| Music Business Worldwide dropped quite the scoop this week about Spotify's plan to adjust its music royalty model — news that we have independently verified. I suggest reading the whole story, but I want to highlight the three specific changes because we'll get one executive's reaction to them below. The first is Spotify will set an annual stream threshold that artists must meet in order to start generating royalties. MBW didn't learn the number, but said the change could account for around $40 million in royalty payments per year. The second is Spotify will fine distributors – cash money, yes – for fraudulent activity that comes from their services. This might incentivize distributors to proactively detect and remove any potentially sketchy activity and artists. The third is that non-music "noise" tracks will have to be played for a certain amount of time before they can accrue royalties. A Spotify spokesperson said in a statement: "We're always evaluating how we can best serve artists, and regularly discuss with partners ways to further platform integrity. We do not have any news to share at this time." There are a lot of questions here. Namely, how will this impact independent distributors? How much will they be fined? What's the number of streams an artist will have to meet? And what's the listening threshold for these noise tracks? How will these changes, as well as the artist-centric model Deezer has implemented, impact up-and-coming artists? You all know how to reach me – I want to hear your thoughts. Steve Stoute, CEO and founder of UnitedMasters, a music distribution service, allows artists to own their work while still putting it on the biggest streaming platforms in the world. But that independence comes with the added challenge of operating without a label team to offer advice on strategy, marketing and whatever other issues arise. Today, in response to that problem, UnitedMasters is launching a new tool, called Blueprint, that offers artists advice and encouragement in the app when they reach various milestones. So, for example, when an artist is prepping a release, the app will remind them to take certain promotional steps, like building a promo card for Spotify, or to pitch a track for a playlist. The company is also publishing educational videos, explaining how to go about doing such things. The idea, Stoute said, is to offer mentorship and better pathways to success. With this launch, I figured it'd be a good time to catch up with Stoute and get his take on the state of the industry. Our chat also happened to land the day after MBW published its article, so, obviously, I asked about that too. Stoute said he agrees with the actions aimed at getting rid of fraud, even though the anticipated changes could penalize distributors like himself. There is, however, one point on which he disagrees with Spotify's reported plan. MBW reported that the money saved from implementing an annual minimum stream threshold would go toward the pot of cash that is divided up among rights holders. Stoute has other ideas. "What I disagree with is that the pool of money goes to the top and basically, the rich get richer," Stoute said. "The thing that I do know is that every artist started with less than a thousand streams. That's just a fact. And rather than Taylor Swift, or whoever, benefiting in some shape, form or fashion from the things that are less than a thousand streams, why don't we distribute that money, or use that money, to impact the smaller, longer-tail artists who are on their journey to becoming the next household names." Though he commends Spotify for its transparency with artists, he believes not paying up-and-coming stars, or those with minimal streaming activity, will diminish that reputation if money doesn't go toward helping them in the long run. "I think it's good business for them to get rid of fraud," he said. "I think it's good business for them to have a minimum payment threshold. I think it's bad business for them to reallocate that money to those who have already made it and are successful, and I would invest, put back in, pour into, the smaller artists in which that pool represents." I also asked Stoute about artificial intelligence. Does he worry about it or think it'll present an existential liability to the industry? "I look at AI as an ally," he said. "I'm not gonna overreact and get into this weird space of despair because, oh, there's a new piece of technology, I'm gonna run towards it. I'm going to embrace it and find the best way to use it to help move our agenda forward." Last week, I scrolled past a post on X in which someone speculated that an AI-generated album had been pushed to them through their Discover Weekly playlist on Spotify. The album purported to feature a puzzling array of artists from various genres, including John Prine, Nekxum and Pablo Mas, while the primary artist, Waylen Castillo, didn't appear to have a social media presence or, really, any existence online. I mentioned this to Geraldo Ramos, CEO and co-founder at Moises.AI, a company that offers AI tools to assist in music creation. His team has been testing and building a tool that helps labels and other interested parties detect synthetic voices and currently makes the software available to developers using its API platform. He ran a snippet of the album's first song through the software for me, which flagged it as "artificial," he told me over a DM. Though the tool is still in training, he said the company sees around 90% accuracy. "There is a high chance this is synthetic/artificial, but we can't tell for sure," he wrote. On Spotify, the mysterious Castillo has accumulated nearly 20,000 monthly listeners with their top song reaching over 16,000 streams. The album also lives on Amazon Music and YouTube Music, though not on Apple Music. I reached out to Spotify, Amazon and YouTube for comment and clarity around whether they're employing tech to identify AI-generated music and to understand if synthetic voices are allowed on the platform. Both Spotify and YouTube pointed me to their platform policies. YouTube, for one, prohibits content that has been technically manipulated or doctored in a way that misleads users. Spotify bans content that "impersonates others in order to deceive." Amazon Music did not respond to a request for comment. My attempts to reach Castillo were unsuccessful. In May, I wrote about the misleading technique of tagging large artists as featured on a song in order to take advantage of platforms' discovery algorithms. It's possible that tactic is now being used to peddle AI-generated tracks, and seemingly, the platforms aren't doing much to stop it. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment