known for its room calibration SoundID Reference software but it also offers SoundID VoiceAI - AI-powered vocal swap software.

In 2022, the company formed its own think tank to “try to understand the impact that AI is going to have on the music industry.” It’s a fascinating study, but the key takeaway is that AI in music production is not only unavoidable, it’s already well underway, predicting that AI will be the next big music industry disruptor and referring to it as “unstoppable.”

Looking at both AI-assisted human music creation and AI-generated content, the team modeled a number of different scenarios. They all arrive at the same destination, that of AI involvement in music production. However, they differ in terms of the market share and how fast it will happen.

Can you hear it?
Social media is awash with slop. That uncanny mass of AI-generated images and video has become widespread.

But, once you know what to look for - the artificial shininess, the odd composition - one too many fingers - it’s relatively easy to identify AI's aesthetic footprint (for now, that is).

But can the same be said for music? Can you really tell when a song is partially or even completely created by AI?

Helmuts told us the story of first hearing AI music in 2023, recalling that, “it sounded like something you'd hear from a plastic children’s toy.” A year later, the same AI music generator released an update.

Finding it impressive, he made a playlist, mixing AI songs in with human-created ones. “I asked people to listen without telling them which songs were which,” he said. No one noticed that half the playlist was AI-created, and a few even preferred the AI tracks.

“I am 100% convinced that we will get to a point where even a professional, critical listener will not be able to tell AI-generated content from human-generated for general music expression (within the next two or three years),” he concluded.

You probably won’t be able to count on a listener backlash either, as with people calling out AI images on Facebook and Instagram.

“I do not think people will actually care,” Helmuts continued. “Do we care that the potatoes we eat for breakfast have not been hand-picked and were instead harvested by a huge, loud industrial tractor?”

So, is it time to close up our studios and start learning how to write prompts?

Not necessarily. AI may be unavoidable but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for human creativity too. “These two realities will coexist,” Helmuts predicted, “and we will have the best of both worlds.

We’ve been here before
Things may seem dire now but this is not, in fact, the first time that human musicians and producers have felt threatened by new technology.

It’s a running theme, in fact.

No one thinks of synths now as taking away anyone’s job but the Musician’s Union in the UK attempted to ban them.

The argument was that these technological marvels were replacing human musicians. The very idea that a synthesiser could sound realistic enough to take food out of the mouths of tuba and oboe players is today preposterous.

Of course, the irony is that the arrival of synths not only didn’t replace violinists or guitarists, it created new jobs. Along with ‘synthesiser player’, we gained other new job titles like ‘programmer’ - and not to mention all the jobs for people making them, which requires a much different skillset than to become a luthier.

Drum machines caused similar controversy when they became popular in the 1980s, with lots of hand-wringing about the death of the drummer.

Ironically, it was drummers themselves who championed them on-record, with Phil Collins probably selling more Roland CR-78s than any magazine ads could ever do.

Lastly, the emergence of sampling sent ripples of fear through the industry. If we could sample a violin, why would we ever need an orchestra again?

Of course, the two have continued to exist side-by-side, with many orchestras gaining additional work recording the very samples that were supposed to put them out of a job.

AI as a tool
With the past as an example, let’s now look at how AI, the latest in a long line of technological advancements, can be a positive benefit for music producers.

The first is to think of artificial intelligence as a tool. This is already how most of us are already engaging with AI. Mainly as a way to achieve our goals faster.

In the same way that hardware synthesisers, drum machines and outboard gear have for many been replaced by software versions, enabling us to work more quickly, AI is making things even easier and more efficient.

Examples of this are numerous, from Sonible’s Smart series of mixing plugins, which use AI to EQ, add dynamics and de-ess tracks, to mastering with iZotope’s Ozone and its AI mastering assistant. Then there’s drum programming with Audiomodern’s generative Playbeat; and even composition assistance with tools such as LANDR Composer.

New AI revenue streams
AI as a tool, however, is not really connected to the broader anxieties around generative AI that’s causing some consternation for music producers. The idea that AI could potentially replace humans in a compositional sense is the worrying part.

Some jobs will be affected - that’s an unfortunate given.

Sonarworks identifies session musicians and studio engineers as being particularly at risk in an AI-saturated environment.

However, it’s not all gloom and doom. “We believe that producers and composers will be the big winners in the AI era,” the Sonarworks study states, adding, “Producers and composers in the AI era will be able to deliver more content than ever, without depending on others to deliver their parts.”

Hobbyist musicians will also reap the rewards of AI. “AI-generated music will, in the short term, benefit hobby musicians by making music creation more accessible, intuitive, and enjoyable… AI can also serve as a personal collaborator, offering suggestions, filling in gaps in compositions, or even helping hobbyists learn new musical techniques.”

Also, as with the arrival of synthesisers and sampling, there is potential for new roles and new revenue streams - and not just with writing prompts.

Vocal transformation programs are controversial, yes, but as long as they’re ethically created, as with Benn Jordan’s Voice Swap, there’s work and - more importantly - continuing royalties for vocalists. It’s not a stretch to apply other kinds of musical performances to his model too.

Sampling also offers the example of what can happen once the law catches up with the technology.

“On a different tangent, humans are needed to navigate the ethical implications of AI-generated music, including ownership, originality, and creative rights - areas where AI cannot make value-based judgments,” Helmuts reminded us.

Right now, AI companies are sucking up copyrighted material with little to no consequences. But if this gets settled in a way that benefits the copyright holders in the same way that sampling other records can generate new royalties, there’s a potential new revenue stream for already existing IP.

AI can’t replace human interaction
We may not always be able to tell the difference between human- and AI-created songs on Spotify but one arena that AI will never be able to replace is human interaction.

Direct human-to-human exchange, both musician-to-musician and musician-to-audience, will likely become ever-more important in an AI-dominated musical landscape.

“Live shows are where this will manifest the most,” Helmuts opined. “Human interaction in on-stage dynamics remains irreplaceable. The spontaneous, collaborative energy of people creating music together is a deeply human process that AI cannot replicate. In an increasingly lonely world where more and more human interactions are replaced by computers and robots, going to a live show could be an escape back to human roots.”

Even if AI becomes incorporated into live performances, adding real-time elements like adaptive music that responds to audience reactions, or by assisting performers with backing tracks or orchestrations, that human element will always remain crucial.

AI has no soul
Ultimately, the reason AI won’t replace human music producers is because creativity is a distinctly human aspect.

Despite what Mikey Shulman, the CEO of generative music site Suno, would have us believe, musicians actually enjoy making music. Playing and composing music is hard-wired into human biology.

It assists in communication and contributes to social harmony. We’re not about to give that up to the algorithm no matter what the tech bros may say in venture capital pitches.

As Michael Wynne, mixer and host of the In The Mix YouTube channel, said in a recent video, “If you just give a human a piece of paper and a pencil… the result you get might not be as impressive (as AI) but at least it's not going to be emotionally vacuous. It's going to have some kind of creativity and emotion embedded within it.”

Where does this urge to create come from?

Helmuts put it like this: “The big question here is: where does music inspiration come from? What makes us human? Is music a result of pure skill and craft, or does the inspirational spark come from some expression outside our direct perception? If you believe in God, energy, or consciousness transcending a human being, can this ‘outside’ be an inspiration for a music idea in an artist?”

If it’s truly just about skill, Helmuts suggested, then the AI has us beat eight ways to Sunday. It’s faster, can consume more ‘inspiration’ in the form of intellectual property to learn from, and is improving at an alarming rate.

“On the other hand,” he continued, “if the music creativity spark comes from beyond just our brain and skill, then I do not believe AI can be inspired by that. If that is so, then AI music in itself is doomed to never be truly inspirational, and humans will always be more creative.”

The facts are there in black and white. Music streaming services are here to stay and all doubts as to the validity of running a global tech stack, keeping subscribers happy AND delivering a ceaseless outflow of payment to music rights holders are now – it seems – moot.

And the validity of streaming’s balancing act has just been affirmed by Deezer’s latest financials as the French streaming service, established just one year after globe conquering Spotify, just followed suit once again, with 2025 being the year that it finally got the balance right and started making money.

In February this year, Spotify reported its first ever year of profit, marking something of a watershed moment for music streaming and cementing its business case going forward. And it seems that – as ever – Deezer is only a step behind. From here on in both services get to rest easy in the knowledge that 20+ years after they started out, they’re finally generating more than they’re spending.

Deezer’s new FY24 report shows a 12% revenue increase netting them €542 million – a figure that represents double-digit growth (at +12%) which exceeded their own 10% growth target.

Let’s be clear, this is the first time the company has positive free cash flow (of €7 million) and – provided it doesn’t put a foot wrong – after years of work, Deezer’s endless money tap is now officially open.

The company achieved adjusted EBITDA break-even in the second half of the year, improving from a €28.8 million loss in 2023 to a €4 million positive in 2024. Most remarkably it did so despite a slight decline in total subscribers, representing a maturing market and the smart use of their cash.

The company did grow in its home country of France however, with revenues up 9.7% and subscriber growth of 4.3%. Meanwhile, it was also able to strike better deals in its partnerships segment, up an impressive 24% year on year.

A sharp increase in adjusted gross profit of +21.2% to €134M represented a 24.7% margin which the company attributed to strict management of fixed costs while making smarter investments in the brand.

Whatever they’re doing, it’s working

And Deezer has, of course, made a big play of what it calls its Artist Centric Payment System, being committed to what it calls “fairer streaming payments” aiming to ensure that more money reaches the artists whose music is on the platform and an attempt to position themselves as a fairer option than their streaming rivals.

Similarly the platform has been at the forefront of preventing AI generated music from crowding out human artists, both measures that will please music lovers and makers alike.

In its official statement, Alexis Lanternier, CEO of Deezer, said: “2024 was a landmark year for Deezer, marked by progress, innovation, and growth.”

Their report outlines their belief that “the young generation seeks greater control, personalization, social connections, and creative expression” and that “superfans represent a largely untapped market opportunity.

“The one-size-fits-all streaming model has flattened spending among music fans and currently does not serve those seeking deeper connections with artists. Meanwhile, artists are searching for more effective ways to monetize their most engaged audiences.

Thus Deezer now aims to deliver more personalized music experiences and social connections to fans while providing artists with the tools they need to deliver them.

“This marks an exciting new chapter for Deezer… I am confident that we will deliver significant value for fans, artists, partners, and shareholders in the years to come,” promises Lanternier.

Chances are that if you’re of a certain age and were sufficiently up to speed with the tech and able to spring for one of those new ‘broadband’ connections in the late 1990s, that you have fond memories of Napster.

And while the service itself may have slipped from ubiquity to illegality to obscurity since its turn-of-the-century high, it appears that that revolutionary, giant-killing brand is still, in some eyes, worth a small fortune.

Yes, once again, Napster ‘lives’ and is now the property of tech company Infinite Reality, "the home of digital experiences", in exchange for $207 million.

Napster’s new owners say they intend to turn the brand into a social-first music platform, aimed at letting fans engage with artists and their music more directly.

History repeating

Back in the day Napster quickly became the globally notorious method by which users of the early internet could lay bare their music collection and allow randoms from anywhere on the planet to pick it clean.

Peer-to-peer sharing, as it became known, went from something that was ‘technically possible’ on the nascent internet to ‘the number one reason to own a computer’ practically overnight.

Able to type in the name of a track or artist and have Napster search the entire planet before bringing in the results as MP3 downloads was something of a boon for music fans who, at that time, were enduring the misery of a draconian record business making billions from a small, carefully corralled group of artists by charging $20 for a CD just to get the one song that you wanted.

The arrival of Napster on the scene therefore triggered chaos: tens of millions of delighted music fans enjoying limitless, free (though totally illegal) music for a time and a record industry entirely caught on the hop, playing legal catch-up and licking its wounds close behind.

To say that Napster was something of a landmark upheaval therefore (one which changed the world of music completely, moving the business to the legal digital purchasing of services such as iTunes before emerging as today’s subscription-based streaming model) is something of an understatement.

Meanwhile, Napster, the cause of all the trouble, slid from a highly dubious college project to becoming a saleable ‘renegade’ brand for any company aiming to upset an apple cart.

MP3 service Rhapsody bought the brand in 2011, before floundering to make cash and realising that the only thing they owned that was worth anything was the Napster brand. Thus they changed their name to Napster back in 2016.

