guest column
Page: 4
A songwriter recently posed a distressing question with me: Do the songs he writes for the church that are classified as “Christian Music” get treated differently by the performing rights societies (PROs)?
The inference that a song is penalized in some way by an organization collecting royalties is not correct, but the songwriter was onto something. Songwriters who write music categorized as Christian often do feel they earn less than their secular counterparts. There needs to be an explanation as to why the perception exists and what can be done to change it.
The explanation goes back to how performance royalties are collected. They flow from three key segments of the market:
Digital service providers (DSPs), such as Spotify and Apple Music
General licensing from bars, nightclubs, restaurants, and live venues
Broadcast media including terrestrial radio and television stations
All genres are treated equally on digital services, in terms of tracking, but Christian music is not your typical soundtrack at most bars, nightclubs and restaurants. And venues for Christian music concerts tend to be small community locations, such as churches. Promoters at these venues are unaware (either genuinely or deliberately) that licensing is required, even though they are holding a commercial concert with ticket sales.
That leaves television and terrestrial radio, and this is where I believe the system is fundamentally broken. The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) allows “educational” radio stations, typically small nonprofit community stations, to operate with a significantly lower rate structure that is not set on a percentage of revenue such as commercial stations, but rather a fixed fee structure based on the population of the community where the station is located.
For example, here in New York City the station WPLJ 95.5FM broadcasts Christian music to more than 8 million people, and in 2023 will pay a capped amount of performance licensing fees to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, a total of $15,029, combined. These fees will not vary, no matter how much revenue is generated by the station.
WPLJ is part of the Educational Media Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that runs a network of almost 500 terrestrial radio stations that broadcast Christian music. They claim the lower non-commercial rate under Section 118 of the Copyright Act and the related CRB rules because it is a nonprofit. When you look at the network’s publicly available information and the CRB rate sheet, you can see that they are paying an estimated combined total of around $1 million dollars in performance license fees.
It may seem reasonable for a non-profit to pay such limited amounts to perform music. But here is where the current regulatory regime is broken. The publicly available 2022 financials show the nonprofit collected $238 million in revenue, primarily through donations and sponsorships to the Christian content focused broadcast network. The network now has over $1 billion in assets, adding $50 million to those assets in 2022. Additionally, the salaries of the executive team for 2022 totaled $5.4 million. This is a far cry from the small volunteer-run community stations the CRB rates are meant to protect. How can it be that executives earn more than five times the total amount the network pays the entire song writer and music publisher community that create the songs upon which its network depends?
It must be said very clearly this network and others like it have done nothing wrong and they are a great resource to the wider community. However, just because it’s not wrong doesn’t make it right. I believe that it’s inherently unfair for these networks to exploit the CRB rate structure that’s available to educational radio stations given their financial profiles and the significant amount of money they raise using music to build a large audience. No matter how much money large non-commercial networks collect, and in this case primarily using Christian music to generate those revenues, the CRB license fee structure is capped. Commercial radio pays rates that are generally set as a percentage of revenue and not capped. Many high-earning Christian stations are paying as low as 10% of what commercial stations earning the same revenue would pay.
So back to the songwriter who felt his work was penalized. The answer is yes, he’s partially right; he is indeed paid less, but not due to prejudice on the part of PROs. The lower earnings are due to the lower royalty fees collected across the broader market that uses Christian music.
If we and the Christian songwriter and publisher communities believe that Christian songwriters should be paid on par with other writers, then the PROs as well as the Church Music Publishers Association (CMPA), should work together to create a dialogue with these high- earning broadcasters and ask that they opt out of the CRB rate structure and negotiate fair license fees for the Christian songwriter community. Or alternately, advocate for a revision of section 118 of the Copyright Act that would exclude wealthy “educational” broadcasters. This, along with financial transparency regarding the revenue collected and music licensing fees paid by anyone who gets a US Government-approved discount, should help level the playing field for all songwriters, regardless of what kind of songs they compose.
Malcolm Hawker serves as chief operating officer for SESAC Music Group, where he is charged with overseeing the operations of all the organization’s portfolio companies. Prior to joining SESAC, Hawker served as the president and CEO of CCLI (Christian Copyright Licensing International), a global rights licensing and resource company.
Most conversations around AI in music are focused on music creation, protecting artists and rightsholders, and differentiating human-made music from machine-made works. And there is still discourse to be had as AI has some hidden superpowers waiting to be explored. One use for the technology that has immense potential to positively impact artists is music marketing.
As generative and complementary AI is becoming a larger part of creative works in music, marketing will play a larger role than ever before. Music marketing isn’t just about reaching new and existing fans and promoting upcoming singles. Today, music marketing must establish an artist’s ownership of their work and ensure that the human creatives involved are known, recognized, and appreciated. We’re about to see the golden age of automation for artists who want to make these connections and gain this appreciation.
