Streaming
Page: 2
When Spotify’s social media accounts started posting about the editorial team’s song of the summer predictions in 2024, global head of editorial Sulinna Ong noticed a lot of commenters asking the same question: Is this artificial intelligence? “I actually went in and said, ‘I can assure you we’re not AI,’ ” she says, adding that she then found herself wondering, “Do people care whether it is [AI]?” The answer was a resounding yes. Ong recalls commenters were overjoyed to be able to identify her as a warm-blooded source of the faceless predictions. The reaction amounted to a collective “This is great. You’re human!”
Having focused on high-tech improvements to playlisting over the last few years, such as the AI DJ that subscribers can utilize and improved personalized Daily Mixes, Daylist and other features, Ong says she realized listeners value human input and connection more than ever and decided to recalibrate the “equilibrium” between AI and Spotify’s flesh-and-blood tastemakers.
Trending on Billboard
“A big tenet of editorial is this idea of reflecting culture and also being able to propel culture forward,” says J.J. Italiano, head of global music curation and discovery.
As a result, Spotify’s editorial team is leaning further into its top playlists with new “Watchfeeds” — written and video content that contextualizes its choices. There’s also more freestyling involved, such as the throwback songs that Spotify head of urban music, editorial Carl Chery slips into RapCaviar on Thursdays, or the newsletter that head of indie/alternative Lizzy Szabo writes for Lorem. Ong says interactive elements such as likes and comments may be added in the future.
To further individualize their work, Spotify’s editorial team came together for a photo and spoke to Billboard about their backgrounds, their work and their favorite music. “We know that cultural knowledge is really important. AI and machine learning excel in passing large data sets and scaling, but when it comes to cultural understanding, that’s where human editors really excel,” Ong says. “But we are still focused on the strengths of both [tech and human features] and combining the two.”
Sulinna OngGlobal head of editorial
Sulinna Ong
Yuri Hasegawa
Raised in the United Kingdom, Iran and Australia, Ong caught the music bug when she heard Kim Gordon singing Sonic Youth’s “Kool Thing” as a 13-year-old. She worked in a wide array of roles for Live Nation, Sony BMG Music and French streaming service Deezer before joining Spotify in 2019. Prior to assuming her current position in 2021, Ong served as the streaming platform’s U.K. head of music and U.K. head of artist and label services.
Favorite Spotify playlists?
Misfits 2.0, Liminal.
What are your 2025 goals for the editorial team?
We’re thinking about how to make the playlists more engaging, and we think it’s a combination of short-form video and editorial. We refer to our roles as editorial, but they also involve curation. Editorial is the storytelling, the context: “Why is this important? Why is it culturally relevant?” The curation is, “What song? What artist?” There’s an art to combining both. As we look to the future, the editorial side is becoming even more critical. We are doubling down as human music editors in music discovery and trend forecasting in 2025.
Until now, Spotify’s curators have largely worked anonymously. Why change that?
AI doesn’t have a point of view. We found that people actually are interested about the people behind the playlists.
Read Ong’s full interview here.
Carl CheryHead of urban music, editorial
Carl Chery
Rebecca Sapp
After working at hip-hop magazine XXL, Chery joined Beats Music in 2012, which was folded into Apple Music in 2014. He oversaw hip-hop and R&B at both streaming services before moving to Spotify in 2018, where he leads curation for its urban music playlists, including RapCaviar.
Favorite Spotify playlists?
Locked In, Gold School.
What trends are you spotting?
I’m interested in seeing what happens with sexy drill. Drill’s been around for a long time, and it keeps morphing. If you go back five years, that’s when it really broke through with Pop Smoke and Fivio [Foreign] and the Brooklyn drill scene. Part of the conversation around drill is that its subject matter is so hardcore it’s potentially [limiting the style]. But sexy drill has a lot of appeal. I’m keeping an eye on whether this is going to finally break through as the sound du jour in hip-hop.
What are some common misconceptions about Spotify editors?
