Spotify has been a game-changer in the music industry. The streaming platform has made it easier for big-name artists to connect with their fans. Additionally, many would argue that Spotify has democratized the industry. Gone are the days when budding artists were forced to sell mixtapes to passersby on the street. Furthermore, Spotify has lessened the need for artists to be noticed by big-name producers or record companies. Now, wannabe music stars can simply record their songs and upload them to the internet.
However, there is a downside to Spotify’s explosion in popularity. The amount of people on the platform has caused oversaturation. Subsequently, many of the songs are being ignored. Baller Alert took to Instagram to shed light on a new study that shows that much of the music being uploaded to Spotify is not being listened to. The study says that nearly a quarter of music uploaded to the platform received zero plays last year. Subsequently, that accounts for about 38 million songs. Additionally, the study also says that another 67 million songs on the platform received less than ten streams. That accounts for about half of the songs on Spotify.
Meanwhile, the study went on to place the number of total songs on Spotify at around 158 million. That means that about three-quarters of all of the music on the platform is largely going unheard, Furthermore, these numbers seem to suggest what most observers likely already knew. Spotify is dominated by big names. Artists like Eminem, NBA YoungBoy, and Miley Cyrus do massive numbers on the platform. Meanwhile, the majority of artists receive little to no play.
Obviously, music is a very difficult industry to break into. Most people who set out to become big-name musicians never meet their goals. Moreover, attracting an audience can be a difficult task. Indeed even highly talented artists will never will never taste stardom. However, one of the more perplexing things about the study is that people aren’t even listening to their songs. Moreover, it seems they are not promoting the music to their friends and family.
Creative AI may be the most disruptive technology for the music business since the Napster era of piracy. Already in 2023, over 10 different music AI models have been released by independent researchers and big-tech companies like Google and ByteDance, allowing users to generate custom tracks in seconds using a mere text prompt. Thanks to off-the-shelf music AI tools like Boomy, hundreds of thousands of AI-generated songs are now listed on streaming services. At large, generative AI tools for text, and visual art like ChatGPT and Midjourney have picked up tens of millions of users, forcing us to rethink traditional notions of creativity, ownership, and attribution.
The concept at the core of why creative AI could be so disruptive is that the friction between having an idea, and manifesting that idea in the form of a creative work, has essentially gone down to zero. Barriers in distributing music have already been collapsing, with anyone now able to list their music on streaming services for free. To see the same barriers collapsing in the creative process means that the playing field of who can be an “artist,” in the sense of being an active participant in the music economy, will continue to increase dramatically.
The concept at the core of why creative AI could be so disruptive is that the friction between having an idea, and manifesting that idea in the form of a creative work, has essentially gone down to zero.
Traditional music-industry notions of authorship and attribution will likely need to be thrown out the window with creative AI, as what is happening under the hood with these AI models is much more complex than directly sampling a song. The legal and regulatory landscape around generative AI is still so unpredictable that trying to make any future predictions right now is a futile effort.
That said, any historical conflict between music and tech companies has usually boiled down to stubborn information silos between artists/rights holders and tech developers, and the lack of a shared language between those two parties around what counts as “success,” and what industry issues matter and why. So, my primary advice to artists and music-industry professionals is to break down these information silos now while we’re still early, and start talking to and collaborating with music and audio AI developers to develop a culture of transparent dialogue.
This goes the other way as well—the best music AI developers are building iterative feedback and collaboration cycles with artists into their day-to-day workflows. Novel approaches to licensing, monetization, and brand protection that are being experimented with right now with AI models prioritize direct artist consent and collaboration with developers as an ethical default (e.g. Spawning).
As these music AI models continue to mature rapidly and enter the hands of mainstream consumers, I think now is the time for music professionals to jump in, start experimenting, and have their say on how these tools can grow and evolve.
Generative AI is coming for music, whether we like it or not. Much like every other creative industry. Here are a few areas of impact:
1. There will be a flood of mediocre, indistinguishable, unoriginal music. Emphasis on context- and mood-based music, ambient, sleep, lo-fi, instrumental. ‘Good enough’ music, which has become plentiful in the last 5-10 years, will now go from the long-tail to the generative AI.
2. Music libraries and production houses will see the most change. The mass music-as-a-service companies will almost entirely transition to AI, wiping out a huge area for 9-5 musicians to earn a living.
3. We may see a paradox movement back to an artist and originality focus for listener habits. Artists over songs. You must stand out. You must connect. Authenticity & originality as a premium.
4. Artists who most effectively use AI as part of their creative stack will ride a new wave. That’s not just in the music, but in video, art, and more.
The takeaway is to learn and adapt. Know who you are. The era of ‘creating for the algorithm’ may come to an end. How can you beat an advanced AI at that?
Justice Baiden of LVRNAshley Maass of Ceinwen Studios
What are your thoughts or concerns around AI and music for the coming months and years?
Just like anything in life, moderation is key. I think AI will help a lot, but could hinder creativity based on that becoming people’s only tool.
What do you expect to happen if there is no moderation with AI?
