Current Issues around AI Music and Streaming Services

[Reid Rosefelt]

1) Distributors like DistroKid, Landr, TuneCore, UnitedMasters, and Symphonic put unlimited songs up on streaming services for a yearly fee. In the past, there was a fee per song. Solely because of these companies, we have over 100,000 songs up on Spotify every day--and that number is many years old, I'm sure it's much higher. And that number predates AI music. The chances for a song to be discovered when there's a million songs released every week is rough, to say the least. You need to have monumental skills, not just for music, but also for promotion, social media, and in many cases, live performance.

A few companies are making money and essentially destroying the entire world of music, for aspiring musicians and listeners alike.

2) There are scam companies that sell streams to gullible musicans. Some of them use bots, but some of them use the "influencer" scam. This is more sneaky, because it is also against Spotify rules, but it is marketed as being okay with Spotify. These things have never helped one musician even the tiniest bit. In the history of music, there's never been anybody who does anything that's good has had to pay anybody to listen to it. These companies exist to prey off of people's hopes totake money out of musicians' pockets. When it is found out, these cheaters are tossed off Spotify forever with no recourse. Fine. They tried to cheat Spotify and got caught, and should pay the consequences.

The thing that makes this sick is that these "influencer" scams involve creating fake playlists that need actual musicians to fill out. They can't be 100% composed of musicians with zero streams. So they grab musicians who have spent lifetimes creating a fanbase, by playing live gigs or using social media. These people then get thrown off Spotify with no recourse for the "crime" of being put on a playlist or having bots that they didn't want and didn't know about.

The only people who are injured by these scamming companies and the people who use these scam companies are the people who have worked hard to create music that people actually want to listen to. And have spent years getting the word out. In short, the kind of people that, in the past, labels would have been considering signing. Today those people are tossed out. Listeners will never be able to discover them.

One might ask why Spotify punishes innocent independent musicians rather than the companies that create the problem. These companies are out there in plain sight. They have websites that have the names of their founders and staff. They advertise relentlessly on Facebook and elsewhere. Spotify has money. If they wanted to, they could try to influence Congress and make these companies illegal. They are a cancer on the industry. But... it's got to be worth millions to Spotify to toss off many of the musicians who actually earn money on Spotify.

3) AI is just gasoline on this already raging fire.

The only solution I can see is for musicians like us to join together and form an organization to address this. We need to try to enlist the support of organizations like IMSTA and ASCAP and BMI to join us. Maybe some well-known musician would be willing to be a spokesperson.

There is strength in numbers.

Anybody with me?

Reid

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

I propose we call this organization the Independent Musician's Rights Alliance (IMRA)
There are many other things that can be addressed in addition to streaming.

Anybody else have ideas for a name?

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

Even if you disagree with me about all of the above, can you say that there is an organization that has a mission of speaking up for the interests of independent musicians? If so, which one?

IMSTA's mission is getting people to pay for software. It's for developers.

 

[Tim Nash]

The way forward is to just walk away from the entire business. There's nothing left to fight for or worth saving. Continue to create the best music you can. We have to accept that the music world we knew is gone. Maybe one day there will be organic music websites where we can put our music. Perhaps Taylor or Sir Paul will give back to the arts and set one up. They've got more than enough cash to do it.

I find ignoring the business and just creating incredibly freeing. I don't have to worry about pandering to the whims of the marketplace. I'm sure most of us here grew up hoping one day to be famous or well known for our music. Now that that dream has disappeared, the real question is, why do I create? Music was just a hobby for people until the 20th century when technology enabled mass consumption of sound and big money to be made. Now technology has given all of us the ability to create music at home. If you create a great piece of music and thoroughly enjoyed making it, does the world have to hear it?

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

The way forward is to just walk away from the entire business. There's nothing left to fight for or worth saving. Continue to create the best music you can. We have to accept that the music world we knew is gone. Maybe one day there will be organic music websites where we can put our music. Perhaps Taylor or Sir Paul will give back to the arts and set one up. They've got more than enough cash to do it.

