Spotify CEO defends AI music, promises musicians will be adequately compensated

[DragonSlayer101]

A hot potato: Following a massive uproar over Spotify's wholehearted embrace of AI-generated music, co-CEO Alex Norström has defended the controversial move, claiming it is a better alternative to unregulated AI content. The statement comes days after Spotify introduced a contentious AI feature that allows listeners to create AI-generated remixes and song covers.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Norström described the new feature as a "legal" and "controlled" way for users to create AI-generated music without resorting to piracy. He acknowledged that some of the backlash to AI-generated content is "reasonable," but said Spotify will continue to protect musicians while offering users an AI-driven music experience.

The interview followed Spotify's announcement of a deal with Universal Music Group to introduce an AI tool that will allow premium users to create their own AI-generated remixes and song covers using music from participating artists. Norström added that tracks will only be available for AI remixing and cover creation with the artist's consent, and that artists will also be compensated through the feature.

Fans and musicians have spoken out almost unanimously against the announcement, with many critics urging the company to avoid what they describe as AI slop. While Spotify has not banned AI content entirely, it has been proactively flagging AI-generated music on its platform. To that end, the company introduced a "Verified by Spotify" badge for human creators, intended to help listeners distinguish between human and AI-generated content.

While many fans and musicians have expressed indignation at Spotify's AI remix feature, others have voiced support. Speaking to The Guardian, composer and artists' rights advocate Ed Newton-Rex said AI-generated music will become mainstream sooner rather than later, arguing that musicians are better off embracing it and monetizing it while they still can.

He also warned, however, that the feature could harm human creators if Spotify allows users to share AI-generated tracks. "I think you get into dangerous territory (if fans can share the AI music). These AI remixes will flood Spotify and drown out other songs, which will in turn put pressure on more musicians to sign up to the AI feature," he cautioned.

AI-generated content has already become a major concern on streaming platforms, and some argue the problem is growing rapidly. To counter the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in AI tools, Sony Group Corporation has reportedly developed new technology capable of detecting copyrighted music embedded within AI-generated tracks.

Last year, Deezer revealed that it uses a tool capable of detecting AI-generated content from music generators such as Suno and Udio. The company claimed that 18% of all daily uploads to its platform – around 20,000 tracks – were AI-generated, and said it does not include AI-generated content in its algorithmic recommendations.

Permalink to story:

Spotify CEO defends AI music, promises musicians will be adequately compensated

 

[NumberNine]

Speaking to the Financial Times, Norström described the new feature as a "legal" and "controlled" way for users to create AI-generated music without resorting to piracy.

This is idiocy. Pirates steal music to listen or share, not to generate additional revenue streams via synthesized audio. Only corporate pirates think that way. This garbage only solves problems that exist within the context of Spotify's executive meetings and reflects nothing about the world beyond their door.

 

[axiomatic13]

 

[MasterMace]

Spotify should save money and replace its C-Suite with AI

 

[p51d007]

I've moved to more NOT streaming music and just play what I already have or have downloaded.
I DO NOT want "AI" generated music no matter how good it might sound. "oh but we can create
a sound similar to groups that aren't around.
NO! I don't want some made up garbage that sounds like something I listened to in the 70's or 80's.
I'll just stick to MP3's I guess. (plus no "subscription" or ads)

 

[Nobina]

Who wants to listen to AI music? Okay, I bet a lot of "musicians" these days use AI to generate lyrics and beats and even alter their voices because they can't actually sing.

Spotify CEO might not like the fact that I have been using cracked Spotify app for years.

 

[Endymio]

I DO NOT want "AI" generated music no matter how good it might sound.

You remind me of the Milli Vanilli fans who were outraged to learn that those songs they loved so much were actually being sung by a couple of older, uglier men who couldn't break-dance nearly as well. Or all those who burned their "AC Adams" lesbian love novels when they discovered the author really wasn't a lesbian professor from Boston, but just some straight white guy.

If you're basing your enjoyment not on the content itself, but who you believe created that content-- the problem is with you.

 

[sreams]

You remind me of the Milli Vanilli fans who were outraged to learn that those songs they loved so much were actually being sung by a couple of older, uglier men who couldn't break-dance nearly as well. Or all those who burned their "AC Adams" lesbian love novels when they discovered the author really wasn't a lesbian professor from Boston, but just some straight white guy.

If you're basing your enjoyment not on the content itself, but who you believe created that content-- the problem is with you.

Except that in the case of AI, there is no "who". In your two examples, human creativity and talent were.

 

[Endymio]

Except that in the case of AI, there is no "who". In your two examples, human creativity and talent were.

Your argument is like claiming an image drawn by a graphic artist in Gimp or Photoshop can't display creativity. AI music generation tools work by accepting prompts, and -- while someone could simply input the prompt "write me a song" -- equivalent to the abstract artist who drew a large black dot on a white canvas -- these AI input prompts can run to dozens to pages.

And of course, even the "human" portion of your argument is open to debate. Consider if and when we encounter an alien species. Would you be unable to enjoy novels and music by alien composers, simply because it lacks "human" creativity?

 

[p51d007]

You remind me of the Milli Vanilli fans who were outraged to learn that those songs they loved so much were actually being sung by a couple of older, uglier men who couldn't break-dance nearly as well. Or all those who burned their "AC Adams" lesbian love novels when they discovered the author really wasn't a lesbian professor from Boston, but just some straight white guy.

If you're basing your enjoyment not on the content itself, but who you believe created that content-- the problem is with you.

Well, I'm older, and don't listen to 99% of the new stuff (other than blues, southern rock). I'm mostly listening to stuff from the 70's & 80's.

 

[captaincranky]

I tend to be an off/on fan of symphonic metal. A lot of what I've encountered recently has been totally AI generated.

Now, here's the scary part; what I've heard has been, better mixed, at least as melodic, and "easier listening", than that produced by the humans in the genre. In a somewhat derogatory manner, one could call this "Muzak metal". However, I have human albums with horrendously sloppy mixes, that turn good material into garbage. (For want of a better term) Channel cross talk, pegged VU meters, and so much amplifier distortion that even the venerable "power chords", designed to eliminate, "odd order harmonics", are turned into pure sludge. In other words, these mutts are trying too hard to male it "heavy",and they need to need to back that gain knob off of "14", and drop a couple of fuzz pedals out of the signal chain.

OK, so the lyrics don't always make a terrible amount of sense. Then again, most of the human purveyors of this genre are non native English speakers, which leaves it with unfamiliar syntax and usages that don't always make a whole hell of a lot colloquial sense to native English speakers either.

NO AI was used to compose this post. (For better or worse.)

 

[sreams]

Your argument is like claiming an image drawn by a graphic artist in Gimp or Photoshop can't display creativity. AI music generation tools work by accepting prompts, and -- while someone could simply input the prompt "write me a song" -- equivalent to the abstract artist who drew a large black dot on a white canvas -- these AI input prompts can run to dozens to pages.

And of course, even the "human" portion of your argument is open to debate. Consider if and when we encounter an alien species. Would you be unable to enjoy novels and music by alien composers, simply because it lacks "human" creativity?

We are branching out to aliens now? Okay. Let's put it this way then... somebody writing a few sentences as a prompt for AI to do all of the actual work is not the same thing as a living being (yes, this includes your aliens) expressing themselves based on their personal life experience and accumulated talent.

AI prompts *can* run to dozens of pages, but you as the listener will have no idea if the prompt was nothing more than "write me a song". Because that single sentence prompt is so, so much easier and less time/effort consuming... that means the market will be flooded with such nonsense, leaving little room for those who would waste time writing long, elaborate prompts. "Write me 100,000 radio-friendly songs" will *always* win if people don't push back.

 

[Endymio]

somebody writing a few sentences as a prompt for AI to do all of the actual work is not the same thing as a living being expressing themselves based on their personal life experience and accumulated talent.

But unless you're one of those weirdly obsessed fans who engulf themselves in an artist's personal life-- you have no knowledge of their "life experience and accumulated talent". And the fantastic thing is that it doesn't matter. What matters is the final result: the music. And don't forget there's thousands of highly successful pop stars whose "life experience" is near zero and their talent even less.

AI prompts *can* run to dozens of pages, but you as the listener will have no idea if the prompt was nothing more than "write me a song".