While marketing is a prerequisite to a creator’s success, it takes a lot of time, energy, and resources. Creating engaging content takes time. According to Linktree’s 2023 Creator Report, 48% of creators who make $100-500k per year spend more than 10 hours on content creation every week. On top of that, three out of four creators want to diversify what they create but feel pressure to keep making what is rewarded by the algorithm. Rather than fighting the impossible battle of constantly evolving and cranking out more content to match what the algorithm is boosting this week, creatives can have a much greater impact by focusing on their brand and making high-quality content for their audience.
For indie artists without support from labels and dedicated promotion teams, the constant pressure to push their new single on TikTok, post on Instagram, and engage with fans while finding the time to make new music is overwhelming. The pressure is only building, thanks to changes in streaming payouts. Indie artists need to reach escape velocity faster.
Megh Vakharia
AI-powered music marketing can lighten that lift–generating campaign templates and delivering to artists the data they need to reach their intended audience. AI can take the data that artists and creators generate and put it to work in a meaningful way, automatically extracting insights from the information and analytics to build marketing campaigns and map out tactics that get results.
AI-driven campaigns can give creators back the time they need to do what they do best: create. While artificial intelligence saves artists time and generates actionable solutions for music promotion, it is still highly dependent on the artist’s input and human touch. Just as a flight captain has to set route information and parameters before switching on autopilot, an artist enters their content, ideas, intended audience, and hopeful outcome of the marketing campaign. Then, using this information, the AI-powered marketing platform can provide all of the data and suggestions necessary to produce the targeted results.
Rather than taking over the creative process, AI should be used to assist and empower artists to be more creative. It can help put the joy back into what can be a truly fun process — finding, reaching, and engaging with fans.
A large portion of artists who have tapped into AI marketing have never spent money on marketing before, but with the help of these emerging tools, planning and executing effective campaigns is more approachable and intuitive. As the music industry learns more about artificial intelligence and debates its ethical implications in music creation, equal thought must be given to the opportunities that it unlocks for artists to grow their fanbases, fuel more sustainable careers, and promote their human-made work.
Megh Vakharia is the co-founder and CEO of SymphonyOS, the AI-powered marketing platform empowering creatives to build successful marketing campaigns that generate fan growth using its suite of smart, automated marketing tools.
By now, you’ve heard the news that BMI is selling its interests to a shareholder group assembled by the private equity firm, New Mountain Capital. The sale has come with questions and consternation from songwriter advocacy groups — including the Music Artist Coalition, where I am a board member — and U.S. music attorneys. These songwriter advocates asked for (1) transparency about the sale and (2) a window of time after the sale that would allow unhappy songwriters to leave.
Most questions remain unanswered, and BMI has not opened a window for songwriters to leave. But the sale seems to be proceeding anyway, subject to “regulatory approval.” Given that, here’s what you should watch out for as a songwriter, a songwriter representative or someone who benefits from administration or co-ownership of a songwriter’s songs.
1. What Does This Mean?
In short, it means that BMI, which has been a not-for-profit organization since its founding in 1939, has turned into a for-profit organization and sold to a private equity company. Private equity companies acquire companies that they believe are undervalued in hopes of realizing a significant return on their investment in a relatively short period of time. This is called a “holding period.” While some private equity periods fall outside the average, in 2023 the average “holding period” for a private equity fund with a company it buys is just over seven years, which is the longest it has been in over two decades (in 2022 it was just under 6 years).
According to press reports citing sources, BMI in its first year as a for-profit entity has generated about $130 million in earnings before interest, taxes depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). In order for the shareholder group to be successful, it will need to continue to grow profits or EBITDA from where they are today. To do that, they have to increase revenue and/or decrease expenses. The concern underpinning the sale is that BMI has historically grown revenue in order to pass it on to songwriters and publishers. The only revenue BMI traditionally held back was to cover its overhead. Turning to a for-profit model with private equity owners means that BMI’s shareholders will expect to participate in the profits BMI generates (through distributions or leveraging BMI), which may mean that less of the revenue generated will be distributed to the writers and their publishers.
2. How Does This Compare With My Other Options?
That is one of the unanswered questions. BMI’s goal is that there will be no negative impact to writers and publishers. BMI says they have a “goal” (not a guarantee) not to withhold more than 15% of revenue for three years for profit and overhead, but this doesn’t apply to revenue from any new business lines the company now enters.
Without more specificity, it is hard to determine how this will be possible and whether songwriters will be negatively impacted. It would be great if BMI provided more details about how they will increase distributions and increase profits at the same time. Ideally, BMI would give their affiliates an audit right, so that songwriters and publishers can monitor whether BMI reaches its goal. Otherwise, it should continue to release its financials showing collections, distributions and EBITDA.