With AI specifically, creativity could take a backseat, right? For me, AI is a tool and it’s supposed to be able to help you get from point A to point Z more efficiently. Creatively, AI can allow us to expand on ideas and even connect with people that can take it to a different space. But to be relying on it… like I’m even seeing things where people are getting AI to write them songs, but there’s still a percentage of human touch that’s needed. And that usually shows through an error. Computers try to be as accurate as possible. But as humans, we still have a percentage of error. And that’s a certain feeling we’ll lose if we lean too far. I feel like we’ll lose things that keep creativity sacred if we use AI as a crutch.
Right, it raises questions about things like work ethic and authenticity. Those things could potentially be questionable, and you might start to question how artists are making music and if it’s even them actually making it.
Yeah, exactly. For me, it’s not even the question of how artists make music, it’s more so: are you giving your best effort? The only way we can really push for the best creativity is through effort and by exploration. Once that’s removed and there’s a crutch, it slows down the innovation and the creativity.
The creatives can get lost because they don’t understand how to navigate tech, and the tech people don’t necessarily understand music language. So I think they both need each other, and tech is not going to stop moving forward. But creativity can.
Technology is never going to stop moving forward, and AI is just innovation in technology. But in the music industry or anything in the arts, the language between creativity and technology hasn’t been refined. The creatives can get lost because they don’t understand how to navigate tech, and the tech people don’t necessarily understand music language. So I think they both need each other, and tech is not going to stop moving forward. But creativity can.
With AI and how it might impact streaming streaming services, you mentioned the idea of how AI will double down on this idea of targeting your fans. Can you talk a little about that?
Yeah, even beyond music, I think the future of community building is going to involve a lot of niche focus. Right now, everything is so fragmented, but it’s not going to stop being fragmented because as more people get access to the internet, you get more pockets of different subcultures. They all continue to build and get stronger. Creating your community from a niche perspective is going to be the only way to sustain.
Someone like Beyoncé, for example, makes things an event. She’s loud enough and big enough and has enough reach to get the world to pay attention and focus on one thing for at least a day, right? Newer creatives aren’t going to have that luxury and that ability to get the whole world to be on the same page for a second.
I was at a conference a couple of weeks ago and Mr. Beast, the YouTube sensation, was giving a talk. And I knew who he was, but there were so many people around me that were asking, “Who is this guy?” That’s crazy, right? He has the biggest footprint on YouTube, but the fact that people didn’t even know who he is allows me to understand that it’s just all about niches and it’s all about how big you can make your niche. But for everybody to know one person? I think we’re just getting further and further away from that.
There is no there’s no limit on niches though. I look at how AI uses different keywords to advertise or get new fans, because at the end of the day interests are interests and we’re influenced by the people around us. I could be walking down the street, and I can almost guess who listens to Tyler, The Creator and who doesn’t. I’m not going to be 100%, but I know that I’ll be over 50%. If somebody looks at me, I don’t think they’ll guess I’m a huge Bon Iver fan.
What I’m trying to say is that there’s no limit to how big your niche gets. I think Mr. Beast proves that. He can have a hundred million people watch his video in two days. It’s still a niche, but it’s an international niche. Back in the day it was terrestrial radio and TV and we all had to pay attention to one thing, but it’s just not the same anymore. So you can try to build your community and grow it as much as possible, but the days of the whole world stopping to watch a music video are over.
Yeah, it’s fascinating, right? Working at a label and doing digital marketing, that’s something that we’re challenged with. How do you create that visual brand when people aren’t watching music videos in the same way as they used to? Everything is transitioning to short form, and how do you tell that story if people’s attention spans are diminishing?
Yeah, I challenge that theory. I think short form content is the way, but there’s still an audience that likes black and white movies. There’s still an audience that would appreciate short films. It might not be explosive numbers, but if the product is good and the quality’s there, you start to train your niche to understand and go along with what’s important to you. I think human behavior is just training. We have been trained to enjoy short form content. Long form content just takes longer but you have to train, to be patient, and the content has to be good. But if you can do that, I think you build more quality fans, because they appreciate what it is that you’re building.
What types of questions do you think AI raises when it comes to music creation, distribution, and marketing?
The recent advancements in AI technology have prompted a fascinating inquiry into its impact on the creative pursuits of musicians, particularly with regard to the authenticity of expressing genuine emotions through AI-generated lyrics. There is a debate on whether AI helps or hinders the creative process, and whether it leads to more emotionless music. There’s also the question of whether AI makes music production more accessible to individuals without specialized knowledge in music composition. It’s understandable that some artists have concerns about AI potentially replacing their artistic abilities, given that many individuals make a living through various creative fields such as songwriting, singing, producing, and mixing. Ultimately, the impact of AI on music creation remains an open question that warrants further exploration.
How do you foresee AI impacting the way artists create their music and the way fans consume it?