I find ignoring the business and just creating incredibly freeing. I don't have to worry about pandering to the whims of the marketplace. I'm sure most of us here grew up hoping one day to be famous or well known for our music. Now that that dream has disappeared, the real question is, why do I create? Music was just a hobby for people until the 20th century when technology enabled mass consumption of sound and big money to be made. Now technology has given all of us the ability to create music at home. If you create a great piece of music and thoroughly enjoyed making it, does the world have to hear it?

That's your choice, but I don't accept the idea of giving up as a way of life. I'm not built that way.

I am an amateur songwriter. My profession was as a movie publicist. I founded two companies. One film my company Magic Lantern handled for over a year was "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Director Ang Lee spent a few years working on making the film and then he spent a solid year promoting it, all over the world. Seven days a week. He'd do an event in one city, fly to another and do more. He saw it as part of his job.

The job of a musician in 2025 is to make the best music they can and them promote it tirelessly. They have to learn how to do it--it is part of the job. That's just the way it is now and, as an experienced publicist, it doesn't bother me at all. Once my album is done, I will work my ass off for a year or more to get my songs heard.

But the idea that it would only cost some asshole a few bucks to get my songs taken down from Spotify forever is not something I can accept. I have to fight that. And hopefully there will be a few people who care about this, who are willing to fight with me.

I am exploring already existing organizations to see what they are doing about this.

 

[Nekujak]

The notion that all songwriters/musicians are entitled to have their music heard by a widespread audience and earn meaningful money from it, is: A) a very recent phenomenon brought about by a convergence of technologies (DAWs, the internet, social media, streaming, etc.); and B) a totally inaccurate view of music from both an artistic and business perspective.

If we look at the history of popular music, starting around the 1920s, both the recording and distribution of records, including radio play, were strictly controlled by a very few gatekeepers.

Initially it was a bit of a free-for-all, with small indie labels and regional radio stations reaching local audiences. But as nationwide radio networks were established and record companies consolidated into bigger labels, the shape of popular music was exclusively determined by a few wealthy and powerful gatekeepers.

As a musician, to be deserving of a record deal and radio play, you needed to possess superior talent and be seen performing for audiences. In fact, live performance was the only way to get noticed. There were no demo tapes made at home - you either delivered the goods on stage, or nobody would ever hear of you. And it was the gatekeepers who ultimately decided who was worthy of recording and distributing.

This is basically how the music business operated all the way into the mid-2000s. But not only did the gatekeepers exert control and make or break careers, they wantonly exploited artists with criminally unfair record deals and onerous financial terms. As we move into the 1960s and beyond, there are countless horror stories of artists who wrote songs and made records, only to have the label shelve their projects indefinitely never letting their music be heard, and of course, artists who owed their label so much money after the cost of recording, that they never made a penny off any of their music.

The pushback against the record industry establishment made its first impactful noise with the punk movement in the late 1970s. Fringe bands resorted to making their own crudely produced records that they sold direct to a small but avid fanbase. But as with most rebellious movements that achieve any amount of success, by the mid-1980s, punk was absorbed into the music biz machine and simply became the red-headed stepchild of new wave music.

Also, a new gatekeeper entered the mix in the 1980s: MTV. Suddenly, it was no longer enough to just make good music, you also needed to look good on video. Initially, video actually helped break quite a few lesser known indie artists, but it also created another barrier of entry because music videos were expensive to produce, and they became yet another way for record companies to tighten their financial stranglehold on artists, by making artists responsible for recouping the cost of making their videos.

And let’s not forget how artists got screwed when CDs became popular in the 1980s. Record labels immediately added clauses to their contracts reducing royalties for CD sales, arguing that CDs were more expensive to produce than vinyl, which was true for maybe a minute. And not only did they make artists pay for this added cost, they didn’t remove the clause even after CDs became the norm.