Virtual reality company MelodyVR then purchased Napster in 2020 for $70 million with the intention of using such a famous name to reinvent its VR live-streaming platform… before, in 2022, cryptocurrency companies Hivemind and Algorand bought Napster as a front for their Web3 and blockchain-based experiments.

Now, Infinite Reality – “an innovation company powering the next generation of digital media and e-commerce through extended reality (XR), artificial intelligence (AI), and other immersive technologies” – is Napster’s new owner.

So, by now, it’s safe to say that Napster has successfully been the front end of every up-and-coming, failure-to-launch, next-big-thing-that-never-happened, that you can imagine.

And with Infinite Reality having interests in such fields as the Drone Racing League and being the owner of esports teams playing League of Legends and Call of Duty (with metaverse and AI-powered customer services lurking in the background) it looks like Napster has, once again, found its perfect home.

"The ultimate music platform"

“I firmly believe that the artist-fan relationship is evolving, with fans craving hyper-personalized, intimate access to their favorite artists, while artists are searching for innovative ways to deepen connections with fans, and access new streams of revenue,” explained John Acunto, Co-Founder and CEO of Infinite Reality. “We’re creating the ultimate music platform where artists can thrive in the next wave of digital disruption.”

Joining Acunto will be Jon Vlassopulos, who joined Napster as CEO in 2022. Prior to heading up Napster, Vlassopulos was the head of music for the video game Roblox, where he helped pioneer their virtual concerts for artists such as Lil Nas X and Twenty One Pilots.

“Napster revolutionized digital music in the nineties, and now, with Infinite Reality, we’re ready to do it again,” Vassopulos said.

“Imagine stepping into a virtual venue to watch an exclusive show with friends, chat with your favorite artist in their own virtual hangout as they drop their new single, and be able to directly buy their exclusive digital and physical merch.

“With Infinite Reality’s expertise in immersive 3D technology, we will transform Napster into a next-generation platform where fans don’t just listen on their own – they experience music in entirely new ways.”

Spotify just revealed its Annual Music Report and the streaming giant just had its best year ever, paying out $10 billion to rights holders with more musicians regularly earning their living through Spotify streams and more music millionaires being created than ever before.

Yes, surprise surprise, Spotify has just enjoyed another record-breaking year and now, more than ever it seems, it's keen to spread the word and keep the industry on message.

Because, by its numbers at least, it’s great news all round.

Welcome to Spotify’s annual Loud & Clear Annual Music Report, a welcome, fact-packed, Spotify-approved breath of fresh air into the streaming story - its once-a-year chance to politely scotch the rumours and (we secretly suspect) put the nay-sayers back in their box.

This is Spotify clearly stating what it is it does, what it can control, and what – through no fault of its own – it can’t. So while $10 billion leaving the company is an amazing number, the company is keen to stress that this is the sum heading to music rights holders who may not always be the musicians themselves…

There’s a catch?

The fact remains that if you're a band who signed away rights to your music, you're probably not feeling the Spotify love in the way that it would like.

Spotify has no visibility on just how much the owners of your music are contractually entitled to then pass on to you. And with all such contracts on a case-by-case basis, it’s easy to see where confusion and anti-Spotify sentiment can arise.

Host for this year's reveal was Head of Artist & Industry Partnerships, International at Spotify, Bryan Johnson who was at pains throughout to explain how Spotify shares out money according to “streamshare” – being a percentage of the total number of streams being delivered – rather than the much-quoted (and non-existent and case-by-case inconsistent) “per stream” rate often used to beat them with.

But with the music streaming service market now having 500 million paying users, with “one billion within reach”, this share of the money – at least on paper – looks set to only ever get bigger.

“Spotify has been on a mission to get the world to value music again – and the system we've built together is working,” he said.

Get the message?

It’s safe to say that Spotify hasn't always had great press, and ongoing issues and doubts surrounding just where all of Spotify’s incoming cash ends up after it leaves the pockets of its increasingly dependent and streaming-friendly consumers goes, refuse to go away.

And with CEO Daniel Ek making more money than any recording artist in history, it’s not really a good look to anyone wanting to make sure their favourite (perhaps niche and struggling) artist gets paid and continues to make the music they love.

Highlights on board the new report – alongside that $10 billion payout – include the fact that payouts have increased tenfold over the past 10 years. That, it claims, has fuelled a “more than 2x increase” in music revenue over the same period. Think streaming is killing music? Not so, Spotify insists.

“Thanks to streaming, more artists than ever before are generating royalties at every career stage, more than at any time in music history," said Johnson.

"Likewise it’s been a great year for songwriters, with Spotify paying out nearly $4.5 billion to publishing rights holders. Our 2024 publishing payouts saw double-digit-percentage growth compared to 2023."

More artists, making more music, making more money

And the number of artists generating royalties has tripled since 2017, with the number of artists with at least one track on Spotify increasing even more.

And the potential for those tracks to earn their makers serious money just keeps getting better.

For example, the report highlights that in 2014 one millionth of the streamshare – i.e. one millionth of the total cash that Spotify pays out, would pay that creator $1000. Now, in 2024 that same one millionth would earn you $10,000.

And – in a slide neatly entitled ‘New Music Millionaires’ there are now 1,500 artists earning over $1 million annually from Spotify. And – interestingly and highlighting the diversity and range of Spotify’s reach – more than 80% of those million dollar earners DIDN’T have a song that reached the Spotify Global Daily Top 50 chart.

Think that it’s just the same big names making all the money? Think again.

It’s all fascinating and perhaps surprising stuff.

We’ll be going in deep with the report and revealing more facts, but suffice to say that on the merit's of today's report, Spotify is serious, isn’t going anywhere and, if you’re willing to get on board, cut out the middleman and play its game (AND if you’ve got the talent and drive to push your music hard) there are big bucks to be made.

Music streaming services are full of ‘functional playlists’ that are designed to provide audio assistance at various times of the day. Getting up in the morning, exercising and relaxing, for example.

Some of the most popular such playlists are devoted to helping you work or study, and typically feature sweeping, chilled-out soundscapes with minimal rhythmic drive. However, new research suggests that it could actually be ‘groovier’ music that's better suited to boosting brainpower and mental agility.

A report in The Times details a study carried out at New York University and published in academic journal PLS One. This involved 280 participants being split into four groups, each of which was played a different kind of “auditory backdrop”: office noise, pop music, deep focus tunes or work flow music.

“The ‘work flow’ music we tested was characterised by strong rhythm with simple tonality, broadly distributed spectral energy below ~6000 Hz, and moderate dynamism,” say the study’s authors. “By contrast, the ‘deep focus’ music that we tested was more minimalistic, with similarly simple tonality, but weaker rhythm, lower and more restricted spectral energy, and more reserved dynamism.”

As well as being asked to gauge their mood before and after hearing their audio for 10 minutes, participants were also required to take the so-called ‘flanker task’ while it was playing. Designed to measure attention levels and mental processing, this involves participants repeatedly having to say which way an arrow is pointing when it’s surrounded by other symbols that are designed to confuse them.

“Regarding mood, the results showed that only the work flow music had a significant effect, driving improvements in overall mood from before to after the flanker task,” says the study.

“Regarding flanker task performance, the results showed that, while response accuracy was not affected by audio condition, response speed was. Specifically, we observed a significant interaction between audio condition and trial number, such that participants listening to work flow music responded more quickly over time."

In other words, those who listened to the work flow music were able to work quicker - by around 7%, in fact - possibly because the music was improving their mood. This is consistent with what’s known as arousal mood theory, which suggests that “positive effects of music listening on cognition can be understood in terms of music’s well-documented capacities to upregulate arousal level and positive affect.”

Summarising the team’s findings, senior study author Pablo Ripollés of New York University says: “There was a correlation between how much their mood improved and how fast they were providing correct answers.

“This is just a first study, but we hypothesise that the work flow music had an effect on both mood and speed of [mental] processing because it was liked and groovy at the same time.”

Ripollés also suggests that, while pop music might also have the potential to improve mood via its groove, its lyrics and sudden melodic changes could be distracting and have an impact on cognitive performance.

So, maybe it’s time to ditch those study playlists and seek out some music with a bit more bounce.

It’s highly likely that if you’re a self-releasing artist - or even if you’re just dabbling in music-making - you’ll have a SoundCloud account. For some, releasing their work on SoundCloud is the very final stage. Sharing their delicately arranged and produced work with their cultivated fan-base.

However, in the last few weeks, the quality of the platform’s compression algorithm (AAC) has come under heavy flak. The criticism led to intense discourse, and caused the streaming platform to respond directly.

The story began when German EDM artist and producer Nasko took to X to ask for some insight as to why his latest track upload’s waveform significantly differed from his final mix.

Among the responses, producer Light Shard stated that SoundCloud had switched to the 'AAC LC' codec recently, and high frequencies tended to be the ones that got chopped first. He stated, “I think the best we can do as artists is to provide some way for listeners to find high quality, lossless files or streams. Make it easy to access as an option, and people will gravitate towards their need.”

Digging into it further, Nasko shared an image showing direct comparison of his waveform from four different sources. Firstly there’s the original 16-bit WAV export, the SoundCloud download, a YouTube 1080p download, and a YouTube 144p download.

The comparison, in Nasko’s view, highlighted a smearing of the transients in the SoundCloud example, while YouTube separates the audio from the video file, compressing it differently and seemingly more effectively.

Others responded to Nasko’s comparison with shock and disbelief. "Still find it unbelievable that the world's biggest independent music platform is the one where music sounds the worst" said one user, while another said, "This is just absolutely unacceptable, especially with a platform as popular and broad as SoundCloud."

“Soundcloud audio is cooked, ESPECIALLY for EDM”, stated Nasko. “Transients are integral to this genre and the regular SoundCloud audio has some really bad issues with messing them up.”

He went on to say; “SoundCloud seems to be using a REALLY bad version of a codec called AAC, which absolutely ruins audio quality for free listeners and artists that use soundcloud pro [sic]. SoundCloud needs to see this”

See it they did. SoundCloud directly responded to the discourse with a statement on X that acknowledged that some information was being trimmed due to the rotation of various transcoding algorithms used to compress the audio. SoundCloud said:

“Shoutout to our community for keeping us on our toes! We use different transcoding setups depending on what you upload. They’re for sure not perfectly dialed in. But we're always working on it, testing out new encoders and settings based on your feedback. Right now, we don’t support lossless-to-lossless, so yeah, some info gets lost along the way. But we hear you, and I swear we’re working on it. Stay tuned—more updates are coming.”

Reaction to SoundCloud’s statement has been mixed, but the original highlighter of the problem, Nasko, spoke to MusicTech and gave a further statement; “What I’d like to add to the whole situation is that the sort of ‘outcry’ we managed to generate isn’t necessarily to stomp SoundCloud for its bad audio quality - it’s quite the opposite!"

He went on to say that, "SoundCloud is still relevant for a lot of the electronic scene and as a primarily audio-based platform, we care about the impression it has on regular listeners and fans of the music posted on it. For SoundCloud to continue to be a place for the EDM scene, it needs to at least get the basics right. There are great free audio codecs (like OPUS) that they can look at implementing, but it’s important that they do this right, showing us that they care.”

The lively debate on the subject has caused much commentary across the music production/self-releasing artist space, and we’ll keep our eye on the story as it develops.

If you haven't heard Lola Young's Messy yet, where have you been? The London-hailing singer and songwriter's anthem Messy skyrocketed to the top of the UK charts, earned her a Tonight Show debut, and amassed (at time of writing) over 300 million Spotify streams. Yet behind the viral triumph lies a sobering truth: even explosive social media success doesn’t guarantee meaningful direct engagement.

Young’s journey underscores a critical lesson for emerging artists: virality alone cannot sustain a career.

While influencers and algorithms can propel a song to global fame, converting casual listeners into loyal fans and driving them to your owned platforms remains a steep uphill battle.

Let’s break down how Messy went viral, where the traffic went, and what new artists must prioritise to turn short-term buzz into lasting success, just like Lola has done.

Note: All data/stats are from time of writing, and might have increased significantly since completion of this article.

Anatomy of a viral moment

Young first teased Messy on TikTok in May 2024, generating impressive, yet channel average traction (141k views). But the real breakthrough came six months later when influencer Jake Shane and Sofia Richie Grainge (daughter-in-law of Universal Music’s CEO) danced to the track in a 'fan-led' clip.