3. How Will I Know?
Unfortunately, transparency is an issue. BMI’s latest public filing contains very little information on the state of the company and its revenue. In fact, they provide far less financial information than they did just a few years ago. Larger market players (like music publishers) may be able to compare and contrast the revenue they receive from one PRO vs. another and compare it with general growth trends of the music business and growth in the particular market segments that pay for performance (radio, film/TV, streaming, bars/restaurants, etc.).
We hope that songwriter advocacy organizations, in conjunction with music publishers, will be able to create and provide some level of transparency in the future for all songwriters. As a board member of the Music Artists Coalition, we have determined to make this a priority. Information is power, and songwriters who signed up for BMI under the premise of it being a non-profit should work to get as much information as possible. Ultimately, what matters is what you make as a songwriter – so watch your statements.
4. Do BMI Writers Share in the Sale Proceeds?
A little. In response to pressure from advocacy groups, BMI said that $100 million will be shared with its affiliates. BMI, in its sole discretion, will determine who gets it and how much, but it has agreed to use prior payment principles to do so. Affiliates includes both songwriters and publishers, and how much of the $100 million will be distributed to each of those two groups has not been disclosed.
The rest of the estimated $1 billion goes to BMI’s shareholders, which are broadcasters. For some broadcasters, this is a rebate of the performance royalties they have paid over the last few decades. This may seem particularly gruesome to songwriters who are also recording artists in the United States, which is one of the only countries in the world where broadcasters do not pay performance revenue on recordings.
5. What Do I Do Next?
If you’re a BMI member, stay informed. Ask questions, read your statements, follow the news and watch for reports on distributions starting after the second half of 2024. Talk to your co-writers at other PROs and compare payments. It takes four and a half months from the end of a quarter until you receive your accounting.
Check your agreements to understand when you can terminate membership, and when you can withdraw your songs. If you are unhappy with the results of the sale, you have the right to leave, but it can be tricky. BMI (like ASCAP) has one window during which you can resign as a writer (often every two years), but a separate, often completely different window (often every five years) during which you can terminate your publishing entity. You have to watch your windows and send your notice in advance, adhering to the timeframes allowed for resignations and terminations. And don’t forget that your songs stay with BMI while they are subject to “licenses in effect,” meaning that even when a songwriter leaves, their catalog stays behind for the term of existing licenses.
6. What Does Google Have To Do With All This?
We aren’t really sure, other than the fact that CapitalG (Alphabet’s independent growth fund) is listed at the end of the press release announcing the sale. Google owns YouTube, which has a history of underpaying songwriters — at least for its ad-supported tier. We will be watching this one closely.
Jordan Bromley leads Manatt Entertainment, a legal and consulting firm providing services to the entertainment industry for over 45 years. He sits on the Board of Directors for the Music Artists Coalition, an artist first advocacy coalition established in 2019.
Lawyers often say that bad facts make bad law – meaning that unusual or unlikely details of a case can shape precedent in unpredictable ways. But bad facts can also make for bad contracts, to judge by the contractual restrictions on re-recording that major labels may be adopting in the wake of the success of Taylor Swift‘s “Taylor’s Version” of her albums.
Re-recording restrictions, a common contractual provision that has been part of record deals for decades, are intended as a kind of post-term noncompete. Their understandable economic purpose is to stop an artist from re-recording songs released under a contract that has run its course in order to benefit a subsequent label – and let the subsequent recording compete with the original without a comparable investment. Under that logic, the reasonable duration of a re-recording restriction would be a few years, as was the practice before the “Taylor’s Version” releases came out. It’s harder to justify locking up artists for a protracted period that might be longer than the duration of the original recording agreement.
That duration could be limited, too, by a potential legal challenge. Both the federal government and many states restrict the enforceability of noncompete clauses in employment agreements, particularly when they limit economic freedom. (Examples include California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, and the recently passed New York Senate Bill S3100A, which New York governor Kathy Hochul is expected to sign.) Next year, the Federal Trade Commission will vote on banning noncompete clauses in employment agreements altogether. Labels often say that recording artists aren’t employees, but that wouldn’t necessarily put these kinds of restrictions above the fray – especially if they last longer than seems reasonable.
Few artists re-record anything, and those who do usually only revisit one or a few hits, maybe their biggest album at most, and that’s more likely if there’s a contractual dispute. It’s unprecedented for a significant artist to re-record his or her entire catalog, repackage each album and promote their rerelease – particularly when the original hit releases are still readily available. That requires motivation. Or, in Swift’s case, perhaps, frustration. But in a “Taylor’s Version” world, who wants to be the one who let it happen again?