It was never easy to earn money as a musician. And never a given. Never.

As a fledgling artist, the only way to get your music heard by a wider audience was to tour relentlessly, playing hundreds of little nothing gigs, and hoping some A&R guy discovered you. And even if you were lucky enough to get a record deal, the odds of actually making any real money were extremely slim. Record labels operated on the 80/20 rule: 20% of their artists supported the business, while the other 80% lost money. Having a record deal was never an assurance of earning money from music - and most who tried, never did.

So when DAWs and the internet happened, indie musicians everywhere cheered. Finally, the little guy had the means to compete with the big bad gatekeepers at their own game. Every aspiring wannabe songwriter/musician/composer who could never land a record deal, now had the ability to make professional sounding recordings in their bedrooms and distribute their music to a global audience at the click of a button.

Wonderful. But everything in life is a double-edged sword. Instead of the monolithic gatekeepers of old, artists now had to contend with an ever-growing glut of new music, streaming royalties that pay minisclue fractions of a penny, and the newly emerging streaming gatekeepers armed with algorithms and AI.

So not surprisingly, nothing has really changed. Indie artists still struggle to get noticed, the gatekeepers still get rich, and only a very small handful of artists are able to earn meaningful money. To quote someone who started as an indie artist himself, “Same as it ever was."

There's also a vitally important component of music that gets overlooked in all this, and that's the power of live performance. The best way to share your music and reach an audience has always been live performance. That’s where the magic happens, and where you get instant feedback. No amount of likes and streams can measure up to the enthusiastic applause of an appreciative audience. If you can move a live audience, then your chances of succeeding as a recording artist go up exponentially. I have a friend who runs an indie jazz label out of New York, and when deciding who to sign, they look for artists who can "change the molecules in the room" when they perform. Music is all about human connection on an emotional level, and live performance is ground zero.

So no matter what period in history, or what the circumstances, music NEVER guaranteed ANYONE an audience nor an income stream. So better to simply embrace and enjoy the profound privilege of being able to express yourself through music. And if you happen to get lucky enough to reach a few people and earn a few bucks while you're at it, then mazel tov!

When it comes to popularity and money in music, it's always been a rigged game, with the odds overwhelmingly stacked against the artist.

 

[Louie]

The notion that all songwriters/musicians are entitled to have their music heard by a widespread audience and earn meaningful money from it, is: A) a very recent phenomenon brought about by a convergence of technologies (DAWs, the internet, social media, streaming, etc.); and B) a totally inaccurate view of music from both an artistic and business perspective.

If we look at the history of popular music, starting around the 1920s, both the recording and distribution of records, including radio play, were strictly controlled by a very few gatekeepers.

Initially it was a bit of a free-for-all, with small indie labels and regional radio stations reaching local audiences. But as nationwide radio networks were established and record companies consolidated into bigger labels, the shape of popular music was exclusively determined by a few wealthy and powerful gatekeepers.

As a musician, to be deserving of a record deal and radio play, you needed to possess superior talent and be seen performing for audiences. In fact, live performance was the only way to get noticed. There were no demo tapes made at home - you either delivered the goods on stage, or nobody would ever hear of you. And it was the gatekeepers who ultimately decided who was worthy of recording and distributing.

This is basically how the music business operated all the way into the mid-2000s. But not only did the gatekeepers exert control and make or break careers, they wantonly exploited artists with criminally unfair record deals and onerous financial terms. As we move into the 1960s and beyond, there are countless horror stories of artists who wrote songs and made records, only to have the label shelve their projects indefinitely never letting their music be heard, and of course, artists who owed their label so much money after the cost of recording, that they never made a penny off any of their music.

The pushback against the record industry establishment made its first impactful noise with the punk movement in the late 1970s. Fringe bands resorted to making their own crudely produced records that they sold direct to a small but avid fanbase. But as with most rebellious movements that achieve any amount of success, by the mid-1980s, punk was absorbed into the music biz machine and simply became the red-headed stepchild of new wave music.