Songwriting is often a deeply personal and introspective process that can be hindered by writer’s block. In such cases, AI-generated prompts can serve as useful aids to help songwriters overcome creative hurdles and stimulate new ideas. However, if AI is solely responsible for generating lyrics, the resulting music may be perceived as lacking in emotional depth and authenticity. While some argue that AI-generated lyrics may result in more formulaic and emotionless music, others contend that AI can help songwriters more accurately express their intended feelings and emotions, which they may have struggled to find the right wording for.
Tao Romera (far right) and the Soundraw teamDarryl Milliner of SinceThe80s
Share your thoughts, questions, or concerns around AI and music for the coming months and years.
I think there’s going to be a shift in the creator industry. “Creators” are going to become more like “directors,” taking part in the whole process of creating a piece of work instead of specializing in one particular aspect. For example, until the emergence of AI, you had copywriters, illustrators, voiceover artists and music producers, to name a few of those specialized professionals. Thanks to AI, creators are going to be able to leverage a set of tools in order to create a piece of work. Specialized professionals are still going to be there because the AI tools and the new “directors”’ skills in each field will never be comparable, but it will allow a huge number of people to come up with pieces of work they would have never had the resources to create were it not thanks to the AI tools.
What types of questions do you think AI raises when it comes to music creation, distribution, and marketing?
In my opinion, the biggest question is about copyright infringement and how to properly compensate artists for their work in case their music has been used to train an AI model. It’s terrible that some companies are trying to make money on the back of artists by using their work to train an AI model and then sell works created by that AI.It’s terrible that some companies are trying to make money on the back of artists by using their work to train an AI model and then sell works created by that AI.
It’s terrible that some companies are trying to make money on the back of artists by using their work to train an AI model and then sell works created by that AI.
Soundraw’s AI engine has been trained exclusively on music generated in-house by our music producers, so the music generated by Soundraw is free from any copyright infringements. We respect the artists’ work.
How do you think AI will impact streaming services?
Depending on the genre, I think we will see a lot of AI-generated music occupying spaces in the streaming industry. For example, lo-fi music is a good candidate. But for music you want to properly listen to, as opposed to music you play in the background while you do something else, I don’t think AI will become relevant.
How do you foresee AI impacting the way artists create their music and the way fans consume it?
AI can actually be a great tool for artists, especially aspiring artists—people who can’t afford expensive beat lease licenses or a music producer/sound engineer. So rather than damaging the artists and the music industry, I think it’s going to have a very positive impact on it by allowing many more people to become artists and democratizing music creation.
AI technology provides many helpful applications, such as systems being used for composition through machine learning which can generate musical ideas or fragments that can then be refined by a human touch. There are also tools like LANDR which use AI to provide mastering services at affordable rates, a much more cost-efficient alternative to purchasing the necessary recording hardware and mastering software. AI algorithms are being used to create playlists on streaming services like Spotify, Apple Music, and Pandora.
AI tools are also being used by artists to create music, sounds, and references, as well as content. Content is vital for an artist to promote themselves, and AI content and art generators like Jasper.ai and Open.ai’s Dall-E are efficient and accurate systems. These programs are beneficial to artists and creatives as they save time, money, and keep the vision moving forward. Although AI technology has been used for many things in the music industry, I am still searching for a software that can take an uploaded song or sound and generate a piece of cover art or a visualizer based on the audio rather than a typed summary in a field box.
I would also like to mention that I used Playground AI to help me properly edit and get my ideas across more concisely in this letter.
Concerns:
My concerns regarding AI are that this software could begin to be used in a way that promotes full replacement of any human element or touch in this process. Creating music, marketing plans, and rollouts require cohesiveness but also a human experience. Finding ways to connect with fans, family, and friends through music is the one of the most important factors of why we all love and listen to music. It influences and inspires us with a feeling of love and compassion. I am not sure a machine can ever truly learn that, no matter what level of sophistication.
I have a concern that people will begin relying too much on this technology rather than going fully through the ups and downs of a creative process, which is usually what can be felt through the works once released. Keeping the human element and touch is essential and hopefully will never diminish.
Disclaimer: Opinion focused on music creation in particular, not about other ways AI can help artists.
I see the evolution of music and how it’s created and consumed as very similar to the evolution of the video space: Previously there was just Hollywood and PGC (100% access gated), then YouTube started and a few more people could create (via prosumer video editor, 10% access), then TikTok came out and way more creative people got access to simple tools to create videos (25% access). AI-generated music now will move access up to 90%.
AI will enable artists to share a much higher quantity of songs, and then have an increased chance to win in the sea/avalanche of mass UGC and AGC music that is about to flood the gates.
As we see with video and entertainment, Hollywood (PGC), Creator Videos (UGC) and now AGC (AI-curated content, e.g. Stable Diffusion) can co-exist, given lots of people have different tastes that are changing generationally. Similarly, professional music (PGM, labels, indie artists), creator music (UGM, e.g. mayk.it) and now AI-generated music (AGM) will co-exist. The timeline to move from PGC to AGC has been accelerated compared to video, where we almost skip the TikTok phase. When you flood the world with new stories and voices, now anyone can find stories that represent them, which wasn’t possible before for literally any niche.
Another important behavioral change that has already happened in the TikTok era is the commoditization of content. The game is mainly about quantity now—if you pump out 100 videos or songs a week, there is a good chance that one of them is going to be more successful and find its audience. In music we have been stuck in the library phase (Spotify, SoundCloud era = create perfect songs to last) and just started moving into this era last year. AI will help accelerate artist wins.
So will AI music replace musicians? Definitely not. It will enhance their workflow and help them focus on the most creative part of the song creation process: the core idea and feeling of the song. AI will enable artists to share (publish) a much higher quantity of songs to social media given the AI-assistance and then have an increased chance to win, given their creative capabilities, in the sea/avalanche of mass UGC and AGC music that is about to flood the gates. The best creative spark and relatable idea will continue to win. More artists can just play more and have more chances now.
DJ Quik recently revealed that he almost fought with hip-hop legend Tupac over a misunderstanding. “Outside the studio, he was a jokester – bagging on n****s — joking, fun — we toured a little bit. He got in my ass one time too — we were about to get into a fight because he thought I was stealing his stage show — like when he would rap and jump up on the speakers. I had to tell him ‘bro I got that off of Bobby Brown my n**** — off of the ‘My Prerogative’ shit.”
The DJ then shared the way they resolved the conflict. “Come here, Quik. Let me holler at you — How am I stealing the show — this n**** hot; he ready to fight. So, instead of us fighting, we went into the weight room and just started lifting weights and shit. You know what I’m saying? Just go in there like ‘knock it out, dog.’”
The Time DJ Quik Almost Died
This isn’t the first time DJ Quik has gotten into trouble thanks to the “All Eyez On Me” artist. The star recently recounted how he could have lost his life in an altercation over Tupac’s bootleg music in a Uproxx Video interview. He states that he gave a security guard a copy of a copy of a CD that the late rhymer was working on.
Quick said “‘Ay, you know ni**as up here playin’ that new Tupac sh*t y’all in there workin’ on?’ He’s like, ‘What!?’ What!?. So I get a call, ‘Hey man, come up to the office.’ I already know with them Death Row meetings, when they call you randomly at 4:20 to fight traffic and get up here, ‘Aw, this finna’ be some bullsh*t.’”
The 53-year-old then speaks about getting into a life-threatening altercation after he asked the security guard who received the aforementioned CD from him. “So I fight the dude, and he dropped his Hennessy, and I think he was more mad that he dropped his Hennessy than me actually swinging on him or whatever. So he told his homeboy, ‘Man, blast this mothaf*cka!’ My man just pulled out a Tec and cocked it. I just [stopped and became] cold over this dumb-ass Tupac tape. So my man didn’t shoot me. My security got the gun from him and was like, ‘Y’all just go ahead up.” What’s your favorite DJ Quik song? Let us know in the comments.
Method Man and Redman. Two names that hold enormous weight in the hiphop industry. These two hip hop heavyweights made their debut during the Golden Era in the 90’s. While separately there is no denying their greatness, over the past two decades, they have become synonymous with one another.
Having become somewhat recognized as a package deal in the entertainment industry, many have speculated whether the two MC’s were actually related due to their similar names and incredibly close relationship. Though the two are not related, it is only fair to wonder given the amount of other industry stars that actually are. Artists such as GZA, RZA and ODB are all related and created the very Wu-Tang Clan that Method Man is a part of. Though the pair have accumulated plenty of aliases over the years such as Meth & Red, Red & Mef, John Blaze and Funk Doc, they very much broke into the industry on their own accord.
On Their Own
Method Man (L) and Redman of Redman & Method Man perform during the Pemberton Music Festival. (Photo by Tim Mosenfelder/FilmMagic)
Clifford Smith, Jr. Is better known by his stage name Method Man. He was born March 2, 1971 in Hempstead, Long Island. Smith divided his childhood between his father’s Long Island residence and his mother’s home in Clifton. During those years, he hung out and rapped with Robert Diggs (now known by the names Prince Rakeem, or the RZA) and his cousins Gary Grice (the Genius, or GZA) and Russell Jones (Ol’ Dirty Bastard).
Some years later, Diggs and Grice, after suffering recording industry setbacks, gathered old friends Jones and Smith along with newcomers Dennis Coles (Ghostface Killah), Jason Hunter (Inspectah Deck), Lamont Hawkins (U-God), and Raekwon to form the Wu-Tang Clan in 1991. And after some practice, they were considered the best crew of MCs in the neighborhood. He took his stage name from the 1979 film Method Man. Meanwhile, while the Wu-Tang was being formed on Staten Island, Redman’s roots began in Newark, New Jersey. Reginald Noble is best known by his stage name Redman. Growing up he was raised in Newark, New Jersey and attended West Side High School. Which was an experience he described as “off the hook”.
How Method Man Got His Start
He was later expelled from Montclair State University his freshman year due to poor academic performance. At the time having no other options, Redman then went back home to live with his mother, who kicked him out of her house for selling drugs. Roughly two years later, when he was 18 years old Redman became a DJ-MC who went by the name “DJ Kut-Killa”. During that time he would freestyle over funk and hip hop instrumentals that were spun on vinyl records in various parks and house parties around New York and New Jersey.