The video sparked a trend, there are now 250k+ user-generated TikToks, including posts from Reese Witherspoon and Kylie Jenner.

The key takeaway here is that timing is fluid.

A song’s BIG moment can arrive months after release. So just because you've released a song a year or two ago, it doesn't meant you can't re-purpose it to tie in with emerging trends or cultural events. Remember - new music can be any music you’ve never heard.

Influencers are accelerators. Partnering with creators even unintentionally can reignite interest, but authenticity is key.

The harsh reality of traffic and conversion

After Messy went viral, Google reported two million monthly global searches for Lola Young. That's a 752% spike on the previous period, but where did that curiosity lead?

- Only 8,000 visitors (0.4% of searchers) reached her website.

- Of which just 4,400 were unique visitors, with a 49-second average engagement.

- 52% of traffic came from organic search vs 6.7% from social media.

Artists are often told to 'build a mailing list', but Young’s data reveals the challenge to this advice. Even at this viral level, most fans didn’t visit her website, and search data reveals those that did, went almost exclusively to find live tickets, in this case clicking through to give their data to ticket companies like Live Nation over the artist.

It’s clear without meaningful incentives few will voluntarily share their email. At the grassroots level, this becomes even harder as the value of exclusive content diminishes significantly.

What can we learn from this? That your website is a tool, not a given. Optimise it for what fans want (e.g., tickets, merchandise) If you are reliant on incentives to drive mailing list sign-ups make sure there is a genuine incentive.

Social media virality happens off the page. Less than 10% of Lola Young’s website traffic came from direct social referrals. Most people who saw the ‘Messy Dance’ did not see it on Lola Young’s page and most didn’t click her links to visit her pages.

The messy battle for attention

Google is rapidly moving to a 'zero-click' search model, by increasingly answering queries directly on the results page.

This means if you want people to come to your website you need to provide something more than information that can be shared in search.

In Lola Young’s case of the 2,000,000 searches, most were either informational ‘Lola Young’s age’ (answered by Google directly) or navigational ‘Lola Young Wiki’ while just 19% were transactional ‘Lola Young Tickets’.

This makes website optimisation even more critical. In Young’s case there were gaps:

- Outdated metadata (e.g. referencing a 2023 single).

- Missing H1 tags and image alt text, hurting SEO.

- No clear incentive for mailing list sign-ups.

On the positive side, Lola's website contains Meta and TikTok pixels which means she can retarget visitors later, hopefully improving on that 49-second engagement and turning more visitors into listeners and fans.

How can you get better at this? Treat your website like a storefront. Update it regularly, use SEO best practices, and align content with search intent (informational, navigational, transactional).

Own your story. Unique trivia (e.g. 'Her aunt wrote The Gruffalo') gives fans social currency to share, boosting organic reach.

The Spotify vs YouTube divide

Messy’s viral fame has been more pronounced on Spotify than YouTube.

At the time of writing, Messy has surpassed 300 million streams on Spotify versus 37 million views for the Messy music video on YouTube. But in both cases, the real headline figure is the conversion from Listener to Follow/Fan.

On Spotify, just 1.6% of her 40,000,000 monthly listeners follow her, while just 1% of Messy video watchers subscribe to her YouTube channel.

On Spotify, Messy has 7 times more streams than any other Lola Young track, but her top 9 songs all have well over 3 million streams each, so Messy is certainly providing a gateway to wider music discovery.

With a Spotify Popularity Index Score of 72%, Spotify’s algorithms will be pushing her out to both algorithmic and editorial playlists.

Streaming platforms offer limited tools to convert passive listeners into followers. Without listener data, artists can’t directly retarget fans.

What can musicians take away from these findings? Optimise profiles everywhere. Use high-quality bios, artist playlists, and pinned content to encourage follows.

Cross-promote channels. Link YouTube in Spotify bios, or tease website-exclusive content on socials.

Lola Young’s story isn’t just about seizing on the popularity of a hit song, it’s a blueprint for navigating the gaps in today’s music industry.

In the end, Messy isn’t just a song - it’s a metaphor for the chaos of modern music marketing. The artists who thrive will be those who plan for the mess.

To break down the key takeaways from this deep-dive, here's something all self-releasing artists should take on-board:

1: Virality is fleeting. Even 300 million streams don't guarantee a sustainable career.

2: Own your audience and stories. Create content that gets people out of Google

3: Data > assumptions. Use analytics to learn why fans engage and tailor your strategy.

Success requires a multi-channel approach. Leverage trends, optimise for search, and create reasons for fans to stay connected long after the viral moment fades.

It's no secret that streaming services are sparing in their compensation of the artists that make the music hosted on their platforms. Spotify in particular has a reputation for dispensing pitifully meagre royalties, with estimates coming in at an average of $0.003 to $0.005 paid out per stream.

If you ask us, that's reason enough to avoid using the platform, and that's before we've even mentioned Spotify CEO Daniel Ek's $100m investment in AI defence technology company Helsing. But if we want to support musicians (and avoid financing AI-powered military drones) while still enjoying the convenience of streaming, which service should we choose as an alternative?

That's just one of the questions answered in musician and content creator Benn Jordan's latest video, a smorgasbord of "music industry data-porn" that addresses a trio of issues facing independent musicians in 2025.

After looking into the growing prevalence of AI-generated music on streaming services - and how to detect it - Jordan takes on the so-called "Splice problem", a term that refers to the tendency of artists using loops and samples from platforms such as Splice to be unfairly hit with copyright strikes on YouTube, because they've used the same royalty-free material in their songs as other artists.

In the final chapter of his multi-faceted data-dump, Jordan provides a detailed ranking of the royalties he receives from various streaming services and music platforms as an independent artist that owns 100% of the rights to his music, giving us a fascinating insight into the varying pay-per-stream rates offered by platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music, TIDAL and Deezer.

Jordan, who records under the alias The Flashbulb, reveals that social media sites are by far the least generous in their compensation; by his calculations, Russian social media platform VK pays out a stunningly tight-fisted $0.00005 per stream, while Snapchat and Meta trail closely behind.

When it comes to dedicated music streaming services, though, YouTube Music and Pandora are tied at the bottom of the list, offering up a paltry $0.0027 per stream. Spotify isn't doing much better: as the third-most miserly platform, it paid Jordan $0.0029 per stream - even less than many estimates we've seen in the past. (That's not much of a surprise, though.)

In the middle of the rankings we have Apple Music ($0.0061), Deezer ($0.007) and TIDAL ($0.0078), all of which pay out more than double the amount Spotify does per stream. Astonishingly, Amazon Music tops these three by a wide margin, coming in at $0.0096 per stream - more than three times Spotify's rate. That makes Amazon Music the most generous of the mainstream streaming services included on Jordan's list, only to be bested by two other platforms.

These are Qobuz, a French streaming service that offers high-quality lossless audio, and... Peloton. Yes, you read that right: Peloton, the manufacturer of those posh-looking exercise bikes you may have seen in expensive gyms, runs the streaming platform paying musicians the highest per-stream royalty rate in 2025.

As Jordan notes, Peloton doesn't only make stationary bicycles. They also run a music streaming service that can be accessed via the bike's display while cycling, featuring a curated catalogue of tracks to soundtrack the rider's workout - and, by Jordan's calculations, paying the artists behind that music $0.03 per stream, more than 10 times Spotify's rate.

Admittedly, even the cyclists amongst us won't be doing the majority of our music listening via Peloton's bike-tethered streaming platform, so if you're looking to join an ethical streaming service that compensates artists fairly - and can be used without putting on your gym shorts - it appears that Qobuz is your best bet, paying more than four times Spotify's royalty rates at $0.0136 per stream.

Support Benn Jordan on Patreon.

Streams of drum 'n' bass have risen by 94% since 2021 in the UK, Spotify has revealed.

Over the last three years, the genre has returned to the mainstream thanks in part to the popularity of tracks like Chase & Status and Stormzy's BACKBONE, which went to No 1 in the UK earlier this year. Spotify says BACKBONE is the most-streamed DnB track on the platform.

The streaming service has also shared a list of its top 10 DnB artists that includes Chase & Status, Rudimental, Bou, goddard, Sub Focus, Charlotte Plank, Skepsis, Hybrid Minds, Shy FX and Nia Archives.

Spotify has released a mini-documentary, DnB: In for Life, that explores the history of the genre and its impact on the wider music scene. Featuring a number of influential artists and DJs that includes Flight, S.P.Y. and Bou, the film traces drum 'n' bass' development from its roots in underground raves through to mainstream domination.

In the documentary, Flight says that DnB's enduring popularity is down to its independent ethos. "No-one's managed to get hold of it," she says. "It's been DIY since the beginning and it's stayed that way. Whether you're an artist, a label owner or a raver, we're really protective over it. Once you're into the music, that's it: you love it for life."

Drum 'n' bass' resurgence has been driven by a renewed interest in the genre among younger listeners; Spotify reports that 68% of listeners are below the age of 34.

Watch our In The Studio With... video with Skepsis below.

With Mariah Carey currently on her Christmas Time tour – marking the 30th anniversary of her most famous track and the album that bears it – party poopers Last FM have chosen the occasion to release stats that show that the timeless appeal of her signature festive banger may actually be on the wane.

Yes, following the credit crunch, Brexit, Covid and that budget, this decade only brings more gloom as it seems that even All I Want For Christmas Is You is losing its sparkle…

And things had been going so well for the modern era’s biggest Christmas jam. Having unsurprisingly been an exclusively December ‘thing’ through the 2000s, the song had begun to show an unexpected November uptick after 2010, and had even been encroaching into October playlists from 2018.

And you thought it was just your neighbours that were starting Christmas earlier and earlier each year…

But it seems that all of that is at an end and AIWFCIY’s ski slope of Last FM plays just took a dive for 2024. The latest figures show that plays for the song are down 35% when comparing October 2023 to October 2024 and have declined 22% from November 2023 to November 2024.

Yes, after beginning its ascent earlier and earlier each year 2024 shows a stark return to sensible normality following years of pre-seasonal insanity.

I don’t want a lot for Christmas

All I Want For Christmas Is You was released in December 1994 and has charted every year since. Incredibly though, it wasn’t until Christmas 2020 that the song finally hit number one in the UK, meaning that it took 26 years to finally make good on its Christmas wish

The song then returned to number one in mid December of 2022 – bringing in a total of three non-consecutive weeks at the top – but was edged off the top spot by Wham!’s Last Christmas, a song which itself would have to wait 39 years before it was Christmas number one.

It’s safe to say, therefore, that All I Want For Christmas Is You is a bit of a Christmas institution and the small matter of it making it Christmas number one – or at least maximising its earning potential by getting as close to pole position as possible – is something that Carey and team take very seriously.

In fact, perhaps acknowledging its slide and as part of her and her label’s mission to prop up its falling star, Carey had already officially ‘gone early’ this year and actually began the campaign for its resurrection back on 9 October. Taking to Instagram she revealed the cover of the 30th anniversary re-issue of the song, and the Merry Christmas album that carries it.

It’s still all to play for, of course with – at the time of writing – the UK’s Christmas-Based Top 20 (i.e. just the songs with a festive bent) looking like this:

Wham!, Last Christmas (number 2)
Mariah Carey, All I Want For Christmas Is You (number 5)
Brenda Lee, Rockin’ Around The Christmas Tree (number 6)
Band Aid, Do They Know It’s Christmas? (number 8)
Ed Sheeran & Elton John, Merry Christmas (number 9)
Bobby Helms, Jingle Bell Rock (number 10)
Arianna Grande, Santa Tell Me (number 11)
Kelly Clarkson, Underneath The Tree (number 12)
The Pogues featuring Kirsty McColl, Fairytale of New York (number 13)

Can Wham! Do it again as they did last year? (Get the full story of Last Christmas here and our choice of festive tunes here.) Is All I Want For Christmas Is You really doomed? There's just a few weeks to go…

Anyway, if truth be told, we much prefer Carey’s 2010 attempt at getting seasonal lightning to strike twice, Oh Santa! There. We've said it.

This week is Spotify Wrapped week, the week where the world’s biggest music streaming service gifts new playlists to all its subscribers based on all the music they’ve been listening to each year.