Also, a new gatekeeper entered the mix in the 1980s: MTV. Suddenly, it was no longer enough to just make good music, you also needed to look good on video. Initially, video actually helped break quite a few lesser known indie artists, but it also created another barrier of entry because music videos were expensive to produce, and they became yet another way for record companies to tighten their financial stranglehold on artists, by making artists responsible for recouping the cost of making their videos.

And let’s not forget how artists got screwed when CDs became popular in the 1980s. Record labels immediately added clauses to their contracts reducing royalties for CD sales, arguing that CDs were more expensive to produce than vinyl, which was true for maybe a minute. And not only did they make artists pay for this added cost, they didn’t remove the clause even after CDs became the norm.

It was never easy to earn money as a musician. And never a given. Never.

As a fledgling artist, the only way to get your music heard by a wider audience was to tour relentlessly, playing hundreds of little nothing gigs, and hoping some A&R guy discovered you. And even if you were lucky enough to get a record deal, the odds of actually making any real money were extremely slim. Record labels operated on the 80/20 rule: 20% of their artists supported the business, while the other 80% lost money. Having a record deal was never an assurance of earning money from music - and most who tried, never did.

So when DAWs and the internet happened, indie musicians everywhere cheered. Finally, the little guy had the means to compete with the big bad gatekeepers at their own game. Every aspiring wannabe songwriter/musician/composer who could never land a record deal, now had the ability to make professional sounding recordings in their bedrooms and distribute their music to a global audience at the click of a button.

Wonderful. But everything in life is a double-edged sword. Instead of the monolithic gatekeepers of old, artists now had to contend with an ever-growing glut of new music, streaming royalties that pay minisclue fractions of a penny, and the newly emerging streaming gatekeepers armed with algorithms and AI.

So not surprisingly, nothing has really changed. Indie artists still struggle to get noticed, the gatekeepers still get rich, and only a very small handful of artists are able to earn meaningful money. To quote someone who started as an indie artist himself, “Same as it ever was."

There's also a vitally important component of music that gets overlooked in all this, and that's the power of live performance. The best way to share your music and reach an audience has always been live performance. That’s where the magic happens, and where you get instant feedback. No amount of likes and streams can measure up to the enthusiastic applause of an appreciative audience. If you can move a live audience, then your chances of succeeding as a recording artist go up exponentially. I have a friend who runs an indie jazz label out of New York, and when deciding who to sign, they look for artists who can "change the molecules in the room" when they perform. Music is all about human connection on an emotional level, and live performance is ground zero where it happens.

So no matter what period in history, or what the circumstances, music NEVER guaranteed ANYONE an audience nor an income stream. So better to simply embrace and enjoy the profound privilege of being able to express yourself through music. And if you happen to get lucky enough to reach a few people and earn a few bucks while you're at it, then mazel tov!

When it comes to popularity and money, it's always been a rigged game, with the odds overwhelmingly stacked against the artist.

+1. Agree completely with this perspective.

 

[Tim Nash]

That's your choice, but I don't accept the idea of giving up as a way of life. I'm not built that way.

I am an amateur songwriter. My profession was as a movie publicist. I founded two companies. One film my company Magic Lantern handled for over a year was "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Director Ang Lee spent a few years working on making the film and then he spent a solid year promoting it, all over the world. Seven days a week. He'd do an event in one city, fly to another and do more. He saw it as part of his job.

The job of a musician in 2025 is to make the best music they can and them promote it tirelessly. They have to learn how to do it--it is part of the job. That's just the way it is now and, as an experienced publicist, it doesn't bother me at all. Once my album is done, I will work my ass off for a year or more to get my songs heard.

But the idea that it would only cost some asshole a few bucks to get my songs taken down from Spotify forever is not something I can accept. I have to fight that. And hopefully there will be a few people who care about this, who are willing to fight with me.