Some people think playlisting is based on favors. They don’t pitch songs based on their merits or performance. They think building a relationship with editors enhances their chance of getting playlisted. That’s never been the case. [Others] think that playlisting is based on personal taste. Technically, it doesn’t matter if we like it. One of the most important qualities for editors is to be objective, [though] this doesn’t mean that personal taste doesn’t come into play. The sweet spot is when you get to support something that is at the intersection of your taste and what the audience likes.
Ronny HoHead of dance & electronic, editorial
Ronny Ho
Yuri Hasegawa
Though Ho booked concerts and hosted radio shows in college, she first worked in investment banking, and her initial job at Spotify was in business development. During her first years at the company, she got to know the members of the editorial team because she sat next to them. After moving to Spotify’s music team as a business manager, a role opened up in editorial, and she was given a tryout despite her unorthodox résumé.
Favorite Spotify playlists?
Tech House Operator, Marrow.
Given the global popularity of dance, how do you coordinate with curators around the world to make the best playlists?
We have global curation groups. Dance was one of the first ones that started. It happened naturally with us just reaching out to curators in other markets to see what they’re seeing. We talk now on a weekly basis about new music coming out, trends that are popping off, local subgenres or communities we find interesting.
How are you discovering music for your playlists?
It’s a mix. We get inbound pitches from the Spotify for Artists pitch tool, but I am also going to shows all the time. A lot of DJs are rinsing tracks that aren’t released yet live. I’ll watch and see what the reaction is. If there’s something that really hits with a fan base, I’ll make note of it. Also, I look on the internet.
J.J. ItalianoHead of global music curation and discovery
JJ Italiano
Yuri Hasegawa
Italiano entered the music industry as an artist manager, then shifted his focus when he took a job as head of streaming at talent agency YMU in 2016. He joined Spotify’s editorial team the following year.
Favorite Spotify playlist?
Lorem.
How do you curate New Music Friday?
New Music Friday is a bit like the newspaper. We’re trying to create opportunities for people to discover new stuff that we think they will like so, yes, there’s going to be a handful of high-profile releases that you would expect. Then everyone from their respective genres comes together and brings the tracks they think are most relevant, as well as their favorite songs. Through a process of democracy and a little bit of chaos, we get it out the door.
How do you compile Spotify’s biggest playlist, Today’s Top Hits?
One of the core tenets is that it is not a chart. Yes, we want them to be 50 of the biggest songs that week, but we’re also looking at user behavior. We look at all other playlists — how songs perform with different audiences. It’s more of a science than an art, but it is still both.
Does anyone listen to songs submitted through the pitch tool?
We get pretty decent coverage by humans. There’s over 100 people at Spotify whose job it is to listen to music. We use a combination of the tools we’ve built to sort through it and hiring the right people. Also, we pay attention to songs over time and can identify things that are trending upward or being saved a lot post-release.
Alaysia SierraHead of R&B, editorial
Alaysia Sierra
Yuri Hasegawa
After cutting their teeth as a playlist curator for Apple Music, Sierra was recruited by former Apple Music colleague Carl Chery to spearhead R&B curation.
Favorite Spotify playlist?
Riffs and Runs.
What’s the process of making a playlist?
A few years ago, I noticed there was a sound that emerged out of trap-soul, like Bryson Tiller, PartyNextDoor, Brent Faiyaz. Mostly, when people think of R&B they think of women, but this subgenre of R&B caters to men. I thought, “How do I create a space for them to lean into their R&B-loving?” So we created DND, or Do Not Disturb, to feature that laid-back, masculine feel. I wrote up my ideas, what artists would make sense in the space, what it would look like and presented it.
What changes have you brought to R&B playlists?
When I came in here, I felt like there could be a fresher perspective to R&B that can cater to the TikTok era. There’s a romanticization of ’90s and pre-’90s R&B, but there are all these kids coming up who love and are inspired by the genre. I wanted to evolve R&B at Spotify to showcase that the genre can be so many things today.
Any emerging trends you are particularly excited about?
I’m really excited about U.K. R&B right now. Streaming has globalized music, and I think it’s given a lot of opportunity to that scene. We show that scene on Riffs and Runs.