Eventually, he was discovered by Erick Sermon of the legendary hip hop group EPMD. A few months after moving in with Sermon, Redman went out on tour with EPMD. While on tour with them he did everything from carrying their bags to coming out on stage and doing rap freestyles. In 1990, during one of their shows in New York, Redman was invited onstage by Erick Sermon where he delivered a rap freestyle that was life changing. He freestyled a song describing himself as a rapper using every letter in the alphabet, from A to Z. After his performance, Redman began production with Erick Sermon on his first major label album.
The Dynamic Duo
Rappers Method Man and Redman perform during the Budlight Event 2017 SXSW Conference and Festivals. (Photo by Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for SXSW)
The duo have known each other long before they both signed with Def Jam records. They actually met for the first time at a Kris Kross release party in the very early 90’s. In 1994 during their time under the same label they met again on tour. And then again in 1995 in a recording studio while working with 2Pac. The pair recorded “Got My Mind Made Up” for his multi-platinum album All Eyez on Me.
During an interview Redman explained what touring together was like and how it solidified the pair’s friendship. He explained, “Every time when we roll together, I’m the music man. I put the music on or whatever. We listen to s**t that everyone can vibe to whether it’s beats or old school, whatever. I’m kinda the DJ. So, when we was riding in the vans at that time doing promotion, that’s real promotion, we had some songs written.
They Started Making Music Together
He continued and said, “That’s how I can say how the Red and Meth brand came about was from us being on the road when Def Jam put us there. They placed that scene I would say. They mapped out that scene for us to be on the road. It was up to us, organically, to make the Red and Meth brand happen because it could’ve went another way. It could’ve went like, ‘Alright, I ain’t f***in’ with this n***a. Or I ain’t f***in’ with this n***a.’ And we could’ve just went on about our business after that promo tour. But after that promo tour, I threw them beats on and we literally connected through the music organically, and we came back home like real good friends and ready to say, ‘You know what? Let’s do an album.’”
After this, they had a few friendly freestyle battles against each other on the 90’s TV show, “Yo! MTV Raps”, which ultimately led to their collaborative debut single “How High” in 1995. In 2001 the rappers teamed up to star in the stoner classic coincidentally also titled, “How High”. In the film, Redman and Method Man portray two cannabis users who are visited by the ghost of a deceased friend after smoking his ashes. The ghost helps with their exams, and they receive scholarships to Harvard University. While the movie did not receive the best reviews, it goes down as one of the top stoner films of all time.
What Are They Doing Now?
I(L-R) Rappers Method Man of Wu Tang Clan and Redman perform onstage during the KDay 93.5 Krush Groove concert. (Photo by Scott Dudelson/Getty Images)
While the pair’s last official album, “Blackout 2!” was released in 2009, neither of them have stayed out of the spotlight. Singularly or collectively. As recently as 2022 the two had released music. A track titled, “Live From the Meth Lab”. Which featured Method Man, Redman, Hiphop legend KRS-one and Jojo Pellegrino. Although neither of them have released an album alone or together in a few years, it is not because of a rift between them at all. They have had and continue to have much love for one another. Although they are not blood brothers address each other and refer to one another as such on and off cameras.
Rick Rubin, the legendary producer whose influence is still heralded as gospel, said that he knows nothing about music. In a recent interview with Anderson Cooper for 60 Minutes, he explained how he has no technical knowledge of music production. Moreover, he had some insights as to why his style and taste is so sought-after… and successful.
SANTA MONICA, CA – NOVEMBER 01: Rick Rubin attends the premiere of Endangered Spirit’s ‘Bunker77’ on November 01, 2017 in Santa Monica, California. (Photo by JB Lacroix/ Getty Images)
“Do you play instruments?” Cooper asked the Def Jam co-founder. “Barely,” he replied, to which Cooper responded almost incredulously: “Do you know how to work a soundboard?”
“No. I have no technical ability, and I know nothing about music,” Rubin stated. Cooper laughed, as we’re sure many did when they heard those words. Furthermore, given his track record (Kanye West, Run-DMC, The Strokes, Johnny Cash, Black Sabbath, and Eminem just to name a few), this seems preposterous. Still, the 59-year-old identified why he stamped his name into the game.
“I know what I like and what I don’t like, and I’m decisive about what I like and what I don’t like,” he expressed.
“So what are you being paid for?” Cooper asked. “The confidence that I have in my taste and my ability to express what I feel has proven helpful for artists,” the Beastie Boys producer said humbly.
The best leaders are decisive and make decisions quickly. It’s a massively underrated strength. pic.twitter.com/tsPPFZJwhU
In a previous interview with Channel 4 News, the producer highlighted the importance of singularity and not comparing yourself to others. Moreover, such advice likely fueled some of the greatest hip-hop albums of all time. Some are License to Ill by The Beastie Boys and Public Enemy’s It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back. However, more recent examples of Rubin’s genius are Ye’s Yeezus and Slim Shady’s The Marshall Mathers LP 2.
“We each have a singular voice, we each have our own voice,” he told Channel 4. “What I do is different than what you do…we all do something different and they’re not comparable. They have nothing to do with each other. It’s apples and oranges.
“So if you make something today and you think it can be better,” he concluded, “tomorrow you can improve it. You can continually make the thing you’re making better. You can learn and practice and do anything.”
Still, what do you think of Rick Rubin supposedly knowing “nothing” about music? However you may feel, let us know in the comments down below. Also, as always, stay tuned to HNHH for more wisdom from the music industry’s genius gurus.
For example, I had an interview set with an important person at a prominent brand for a job. I planned to pitch investigating Ticketmaster and the problem of nepotism in society. The meeting was canceled and I shelved the ideas, only to see them become talkingpoints weeks later. Meanwhile, Rubin writes: “If you have an idea you’re excited about and you don’t bring it to life, it’s not uncommon for the idea to find its voice through another maker. This isn’t because the other artist stole your idea, but because the idea’s time has come.”
There are tips for how to connect with your subconscious. He cites artists who listen to instrumentals for the first time and just start blurting out gibberish with no thought or preparation, something I’ve heard artists like Snoop Dogg and Rico Nasty claim they do.
He makes the case for utter randomness. In one passage, he suggests opening a book to an arbitrary page. Recalling a time when his doctor told him he should have his appendix removed, he picked up a book by Dr. Andrew Weli, opened it to a random page that said, “if a doctor wants to remove a part of your body, and they tell you it has no function, don’t believe this.” He opted against the surgery. While I probably wouldn’t take his medical advice, he’s really just trying to convince you to be open and let the universe guide you when you’re unsure.
He encourages experimentation and holding on to childlike wonder. He’s against competition and comparison, assuring artists that their competition is only themselves while they’re on the path of evolution. This is unlikely to ring true with the audience at large who love to compare, but it’s something any artist in the creative mode would benefit from hearing. “Putting your best effort in at each moment, in each chapter, is all we can ever hope to accomplish,” writes Rubin.
One of the most relatable sections is a bullet-pointed list of “Thoughts and habits not conducive to the work” which include, “Believing you’re not good enough,” “Abandoning a project as soon as it gets difficult,” and “Thinking you can only do your best work in certain conditions.” I’ve had every single thought on the list at one point or another, and I’m sure every artist I know can attest they’ve had them as well.
[Rubin] grapples with the tension of art vs. commerce that every professional artist must confront. What he cares about is very clear, as he succinctly writes, “The business thinks in terms of quarterly earnings and production schedules. The artist thinks in terms of timeless excellence.”
Many of the sections where Rubin reflects on his personal experiences of crafting an album sound like the story of an album I know but not one Rubin had a hand in. He describes situations where an artist is no longer interested in the completion process (DONDA 2 anyone?), and another one where an artist suddenly wants to start over because they spent too much time in one phase of crafting, citing things like “demo-itis.” He describes the difference between what he calls “experimenters” and “finishers.” He describes experimenters as people who find it difficult to complete and release work—it made me think of Dr. Dre. He describes finishers as people who move quickly to the endpoint with immediate clarity. It makes me think of prolific rappers like Lil Wayne, Future, and YoungBoy NeverBrokeAgain.
He grapples with the tension of art vs. commerce that every professional artist must confront. What he cares about is very clear, as he succinctly writes, “The business thinks in terms of quarterly earnings and production schedules. The artist thinks in terms of timeless excellence.” He also is frank about what often happens to artists who do finally blow up: “Most aspects of popularity are not as advertised. And the artist is often just as empty as they were before, probably more so.”
Ultimately, he isn’t trying to make the case for being permanently inspired in a zen-like state of boundless creativity. Instead, he advises us to continuously work towards a goal, be okay without everything being perfect, and not let the voices in our heads dissuade us from making it to the finish line. When you finally do get to the end, the world’s greatest reducer explains how to strip it down to its bare essentials.
Reading the book I was reminded of one of my favorite quotes that Roger Ebert often cited though he did not originate: “The muse visits during, and never before, the act of composition.” People often think they need some grand idea before they can start working when in fact, you need to sit down, start working, and while you’re working a grand idea will come to you.
Most of Rubin’s advice is so practical it’ll seem obvious if you actually follow through. At one point, I put the book down and started using voice dictation on my Notes app and came up with the first drafts of several ideas I’ve been thinking about. I would often press the dictation button by mistake and panic trying to figure out how to get back to a keyboard. Now I look at it as a tool that I’m going to use for every first draft. Perhaps every time I clicked it by mistake, the universe was giving me that signal like Rubin says.
There’s a great anecdote where he recounts working with a woman coming off a successful album who had lost the will to keep working. When he told her she can stop making music if it wasn’t making her happy, her face lit up because she realized she would be happier putting her work out in the world. I thought of SZA, who seemed disenchanted with the music business after CTRL and took five years to craft SOS, an even better album.