I am exploring already existing organizations to see what they are doing about this.

I look forward to hearing your album when it comes out.

 

[Tim Nash]

The notion that all songwriters/musicians are entitled to have their music heard by a widespread audience and earn meaningful money from it, is: A) a very recent phenomenon brought about by a convergence of technologies (DAWs, the internet, social media, streaming, etc.); and B) a totally inaccurate view of music from both an artistic and business perspective.

If we look at the history of popular music, starting around the 1920s, both the recording and distribution of records, including radio play, were strictly controlled by a very few gatekeepers.

Initially it was a bit of a free-for-all, with small indie labels and regional radio stations reaching local audiences. But as nationwide radio networks were established and record companies consolidated into bigger labels, the shape of popular music was exclusively determined by a few wealthy and powerful gatekeepers.

As a musician, to be deserving of a record deal and radio play, you needed to possess superior talent and be seen performing for audiences. In fact, live performance was the only way to get noticed. There were no demo tapes made at home - you either delivered the goods on stage, or nobody would ever hear of you. And it was the gatekeepers who ultimately decided who was worthy of recording and distributing.

This is basically how the music business operated all the way into the mid-2000s. But not only did the gatekeepers exert control and make or break careers, they wantonly exploited artists with criminally unfair record deals and onerous financial terms. As we move into the 1960s and beyond, there are countless horror stories of artists who wrote songs and made records, only to have the label shelve their projects indefinitely never letting their music be heard, and of course, artists who owed their label so much money after the cost of recording, that they never made a penny off any of their music.

The pushback against the record industry establishment made its first impactful noise with the punk movement in the late 1970s. Fringe bands resorted to making their own crudely produced records that they sold direct to a small but avid fanbase. But as with most rebellious movements that achieve any amount of success, by the mid-1980s, punk was absorbed into the music biz machine and simply became the red-headed stepchild of new wave music.

Also, a new gatekeeper entered the mix in the 1980s: MTV. Suddenly, it was no longer enough to just make good music, you also needed to look good on video. Initially, video actually helped break quite a few lesser known indie artists, but it also created another barrier of entry because music videos were expensive to produce, and they became yet another way for record companies to tighten their financial stranglehold on artists, by making artists responsible for recouping the cost of making their videos.

And let’s not forget how artists got screwed when CDs became popular in the 1980s. Record labels immediately added clauses to their contracts reducing royalties for CD sales, arguing that CDs were more expensive to produce than vinyl, which was true for maybe a minute. And not only did they make artists pay for this added cost, they didn’t remove the clause even after CDs became the norm.

It was never easy to earn money as a musician. And never a given. Never.

As a fledgling artist, the only way to get your music heard by a wider audience was to tour relentlessly, playing hundreds of little nothing gigs, and hoping some A&R guy discovered you. And even if you were lucky enough to get a record deal, the odds of actually making any real money were extremely slim. Record labels operated on the 80/20 rule: 20% of their artists supported the business, while the other 80% lost money. Having a record deal was never an assurance of earning money from music - and most who tried, never did.

So when DAWs and the internet happened, indie musicians everywhere cheered. Finally, the little guy had the means to compete with the big bad gatekeepers at their own game. Every aspiring wannabe songwriter/musician/composer who could never land a record deal, now had the ability to make professional sounding recordings in their bedrooms and distribute their music to a global audience at the click of a button.

Wonderful. But everything in life is a double-edged sword. Instead of the monolithic gatekeepers of old, artists now had to contend with an ever-growing glut of new music, streaming royalties that pay minisclue fractions of a penny, and the newly emerging streaming gatekeepers armed with algorithms and AI.

So not surprisingly, nothing has really changed. Indie artists still struggle to get noticed, the gatekeepers still get rich, and only a very small handful of artists are able to earn meaningful money. To quote someone who started as an indie artist himself, “Same as it ever was."