John SteinHead of North America, editorial
John Stein
Yuri Hasegawa
With almost 12 years at Spotify under his belt, Stein has been involved with playlisting from the beginning. He joined Spotify when the streaming platform acquired his previous employer, the now-defunct curation app Tunigo. Stein and his team became the curators of Spotify’s Browse page, and he worked his way up to his current position.
Favorite Spotify playlist?
Fresh Finds.
How has Spotify’s editorial playlisting evolved?
Back in those early days, we were very broad — much more moods- and moments-focused. There was a real emphasis on being an alternative to terrestrial radio. We wanted to introduce some new options: “Let’s think about activities and curate for those in addition to genres.” Over time, we created strong flagship genre playlists to be anchors, but we’ve also wanted to build out spaces that hit other moments in people’s lives — hopefully pushing forward the idea of blending genres.
What’s the balance of data and human curation in playlists today?
We’re coming to a point where the algorithmic side and the human side are coming together in a really balanced, beautiful way. As a company, we’re trying to embrace the fact that AI is really good at scale and serving you what we know you already like. But [identifying] moments of surprise and serendipity and cultural awareness is really difficult for it. You need a human editor to contextualize it in a way that brings emotion to it.
Lizzy SzaboEditorial lead, indie/alternative
Lizzy Szabo
Yuri Hasegawa
Szabo got her start in music as an agent’s assistant before becoming the executive assistant for former Spotify global head of creator services Troy Carter. She wrote an essay asking to move to the editorial team and detailing what she could do to expand the company’s playlists. It worked: Szabo became an editorial coordinator and worked her way up to helm the service’s indie and alternative coverage.
Favorite Spotify playlists?
All New Indie, Wine Bar.
How do you define the term “indie”?
More and more the question is, “What even is genre?” So we try to think in terms of audiences. With All New Indie, Lorem and those playlists, we are really fluid. Some weeks we question, “Is Caroline Polachek pop or indie?” You can make the case for either, but [we conclude] she would likely work best in indie.
With smaller artists, how do you balance human curation and metrics?
It is a challenge because it feels like there’s a new breakthrough every week in indie. It’s hard to predict. When we’re looking at priority releases for the year, the truth is you might not know. Someone could come along in two months that’s going to change the game. What’s incredible about something like the Fresh Finds program is that it encourages us to go with our guts on the really tiny stuff and have somewhere to put it [for] an audience craving music discovery.
Antonio VasquezHead of U.S. Latin, editorial
Antonio Vazquez
Courtesy of Spotify
A 15-year music business vet, Vasquez began his career doing digital marketing for legacy musicians in Mexico City as social media and Facebook advertisements began to take off. Spotify then hired him as its first editor on the Mexico team. After a year, he moved to New York to start a U.S. Latin team. He’s now based in Miami.
Favorite Spotify playlists?
Fuego, Hanging Out and Relaxing.
How does the Latin editorial team work?
On the U.S. Latin team, we have a small but mighty team of three people. We have balanced our skill sets and music expertise to make sure we are covering the most Latin genres as possible. Antonella [Bocaranda] handles pop and tropical music. DC [Daniel Calderon] has his ear to the ground in Los Angeles with all things música mexicana. We always make sure that everyone has a bit of say in editorial decisions so we don’t fall [victim to] bias. Almost all priority markets in [Latin America] have their own editors locally. We work closely with them almost every day to exchange music and create a strategy.
What’s a Latin trend you’re tracking?
We’re starting to see stronger local scenes. So we need to be communicating even more across countries to make sure we are aware of what’s happening.
What’s a common misconception about Spotify editors?
That everything is data-driven. That really takes away from the heart and soul we put into our playlists every day.
Cecelia WinterEditorial lead, pop
Cecelia Winter
Yuri Hasegawa
Winter got her start in the music curation business with Spring, an app founded by elite runners that gave music fans song recommendations based on how fast they wanted to work out. After working as YouTube’s pop editor, she joined Spotify’s editorial team in 2023.
Favorite Spotify playlist?
Pop Sauce.
How do you define “pop” music?