You mean, just like when you listen to a vocalist soulfully crooning about the pain of lost love, you have no idea if they wrote those lyrics (probably not) or if they've ever actually had a traumatic affair? See, we agree ... all that matters is what you HEAR, not now it was created.

Because that single sentence prompt is so, so much easier and less time/effort consuming... that means the market will be flooded with such nonsense,

Sure. Just as the rise of MIDI, digital recording, and other technologies (along with societal changes that ensured no "starving artist" ever actually did starve to death) flooded the market with thousands of times more music than we saw 100 years ago.

That's what technology does. It makes *everything* much easier-- and thus more prevalent.

I'll also note that your argument is IDENTICAL to the arguments raised against the invention of 16th-century printing presses, 18th-century automated looms, 19th-century mass production, and many others: "we're going to flood the market with cheap worthless versions of high-quality man-made products".

 

[sreams]

But unless you're one of those weirdly obsessed fans who engulf themselves in an artist's personal life-- you have no knowledge of their "life experience and accumulated talent". And the fantastic thing is that it doesn't matter. What matters is the final result: the music. And don't forget there's thousands of highly successful pop stars whose "life experience" is near zero and their talent even less.


You mean, just like when you listen to a vocalist soulfully crooning about the pain of lost love, you have no idea if they wrote those lyrics (probably not) or if they've ever actually had a traumatic affair? See, we agree ... all that matters is what you HEAR, not now it was created.


Sure. Just as the rise of MIDI, digital recording, and other technologies (along with societal changes that ensured no "starving artist" ever actually did starve to death) flooded the market with thousands of times more music than we saw 100 years ago.

That's what technology does. It makes *everything* much easier-- and thus more prevalent.

I'll also note that your argument is IDENTICAL to the arguments raised against the invention of 16th-century printing presses, 18th-century automated looms, 19th-century mass production, and many others: "we're going to flood the market with cheap worthless versions of high-quality man-made products".

I don't think you understand the scale at all. The rise of previous technologies did not result in a world where a complete nitwit can (likely soon) order up hundreds of thousands of song per day using a single sentence prompt. It will destroy any incentive for people to pursue music, as there will no longer be any chance whatsoever for a living in it.

 

[Endymio]

I don't think you understand the scale at all. The rise of previous technologies did not result in a world where a complete nitwit can (likely soon) order up hundreds of thousands of song per day

I don't think you understand this has happened before. The automated loom took us from a world where the average person owned one single outfit of clothing and kept that outfit often for years -- to a world where you can easily afford thousands of individual clothing items.

It also took us from a world where the average person heard music only from the occasional itinerant musician, and thus might hear only 30 or 40 different songs in their entire lifetime, to the world of Spotify, with immediate access to more than one hundred million tracks.

It will destroy any incentive for people to pursue music, as there will no longer be any chance whatsoever for a living in it.

Your logic is contradictory. Either the AI music will be inferior as you predict, and thus human artists will always be preferred ... or you're wrong, and the AI music will be superior.

I'll ask you directly: how many of those human-written 100,000,000 tracks on Spotify have you listened to?

 

[sreams]

I don't think you understand this has happened before. The automated loom took us from a world where the average person owned one single outfit of clothing and kept that outfit often for years -- to a world where you can easily afford thousands of individual clothing items.

It also took us from a world where the average person heard music only from the occasional itinerant musician, and thus might hear only 30 or 40 different songs in their entire lifetime, to the world of Spotify, with immediate access to more than one hundred million tracks.


Your logic is contradictory. Either the AI music will be inferior as you predict, and thus human artists will always be preferred ... or you're wrong, and the AI music will be superior.

I'll ask you directly: how many of those human-written 100,000,000 tracks on Spotify have you listened to?

All of your examples have a human artist creating/authoring the product that can now be offered in quantity. The means of manufacturing and distribution is not in the same category as the means of authorship. These are not the same things.

Fortunately, this will ultimately be defined not by your personal opinion, but by consumers as a whole. I think far more of them than you can imagine will reject "art" that isn't created at least in some part by a living, breathing artist.

 

[Endymio]

All of your examples have a human artist creating/authoring the product

So?

You dodged the question. Your claim is that there will be so much music that'll you be unable to find quality amongst all the garbage -- but how many of those 100,000,000 human-written tracks on Spotify have you heard? How do you *ever* find what you want, in such a trash heap?