Chris Castle
Laura Lee Nall Photography
Without getting into the he-said-she-said of the sale of Big Machine, including Swift’s recording catalog, it’s important to note that it was an unusual case. So, it’s worth asking if there’s a lower-risk alternative.
If a label is going to sell a living artist’s entire catalog – or sell a company whose value is dominated by that catalog – the safe thing to do might be to offer the artist a chance to bid on it. Or, failing that, at least consult with the artist to create a comfortable situation, even if that requires additional assurances or an additional payment. If you think it’s only necessary to do the minimum, look at what can happen with an overly legalistic approach. To artists like Swift, these recordings are their life.
Changing the recording agreement template to try to guarantee an outcome may backfire. “Taylor’s Version” simply isn’t a normal situation – it’s one that involved the world’s most popular artist, who is as attached to her catalog as any performer, plus just as business-savvy as most executives. It’s a situation that was almost impossible to anticipate – so making contracts even more one-sided may not help. Instead, a change like this could draw the attention of President Biden’s FTC, which seems to have an abiding interest in noncompete clauses. Especially if a number of competitors just happen to push the same contractual change at the same time.
If labels must have extended re-recording restrictions, couldn’t they add a sweetener, such as offering living artists a right to match the highest bid if their recording catalogs are ever sold individually, or a blocking right over the buyer or something similar? Alternatively, they could also just leave things be.
An overreaching re-recording restriction could also provoke retaliation from artists’ lawyers. They could make leverage points like post-term marketing restrictions and audits more important deal points in order to fight restrictions. That means disfavored buyers might have to wonder how hard it could be to get the approvals they need, or how much they would like continual audits. And in cases where artists are also principal songwriters, buyers could also have trouble clearing song rights, especially for new purposes like AI.
Some labels may be less concerned with expanding this restriction than they are with winning a competitive negotiation to sign a new artist. And if a competing label agrees to a shorter restriction, it could be an easy compromise that would cost little or nothing.
There’s always a temptation to add restrictions to contracts, but in this case, the exercise could backfire. Labels might be advised to be careful what they wish for.
Chris Castle is an Austin-based lawyer. He represents artists, publishers, songwriters and startups on commercial and public policy matters.
One of the key themes to emerge from Billboard Latin Music Week in Miami earlier this month was the undeniable and unstoppable rise of Mexican music — a trend that’s being powered by the TikTok generation.
In an era marked by a global surge in music consumption, the revival of Latin music in the United States is nothing short of spectacular. Data from the RIAA paints a compelling picture, showing U.S.-based Latin music revenues have increased by 15% year on year to reach a record high of $627 million in the first half of 2023, accounting for 7.5% of market share. When we reflect on numbers from the first half of 2021, the leap of 52% over these two years is particularly striking. The primary impetus for this is the growing audience tuning in to Latin music on ad-supported on-demand music streaming services. This is remarkable growth in a genre characterized by non-English language songs.
The rise of reggaeton in particular has been nothing short of meteoric. The commercial success of the likes of Bad Bunny, J Balvin and Karol G has left an indelible mark on the Latin music landscape. However, it’s important to note that Latin music’s appeal isn’t confined to a single genre.
TikTok has evolved into a hub for music discovery for millions of fans worldwide, with many trending songs on the platform often ending up on the Billboard Hot 100 or Spotify Viral 50. According to Luminate, 67% of the app’s users are more likely to seek out songs on music streaming services after hearing them on TikTok.
So what trends are we now seeing in Latin music? The short answer: Mexican music is leading the charge.
Over the past 12 months alone, Mexican music has experienced more than 83 billion views on TikTok worldwide, with a third of these coming from the United States, according to hashtag research the team and I have conducted in-house at Round. In that time, Mexican music has emerged as the fastest-growing genre on the platform with an astounding 322% surge in popularity, compared to electronic music (122%), rock/indie (96%), reggaeton (90%) and rap/hip-hop (87%). Mexican music stands as the third-largest genre on TikTok in terms of viewership in the U.S., with more than 27 billion views over the past 12 months, behind only rap/hip-hop and K-pop.
Artist after artist has emerged from the Mexican music scene to take TikTok by storm — from Natanael Cano and Yng Lvcas to Fuerza Regida and Grupo Frontera. However, one in particular is paving the way: Peso Pluma.
Thanks to Eslabon Armado’s viral TikTok hit “Ella Baila Sola,” on which Pluma is featured, the rising star has emerged as one of Mexico’s most exciting breakthrough artists. The track not only hit No. 1 on the Billboard Global 200 chart, where it held for six weeks, but it also secured a No. 4 spot on the all-genre Hot 100 — an unprecedented feat for a regional Mexican song. Plus, it dominated Hot Latin Songs for 19 consecutive weeks, the longest run at No. 1 for a regional Mexican track since the tally’s inception in 1986. The song has generated 525.5 million on-demand official streams in the United States to date, according to Luminate. Moreover, “Ella Baila Sola” reached No. 1 on the overall Streaming Songs chart, becoming the first regional Mexican song to lead the list and the first No. 1 on the chart for both acts.