Your Wrapped playlist is therefore always both a joy and a bit of a head-scratcher, revealing everything that you love and some things that you didn’t quite realise that you loved quite so much… Baby Shark? Again? Really?

It’s all very personal and provides deep insight into your musical taste that you’ll probably want to keep to yourself… Although, increasingly (and brilliantly) big name artists now take the opportunity to share their lists, not only showing us what trend-setting, forward-thinking musical geniuses they are but providing an interesting insight into what’s currently making their musical brains tick.

Charli XCX was quick off the mark, broadcasting a screenshot that showed that Drain Gang member Bladee was her most-played artist of the year with the rest of her top five panning out as Air, A.G Cook, Clairo and Mk.gee. Interesting juxtaposition of Bladee and Air there… Obviously she likes to wind down after too much hardcore hip-hop.

So-hot-right-now US vocalist Chappell Roan, perhaps unsurprisingly, listened to a lot of Ariana Grande, Charli XCX, Heart, Justice and Kacey Musgraves. Her top song was Heart’s Barracuda.

Olivia Rodrigo’s gave her BFF Chappell Roan a double high five, revealing that Roan was her top artist and her top song was Roan’s Good Luck, Babe.

Similarly Maisie Peters, an artist who opened for Taylor Swift on her Eras tour, revealed that Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department song Down Bad was her number one.

And also paying her old school respect, Miley Cyrus’s top artist was Britney Spears (this despite her not releasing a new album since 2016’s Glory with a single Mind Your Business release in 2023).

Camila Cabello on the other hand branched out, revealing a taste for Afrobeat this year with top three tracks: Ijo (Laba Laba) by Crayon, Kontrol by Maleek Berry and Charm by Rema.

Playlist payola?

Of course, such an opportunity to reach out to (potentially) millions of fans to promote music they might not have heard is now a bit of a business opportunity. Thus we see unheard of artists suddenly getting a vast boost through a high profile endorsement and – perhaps – there’s a little gamesmanship at play with labelmates, tour buddies and BFFs all getting the appropriate corporate approved props and love.

And special mention to artists whose playlist feature themselves… Or is even entirely comprised of themselves…

So while Addison Rae went old school, revealing a top most-played five artist list packed with classics - Madonna, Lady Gaga, Charli XCX, Britney Spears - there’s – oops – herself at number five.

More dramatically, the only artist that Lil Nas X listened to more than himself was Camila Cabello. (Cabello at number one, Nas X at number two…)

Likewise Clairo confessed that while her top artist was the rather off-topic Lana Del Rey, her number two choice was… [cough] Clairo…

Of course, the queen of self-appreciation was Ice Spice, who last year famously posted that her top artist was herself, with her top five comprising entirely of songs by herself…

Fortunately this year it seems she’s broadened her horizons, instead listening to Cash Cobain, Drake, Future, Bktherula and Partynextdoor (in that order).

Phew.

Apple may have beaten them to it, dropping Apple Music’s 2024 Replay playlists into subscribers accounts yesterday, but the real year-end big news remains today’s release of Spotify’s Wrapped 2024 charts. The increasingly relevant and popular annual Spotify list of most streamed songs and artists on the platform has become the benchmark metric for “How was your year?” for every musician.

And while Wrapped drops tailor-made lists of what you’ve been listening from across the year for its users, it’s the year-end charts – a chance for the industry to get an angle on an artist’s success in an age where ‘record sales’ mean nothing – that are the hot topic.

A good showing in Spotify’s Wrapped is your passport to festival headline slots, movie soundtrack offers and cameos and celebrity endorsements from soft drinks to soft play. Basically, everywhere you can make money from music, that isn’t actually music, because – ironically – nobody makes money from music except for Spotify.

So who are this year’s winners and losers?

It’ll perhaps come as no surprise to find that Taylor Swift has had a great 2024. In fact, she had a great 2023 too, meaning that today’s anointment as the most streamed artist on the platform means that it’s the second year in a row that she’s won it. Hardly surprising considering the level of hard work and promotion she’s put in globally, with her Era’s tour spanning the planet since March 2023 and still in progress.

Swift scored 26.6 billion streams globally with The Weeknd, Bad Bunny, Drake and Billie Eilish (in that order) rounding out the top five.

Swift similarly won the prize of Spotify’s most streamed album with The Tortured Poets Department coming in ahead of rival releases by Eilish, Sabrina Carpenter, Karol G and Ariana Grande. Worth noting that female artists were responsible for eight of the top ten albums this year.

Worth mentioning that Swift won most streamed artist and album on Apple's Replay charts too.

Women score eight out of ten of the top slots

“It’s been a standout year for female artists,” Sulinna Ong, Spotify's global head of editorial at their press conference. “In all my time at Spotify, I’ve never seen women dominate the eight spots for global albums of the year. So long may this continue.”

However, while Swift bagged artist and album wins, the coveted prize of the world’s most streamed song went to another artist… And 2024’s winner is… Espresso by Sabrina Carpenter. Hardly a surprise given that it’s been practically everywhere all year, scoring an impressive 1.6 billion streams on Spotify’s service alone.

Beautiful Things by Benson Boone, Birds of a Feather by Billie Eilish, Gata Only by FloyyMenor and Cris Mj, and Lose Control by Teddy Swims round out the five.

Notably Swift only just made the top ten, with her best track – Cruel Summer – sliding in at number nine.

Special mention (and explanation) to Spotify’s ‘Most Viral’ charts at this point. Not to be confused with streams, Most Viral measures how often a track was shared to social media (and thereby spread to a wider audience) indicating those tracks that users want to broadcast their endorsement of or which carry a more personal connection (rather than tracks simply enjoyed as guilty pleasures in private). Yes, of course Spotify can see (and measure) such a thing.

Top Viral track was Die With A Smile by Bruno Mars and Lady Gaga, with the rest of the five panning out as Birds of a Feather by Billie Eilish, Beautiful Things by Benson Boone, Lose Control by Teddy Swims and Good Luck, Babe! by Chappell Roan

Here, in full, therefore are those vital 2024 Top Tens:

Most-Streamed Artists Globally 2024

1) Taylor Swift
2) The Weeknd
3) Bad Bunny
4) Drake
5) Billie Eilish
6) Travis Scott
7) Peso Pluma
8) Kanye West
9) Ariana Grande
10) Feid

Most-Streamed Songs Globally 2024

1) Espresso by Sabrina Carpenter
2) Beautiful Things by Benson Boone
3) Birds of a Feather by Billie Eilish
4) Gata Only by FloyyMenor and Cris Mj
5) Lose Control by Teddy Swims
6) End of Beginning by Djo
7) Too Sweet by Hozier
8) One Of The Girls by The Weeknd, JENNIE and Lily Rose Depp
9) Cruel Summer by Taylor Swift
10) Die With A Smile by Bruno Mars, Lady Gaga

Most-Streamed Albums Globally 2024

1) The Tortured Poets Department: The Anthology by Taylor Swift
2) Hit Me Hard And Soft by Billie Eilish
3) Short n’ Sweet by Sabrina Carpenter
4) Mañana Será Bonito by Karol G
5) Eternal Sunshine by Ariana Grande
6) 1989 (Taylor’s Version) by Taylor Swift
7) SOS by SZA
8) Lover by Taylor Swift
9) Fireworks & Rollerblades by Benson Boone
10) Starboy by The Weeknd

Most Viral Songs Globally 2024

1) Die With A Smile by Bruno Mars, Lady Gaga
2) Birds of a Feather by Billie Eilish
3) Beautiful Things by Benson Boone
4) Lose Control by Teddy Swims
5) Good Luck, Babe” by Chappell Roan
6) Too Sweet by Hozier
7) We Can't Be Friends (Wait For Your Love) by Ariana Grande
8) End of Beginning by Djo
9) Espresso by Sabrina Carpenter
10) Not Like Us by Kendrick Lamar

In a world of near-incomprehensible convenience, there are many ‘one-stop shops’ we benefit from day to day - but Amazon is easily the one-stop-shoppiest of them all. From household essentials to high-fidelity streaming, you can find practically everything from Amazon’s often-garish homepage - and this Black Friday, so much of that ‘everything’ is getting star discount treatment. For the music-lovers amongst us (read: all of us reading this right now), one of the best deals will cost you nothing - new subscribers can get three months of Amazon Music Unlimited for the low, low price of free.

Switching from an alternative service like Spotify or Apple Music is a breeze too, thanks to Amazon's handy guide.

What’s more Amazon Music Unlimited subscribers now also get access to Amazon’s Audible book service. Sign up today and users in the UK, US and Canada can enjoy a book a month, while US subscribers can also access over 1 million audiobooks.

With Black Friday and Cyber Monday advancing at considerable speed, it’s only natural that Amazon be one of the first places to which we flock to look out for bargain deals on myriad products and object d’art. Indeed, this expansive forefather of e-commerce is practically responsible for the genesis of Cyber Monday, wicking away the vital energy of department-store-storming Thanksgiving crowds with all the convenience of the digital shopping basket.

Year-round, Amazon is also a leading destination for creative media, whether you’re Priming it up with new exclusive series, or locking in to Amazon Music for its hundreds-of-millions-strong roster of songs, podcasts and radio shows. Amazon Music is a draw for some of its exclusive content, sure - but more so by far for its commitment to high-fidelity streaming. And this Black Friday, you can get three months of access to that high fidelity completely free.

• Shop more of our recommended Black Friday music deals
• Explore Amazon’s official Black Friday deals

Where many streaming platforms rest on their laurels with respect to the breadth of content they offer subscribers, Amazon goes a step further; rather than comfortably shovelling lossy digital audio to listeners’ earholes, Amazon Music Unlimited offers HD audio as standard. That is, everything you listen to in this top-tier subscription is served to you as CD-quality lossless audio at the very least.

Further to this, there are over a million tracks in Amazon Music’s library that enjoy the Ultra HD treatment - with bit depth of up to 24 and sample rates of up to 192kHz. If you’re looking to integrate streaming into an extensive hi-fi setup at home, Ultra HD will make all the difference. Further still, there are thousands of songs that benefit from Dolby Atmos or 360 Reality Audio mixes; if you’re a rare spatial-audio acolyte, this is worth signing up for.

There are so many different options for streaming music, and chances are you’re already subscribed to one of them. But with HD audio as standard and switching providers a super easy task - and with three months completely free this Black Friday - Amazon Music Unlimited is a hard service to pass up on.

Most MusicRadar readers will be aware that music-making tools powered by generative AI have seen dramatic progression in recent years. Having allegedly hoovered up the entirety of recorded music without legal authorization, platforms like Suno and Udio are now capable of generating entire songs at the click of a button.

Generative tools like these have presented the music industry with a catalogue of urgent questions both ethical and practical - questions which artists, labels and streaming platforms are only beginning to grapple with.

Should artists be compensated by platforms that have trained their AI models on copyrighted music? If someone makes a song with AI, do they deserve the same kind of rights and compensation as a traditional musician? Should music be labelled as AI-generated on streaming services, so that listeners are aware of its origin? In the long run, is AI going to amplify creativity - or replace people?

It's this final question that Spotify co-president Gustav Söderström answered during a recent episode of the Big Technology podcast, giving us a clearer picture of how the world's most popular streaming service intends to face the issues raised by the development of generative AI.

"It's amplifying creativity," Söderström tells host Alex Kantrowitz. "It's giving more and more people access to be creative. You need even less motor skills than on a piano. You need less technical skills than their own [digital audio] workstation. So I think of them as tools."

After Söderström makes a distinction between completely AI-generated music and music that uses AI only for specific elements of a song, Kantrowitz asks him directly if Spotify wants to host music on its platform that is 100% AI-generated.

"We're a tool for for creators," he replies, "and if creators want to use A.I. to enhance their music, as long as we follow the legislation and copyright laws, we want them to be able to monetize their music and pay out, right?"

Kantowitz suggests that Spotify could eventually fill up with songs that are entirely AI-generated, in the same way that AI-generated images are fast becoming some of the most popular content on social media platform Meta. "If these songs are generated by AI music generators become engaging, and they follow the rules, is that good for Spotify?" he asks.

Söderström's view is that AI-generated music, as long as it's created in such a way that it doesn't violate copyright law, should be welcomed on the platform. "If creators are using these technologies — where they are creating music in a legal way that we reimburse and people listen to them — and are successful, we should let people listen to them."