Fortunately, this will ultimately be defined not by your personal opinion, but by consumers as a whole.

Consumers as a whole have already voted. They care about the end product only.
For 30+ years, the largest blockbusters in Hollywood are those with stunts performed not by humans, but computer CGI tricks. When AI makes avatars as perfectly realistic as human actors, you can kiss them goodbye too (and that's a good thing).

 

[sreams]

So?

You dodged the question. Your claim is that there will be so much music that'll you be unable to find quality amongst all the garbage -- but how many of those 100,000,000 human-written tracks on Spotify have you heard? How do you *ever* find what you want, in such a trash heap?


Consumers as a whole have already voted. They care about the end product only.
For 30+ years, the largest blockbusters in Hollywood are those with stunts performed not by humans, but computer CGI tricks. When AI makes avatars as perfectly realistic as human actors, you can kiss them goodbye too (and that's a good thing).

They have not voted. I think you'll find that as we move forward, people will reject "art" that has zero human input. A CGI stunt is a tiny component of a much larger work that was created by people. Human writer. Human director. Human actors. Not every film is a roller coaster ride (far from it). Have you ever been to a play? A live musical performance? Have you ever interacted with the people who performed for you and thanked them for their effort? It seems to me you've never liked art to begin with if you have such disdain for its creators. People who are looking for the next Daniel Day-Lewis performance will never be satisfied with an AI replacement, no matter how good it is.
You say it is a good thing to kiss human actors goodbye. If we were to do a poll with that question, I'd not hesitate to put $100 on your position being overwhelmingly downvoted. Shall we find out?

 

[Endymio]

I think you'll find that as we move forward, people will reject "art" that has zero human input

Again: AI-generated music *has* human input. You specify the instruments used, the beat and rhythm, syncopation, tempo, length, the articulation, the chord progressions and intervals, the tone to be evoked, the verse-chorus structure, and many thousands of other things. When AI generates an initial output, you feed that back in with adjustments: an iterative process that may go through a dozen or more cycles.

Does someone **have** to do all this to "generate AI music"? No-- just like a human painter doesn't need to learn how to paint to create a work -- he can simply draw a black dot on a white canvas, and convince some gullible types that his "life experience" has transformed that into great art.

You say it is a good thing to kiss human actors goodbye. If we were to do a poll with that question, I'd not hesitate to put $100 on your position being overwhelmingly downvoted. Shall we find out?

How about we bet on what really matters, the actual outcome? We'll bet $25K that, within ten years, the #1 film of the year in terms of box-office revenue will contain no human actors. Deal?

I'll be nice, though, and give you a tip that will save you losing that bet: the #1 non-Hollywood film of all time already doesn't use human actors for the visuals ... only the voices are human.

 

[sreams]

AI-generated music *has* human input. You specify the instruments used, the beat and rhythm, syncopation, tempo, length, the articulation, the chord progressions and intervals, the tone to be evoked, the verse-chorus structure, and many thousands of other things.

But you don't have to specify any of those things. So why bother? Consumers have already voted, right? They don't care if you waste time directing AI to do it your way. Just prompt AI to analyze the market and make a product that will sell. If the goal is being "#1" or having the most sales, human input is only a hinderance. It slows down the machine.

How about we bet on what really matters, the actual outcome? We'll bet $25K that, within ten years, the #1 film of the year in terms of box-office revenue will contain no human actors. Deal?

I would absolutely take that bet. No human actors means none on screen and no humans voicing any animated characters.

I'll be nice, though, and give you a tip that will save you losing that bet: the #1 non-Hollywood film of all time already doesn't use human actors for the visuals ... only the voices are human.

This is not the same subject. A story created by a human writer. Animations authored by humans. Human voice actors.

When anybody can simply prompt AI to make a movie, why would these people even bother paying anybody else for one? Those who care nothing for human expression become "creator/consumers" and consume their own garbage. They simply need to tell AI to "create a movie I would like", and minutes later, they are watching it. So AI devours itself and the most watched films become those directed at viewers who *do* value human expression.

So yes, I'll take that bet.

 

[Endymio]

But you don't have to specify any of those things. So why bother? Consumers have already voted, right?