The undeniable catalyst in this success story has been TikTok, where Pluma has gained over 30 billion views in just 12 months and inspired over 5 million creations on the platform. In April, four of Pluma’s tracks dominated the list of top trending Latin songs on the platform in the United States.
The appeal of regional Mexican music is further broadening as tastemakers continue to upload educational videos about the genre to TikTok and Instagram Reels. That trend is helping to nurture a deeper connection to the genre, fostering long-term engagement and powering it to new heights.
So what lies on the horizon?
Round’s analysis of TikTok hashtags reveals a treasure trove of uncharted music cultures and sub-genres waiting to be discovered. For example, views of #sertanejo, a Brazilian sub-genre of traditional music, have doubled from 15 billion to 30 billion over the last 12 months globally. That nearly rivals #reggaeton, which received 33 billion views globally across TikTok over the same period.
As new trends arise, one thing remains certain: TikTok is a powerful force for promoting diversity in music and opening up international markets for local sounds. Its global reach has ushered in an era where artists can easily have their music heard by millions. Now, it’s no longer a question of if artists, record labels, brands and influencers are on the app — it’s about how they maximize its power to the fullest. The stage is set, and the world is listening.
Ray Uscata is managing director of Round, North and South America. Round is a tech-enabled digital agency using content, creators and communities to place the world’s leading brands and artists at the center of culture.
Banned Books Week is here, and while book lovers everywhere rally against the censorship of our cherished stories, musicians like Ariana Grande, Idina Menzel and Yola have added their names to the chorus of celebrities and activists in an open letter condemning the ominous threat of book bans. This impassioned message — led by the iconic LeVar Burton of Reading Rainbow fame and propelled by moveon.org — boldly declares about book bans that “It’s only a matter of time before they target other forms of art, expression, and entertainment.”
This point is exactly what I was afraid of as I began working on my latest album, FREADOM: Songs Inspired by Banned Picture Books, and the reason why I want to get more musicians on board to join the movement against book bans.
As a Manhattanite, I wear many hats: touring musician, recording artist, early childhood music educator and mom to an eight-year-old bookworm. Over the past year, I’ve taken a dive deep into the disheartening world of book bans, especially books removed from school and library shelves. My connection to this issue deepened when I discovered that some of my daughter’s beloved books, including Sulwe by Lupita Nyong’o and Alma and How She Got her Name by Juana Martinez-Neal, had been taken away in my own home state of Florida by Governor Ron DeSantis and spearheaded by his supporters in the right-wing group Moms for Liberty.
In the 2021-22 school year, First Amendment advocates PEN America reported that a shocking 317 children’s picture books were banned. Most of these silenced stories belong to BIPOC authors, LGBTQIA+ individuals, books with Jewish themes or stories representing diverse cultural backgrounds. The fact that even our youngest readers aren’t spared is truly devastating. Picture books and children’s music go hand-in-hand for young kids to learn about the world around them and build empathy for others.
When I set out to create songs for FREADOM, I naively thought that only books were under threat from modern censorship, though I vaguely knew about the mid-20th century “banning of immoral music” as it pertained to censorship of jazz and rock & roll due to “provocative” dancing or promoting social change. Growing up in the 1980s, while devouring the shelves of CDs at my local Miami music store, I recall the infamous black and white Parental Advisory labels placed on the plastic because of explicit content. I honestly thought music censorship was a thing of the past and we were collectively cool when it came to free music (and I’m not talking about the Napster kind.)
When I recently visited the PEN America offices, I was shocked to learn about an elementary school in Waukesha, Wis., where they banned a performance of the song “Rainbowland” by Dolly Parton and Miley Cyrus for violating their “controversial content policy.” Over the summer, the school board controversially dismissed first-grade teacher Melissa Tempel for daring to speak out against the musical ban — exercising her First Amendment rights outside of school hours on social media. Teachers in that district are also barred from wearing rainbows, discussing gender pronouns or even mentioning the word “anti-racist.”
As a lyricist, educator, and mother, I can confidently say that there’s nothing controversial about “Rainbowland” and its removal may be seen as an actionable blueprint from the right and a glimpse of what’s coming our way in the land of the “free.”
Book bans are just one piece of a larger plan to dismantle our education system and undermine the core of our democracy one art form at a time, all under the guise of “protecting children.” By standing idle and failing to protect our First Amendment rights now, we are heading on a bleak path forward. It’s only a matter of time before they come after our music, just as they’ve come after our bodily autonomy and voting rights.