Where Söderström draws the line, however, is the possibility of Spotify generating and hosting its own AI-based music; music that the platform would own and thus not be obliged to pay royalties for. "I don't think it's our job to generate that music instead of the creators," he says.

"There's the question, should we generate all the music ourselves? And that's where we're saying, 'No, we're not going to generate that music.' But maybe other platforms will, because it's cheap content, right? We decided what we want to be in this world, and it's a platform for creators."

Spotify's decision not to produce its own AI-generated music is a welcome one; many have speculated that this might be an option that the streaming giant chooses to explore, considering its profit-boosting potential. However, as Söderström says, there's nothing stopping other streaming platforms leveraging AI to generate this kind of "cheap content" while taking money out of the pockets of real artists.

Before we congratulate Spotify too warmly, though, we should recall that earlier this year, the platform adjusted its royalty model so that all tracks receiving less than 1000 plays annually (around two thirds of its entire catalogue) would be completely demonetized, with no royalties paid to their creators.

Late last year, Spotify announced that it would be cutting 1,500 jobs, around 17% of its workforce. Earlier this month, the streaming service reported record profits for Q3 2024, with an operating income of €454 million and total revenue of €4 billion.

Read the full interview over at Big Technology.

Worrying times at TIDAL. Just two weeks after layoffs were reported at the streaming platform, it now transpires that its pool of funding is set to decline.

In a public letter to shareholders published late last week, the owner, tech firm Block, announced it would be "scaling back" investment in TIDAL. Block, which also owns payments brands Square and Cash App as well as banking app Spiral, said it plans to concentrate resources on its cryptocurrency ventures, which include a bitcoin wallet and a bitcoin mining initiative.

This comes after a leaked internal email from Block CEO Jack Dorsey suggested that redundancies were on their way. Dorsey said in his message to staff that TIDAL needed to "part ways with a number of folks and start operating like a startup again," meaning departments must function with "much smaller teams."

Dorsey also stated that product management and product marketing functions will be "removed" entirely. In addition to this the size of the design team and "foundational roles" will be reduced. "We will consider reducing engineering over the next few weeks as we have more clarity around leadership going forward," the email continued. It remains unclear how many jobs will be lost. Just last December TIDAL announced an initial wave of redundancies, with over 10% of its workforce losing their jobs.

It seems to end any remaining hopes that TIDAL could one day grow to become an artist-friendly high-quality rival to Spotify.

TIDAL was launched at a truly star-studded press conference in 2015, which brought together A list artists from all genres, from Jay Z and Beyonce to Jack White and Coldplay. It was positioned as being ‘artist-owned’, though the total equity owned by artists only ever came to 48%, a minority stake. It was more expensive than Spotify but its main draw was better audio quality, as well as the ability to draw upon exclusive artist content, playlists and suchlike.

Over the last decade, it’s gradually become clear that that’s simply not enough to make a dent in Spotify’s enormous market share. Punters simply aren’t bothered enough about audio quality and don’t care about the notoriously tiny amounts Spotify pays out to its artists. Plus Spotify has had half a decade’s start on TIDAL in the US and longer in Europe; time to build up a large loyal customer base that has been understandably reluctant to fork out for a second streaming subscription during a decade of austerity during which many belts have been tightened.

Where TIDAL goes from here is uncertain, but the distant dream of one day usurping Spotify is over.

Nintendo has launched a new music streaming app, Nintendo Music, which features tracks from across its classic video game history. Available for both iOS and Android, this can be used by anyone with an active Nintendo Switch Online subscription

While this might seem like it’s come out of leftfield (a lot of Nintendo’s ‘side quests’ do, to be fair), it actually makes a fair bit of sense. The company has a vast back catalogue of much-loved themes, and a lot of fans will be thrilled that they can now access at least some of them in one user-friendly place.

At launch, Nintendo has definitely taken a ‘quality over quantity’ approach in terms of the content, but you do get music from Switch favourites The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey, Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and more.

The archive content list is less comprehensive - just a few playlists apiece from the NES, Game Boy, SNES, Nintendo 64, Game Boy Advance, GameCube, Nintendo DS and Wii - but there’s plenty of scope to add all kinds of 8-bit goodness in the future.

There are various curated playlists, too, including a variety of ‘mood’ options and collections that correspond to particular game scenes. So, if you want to march into work listening to a Boss Battles playlist, you can.

Certain tracks also feature an extend option, which could be handy during focus and study time. You can probably get a lot done while listening to an hour-long version of the Pikmin 4 title screen music.

Other playlists are based on specific characters, and if you’re worried about spoilers from games you haven’t played, you can hide these in the settings menu. There’s no smart speaker integration, sadly - you’ll have to make do with Bluetooth for any wireless playback shenanigans - but you can download music for offline playback.

With a clean and simple interface that actually puts some ‘proper’ music streaming apps to shame, we like both the look and sound of Nintendo Music. Here’s hoping that it will be supported with more content, including some from third-party themes, in the future.

Find out more on the Nintendo website.

Releasing your music into the ears of millions is now an achievable aim for every self-releasing artist, but securing your rights as the legal creator of said music is a vital step. In today's world of rapid uploading to streaming and social platforms, and immediate listener response, getting those official copyright ducks in a row is all too often overlooked. Sometimes, it's not until a fight over ownership/usage erupts, that artists even think of it.

Legally speaking, it's the only way to make sure that people don’t start using your music without your permission, and - worse than that - claiming that they themselves created it.

The thought of someone passing off your work as their own might be rage-inducing, but this quick-fire guide will take you through all the essentials, in a simple, waffle-free manner. We intend to arm you with the knowledge you need to protect your rights as a music creator.

The essentials of music copyright

So, just what parts of a track or song does the law regard as ‘copyright’ anyway? In the US and UK at least, it splits into two copyrights: the ‘Sound Recording’, which protects the specific recording of a song, and the ‘Music Composition’ copyright, which protects the actual song itself, regardless of the performer or recording artist.

These two copyrights can actually be held by different parties, but - assuming you’re a self-releasing artist - both of which will need to be claimed by yourself. Composition is typically displayed as ©, and recording copyright is represented by ℗. Asserting these symbols on your releases, websites and other places your music is heard is a must.

The law on securing your rights as the music copyright holder differs country-to-country, but under UK law, you might be surprised to learn there's actually no formal ‘official’ administrative’ way to copyright your music. However, you can create a date-stamped record of the track to formally register that the track was created by yourself at a certain date.

The most frequently recommend way of confirming your copyright, is by burning a copy of your track to CD (or placing it on an inexpensive USB stick) and mailing it to yourself within a sealed package. You shouldn’t open the package, as this will remain hard evidence of named and time-stamped proof of its creation date - and its creator.

Alternatively, you could just email a WAV or MP3 to yourself, or save the project files to cloud storage, with dated metadata. Though this later approach can be manipulated, it’s not likely that anyone would really challenge it. It's best to do this at any rate.

In the US (and much of the rest of the world) it’s highly recommended that you register the copyright with the US Copyright Office (or government copyright office of your country). This is the ONLY officially recognised way of securing your copyright.

Though, you’re still technically granted the automatic copyright rights of any music you make (even if you don’t register) if you want to take any copyright violators to task, then - following new legislation introduced in 2019 - you’re going to need to officially register yourself as the copyright holder with the US Copyright Office. You’ll need to submit an online application, plus a small filing fee to register. But it’s 100% worth it to keep your rights secured.

Your copyright for the work will last until 70 years after your death (a cheery thought!), after which it is passed into the public domain.

This is all well and good for solo artists, but what about bands - or albums/tracks that have multiple writers, producer credits and other performing rights splits?

Perhaps arguments about percentages might flare up, or perhaps another party might want to claim a share of the writing credit. The best way to negate any of these hypotheticals, is by securing a written-down, split agreement that you agree between the stakeholders, and locking this in via a formal third-party.

In the UK, the UK Copyright Service not only provide tamper-proof evidence of your copyright, but also make sure that your work is protected internationally. You can upload a full album’s worth of tracks, and pay £85 to solidify yourself as the legal copyright holder for 10 years, while £51 protects it for five years. The good thing is, as you write more and more work, the copyrighting fees reduce. We've used it in the past, and while we've not claimed any infringement to date, we certainly sleep more comfortably at night.

If you’re UK-based, then registering with the PRS should be on your to-do list anyway. When you’re signed up with PRS, any songs you register will be placed under copyright protection (the ‘Music Composition’ half of the copyright), and they’ll make sure that any unlicensed playing, performance or usage of your song is spotted and brought to your attention.

There’s numerous other PRS member benefits too, so make sure you sign-up. In the US services like BMI.com and ASCAP provide similar services.

There’s also the PPL, which handle music licensing and payment security for the specific 'Sound Recording' copyright. This is vital if you want your music to be broadcast on radio, TV and and the web - and get your tracks heard!

Once you’ve got your copyright secured, then you’re all set. But, what if you actually notice your track has been used by someone without your permission, then it’s not always the case that you can make a viable copyright claim.

If a track has been used in a 'fair-use' context then it's not worth pursuing. Though the term 'fair-use' is pretty subjective and no fixed standards exist on where the definitions lay, it’s generally agreed that a review or critique of a track can be counted as fair-use. Using the track in an academic or instructional context can typically be considered fair-use too. But, there are limits. It may still be worth pursuing if you feel too much of your track has been played, particularly if you’re not credited or cited as the copyright holder.

Because there’s some ambiguity as to what counts as part of the composition, there can still a lot of legal wrangling about the ownerships of songs, particularly if your track does very, very well…

Often people might make a copyright claim for a song from a successful artist, just in the hope of a settlement fee. In a recent article for Audio Media International, this author spoke to a pair of forensic musicologists (legal experts who specialise in music law), and unpicked some of the complexities of a few of the high profile court cases.

Forensice musicologist Peter Oxendale told this author that he admired Ed Sheeran’s long battle in court to try and quash this trend, “I have a great deal of respect for Ed Sheeran," Peter said. "He fought his corner and stood up not only for himself but the whole music industry.” Further battles continue to rage, and the results of which can determine the shape of legislation around music copyright law.

Copyrighting your music - the checklist

So, let us boil down exactly what you need to do to get your rights protected, in seven simple steps:

1. Write and record a new piece of music, or amass an album’s worth of tracks.
2. Save all your files, projects and early demo versions with dated metadata.
3. If you’re in the US, register this work with the US Copyright Office
4. If you’re in the UK, register this work either by manually creating a time-stamped log (via posting it to yourself) or by using a third party, like the UK Copyright Service to formally log yourself as the copyright holder
5. If you’re UK-based, sign-up to both the PRS and the PPL, in the US, we recommend the BMI or ASCAP to keep on track of your twin copyrights.
6. Keep a log of every further agreement, or license you provide for music to be heard elsewhere, to keep on-top of just what you’ve agreed, and when.
7. Rest easy, and get back to making music. Rinse and repeat!

During the research process for MusicRadar’s recent long-read on the cost of being a music-maker in the 2020s, we explored some of the details regarding the cost of getting music promoted online when compared to other products and services. It went some way to underlining just how on the back-foot financially many self-sustaining musicians actually are, compared to other promoters.

On the back of a recent census from Right Chord Music, which illustrated that monetising music was a fundamental issue for musicians, we spoke to the indie blog’s founder, Mark Knight to learn more about the reasons behind why that might be. Knight told us how recent major legal and financial changes have had a knock-on effect which musicians in particular are feeling more than most.

“Probably around ten years ago, the way you promoted music as an independent artist was that you could run Facebook ads or Instagram ads, and it would drive the person to a landing page where users could click a link on that page and go onto Spotify and then [they would] hopefully listen to your track for 20 seconds or more, which would register as a stream,” Mark told us.

"What happened about five years ago is Apple changed its Privacy Policy, so then half of the users on Facebook just weren't accessible. The cost of advertising then went sky high. Back then [prior to the Privacy Policy change] the cost of a conversion would, on a good day, be about 10p, right? But getting someone to that same link after the Apple change hiked up the cost to something like four pounds.”

"Now, if you bear in mind that the money you're getting back from that stream is 0.03p, then you've already spent way more than you're going to earn back. Now, I can't think of another category on earth that you lose money in order to get a customer.”