Now you're simply being absurd. If you feed a generic prompt, you get a generic output .. and that's not what consumers want. They want a quality product ... and they could care less if it was generated by a person, an AI model, or little green men from Achernar.

This is not the same subject. A story created by a human writer. Animations authored by humans.

An AI-generated avatar authored by a human is 100% identical to an AI-generated musical track authored by a human.

When anybody can simply prompt AI to make a movie, why would these people even bother paying anybody else for one?

Exactly. Just like a human novelist now no longer needs to pay a typist, an editor, a copy-setter, a book-binder, or a half-dozen other professions that are now done with computer assistance. As a result, books no longer cost half a year's salary, but a pittance.

So yes, I'll take that bet.

Talk to @Julio Franco. If Techspot will hold the stakes in an interest-earning account, I'll be happy to take $25,000 from you.

 

[sreams]

Now you're simply being absurd. If you feed a generic prompt, you get a generic output .. and that's not what consumers want. They want a quality product ... and they could care less if it was generated by a person, an AI model, or little green men from Achernar.

I'm not sure you are understanding what AI is. If consumers want a "quality product", and if they don't care what generates it... then why would they care (or even know) if the prompt itself was filled in by AI? "Make a quality product that consumers will like and that they will not observe as generic" would be enough. Or are you arguing that human input is needed and desirable?

An AI-generated avatar authored by a human is 100% identical to an AI-generated musical track authored by a human.

There is nothing AI-generated in the film you are referring to.

Exactly. Just like a human novelist now no longer needs to pay a typist, an editor, a copy-setter, a book-binder, or a half-dozen other professions that are now done with computer assistance. As a result, books no longer cost half a year's salary, but a pittance.

By agreeing that individual consumers will be able to simply create their own entertainment with a minimal prompt, you must also agree that consumers will have no need for AI content generated by others. Which means no AI film will ever be the #1 film. There would be no demand, as it is already individually fulfilled with near-zero effort or expense.

 

[Endymio]

I'm not sure you are understanding what AI is. If consumers want a "quality product", and if they don't care what generates it... then why would they care (or even know) if the prompt itself was filled in by AI?

Are you intentionally being obtuse? If you feed an AI engine a generic prompt, you'll get a generic response. Consumers don't care about the generic input, but they certainly care about the output.

There is nothing AI-generated in the film you are referring to.

Who told you something so absurd?

"The creators of Ne Zha 2 utilized self-developed, AI-powered systems for in-between frame generation, dynamic lighting simulations, and specialized rendering engines (such as a dynamic ink-wash painting tool)"

The studio also used Autodesk Maya, which heavily integrates AI, as well as SideFX HoudinI, which, "integrates AI and machine learning through built-in neural network inference nodes (ONNX runtime), Python-based AI assistance, and extensive synthetic data generation pipelines."

Essentially all animated films today use AI in their generation.

 

[sreams]

Who told you something so absurd?

"However, there must be a distinction made between Generative AI and other forms of AI. Using tools that automatically generate water particle effects or lighting, for example, are a type of AI but it is not generative AI akin to Grok or OpenAI. Basically, it is not the kind of AI that steals content"

It also seems you bypassed my entire point. There is nothing keeping AI from generating something that is not viewed as "generic" completely on its own, without some detailed human-made prompt. Every prompt AI has seen to date can be used to train it to make its own prompts. All of the thoughtfulness you would use to generate your own prompt, it can replicate. It can analyze consumer desires in far more detail than you ever could.

 

[Endymio]

"However, there must be a distinction made between Generative AI and other forms of AI. Using tools that automatically generate water particle effects or lighting, for example, are a type of AI but it is not generative AI akin to Grok or OpenAI. Basically, it is not the kind of AI that steals content"

That nonsense was penned by someone who doesn't know a back-propagating RNN from a Christmas ham. ALL machine learning models are trained on some form of input content ... it's literally why it's called machine "learning" Nor is this training "stealing", no more than a human artist steals when they begin learning their craft by studying the works of past masters.

There is nothing keeping AI from generating something that is not viewed as "generic" completely on its own

In theory. Not in practice ... but at some future point, sure. Again: so what? If the result is as good as human content, that's all that matters.