As usual, a great read! This part stood out to me:
"This is not intended to read like a tale of cynical greed, but rather one of systems and incentives. The system of consumerism rewards economic efficiency until every last cent of profitable return has been squeezed out."
I know we don't have the means or structural power to simply wipe away the profit motive, and so I am engaging in some utopian thinking here, but what you point out here - that the system design around optimizing for one thing (profit) leads to the dysfunction we see in music - is actually a good starting point for some macro thinking.
I've been reading Aaron Benanav's series on designing a post-capitalism future (linked below, it is very good), and his proposal to move from a single-criterion economy (profit) to a multi-criterion economy, based around democratically decided values. What are the values we would choose to pursue as humans if we could design a system to take different values into account (and balance them)?
And then we can apply that same question to music and culture. So, imagining for a second that we could zoom out and "rethink" those whole foundations of "profit as optimization point", my mind goes to the question of "What criterion would we optimize for in a system of culture outside of profit (or alternately output)?" If the profit motive leads to the race to the bottom outcomes described in your piece, what are other values that might lead to different (and perhaps, better!) paths?
Realizing I'm not answering my own question here — I'm still thinking deeply on it! But I think it's a very worthy thought exercise in this moment.
Making music, making art is a very human thing to do. That some people can't tell the difference between music made by a human and AI is up to them. But I think there's a need to put the label AI to this type of music, not to confuse anyone. Deezer is the only service which does that if I am correct.
Agree. I wonder how long those AI labels would be relevant.
1. What is the threshold? 0% AI? If so, what about songs that have used AI mastering services?
2. Do songs with 1% AI involvement get labelled the same as 100%?
3. At what point do things tip over, so that 100% human becomes the minority? How do we define 100% human in the first place?
Things are going to be in flux for a while, and I understand some streaming services' reluctance to dive into this problem and invest in solutions that may become irrelevant, as it all plays out (at a rather high pace).
So I really respect Deezer for taking a risk here.
Hah, thought I could get away with leaving that intentionally ambiguous. Perhaps worded more precisely:
I think Spotify has acted as a lightning rod for problems underlying music streaming's economics in general. I have always found it unfortunate because the other large streamers (Apple, YouTube, Amazon) can subsidise streaming with other revenue sources, whereas Spotify's fate was closely tied to music-related revenues. (I'm speaking in the past tense there, as its foray into podcasts and audiobooks signals a clear divestment from that reliance on one industry)
That's not to say I disagree with many of the criticisms. I just don't think it's great for an industry's sustainability if it is primarily subsidised by giants who don't have much stake in the industry itself.
So by 'roots in music', I meant more how it's grown from the same soil, rather than necessarily being born out of the industry (i.e., being founded by musicians but then taken over by a tech beneficiary who can subsidise it with revenue from payment processing).
As usual, a great read! This part stood out to me:
"This is not intended to read like a tale of cynical greed, but rather one of systems and incentives. The system of consumerism rewards economic efficiency until every last cent of profitable return has been squeezed out."
I know we don't have the means or structural power to simply wipe away the profit motive, and so I am engaging in some utopian thinking here, but what you point out here - that the system design around optimizing for one thing (profit) leads to the dysfunction we see in music - is actually a good starting point for some macro thinking.
I've been reading Aaron Benanav's series on designing a post-capitalism future (linked below, it is very good), and his proposal to move from a single-criterion economy (profit) to a multi-criterion economy, based around democratically decided values. What are the values we would choose to pursue as humans if we could design a system to take different values into account (and balance them)?
And then we can apply that same question to music and culture. So, imagining for a second that we could zoom out and "rethink" those whole foundations of "profit as optimization point", my mind goes to the question of "What criterion would we optimize for in a system of culture outside of profit (or alternately output)?" If the profit motive leads to the race to the bottom outcomes described in your piece, what are other values that might lead to different (and perhaps, better!) paths?
Realizing I'm not answering my own question here — I'm still thinking deeply on it! But I think it's a very worthy thought exercise in this moment.
Benanav series:
Part 1: https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii153/articles/aaron-benanav-beyond-capitalism-1
Pat 2: https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii154/articles/aaron-benanav-beyond-capitalism-2
Making music, making art is a very human thing to do. That some people can't tell the difference between music made by a human and AI is up to them. But I think there's a need to put the label AI to this type of music, not to confuse anyone. Deezer is the only service which does that if I am correct.
Agree. I wonder how long those AI labels would be relevant.
1. What is the threshold? 0% AI? If so, what about songs that have used AI mastering services?
2. Do songs with 1% AI involvement get labelled the same as 100%?
3. At what point do things tip over, so that 100% human becomes the minority? How do we define 100% human in the first place?
Things are going to be in flux for a while, and I understand some streaming services' reluctance to dive into this problem and invest in solutions that may become irrelevant, as it all plays out (at a rather high pace).
So I really respect Deezer for taking a risk here.
For the other points I think we need to think about this later. First label the fully AI generated songs. We need to adapt to all this.
Deezer now only labels 100% AI generated music as such https://newsroom-deezer.com/2025/06/deezer-launches-worlds-first-ai-tagging-system-for-music-streaming/ I think that's a good beginning.
It's an interesting take, for sure. Just curious which one of those intermediaries in your opinion has 'its roots in music'?
Hah, thought I could get away with leaving that intentionally ambiguous. Perhaps worded more precisely:
I think Spotify has acted as a lightning rod for problems underlying music streaming's economics in general. I have always found it unfortunate because the other large streamers (Apple, YouTube, Amazon) can subsidise streaming with other revenue sources, whereas Spotify's fate was closely tied to music-related revenues. (I'm speaking in the past tense there, as its foray into podcasts and audiobooks signals a clear divestment from that reliance on one industry)
That's not to say I disagree with many of the criticisms. I just don't think it's great for an industry's sustainability if it is primarily subsidised by giants who don't have much stake in the industry itself.
So by 'roots in music', I meant more how it's grown from the same soil, rather than necessarily being born out of the industry (i.e., being founded by musicians but then taken over by a tech beneficiary who can subsidise it with revenue from payment processing).
Thanks for the clarification. I think you're right.