In the long-read, Knight compared this to other advertisers and how many of them can swallow that additional cost, “If we're selling Nike trainers, you've got probably £90 to play with before you lose money. If you're selling a car, you've got, you know, £20,000 to play with before you lose money. As a musician, you've lost money before you've even got off the ground.”

In the course of our interview, Mark went on to explain that the issue is compounded by Spotify’s lack of transparency over the information it provides. In a part of our talk which we didn’t include in our original long-read, Mark told us; “Spotify, in some ways, has been a white knight for music. When it launched, it made a better solution to the world of free, illegal downloads. The counterpoint to that is they don't give you [hardly] any data, right? So, you don't know where a stream has come from, and you can't retarget that person."

"So again, in the advertising world, if 50 people have come to your shop and only one person's bought [an item], you can retarget the other 49 to say 'hey here's an offer, check this out, go and buy!' With Spotify, you can't do that.”

For more insight and a deeper analysis of marketing and other financial issues, read our lengthy piece on the cost of being a music-maker.

Ever the inception of the music industry, record labels have been an essential component for making sure that the artists on their books reach the right audience - and have the resources they need to keep making music. Over the last decade, things have profoundly changed. The advent of streaming-service publishing services like Distrokid, TuneCore and Ditto Music now allow artists to self-release their works directly to the world’s primary listening outlets, like Spotify, Apple Music and TIDAL with ease – and the ability to keep all their royalties.

A fundamental shake-up in terms of distribution, then. But, what about that other vital service that labels provide; promotion? Today, it’s easy to create content and - in theory - grow a sizeable audience yourself. Though that's not without significant difficulties, it is, essentially, possible.

For our recent long-read deep dive into the economics of being a music-maker, we asked Mark Knight, the founder of Right Chord Music for his view on the future of the artist/label dynamic. “If you can create a story around music, which is interesting and engaging. People get into your music through the story. For example, comedy sketches and little [short-form video] scenes,” Mark said.

Mark then pointed at the existing paradigm, in that labels often won’t even engage until artists have proved they can generate an audience themselves, before telling us “I'm kind of fascinated with that tipping point where [the artist can say] ‘I don't need you anymore. Why would I need you? I'm already doing it, right?’ So, there's a fine line between showing that you can pull people in and engage people, versus not needing the support.”

However, as Mark points out - this self-generated content/promo route might not be for everyone; “If you're an indie band from Manchester, with a big floppy fringe, the last thing you want to do is, you know, get in front of a camera. So it is difficult. It is difficult.”

Outside of what Mark told us for our longer feature, he also shared his views on how labels have become left behind by the new wave of social media-oriented musicians

“[In the old days] the labels would sort of do the marketing. I don't even think the labels have quite cracked this next wave. I think they're catching up, and they're realising the power of influencers and content creation. But I think it is a bit more of a level playing field now. If you know the rules and know how to do it - and you've got a good idea, then anyone can can cut through. That's the opportunity. I think.”

With all that being said, Mark also told us that the perils of running all these social platforms, generating content and fostering an audience is a major time sponge, not to mention the external factors that go into basically being a self-employed business. “Our [2024 census] told us that, on average, artists are using five different social networks. On top of that, they also use additional five services, so distributors, you know, PR companies and potentially design services. There's just so much to do as a musician!”

Read more insight from Mark, in our long read feature on the economics of music-making.

In the not too distant past, many young people were first lured onto the road to become musicians by the compelling motivation that if they worked hard enough, immense rewards would follow. How many guitar or drum-learning kids, growing up in the last four decades of the 20th century, were comforted by this notion? It was an idea that reassured, and took the sting out of the dispiriting trial of playing those nerve-wracking early gigs in the tiniest backrooms of pubs.

With the uphill-struggle dynamic lodged in their minds, amateur musicians secretly knew this was only the first step - the very beginning of a journey that would ultimately lead to an all too grateful major label taking note.

This idea could uplift even the grimmest situations, reinforced by many of those foundational perseverance-paying-off legends in the annals of music history, such as The Beatles’ legendary two-year gig-binge in the clubs of Hamburg.

Of course, despite the psychology of it all, one-day, having being worth it, for the vast majority of musicians fame and rich rewards were never to be found. But, for every few million failed wannabe idols, there were stories like that of Ed Sheeran; famously putting in 300+ pre-fame gigs, handling his own promotion and being seized upon by Asylum/Atlantic in 2011. It’s a tale that underlined the central covenant artists had with the industry; with the right level of time and effort, you too could achieve major recognition.

In the 2020s, music-makers face a very different reality. As the traditional major label-oriented pathway becomes untenable to many, self-writing, releasing, promoting and touring artists and bands now face a future where the summit of their appeal might have a far lower ceiling than before. Compounding this dispiriting state-of-affairs comes the sad reality that the cost of being a musician and artist is only rocketing.

In 2022, UK charity Help Musicians surveyed 525 musicians and found that half of that number were either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ concerned that they’ll be forced to leave the industry, citing equipment costs and the general upwards trend in the cost of living as major factors. In 2023, a further census detailed that "30% of musicians report low mental wellbeing, with those at the start of their career most impacted".

Added to that, the lack of viable profits to be gained from streaming or touring at a grassroots level (and the cost required to make a foothold) mean that increasingly, aspiring musicians are presented with a bleak vision of their industry. Unsurprisingly, this state of affairs is having on impact on those that are trying to launch themselves as an artist (a tough ambition at any point in history).

“The knock-on impact of derailed careers and financial stress is shockingly high mental health issues within the industry.” So states Help Musicians on a report on their 2022 study. “Nearly nine in ten (88%) believe difficulties with their mental health is currently affecting their work, with 68% saying their mental health is worse than before the pandemic. Help Musicians has also seen a 34% increase in calls to Music Minds Matter, its mental health-focused sister charity.”

The critical ingredient bubbling away in this depressing cauldron is the oft-cited lack of funds that artists receive via streaming. In an online census conducted by Right Chord Music, numerous payment issues were highlighted by 300 artists over 64 countries as being a pivotal concern for grassroots musicians. 'I honestly don’t know if I get paid the money I’m owed,' and, 'I definitely don’t get paid the money I’m owed' made up two-thirds of the responses from musicians, with other responses ranging from ‘it’s so bl**dy complicated!’ To 'I pay more than I make'.

We spoke to Mark Knight, the Founder of Right Chord Music to learn more about the census, and why people are so baffled by the payment structure of the modern industry. “I've been running Right Chord Music since 2010 and it's always been a hub of unsigned, independent artists. We did a similar census around ten years ago, and I realised that it had been a long time since we did that research. A lot has changed in that time," Mark tells us.

Mark puts much of the confusion down to the extra stresses artists now have to take on when managing their own finances. It's particularly challenging for bands.“So, if you think about it, a four-piece band might write a song. They could all have equal share of that song, or they could have different splits of that song.

"On an album of 10 tracks, for example, the ownership of those 10 tracks could be completely different every time. What happens at the moment is typically one member of that band has to play the role of accountant. It could be the drummer, or the bass player, and their job is to keep track of the money coming in, and then divide it up according to the splits that have been agreed with the various members of the band or any featured artists.

"Because it’s manual, money often doesn't end up going to the right people. A lot of the distribution companies will now do splits, so for example, if you use Distrokid, you can create splits with your band. But, to do that you have to have four different Distrokid accounts. You can't just have one account.”

Knight says that the designated ‘book-keeper’ of a band could just log back in and change the split, and nobody would be any the wiser. “One musician told us, that the moment he has to collaborate with people he winces [when he thinks about the split]. So that's a big reason, really - they don't know. Has Jim the drummer [and designated book-keeper] actually kept track of the money coming in, and divided it equally according to the shares they agreed?”

Beyond the trials of keeping on top of the money, and individual musician’s rights, both bands and solo artists have to face the reality that the actual streaming revenue income is fairly piddling anyway. “There's a point where you go, Well, is it worth sending him 20p? Oh, you won’t,” says Mark.

Whether you’re in a band, or a solo artist, Mark also points to the cost of getting music actually heard these days, “Probably around ten years ago, the way you promoted music as an independent artist was that you could run Facebook ads or Instagram ads, and it would drive the person to a landing page where users could click a link to go to Spotify and then hopefully listen to your track for 20 seconds or more, which would register as a stream.

"What happened about five years ago is Apple changed its Privacy Policy, so then half of the users on Facebook just weren't accessible. The cost of advertising then went sky high. Back then, the cost of a conversion would, on a good day, be about 10p, right? But getting someone to that same link after the Apple change hiked up the cost to something like four pounds.

"Now, if you bear in mind that the money you're getting back from that stream is 0.03p, then you've already spent way more than you're going to earn back. Now, I can't think of another category on earth that you lose money in order to get a customer.”

Mark makes a comparison to other sectors; “If we're selling Nike trainers, you've got probably £90 to play with before you lose money. If you're selling a car, you've got, you know, £20,000 to play with before you lose money.

"As a musician, you've lost money before you've even got off the ground.”

The other side of the musician’s earning coin, aside from direct sale/stream of music is of course the live world. With the grassroots sector facing increasing stress as venues shutter across the world, bodies such as the Music Venue Trust work tirelessly to stem the decline and ring-fence this pivotal arm in the development of musicians and bands. Not to mention a key revenue stream.

Central to their mission to reinvest in grassroots venues is their central pledge; “Music Venue Trust has been campaigning for the upper echelons of the music industry to reinvest in the grassroots for the past 5 years.

"Our proposal is simple: Every ticket sold at arena and stadium level contains a levy as a financial contribution back into the grassroots.We are asking artists to pledge that their future success will acknowledge where they came from and contribute a small amount of money back into the grassroots sector, if and when they reach arena and major festival level. We want to ensure that the talent pipeline is supported, offering opportunities to a wide range of aspiring musicians from across the UK, so that everyone who dreams of being a musician feels that is a possibility for them.”

That final part raises a crucial point – how can the next generation of musicians find their audience, and learn their live chops without that essential grassroots venue structure?

A band that some in the UK press are dubbing the saviours of guitar-based music in the UK are Wigan-hailing The Lottery Winners. The band first formed in 2008 but only found fame in 2020 with the release of their eponymous debut album.

Landing a critical record deal over a decade of touring, we asked lead singer and songwriter Thom Rylance about being a band who managed to make it through.

“I think the first, you know, 12 years was our preparation, our training. It’s where we were learning our craft. We played every kind of gig there is. We were playing in pubs to no-one. We were playing weddings, we were playing just every kind of gig you can imagine.

"I think without that, we wouldn't be as good as we are live, and we wouldn't be able to, like, handle this really strange world that we've been kind of thrust into.” Rylance tells us.

During these years, Thom and his band mates, Robert Lally, Katie Lloyd and Joe Singleton, worked day jobs in their hometown of Leigh. “[Music] was always the main thing. Everything else that we did was always to supplement it. Katie used to clean toilets. [When] we signed a record deal with Warner Brothers, she was cleaning toilets on the same day. Because we had to do that. I used to work at Claire's Accessories - piercing ears, which was a weird job. I never wanted to do any of that shit. But, we've had that kind of determination that it was all going to work out.”

Today, Thom points to the live world as the primary revenue generator for the band. “It’s not through streaming. The way we all make a living is being on the road all the time. And by being a great live band that people want to see."

Thom points to the live world as still the biggest motor for all musicians to make money. “[With streaming] you're so at that peril of whether they'll put you on their playlist and stuff. Sometimes we get told ‘oh, you know, make sure you do some posts for this streaming service and show them some love on your socials.’ And I'm like, ‘Well, show us love!’”

The long genesis of The Lottery Winners is a standout story in today’s instant gratification-shaped landscape. A glowing narrative of endurance, belief and commitment that resonates with the myths of many a legendary band. Yet it contrasts strongly with our recent exploration of how, on a general level, bands are facing a terminal decline on lots of fronts. For the vast majority of self-sustaining solo artists, particularly those who never intend to perform live, getting heard - and getting paid - remains an elusive prospect.

For Mark Knight, there’s a glimmer of hope for self-sustaining artists in the shape of content diversification; “If you can create a story around music, which is interesting and engaging. People get into your music through the story. For example, comedy sketches and little [short-form video] scenes.”