Musicians, I urge you to join me in the fight against book bans, defending our First Amendment rights and safeguarding the personal freedoms of all Americans. Come stir up good trouble and take a stand! “We will not be banned!”
Singer/songwriter Joanie Leeds won a 2020 Grammy Award for best children’s album and in her new album, FREADOM, released Sept. 15, she and her band take on book banning through eight original songs that amplify love and inclusion.
YouTube recently launched an AI Music incubator with artists and producers from Universal Music Group. The purpose of the group, according to Universal CEO Lucian Grainge, is to explore, experiment, and offer feedback on the AI-related musician tools and products the Google team is researching — with the hope that more artists will benefit from YouTube’s creative suite.
This partnership demonstrates the clear desire to involve the industry in the development stages of AI products and protect the human component of artistry. This desire is heightened in the face of deep fakes. Just last month, Google launched its Synth ID watermark meant to spot AI-generated images (Google DeepMind CEO Denis Hassabis cited the importance of deepfake detection ahead of a contentious election season). “Heart on My Sleeve,” the song created with AI-generated voices of fake Drake and The Weeknd kicked off the music industry’s scramble to shut down and stamp out any unauthorized use of artists’ voices. Most importantly, though, the viral track proved that AI voice models are here and only improving with each passing day.
As artists, labels, and other rights holders have grown more concerned about AI models learning and profiting from their copyrighted material, fans and creators have discovered new ways to engage with their favorite artists and imagine completely new musical works using their AI voice models. This is prompting other industry executives (myself included) to wonder how these models can continue to be used to explore this new creative frontier of music while protecting artists.
With all of this in mind, the industry needs to mull over a few philosophical questions and consider the distinction between voice cloning and voice synthesis. A singer is much more than timbre, the primary quality that voice models modify in a voice. AI voices are not the same as samples, where the whole vocal element is based on an underlying artist’s full performance which would include pitch, emotion, timbre, accent, tone, etc.
Regardless, AI innovations will only reach their maximum potential if the industry faces one foundational issue: artists and their labels need to control the ways in which their image, likeness and voice are used. Whether the industry decides to embrace these innovations or limit AI-powered cloning entirely, the next step begins with synthetic voice detection. Is the artist singing on any given track fake or the real deal?
In the early 2000s, music companies found themselves losing control of their content to the digitalization of music. The industry’s initial impulse to crush file-sharing networks like Napster led to the launch of Apple’s iTunes store in 2003 and, eventually, legal streaming. Other digital rights management tools, like ContentID on YouTube, were developed to detect unauthorized use of music. Once the industry learned to embrace digital music and formed a foundational infrastructure to support it, streaming revenues soared — breaking the $10 billion mark for the first time in 2022 and making up 84% of the industry’s total revenue, according to the RIAA.
The industry needs synthetic voice detection, but with 120,000 new tracks uploaded to streaming platforms daily (according to Luminate) on top of the already existing back catalogs, can it be done accurately and at scale? The short answer: yes.
As the industry begins to embrace the responsible use of AI for synthetic voice creation, I strongly believe there should be a corresponding willingness for artists and labels to collaborate in that training process. It’s in their best interests to do this now. AI applications are already scaling in a variety of categories. Well-engineered models are becoming exponentially more efficient and can increasingly manage massive computing tasks. Combined with strategic operational approaches, this is achievable today.
To honor each artist’s decision whether or not to participate in voice models, the industry needs an easy and accessible way for artists to build their own voice models and grant fans and creators permission to use it. This type of initiative paired with synthetic voice detection ensures that only the voices and works of those who want to be involved in voice cloning and other derivative AI tools are used. Artists who want to create their own voice models can work with voice synthesis platforms to establish the terms of where and how their voice model can be used–offering more control and even opportunities for monetization.
Geraldo Ramos is the co-founder and CEO of Moises, the AI-driven music platform that is transforming the way artists and businesses incorporate AI technology into their workflows.
It’s been months since the concept of “artist-centric” royalties was introduced in a January memo from Universal Music Group Sir Lucian Grainge to his staff. It raised a considerable amount of speculation for a company memo, even though for a while the concept remained rather vague. Something about streaming manipulation, functional music, and a model that “supports all artists.”
Now, though, that speculation is over: Deezer has announced its UMG-backed proposal, with plans to launch it soon.
We need more clarity, but this proposal definitely adds to the streaming debate, which is important if we want to improve the streaming ecosystem. The European recorded music market is still far from where it should be – around 42% of its market peak when adjusted for inflation, following the absence of any substantial change in streaming subscription prices over the past decade and a half.
How do we fix this?
