Music streaming platform Spotify announced a licensing deal with Universal Music Group last week which would allow subscribers to create AI-generated covers and remixes of songs from participating artists, who would then be compensated. The tool would be a paid extra to “create an additional source of income for artists and songwriters.”
Now, Spotify co-chief executive Alex Norström has spoken to The Financial Times about the move, pitching these efforts as a better alternative to the AI slop currently oozing all over the internet. “There’s a lot of rogue attempts at this,” said Norström, describing his wish to make Spotify the “one that’s legal” and “the one that’s controlled.”
Norström said that Spotify and Universal music had “several discussions” in order to negotiate the agreement, and described it as a “win-win situation” for all involved.
The tool would allow “one song to become 10,000 songs,” according to the CEO, although he appears to have recognised the potential controversy over creative platforms leaning into the tech.
“There’s some negativity out there about AI for sure,” the Spotify chief said. “I think it’s reasonable because some of it is misaligned AI.”
Misaligned is one way to put it. AI slop has become the term of the moment in many internet circles, as everyone from gamers to movie fans voice their (usually negative) opinions on AI-created works.
And in a world where AI can crank out creatively-dubious (if not bereft) content at a vast rate of knots, I’m not sure providing a version of it as a service for music listeners, then funnelling an unknown percentage back to the original artists through royalties, is the overall solution. Better? Perhaps. It beats having your creations AI-transformed for free without any form of credit or compensation, I suppose.
Still, the music industry appears to be rightly worried about the effects of AI tools upon its output. Deezer, a competing platform, recently announced that it was being bombarded by “nearly 75,000” AI-created tunes every day, and that 97% of survey respondents asked couldn’t tell the difference between AI-created music and its human equivalent.
Putting some control back in the hands of the individual user, for an artist-recompensating fee? It’s not the worst idea I’ve ever heard, but I very much doubt it’s the solution for ever-more-financially-squeezed musicians overall.
And as for the creative value of these remixes and covers? Well, I guess we’ll let the Spotify userbase decide. Just remember where most of your favourite tunes came from in the first place, yes?
feedzy_import_tag feedzy_import_tag
About the Author