Knight points at the fact that labels often won’t even engage until artists have proved they can generate an audience themselves in the first instance. “I'm kind of fascinated with that tipping point where [the artist can say] ‘I don't need you anymore. Why would I need you? I'm already doing it, right?’ So, there's a fine line between showing that you can pull people in and engage people, versus not needing the support.”

Knight empathises with those who might find this social media content generation avenue all a bit galling; “If you're an indie band from Manchester, with a big floppy fringe, the last thing you want to do is, you know, get in front of a camera. So it is difficult. It is difficult.

"But if you can learn the rules of what makes good content, and you can crack that, it's a really, it's an opportunity."

You might have already suspected it, but it's true. Coldplay are the most played British group of the 21st century, at least in the UK - a fact confirmed today by music licensing company PPL. Thought you’d been hearing a lot of the band while getting your highlights done or picking up the houmous? Now you know why.

PPL licenses the use of recorded music on radio and TV and therefore out in the real world in shops, workplaces, public spaces and more all across the UK. All media outlets playing music have to report to the PPL what they played, allowing the service to build a unique picture of what media outlets think that we want to hear (if not our actual favourite bands).

And so far this century the winner in the airplay charts – and arguably the UK’s number one band – is… Coldplay, holding Queen and Take That at numbers two and three.

Disappointingly the service doesn’t reveal the total numbers of plays per artist but has leaked that Coldplay obtained 40,000 more plays on UK radio and TV than Queen in second place, which sounds like quite the margin. 

The band’s UK number one Viva La Vida, released in 2008, has proven their most played track, averaging 27 plays per day on UK TV and radio since its release.  

The next ranking Coldplay hits in PPL’s data are Paradise, Clocks, Something Just Like This, and Adventure of a Lifetime. In fact, in total the band have amassed 400 million seconds of UK airplay this century – the equivalent of 13 years of listening to non-stop Coldplay.

This sobering news comes as part of the PPL’s ramp up for National Album Day 2024 which takes place on October 19th and this year is specifically celebrating British groups. The annual event is ran jointly by labels, the BPI and digital entertainment and retail association ERA in partnership with BBC Radio 2.

Coldplay will be contributing further to their catalogue on October 4th with the release of their 10th album, Moon Music. The stars are also aligned for the band to break the record for consecutive appearances at Wembley Stadium in summer of 2025 with (so far) ten dates confirmed at the venue, beating both Taylor Swift and Take That who have performed eight.

The full top 20 of most played songs in the UK since 2000 reads as follows:

1 Coldplay
2 Queen
3 Take That
4 Little Mix
5 The Beatles
6 Oasis
7 The Bee Gees
8 The Stereophonics
9 The Eurythmics
10 The Rolling Stones
11 Clean Bandit
12 Duran Duran
13 Sugababes
14 The Police
15 Simply Red
16 Snow Patrol
17 Electric Light Orchestra
18 Keane
19 Wham!
20 Texas

Commenting on the new chart, PPL's CEO, Peter Leathem OBE said: “This country has produced some of the most iconic and successful bands of all time, so documenting them is a perfect way to mark this year’s National Album Day. Including groups from across the last 60 years, this list is a reminder of the strength and depth of British music through the decades. Coldplay are fitting owners of the No.1 spot – few artists can claim to have had such a presence on UK radio and TV since 2000.”

It seems that the inexorable rise of TikTok and its power to influence everything from fashion to film and more does have its limits. The ByteDance-owned social service has announced that rather than furthering the roll-out of the TikTok Music service globally, they’re instead pulling the plug on it entirely.

TikTok Music is currently only available to fee-paying consumers in Australia, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico and Singapore and a launch in Europe and the US was expected to follow, muddying the waters (while expanding choice) for consumers and slicing the pie ever finer for artists and record labels.

Instead, it appears that the combined pressures from existing services Apple Music and Spotify and giants in the shape of Universal Music are enough to make ByteDance think again.

TikTok has in recent years become a driving force in new music discovery, though has always had a fractious relationship with artists and labels in regards to paying what all parties would consider a fair recompense. 

Insiders have stated that TikTok Music – its own streaming service dedicated to delivering 100% music – had been driving hard bargains with rights-holders in line with fees they’d been paying for music’s appearance on their increasingly powerful social service.

It appears that the move was a squeeze too far and despite forging a deal with Universal in May – resulting in the return to the service of vital artists such as Adele, Ariana Grande, Coldplay, Taylor Swift, Rihanna, Kendrick Lamar and more – the numbers simply weren’t stacking up.

Instead, the company will be continuing to offer a feature which allows users to save discovered songs into playlists which can then be enjoyed on rival streaming services Apple Music and Spotify.

“Our Add to Music App feature has already enabled hundreds of millions of track saves to playlists on partner music streaming services,” reads a statement from global head of music business development, Ole Obermann.

“We will be closing TikTok Music at the end of November in order to focus on our goal of furthering TikTok’s role in driving even greater music listening and value on music streaming services, for the benefit of artists, songwriters and the industry,” reads the official statement.

Meanwhile on its site, existing users are being told that “TikTok Music will be closing on November 28, 2024. After this date, access to TikTok Music, including login, subscriptions, and all other functionalities, will no longer be available. Please ensure you complete the following actions (if applicable) by the specified deadlines: Transfer Your playlists: by October 28, 2024. Request Refunds: by November 28, 2024. Please note, your TikTok Music account information and personal data will be automatically deleted following the closure of TikTok Music.”

It’s not the first time TikTok has tried and failed to make it in music. Their Resso service enjoyed a similarly short lifespan and roll-out in 2020, appearing in India, Indonesia, and Brazil before being closed in January 2023.

Spotify has come out on top in a long running court case in which it was accused of streaming Eminem’s music without his permission.

The complex case dates back to 2019 when the rapper’s publisher Eight Mile Style sued Spotify for $30 million, claiming it had failed to correctly license Eminem’s work, which had by that point been streamed billions of times.

Initially Spotify responded by blaming Kobalt Music, which administers the rights for thousands of songs and collects royalties for artists. It went on to allege Kobalt had misled them into believing they controlled the administration of Eminem’s catalogue when that was not the case.

Spotify also pointed out that in the eight years from 2011 Eight Mile Style had “never once questioned” their rights to stream Eminem tracks and had been accepting royalty payments from them all that time. "Eight Mile’s story defies logic," the company's lawyers insisted.

Lawyers have batted arguments back and forth for over five years and now at last a judge has published her opinion – Spotify are not liable for any damages.

Judge Aleta A Trauger highlighted that although Kobalt was authorised to collect royalties on Eminem – its rights did not cover the US and Canada. It seems that those had been transferred in 2009 to a company called Bridgeport Music, which is affiliated to Eight Mile Style.

Bridgeport "never formally notified any third party that it was taking over" the licensing of Eminem's music, Judge Trauger wrote. She described this as "inexplicable", unless it was a "strategic" attempt to extract money from Spotify by claiming copyright infringement. She also noted that Eight Mile never once sent Spotify a ‘cease and desist’ letter and thus was not the “hapless victim” it was claiming to be.

"Eight Mile Style, had every opportunity to set things right and simply chose not to do so for no apparent reason, other than that being the victim of infringement pays better than being an ordinary licensor," she wrote.

The whole case highlights how messy the whole issue of administration and collection of royalties now is in the streaming world. One of the key issues seems to be the definition of the word ‘administration’. Judge Trauger concluded it that includes things like control over licensing, including synch licensing and collecting royalties. However, she pointed out that it doesn’t necessarily include any of those things.

And the contract between Kobalt and Spotify didn’t nail down this meaning of the word ‘administration’, leading to a situation where Spotify did not even know that control of licensing for Eminem’s catalogue was no longer in Kobalt’s hands for the US and Canada.

It may be some time before the implications of the ruling become clear. But what is clear is that the question of who administers, who collects royalties and who licenses, needs simplifying. The only people benefiting from the current confusion are the lawyers.

Sooner or later, it had to happen.

A North Carolina man has been indicted of fraud charges for claiming over $10 million of royalties payments from major streaming services through hundreds of thousands of AI generated songs.

Federal prosecutors allege that Michael Smith, a (supposed) musician was running a complex music streaming manipulation scheme to fraudulently tot up billions of streams via bot accounts. 

In an indictment announcement they said: “At a certain point in the charged time period, Smith estimated that he could use the Bot Accounts to generate approximately 661,440 streams per day, yielding annual royalties of $1,207,128.”

“Through his brazen fraud scheme, Smith stole millions in royalties that should have been paid to musicians, songwriters, and other rights holders whose songs were legitimately streamed,” said Damian Williams, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. “Today, thanks to the work of the FBI and the career prosecutors of this Office, it’s time for Smith to face the music.”

Arf arf. Smith was charged with wire fraud and money laundering and if found guilty could be facing up to 60 years in prison.

Smith’s scheme was certainly an elaborate one. Allegedly, he managed to obtain thousands of email accounts through bulk account vendors signing up to streaming services such as Spotify, Apple and Amazon Music. 

He even paid people in the US and abroad to sign up and, to make their payments look more legitimate, used a service that provides debit cards to employees at companies, providing that company with fake names he said were his employees’.

In tandem with the CEO of an unnamed AI music company, he constructed a scheme whereby the CEO would release thousands of AI-generated songs each month in return for 15% of the takings. In Smith’s own estimation, by February of this year the scheme had netted over $12 million in royalties from over 4 billion streams.

However, the music distribution company he used did get a whiff that something fishy was going on. When an unnamed streaming service threatened to take the music down, Smith vociferously denied it, writing “You have slandered me to my distributors claiming I’ve had fraudulent streams... I’m asking you to provide me with the documentation of what you feel was done artificially.”

With AI-generated music becoming harder and harder to spot you wonder whether there may already be other Michael Smiths operating out there. Let us not forget this isn’t a victimless crime – Spotify’s royalties are paid out on a pro-rata model, as proportions of the overall amount of music on the platform, so streaming fraud diverts royalties that should rightly be paid to legitimate artists.

Instagram and Spotify are testing out new software that they hope will encourage people to share what they’re listening to on the social app.

The test has been spotted by mobile developer Alessandro Paluzzi who has posted on Threads about it. (See below). However, this doesn’t mean that the feature will definitely be launched at some point – Spotify and Instagram test new concepts all the time and often these go unnoticed.

Post by @alex193a

View on Threads

If it does go ahead, the feature would build on a development launched a little over a year ago, when Instagram added the ability to share small song clips to Notes. The Notes feature allows Instagram users to share their status or other quick updates in a message that appears right above their Instagram inbox. 

The song clips feature in Notes has been supported in all territories where Insta has music licensing rights, the company said around the time of its introduction in 2022.

It would benefit Spotify, which has added more social features over time, most recently with commenting on podcasts. However, the company knows that a lot of music discovery still takes place on dedicated social networking sites where people tend to build and curate their own friend networks and more regularly check in.

Meta – the parent company of Instagram - and Spotify have worked on developing music features before. In 2021, they teamed up on a series of initiative that included the introduction of a miniplayer on Facebook that streamed Spotify directly from the app.

Of course there is hard business at the centre of this. Both companies share a common enemy in Apple. And each are irked that Apple’s App Store monopoly prevents them from managing their own in-app payments and handling their own app distribution. Instead they have to share their app revenue with Apple via commissions on in-app purchases. 

To add to this Apple’s addition of a privacy feature called ATT (app tracking transparency) effects Meta’s ad business, and of course Apple Music is a market rival to Spotify.

The other competitor for both of them is TikTok which has assumed a central place in terms of the sharing of and indeed the shaping of new musical trends. And this new feature could be seen as a shot across their bows

Neither Meta or Spotify have commented on Paluzzi’s post or the tests. But don’t be surprised if the new feature gets rolled out at some point in 2025.

It’s taken a while, but Spinal Tap II is almost a wrap.

It was back in 2022 that director Ron Reiner confirmed that after years of being asked about, a sequel to the classic 1984 mockumentary was under way. Now, in an interview with Deadline he has shared a timeline for when fans can finally expect to see it.

“It’s going good,” he said. “Our first screening for our family and friends will be probably in August, and then sometime in September we’ll start showing it to distributors, and we’re hoping to have it out sometime late spring or early summer of next year.” He added that filming is currently nearing a close in New Orleans.