First, we need to see higher subscription prices. We have seen some increases, but they are still minor. We just can’t escape that fact. Then there are ideas about how the business can reallocate royalties, and we need as many voices as possible to take part in the discussion. IMPALA started t this wo years and a half ago with its 10-point plan to make the most of streaming, which we revisited in April (infographic here and full plan here). We think Deezer’s proposal is ambitious, and some of it resonates with our own. But it also includes some more controversial provisions.
Let’s start with them.
I’m referring of course to Deezer’s plan to set a threshold for boosts in royalties, available only to acts that get a certain number of streams from a certain number of listeners. Where would the additional revenues go? How many artists would benefit? And what does it say about the stability of the system that an artist could attain “professional” status for a month, only to potentially lose it in following one?
More clarity is needed. Independent labels account for 80% of new releases (including artists patiently awaiting discovery, artists who cater to niche audiences, artists from smaller territories and newcomers just starting their artistic journey). We must avoid a two-tier approach that would impact not only their work, but musical diversity as a whole. We understand that this is not Deezer’s objective, but IMPALA will always oppose thresholds that would harm smaller players and smaller markets, a position that was set already in our first streaming plan. Let’s make sure it’s not the case here.
Key to IMPALA’s approach is a progressive redistribution of revenues where tracks would see a boost in royalties beneath and before the point of global ubiquity, and those which are in the top echelon (however that’s defined) would lose a small percentage of revenue. That’s the Artist Growth model – initially developed by AIM in the UK. We feel this can lead to a healthier ecosystem and more opportunity for new creators from diverse genres.
This could be controversial as well, which is fine, as long as we remember that change must be discussed – and negotiated. It shouldn’t simply be imposed in a deal between two market players, even when one of them is the leader of the market. And while Deezer and UMG will launch this plan soon, until other stakeholders agree, this “artist-centric” model will really be UMG-centric.
Deezer’s plan also has a lot of positives, though.
Who could argue that streaming manipulation needs to be addressed, for example? We absolutely support Deezer’s commitment there, which is also point 4 of IMPALA’s proposal, but we will need to review the idea of caps on individual accounts as we wouldn’t want superfan streams to be devalued.
Deezer also want to address “noise” content is also an issue that Deezer seeks to address. We flagged this in our plan, as a way to address revenue dilution. So we welcome this move and would appreciate other ideas to handle this content, which has a place, as long as it doesn’t dilute royalties.
Deezer’s second proposal for boosts in royalties, for tracks that fans actively engage with, is also interesting. That’s also the rationale behind our “Active Engagement” model, put forward in our plan in 2021. There are different ways one could do this, but it’s great to see the idea getting traction.
Is Deezer ready to make the imaginative leap to embrace the “Fan Participation” model, also proposed by IMPALA, to offer creators a space within the service where they could develop incremental revenues from direct relationships with fans? If so, we could be talking about really exciting and important changes in the streaming market.
We hope that services will also look at ways of rewarding artists who record longer-form music. That’s a conversation we started with our “Pro rata Temporis” model. The issue needs to be addressed without at the same time harming shorter tracks.
In the meantime, we need more extensive discussion and debate. We invite all interested parties to explore IMPALA’s plan and share their perspectives as we collectively navigate the evolving streaming landscape.
Let’s keep the ideas coming!
Helen Smith is the Executive Chair of IMPALA, the European non-profit organization that represents independent music companies, with key issues that include copyright, sustainability, diversity and inclusion, streaming reform, AI, finance and digital services as well as strategic relations with key partners through the Friends of IMPALA program.
Today we are releasing U.S. recorded music revenue data for the first half of 2023, reflecting 9.3% growth over the first half of 2022 — the ninth straight year of positive growth.
With overall first-half revenues hitting an all-time high of $8.4 billion at retail value and paid streaming subscriptions nearing 96 million, this report makes clear the strength of American recorded music’s fundamentals.
For example, this new data shows broad strength across formats — especially digital streaming, which now comprises some 84% of recorded music revenues and grew at a robust 10.3% rate this period. Looking solely at paid streaming subscriptions, that figure climbs to 11%.
In fact, paid subscription services were responsible for nearly two-thirds of total revenues and more than three-quarters of streaming revenues. And they continued to grow at an even faster rate than ad-supported revenues.
But it’s not only streaming; the new data also show the lasting power of physical formats — which grew by 5% — including growth in the value of sales of CDs and vinyl. Overall, physical revenues reached their highest level since a full decade ago, topping $880 million so far this year.
And digital and customized radio music revenues, which include SoundExchange distributions for revenues from services like SiriusXM and internet radio stations, grew 16% to $657 million for the period.
As we’re fond of saying, “Music doesn’t just happen.” This success reflects the hard work, innovation, and creative genius of the artists, songwriters, labels, publishers, and services that make up the U.S. music community.