Like the anonymous artist Rubin refers to, even as I find myself ready to give up, I can’t stop. I started writing on SubStack. I don’t really know why. Maybe I am an artist, after all, compelled by some unknown force. “You’re the only one with your voice,” assures Rubin.
I’ve only had two jobs in media, I may never get a third. Maybe that’s okay, I’m going to keep writing anyway. I’ve been to Shangri-La. I know the way back.
This week, a potential landmark case in the music industry was filed against Universal Music Group for allegedly withholding over $750 million of royalties from its artists over streams. Meanwhile, in Fulton County, a recording artist who was included in a gang indictment using his lyrics as evidence will face the legal fight of his life later this month, while his record label lies in ruins as a result.
It’s clear that, when the law crosses paths with the business of making and selling music, the course of one or the other can shift dramatically. In response to Young Thug’s case above, several states have introduced bills protecting artists’ freedom of speech whose lives and livelihoods can be wrecked by overeager prosecutors looking to score political points. Meanwhile, if Black Sheep’s class action suit against UMG proceeds, it could change the way streaming profits are shared with musicians, effecting broad-ranging changes in the way labels do business.
There have been plenty of other court cases that defined the course of the music industry. Some were copyright fights that caused new rules to be adopted — whether formally or informally — about how artists use and credit past works. Others are legal fights between artists and their labels, which prompted the latter to work out new types of deals in efforts to protect profits and attract savvier recording partners. And at least one seemed to be about artists and labels against the oncoming seismic shift caused by new technology. Here are ten of the court cases that defined the music industry.
1944 — Olivia de Havilland vs. Warner Bros. Pictures
One of the court cases that had the biggest impact on the recording industry wasn’t even about music. In 1944, actress Olivia de Havilland sued Warner Bros. Pictures after the term of her seven-year contract with the studio expired. However, much like with record contracts today, back then, actors signed to studios for a certain number of “pictures” over the course of a given term, and if they didn’t deliver, they couldn’t leave.
However, de Havilland argued that this was a violation of California labor law and that seven years means seven years. The courts agreed, forcing WB to release her; since then, numerous recording artists have used the same statute to end contracts they deem unfair, from Courtney Love and Metallica to Luther Vandross and most recently, HER. Even Kanye cited the rule during his feud with EMI and Roc-A-Fella, although a 1980s amendment allows labels to sue artists for damages if they don’t deliver the full number of contracted albums — even after seven years.
1960s — Chuck Berry vs. The Beach Boys
When the California rock band The Beach Boys basically plagiarized Chuck Berry’s 1958 “Sweet Little Sixteen” to create their 1963 hit “Surfin’ USA” (an event that was parodied in the 2006 adaptation of Dreamgirls), they inadvertently kicked off what nearly became the first copyright lawsuit in recording industry history. Although a lawsuit was never actually filed, all the royalties for “Surfin’ USA” go to Berry’s publisher Arc Music after the Beach Boys’ manager Murray Wilson struck a deal.
1990 — Queen vs. Vanilla Ice
This infamous case wound up being settled out of court, but it also laid the groundwork for future cases in which older artists expressed resentment for hip-hop’s proclivity for sampling their past hits. In 1990, upstart white rapper Vanilla Ice lifted the bassline from Queen’s 1981 song “Under Pressure.” The resulting single, “Ice Ice Baby,” became a monster hit and was hugely profitable, despite its later reputation as a novelty song.
However, the British band wasn’t too happy about it and sued Vanilla Ice over the song. Years later, it was revealed that the rapper paid for part of the publishing rights for “Under Pressure,” while giving credit to the original writers. Although he claims he bought the rights from the band outright, they refuted it, saying that a profit-sharing agreement was reached.
1990 — Roy Orbison vs. 2 Live Crew
Another landmark case revolving around the use of sampling in hip-hop, this one went all the way to the Supreme Court before all was said and done, and laid down some ground rules about how sampling can work. After requesting the rights for Roy Orbison’s “Oh Pretty Woman” and being denied, the group went ahead and released their parody track, “Pretty Woman” anyway in 1989. 2 Live Crew argued that their version constituted “fair use” which allows for parody.
After going through a federal district court and an appeals court, the Supreme Court ruled that 2 Live’s “Pretty Woman” does fall under fair use. However, not many artists have tried to use this defense in the years since — in part because parody tracks have fallen out of favor in hip-hop (although Weird Al is still cranking them out) and in part, because no one really wants the headache.
1990 — 2 Live Crew vs. Decency
Poor Uncle Luke. The 2 Live Crew spent a massive part of their early career battling legal enemies when they should have been enjoying the sort of debauchery that defined much of their creative output. In this case, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office had issued an edict that any stores selling 2 Live’s 1989 album As Nasty As They Wanna Be would face arrest on the grounds of obscenity. 2 Live fought back, filing suit in federal district court. Although an initial judge agreed with the Sheriff, an appeals court overturned the ruling, and the Supreme Court backed it up by refusing to hear a second appeal. Despite the raunchy material, the appeals court decided that the music itself had artistic value and that the band being “nasty” wasn’t enough to ban them outright.
1994 — Tupac Goes To Prison
This was impactful less as a matter of how it changed the rules of the game and more as how it changed the substance — even if indirectly. When Tupac was sentenced to 18 months in prison on rape charges (he eventually served just eight), he became something of a folk hero to a fanbase that felt he was railroaded by a racist system, emerging from prison more popular than ever. This set a precarious precedent in hip-hop, but it also helped to solidify what the genre looked like and represented. “Thug life” more or less became the default expression of the art form and Tupac became its avatar.
So many artists now have at least a little of his DNA in their flow, business moves, and public personas and this was arguably the start of his iconic status. After his prison stint, fans were so ravenous for new music that his final two albums, released during and after his sentence, both went No. 1 after he’d previously only managed to peak at No. 24. We certainly see echoes of that in artists such as 21 Savage and the support for Young Thug.
1994 — Prince Vs. Warner
Also in 1994, Prince waged his infamous one-man war on his label, Warner, for control over his music. By now, you’ve undoubtedly heard of how he changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol in an attempt to free himself from his contract, or how he wrote “Slave” on his face to protest his inability to release music how and when he wanted under those contract terms. Ever since then, artists have spoken out about how they disagree with label practices — whether they’re practical or not — and ownership of their creative output, and any number of them, from Kanye to Megan Thee Stallion to New Jersey rapper Russ, have taken the Prince route to freeing themselves from the constraints of the major system.
2000 — Metallica vs. Napster
The first case of an artist suing a peer-to-peer file-sharing company, Metallica’s victory over Napster not only effectively ended Napster’s reign over the distribution of music, it basically opened the door for the whole streaming era in which we currently find ourselves. P2P sharing was never effectively ended, but it was forced underground, eventually evolving into the download sites that fueled the so-called “blog era.” It also demonstrated the viability of digital distribution, first in the form of .mp3s, and later, as streams, as fans had demonstrated that they were willing to adopt the new technology in lieu of only purchasing physical media.
2000s — MusicNet and PressPlay
Of course, the above transition wasn’t quite as smooth as that sentence may have made it out to be. In the early 2000s, the labels’ early attempts to get into the music-streaming game, MusicNet and PressPlay, weren’t quite as user-friendly as Spotify and Tidal would later turn out to be. But that wasn’t the only problem. The US Justice Department investigated the apps for antitrust violations, suspecting that the labels were suppressing competition and inflating the price of downloads.
Once iTunes hit the scene, though, the labels closed up shop on MusicNet and PressPlay, instead shifting their business models from trying to dominate the streaming space with their own propriety platforms in favor of partnering with tech companies who could do the concept justice.
2014 — Marvin Gaye Estate vs. Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams
In a case that changed the standards for just what constitutes copyright infringement, the estate of Marvin Gaye alleged that Robin Thicke’s Pharrell-produced hit “Blurred Lines” illegally reproduced Gaye’s 1977 soul staple “Got To Give It Up.” A court agreed that, even without direct plagiarism of sheet music or lyrics, the later song certainly reproduces a lot of the sound of the original — enough that $5.3 million and 50 percent of all future royalties of the song were awarded to the Gaye estate.
This opened the door (and a couple of windows) for all kinds of copyright cases, with everyone from upstart rappers to established producers alleging plagiarism for even the slightest similarities in tone, style, lyrics, or instrumentation. And while a significant portion of those is getting chucked out, they’re likely to keep coming until another ruling draws firmer boundaries around what’s protected and what isn’t.
Some artists covered here are Warner Music artists. Uproxx is an independent subsidiary of Warner Music Group.
Ashanti recently opened up on the sexual harassment she’s dealt with in the music industry over the years. Speaking with People, she reflected on the highs and lows of being a female artist.
“Honestly, I’m not sure if another artist would be able to deal with what I’ve dealt with,” Ashanti remarked to the outlet.
NEW ORLEANS, LA – JULY 08: Ashanti performs onstage during the 2018 Essence Festival – Day 3 at Louisiana Superdome on July 7, 2018 in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Photo by Paras Griffin/WireImage)
Ashanti explained that she’s always felt more like a “tomboy” and thus frequently found herself in rooms alone with men.
“I was always a tomboy, so I felt right at home with a bunch of big brothers,” she added. “If there was a beat I wanted, and another rapper on the label wanted, we would have to battle it out, and whoever wrote the best record got the beat. So, it made me stronger.”
The iconic singer also discussed a time when a male producer offered to help her with two songs for free. Afterward, he went back on his proposal and demanded she either shower with him or pay $40,000 for each track.
“I really, genuinely thought he was joking. You can feel like someone’s cool, and in the back of their mind, they have an ulterior motive,” she said. “Things like that can happen to Ashanti, so it can happen to anyone — and I’ve heard worse stories.”
Elsewhere in the interview, Ashanti discussed marriage and wanting to start a family. She says she has to “make sure it’s with the right person.”
Looking forward, Ashanti says she’s got an album in the works as well as a documentary about her life. Additionally, she’s working on a re-recorded version of her debut album.