There's also a vitally important component of music that gets overlooked in all this, and that's the power of live performance. The best way to share your music and reach an audience has always been live performance. That’s where the magic happens, and where you get instant feedback. No amount of likes and streams can measure up to the enthusiastic applause of an appreciative audience. If you can move a live audience, then your chances of succeeding as a recording artist go up exponentially. I have a friend who runs an indie jazz label out of New York, and when deciding who to sign, they look for artists who can "change the molecules in the room" when they perform. Music is all about human connection on an emotional level, and live performance is ground zero.

So no matter what period in history, or what the circumstances, music NEVER guaranteed ANYONE an audience nor an income stream. So better to simply embrace and enjoy the profound privilege of being able to express yourself through music. And if you happen to get lucky enough to reach a few people and earn a few bucks while you're at it, then mazel tov!

When it comes to popularity and money in music, it's always been a rigged game, with the odds overwhelmingly stacked against the artist.

Good post.
Unfortunately, even the live venues are closing.

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

So no matter what period in history, or what the circumstances, music NEVER guaranteed ANYONE an audience nor an income stream. So better to simply embrace and enjoy the profound privilege of being able to express yourself through music. And if you happen to get lucky enough to reach a few people and earn a few bucks while you're at it, then mazel tov!

I have zero belief that I will make any money with my music. It's not why I do it. I live on what I have saved for retirement, and don't want anything more.

On the contrary, my album is a massive, massive, massive money pit. I'm pouring tons of money and time into it with no hope of getting anything back. Streaming income is pennies.

But after all of that, if some shithead can take my album off of streaming by spending a few bucks, I don't think that's right. I think that the companies that make it possible for my album to be taken off streaming should not be allowed to be in business. Particularly because their entire business model involves ripping off musicians.

If I lived at a different time, and my album was for sale in record stores, I would not feel that anybody was obliged to buy it. (It would be solely my responsibility to make music that people would want to buy.) But if somebody went to all the record stores and burned all copies of my albums, that I would not have accepted. I would have said that there should be a law against that.

 

[Louie]

To an extent, a reaction to the injustice may already be starting to happen spontaneously, as more musicians (who indeed have already been sick of all the B.S. piling up) are leaving Spotify lately after this came out:

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/09/nx-s1-5522297/musicians-leaving-spotify-protest-hotline-tnt-king-gizzard-and-the-lizard-wizard

Spotify boycott: Artists leave 'garbage hole' platform after CEO invests in AI weapons

Daniel Ek's investments in AI dronemaker Helsing have unnerved artists. One called Spotify a "violent armageddon portal."

www.latimes.com

 

[Nekujak]

I have zero belief that I will make any money with my music. It's not why I do it. I live on what I have saved for retirement, and don't want anything more.

On the contrary, my album is a massive, massive, massive money pit. I'm pouring tons of money and time into it with no hope of getting anything back. Streaming income is pennies.

But after all of that, if some shithead can take my album off of streaming by spending a few bucks, I don't think that's right. I think that the companies that make it possible for my album to be taken off streaming should not be allowed to be in business. Particularly because their entire business model involves ripping off musicians.

If I lived at a different time, and my album was for sale in record stores, I would not feel that anybody was obliged to buy it. (It would be solely my responsibility to make music that people would want to buy.) But if somebody went to all the record stores and burned all copies of my albums, that I would not have accepted. I would have said that there should be a law against that.

While the fake “influencer” playlists are indeed a scourge, it's a phenomenon that's as old as the music business itself. Back in the 2000s when I released music (still on CDs), I was immediately solicited by companies guaranteeing radio play for a fee. And of course, in the age of social media, we now have click farms that will generate (fake) views for a price.

Yes, these services are unscrupulous, fleecing money from people desperate for exposure or validation, but in the grand scheme of things, they’re rather harmless. The real problem lies with how the target services respond to them. We’re all aware of YouTube’s blunt handling of ContentID claims that often results in videos being unfairly demonetized or taken down completely. Spotify seems to have taken a page out of YouTube's book and is applying a similarly non-nuanced approach in dealing with fake playlists, which is unfortunate but hardly surprising.