Finally, with annual Latin music revenues in the U.S. exceeding $1 billion for the first time in 2022 and the first half of 2023 showing continued growth faster than overall revenues, Latin music continues to shine — both economically and creatively. We look forward to releasing a full report on the Latin segment during Hispanic Heritage Month and as a capstone to our upcoming RIAA Honors Celebration of Latin music where we will recognize legends Gloria and Emilio Estefan, superstar Sebastián Yatra and other Latin music trailblazers as well as the policymakers who protect it all.
RIAA is proud to develop and release this transparent data which shows the continued power and vitality of U.S. recorded music.
Mitch Glazier is chairman/CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.
I’m a California-raised Filipino American who spent my formative years (in the mid-aughts) worshiping bands like Death Cab for Cutie and much of the Myspace-era Warped Tour scene. So when I was 16, I decided to pursue my dream of starting my own band. But as I took a closer look at the artists I loved, the realization hit: Apart from Joey Santiago of the Pixies (who is Filipino), there was no one who looked like me.
Even as I transitioned into the business side of the music industry — working at large management companies, agencies and in touring — the lack of diversity was hard to ignore. And while the industry has changed a lot since I was a teenager, it still has so much room to grow.
As an active songwriter and senior director of A&R at Angry Mob Music Publishing, I’m a big advocate for songwriting camps and the significant opportunity they offer to everyone involved. I recently joined an organization called Mono Stereo Groove, which focuses on the representation of AAPI songwriters in the industry, and, inspired by all of the amazing work being done by those involved in the organization, I wanted to spearhead my own initiative. So at Angry Mob, I decided to introduce a diversity initiative into all creative areas, including by focusing on one of the most important elements in all of songwriting: the community.
This is why I recently launched the New Normal Writing Camp — an all-inclusive, diversity-forward camp that says it all in the name. I wanted to show that diversity should be represented not only on the artist level but also within the writing rooms, which have been very slow to catch up in terms of diversity. Our first annual New Normal Writing Camp, held in June 2023, featured 70% female artists/writers and 50% women producers representing more than 12 cultural backgrounds and featured artists including UMI, Deb Never, Yuna and Paravi. The hope is that camps like this will continue to push the industry to embrace all of the beautifully diverse writers and producers who deserve to be in high-level writing rooms.
The music industry can be difficult to work in, and these songwriting camps give the participants a chance to be themselves, get out of their comfort zones and make music in an intimate, safe space. Through these camps, I have the opportunity to create a diverse environment where songwriters and other professionals can network with those who do and don’t look like them, be exposed to a variety of genres and work with people with whom they otherwise may not have had the opportunity.
The best parts of these week-long writing events are the beautiful songs that are created and the lasting friendships that come out of them. It’s truly special to see people connect through their life stories, cultures and interests, creating music that reflects those. Unless you’re a person of color, it might be hard to grasp how crucial it is to see others who look like you pursuing their dreams and being given a fair shot in a white male-dominated industry. That’s why camps like these — also including Spotify’s GLOW camp for LGBTQ+ writers, Spotify’s Frequency camp for black writers and ASCAP’s She Is the Music camp for women songwriters — are so important.
When chatting about my intention to create writing environments that reflect the world we live in, the response from some industry professionals is usually one of surprise. While that response isn’t necessarily bad, it proves this inclusive approach is far from the norm. But it shouldn’t be. What the industry is blinded to is the potential to miss out on this generation’s next big artist/songwriter/producer — all because its leaders aren’t investing in underrepresented songwriters. All companies need to prioritize this issue, and I feel incredibly lucky to have the Angry Mob team behind me, championing my passion and continuously working alongside me to ensure we’re building a diverse roster of clients and organizing diverse writing camps.
It’s obvious that the music industry has a lot of growing to do, and I could have given up on it a long time ago due to my own experiences with close-minded gatekeepers — but I know that my work, however small, can really move the needle in the right direction. I am extremely proud to be a Filipino American, and it’s important to me to create spaces in the industry where the AAPI community and other underrepresented POC can grow and pursue opportunities that are often not given to them, helping ease the need to work twice as hard to even be considered.
My hope for the future of our industry is equity. I am honored to write about this topic and even share my experience, but I would also like for opportunities in the music industry for underrepresented groups to look the same as everyone else’s. Harkening back to the name of the songwriting camp I launched at Angry Mob, I’m optimistic that we can make diversity in songwriting camps the new normal and not something we need to push for any longer. When combined together, the small steps we take within the industry to provide opportunities to underrepresented groups will impact the future of music in immense ways.
Ralph Torrefranca is the senior director of A&R at Angry Mob Music. He is also a songwriter and the singer/guitarist in the post-punk band Cuffed Up.