Reportedly there are cameos from Paul McCartney, Elton John, plus both Chad Smith and Lars Ulrich, who are unlucky enough to take turns in the band’s revolving drummer’s chair (previous incumbents had amongst other things, spontaneously combusted and been involved in a ‘bizarre gardening accident’).

It’s been confirmed that Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Harry Shearer will reprise their roles as Nigel Tufnel, David St Hubbins and Derek Smalls, whilst Reiner himself will again play Marti DiBergi the fictional director who makes the Spinal Tap doc.

Spinal Tap is the original mockumentary, huge swathes of which have passed into and become interwoven with real rock folklore. Fans of the original have long hoped for a sequel, something that up until recently Reiner had resisted.

“We never thought we would do a sequel,” he told the NME in 2022. “It was only because we started to talk to each other and we came up with an idea we think might work...The bar is incredibly high. We debated whether or not we should do it… I said, ‘Look at us, we’re all in our 70s. How much time are we going to have [left] to have some fun?’”

“Marty DiBergi was roundly criticised by the band members for having done a hatchet job, [but] he’s going to be doing the second film,” Reiner said. “Marty has not been that successful [since]. 

"I think he made Kramer vs Kramer vs Godzilla, which didn’t do very well. It was a threesome, and they were all in love... and, unfortunately, Godzilla crushed the other two, so it didn’t work.”

In a 2022 statement to Deadline, Reiner, seemingly in character as DiBergi, said: “The band was upset with the first film. They thought I did a hatchet job and this is a chance to redeem myself. I am such a big fan and I felt bad they didn’t like what they saw in the first film.”

With streaming and podcasting becoming so huge during lockdown, the explosion of content available on pretty much any subject nowadays is stark. Even if you think your chosen area of expertise is niche, with a worldwide audience you can find listeners who are interested in what you have to say.

For music-makers podcasts and streams were a great way to engage with fans during lockdown, and even became a living for some whilst they waited for things to open up again. That’s continued beyond as well, with many musicians preferring podcasts and streams to interact with their closest fans, grow communities, and add extra value to their creative endeavours.

If you’ve toyed with the idea of setting up your own podcast or stream, then Prime Day has got some excellent deals on gear specifically for this. Whether it’s podcasting microphones or stream decks there are some seriously good discounts available but you’ll need to move quickly, we’re on day 2 of Prime Day now and many of these deals will end today.

Shop more Prime Day deals

• 🇺🇸 The best deals on Amazon US
• 5 months Amazon Music Unlimited for free
• Shop all Prime Day deals
• Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 32% off
• Positive Grid Spark Go save $20
• Audio-Technica AT2035 save $20
• D'Addario Circuit Breaker Cable save $22

• Best non-Amazon sales
• Fender: 10% off American Ultras
• Fender Play: 50% off annual subscription
• Guitar Center: Major Strat deals
• GuitarTricks: Get 1 month for $1
• Reverb: Shop big price drops
• Sweetwater: Up to 65% flash sale
• Plugin Boutique: 66% off Amplitube

Deadmau5 has issued a rallying call to artists, and is threatening to pull his entire catalogue from the streaming giant he is now calling “those damn vultures”.

He comes a few weeks after the Spotify founder caused a backlash when he mused on Twitter/X: “Today, with the cost of creating content being close to zero, people can share an incredible amount of content. This has sparked my curiosity about the concept of long shelf life versus short shelf life.”

“While much of what we see and hear quickly becomes obsolete, there are timeless ideas or even pieces of music that can remain relevant for decades or even centuries.”

As any musician will tell you, ‘creating content’ doesn’t come cheap. Either in time, or in money. Ek’s comments angered a number of artists, Deadmau5 included. 

The EDM producer took to his Instagram account to reply to Ek personally: “Incorrect. The cost of creating content was 25+ years of my life and much of those proceeds going to your company you complete f*cking idiot.”

When one fan replied that he hated Spotify too, Deadmau5 went further, posting: “I’m about to pull my catalog from these f**king vultures, enough’s enough.”

His catalogue – for what’s it’s worth – is an extensive one. Deadmau5, aka Canadian producer Joel Zimmerman, first rose to prominence in the mid-Noughties. He’s released nine albums under his Deadmau5 banner and was one of the producers at the forefront of the EDM movement that swept North America in the latter part of that decade. He’s probably as well known for his stage gear – a giant illuminating mouse head – as for his music.

It remains to be seen whether Deadmau5 follows through on his promise. The few Spotify refuseniks that there are tend to be heritage artists like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell who at this stage in their careers have little to lose from boycotting the platform. 

Both those artists announced they were pulling their music from the site in the wake of the Joe Rogan podcast furore early in 2022. But the only artist under the age of 50 to follow them was nu-soul singer Indie.Arie who, announcing her boycott, said “Paying musicians a fraction of a penny? And HIM $100M? This shows the type of company they are and the company that they keep.”

Could Deadmau5, in Ian Dury’s words, be the catalyst that sparks the revolution? What will it take for his fellow artists to rise up in solidarity with him against their oppressor? Musicians of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your... er, pennies.

Musicians and music fans have hit back at Spotify CEO Daniel Ek this weekend after the head of the Swedish streaming giant shared a post on Twitter/X claiming that the "cost of creating content" is "close to zero". 

"Today, with the cost of creating content being close to zero, people can share an incredible amount of content. This has sparked my curiosity about the concept of long shelf life versus short shelf life," said Ek in a post shared May 29. "While much of what we see and hear quickly becomes obsolete, there are timeless ideas or even pieces of music that can remain relevant for decades or even centuries." 

"For example, we’re witnessing a resurgence of Stoicism, with many of Marcus Aurelius’s insights still resonating thousands of years later," Ek continued. "This makes me wonder: what are the most unintuitive, yet enduring ideas that aren’t frequently discussed today but might have a long shelf life? Also, what are we creating now that will still be valued and discussed hundreds or thousands of years from today?"

Ek's oddly philosophical post provoked fierce reactions across social media, with many questioning his claim that making music requires little to no financial investment, pointing to the considerable costs of instruments, equipment and education, in addition to the time involved in the creative process.

"I created my Grammy-nominated album on a cross-country train, completely produced and mixed it myself," said New Age artist Cheryl B. Engelhardt. "I was able to do that because of the thousands of $$ spent on quality sounds, my education, my gear, etc. Please get a clue and maybe talk to REAL musicians."

"Our albums did NOT cost 'close to zero' to create although you pay us zero for making money off them," added @_Traviata, manager of Welsh folk duo Songdog. "These took hundreds of hours of human effort, hard work and creativity. Our art is not your fucking 'content'."

"Even at the most basic level you need a DAW and VSTs," said @JonTInfinity. "No one can do a decent mixdown without owning decent monitor speakers or paying someone to do it. Those are the most basic costs and it's still a fair amount for most. Then on top of that some of us have instruments as well."

"The cost of creating content is not close to zero, you just want to frame it that way so that you can pay as close to zero for it as possible," added @edzitron. 

Spotify announced record profits of over €1bn in Q1 2024, following a year marked by cost-cutting and layoffs. Late last year, Ek announced that Spotify would axe 1500 jobs, cutting 17% of its global workforce.

Apple Music has completed its list of the Best 100 Albums of all time, and it’s chosen a slightly surprising but not undeserving winner.

Said to be “a modern 21st-century ranking of the greatest records ever made,” the list was compiled by Apple Music’s team of experts “alongside a select group of artists, songwriters, producers, and industry professionals.”

“The list is an editorial statement,” says the press release, “fully independent of any streaming numbers on Apple Music - a love letter to the records that have shaped the world music lovers live and listen in.”

Apple Music has been counting down the albums since last week, revealing the rankings in batches of 10. The top 10 has now been revealed, and sitting at number one is Lauryn Hill’s 1998 magnum opus The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill.

This is, in fact, Hill’s one and only solo record, which makes its impact and longevity all the more remarkable. “Artists exhaust long discographies hoping for a cohesive piece of work resonant enough to reshape culture and inscribe its creator into the pantheon; Lauryn Hill did it in one,” says Apple Music.

Reacting to news of her win, Hill told Apple Music: “This is my award, but it’s a rich, deep narrative, and involves so many people, and so much sacrifice, and so much time, and so much collective love.”

Counting down from number one, the other albums in the top 10 are: Thriller - Michael Jackson; Abbey Road - The Beatles; Purple Rain - Prince & The Revolution; Blonde - Frank Ocean; Songs in the Key of Life - Stevie Wonder; good kid, m.A.A.d city - Kendrick Lamar; Back to Black - Amy Winehouse; Nevermind - Nirvana; Lemonade - Beyonce.

This means that many of the records that have traditionally placed in the top 10 of lists like these - the likes of Radiohead’s OK Computer, Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours, Marvin Gaye’s What’s Going On and The Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds - have been omitted this time, but they do feature lower down the list.

To celebrate the announcement of the Top 100, Apple Music’s Zane Lowe and Ebro Darden sat down with musicians Nile Rodgers and Maggie Rogers to discuss the selections. Lowe says of Lauryn Hill’s record: “It has not dated, not even a fraction. In fact, it feels more fresh and more relevant the more you listen to it”.

Nile Rodgers, meanwhile, says that Thriller “changed the world”, and recalls that “everything around this record was just so amazing” when discussing Purple Rain.

Turning to Songs in the Key of Life, Maggie Rogers notes that it “just exists as this unbelievable piece of art. I can’t imagine a world that doesn’t have this record in it.”

You can check out the full list of the 100 Best Albums on the Apple Music website.

Almost three quarters of the top 100 artists on Spotify in the UK are self-taught musicians - that’s according to new research from piano learning app Skoove and the data crunchers at Crafins Studio.

Their study indicates that 71% of the top artists on the platform didn’t have a formal musical education. Perhaps less surprisingly, only 13% of the top 100 have a music degree, though a further 3% started one but didn’t finish it.

Thanks to the likes of YouTube and TikTok, music learning resources are more accessible and affordable than ever, while dedicated online piano and guitar learning platforms mean that it’s possible to get a good level of tuition without paying for in-person lessons.

That said, this isn’t a completely new phenomenon; there have been self-taught musicians for decades, with many simply learning by ear or another method that works for them.

It’s also worth noting that technology has made it far easier for ‘non-musicians’ to make music. A great many tracks are now made completely in the box, using just a computer and some software, and a lack of playing ability is no longer the barrier to entry that it once was.

Although traditionalists may bemoan the lack of classical training in many of today’s biggest artists, Skoove CEO Florian Plenge sees it as a positive.

“You could argue that learning outside of the regimented structure of formal education may allow self-taught individuals to express their creativity more freely as their learning and engagement with their instrument is unconstrained,” he says. “Without traditional frameworks and support, they have to be resourceful in their learning and stand on their own two feet.”

You can read more about the research on the Skoove website.

Last week, British artist James Blake went viral with a series of tweets addressing the difficulties faced by artists in earning a living from their music in an industry dominated by streaming services and TikTok.

Blake followed this up with a cryptic post teasing a "solution" to the problems he initially discussed. Yesterday, Blake delivered on his promise, announcing that he has partnered with a new streaming platform called Vault. 

Vault is a streaming service built to provide artists with a place to share unreleased music directly with their fans. Listeners are charged a subscription fee by each artist to gain access to their vault; Blake has uploaded three previously unheard tracks to his vault, which can be unlocked for a fee of $5/month.

Blake has not yet detailed what portion of this subscription fee artists will receive, and how much of a cut the platform will take. 

“It’s music direct from me to you, where no one can gatekeep what I release to you, or delay my releases,” Blake says in a video shared to his Twitter/X feed.

“I wanted to find a way for musicians to make money directly from the music they make, not least to be able to reinvest in the very expensive process of renting studios, hiring musicians, etc," he continues.

"Music is not cheap to make and I wanted to help incentivize musicians to actually spend more time making music. Also, I’ve spoken to a lot of artists that feel frustrated that so much great music goes unreleased because it doesn’t meet certain requirements or trends."

In the replies to Blake's announcement, many have pointed out that similar platforms already exist. "Another subscription platform? We already have Patreon, Youtube Subscriptions and at least other 10 platforms that do exactly this," says @chediakmusic. 

"I get that you're trying to help but this doesn't solve anything. The public who just wants to listen to music in an "easy" way and who is used to Spotify won't pay five dollars for each artist they want to listen to."

Visit Vault's website.