By removing songs and fake playlists outright, Spotify is simply saving money by not having to pay royalties for fake streams. It’s not fair to artists who are innocently swept up in Spotify's purges, but there's no real incentive for Spotify to spend the time and money to thoroughly investigate and evaluate which songs are in violation or not. It's more cost effective to simply flush them all down the drain and be done with it. And actually, this is by no means Spotify's most nefarious crime against artists. Armed with generative AI, Spotify now creates "Perfect Fit Content" that essentially displaces artist's music on targeted playlists, which I find much more insidious and appalling. The fact that Spotify allows AI-generated music at all, is unconscionable and a much bigger problem in the long run.

The mistake most folks make is assuming streaming services like Spotify and YouTube are the equivalent of radio and television broadcasting. They are not. Radio and television are regulated by rules and guidelines set forth by the FCC. But services like Spotify and YouTube are simply private businesses that are free to make their own rules, and primary amongst those is earning a profit. The welfare and fair treatment of artists is not their priorty.

So fighting a crusade against Spotify, YouTube, et al is not a hill worth dying on, in my estimation. If you want people to hear your music, while retaining full control over its disposition, you're better off hosting your songs on your own website and doing some modest social media outreach to make people aware of it. You'll probably end up getting more actual listens than having your music lost in a vast sea of content on Spotify

As I said in my earlier post, the game is rigged. If we don't like it, we simply have to find clever ways to work around it.

 

[Polkasound]

I think that the companies that make it possible for my album to be taken off streaming should not be allowed to be in business.

I agree, but I think Spotify is just too big to care if or how relatively unknown artists get knocked off the platform. Spotify is like a beach with hundreds of big rocks, thousands of stones, and billions of grains of sand. As long as their beach continues to attract the most tourists, they could care less what happens to the individual sand grain known as Reid Rosefelt. It's unethical, but it's just business.

The way forward is to just walk away from the entire business. There's nothing left to fight for or worth saving. Continue to create the best music you can. We have to accept that the music world we knew is gone.

Yep. I took all my music (60 tracks) off Spotify in 2024. I find Spotify to be so morally corrupt, I cannot allow them to profit a single cent from my music.

Maybe one day there will be organic music websites where we can put our music.

So many supermarkets have a separate organic food section today because there came a point when consumers demanded food grown the old fashioned way — without pesticides, and packed without preservatives. I think the same thing will happen with music. There will come a point in the next ten years when fed-up consumers will demand music created the natural, old-fashioned way — without AI. One music platform will create a separate section for organic music (or a new organic-only platform will emerge) and then the rest will follow.

To an extent, a reaction to the injustice may already be starting to happen spontaneously, as more musicians (who indeed have already been sick of all the B.S. piling up) are leaving Spotify lately after this came out:

This is good, but I can't picture Spotify sweating too much. Spotify gets plenty of bad press, but it doesn't affect them. They're just too big and too tightly woven into the fabric of society.

 

[proggermusic]

To an extent, a reaction to the injustice may already be starting to happen spontaneously, as more musicians (who indeed have already been sick of all the B.S. piling up) are leaving Spotify lately after this came out:

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/09/nx-s1-5522297/musicians-leaving-spotify-protest-hotline-tnt-king-gizzard-and-the-lizard-wizard

Spotify boycott: Artists leave 'garbage hole' platform after CEO invests in AI weapons

Daniel Ek's investments in AI dronemaker Helsing have unnerved artists. One called Spotify a "violent armageddon portal."

www.latimes.com

The absolutely insane, unconscionable depth of greed and evil demonstrated by the Spotify CEO is the reason I won't ever send them a red cent again. It's not like Apple, Google, or Amazon have the cleanest hands in the world, but they're less bad than Ek. He has revealed himself to be a literal war profiteer. That's not even taking into account his extremely low opinion of songwriters and composers, the literal reasons for his vast wealth.

The music industry is fraught with peril and it always has been. Times are troubling, to say the least, but full-time musicians are used to that, and I've been able to pay the bills just fine for the past few years. AI is, frankly, making musicians who can actually play instruments live in real time cool again. Venues are probably closing because of general economic angst, not a lack of cultural love for live music... I've honestly seen that increase over the past several years, at least in my general scene.

 

[rrichard63]

Is https://subvert.fm/ at all relevant here?

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

I met a woman at IMSTA FESTA NY yesterday who told me that four of her songs had been taken down from Spotify over this nonsense. But she just uploaded them again, and it seemed to have worked out. There were some other details--she knows people at Spotify. I would have liked to have spoken to her mofre. Unfortunately we were talking during a lecture and people were shushing us so I didn't get more.

This was during a presentation about the music business and a few people said this had happened to them.

 

[Nekujak]

Here's a recent video from David Gnozzi (MixbusTV) discussing yet another fake AI artist getting millions of streams, and general issues around AI music. He tends to be a little long winded and repeats himself at times, but he hits the nail on the head regarding AI music and its effect on musicians.

I'll try to summarize some of his key points:

• Not only is the AI artist fake, but the millions of streams it accumulated almost instantly are also bought and fake.
• Record labels buy fake streams for their human artists, too - it's all part of the promotion game.
• It's very possible Spotify or a record labels themselves are pushing fake AI artists.
• The music industry has been devaluing human-created music for decades. They are a business first and foremost, and like all corporate businesses, are driven by profit and greed. By introducing more and more AI-generated music into the world, they dilute human-created art, and reduce the amount of money they have to pay human artists; which means more profit for them.
• Any regulation over generative AI should've happened years ago - it's too late now for any really effective regulations - the cat is out of the bag.
• We don't have many effective options to fight back - the best we can do is boycott streaming platforms that allow AI-generated music.

Even with my attempted summary, I still recommend watching the video. These are not happy times for independent musicians, and related talent (mixing & mastering engineers, studio musicians, etc.) trying to earn money with their art...

​

 

[Tim Nash]

I'm starting to believe the existential crisis of our time (and music's) is a lack of self awareness. Not everyone will be a great or even good songwriter and indeed most won't be either. It takes an innate ability to be one, you either have it or you don't. It's like trying to be a pro athlete. You need natural ability, sport (music) specific intelligence and heart. AI can't give you that. I once hit a perfect and beautiful drive 300 yards but it didn't cross my mind to try out for the PGA tour. I was a pretty good hockey player, but I knew I wasn't NHL caliber. I still play golf for the fun of it and wish I could still play hockey. I wonder what people are thinking when they decide to upload their music?

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

Paying for seats has been a part of the movie business as long as I've been in it. It's very important to get a decent gross for an indie film on the first weekend, or you'll be tossed out of the theatre. You might not even get a full week. Small companies don't ever do this, but some indie and foreign films are released by Oscar hungry studios. The longer you are in New York, the more reviews you get. Of course, this is in the old days. I don't know how things work today, in the age of streaming.

On my Facebook feed, some of my film industry friends are talking about the suspicious number of tickets that have been apparently sold for "Melania" even though in many places you have literally empty theatres. My wife said she heard that there are ads on Craig's List for $50 to go to see "Melania." Snopes says that ad really appeared, but there's no way to find out who was behind it.

But the trades say that, at eight million, it is the biggest opening weekend for a documentary of the decade. Perhaps this just means that Trump's fans are going to see it, which is certainly possible.

Still, if Amazon is in fact paying to pad the grosses, I wonder how long they are willing to go to maintain the illusion. How many millions more? I guess if you spend $75 million, it's not a big deal to go to $100 million. I just checked--that would put "Melania" on the list of the 50 highest-grossing documentaries in history.