Pop, by its traditional definition, wouldn’t allow space for smaller artists, so we are really working to create spaces where artists who are making music that sounds pop — hook-driven and following a certain structure — can grow and find their audience. It’s hard to define, but you know it when you hear it. Pop music is not as tied to commercial success as it once was either. There’s top 40, which skews pop, but those metrics of success are not accessible to the vast majority of pop musicians. [With playlists] there is now an emerging mid-tier.
What is a market that tends to lead to pop trends that later emerge in the United States?
There’s a lot of interesting music coming out of the Nordics, and there are a lot of interesting stories where American or British artists who have trouble [breaking through] in their home market really explode in the Nordics first. We saw that with Benson Boone. Our editor in the Nordics flagged him really early on.
This story appears in the April 19, 2025, issue of Billboard.
French streaming service Deezer reported in a company blog post on Wednesday (April 16) that it is now receiving over 20,000 fully AI-generated tracks on a daily basis, amounting to 18% of their daily uploaded content — nearly double what it reported in January 2025.
Back in January, Deezer launched a new AI detection tool to try to balance the interests of human creators and the rapidly growing number of AI-generated tracks uploaded to the service. At the time of the tool’s launch, Deezer said it had discovered that roughly 10,000 fully AI-generated tracks were being uploaded to the platform every day. Instead of banning these fully AI-generated tracks, Deezer instead uses its AI detection tool to remove them from its recommendation algorithm and editorial playlisting — meaning users can still find AI-generated music if they choose to, though it won’t be promoted to them.
This tool might even be underestimating the number of AI tracks on Deezer. At the time of its launch, Deezer noted that the tool can detect fully AI-generated music from certain models. This includes Suno and Udio, two of the most popular AI music models on the market today, “with the possibility to add on detection capabilities for practically any other similar tool as long as there’s access to relevant data examples,” as they put it. Still, it’s possible there’s more AI-generated music out there than the tool can currently catch.
Trending on Billboard
Deezer’s tool also does not detect or penalize partially AI-generated works, which likely make up a significant portion of AI-inflected songs today. According to guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office, as long as “a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements,” an AI-assisted work can be eligible for copyright protection.
Deezer is one of the first streaming services to create a policy against fully AI-generated songs, and the first to report how often they’re seeing them uploaded to the service. As Billboard reported in February, most DSPs do not have AI-specific policies, with SoundCloud the only other streamer that has publicly stated that it penalizes AI music. Its policy is to “prohibit the monetization of songs and content that are exclusively generated through AI, encouraging creators to use AI as a tool rather than a replacement of human creation.”
Still, some other streaming services have taken steps to ensure some of the negative impacts of AI are policed, even though their policies aren’t specific to AI. For example, Spotify YouTube Music and others have created procedures for users to report impersonations of likenesses and voices, a major risk posed by (but not unique to) AI. Spotify also screens for users who spam the platform with too many uploads at once, a tactic used by bad actors who are trying to earn extra streaming royalties. This is often done by deploying quickly made AI-generated tracks, though that is not always the case.
“AI generated content continues to flood streaming platforms like Deezer, and we see no sign of it slowing down,” said Aurelien Herault, chief innovation officer at Deezer, in a statement. “Generative AI has the potential to positively impact music creation and consumption, but we need to approach the development with responsibility and care in order to safeguard the rights and revenues of artists and songwriters, while maintaining transparency for the fans. Thanks to our cutting-edge tool we are already removing fully AI generated content from the algorithmic recommendations.”
In 2009, in between full-time shifts at a local factory, then-19-year-old musician Daniel Rosenfeld composed a score for an independent video game. “It was just a side hustle, maybe not even that. It was a hobby, really,” explains Rosenfeld, who records under the name C418.
The game, Minecraft, turned out to be successful beyond Rosenfeld’s wildest dreams. In 2014, Microsoft purchased Minecraft’s Swedish developer, Mojang Studios, for $2.5 billion, and through 2023, it had sold 300 million copies of the game, making it the best-selling video game of all time. Now, it’s the latest one to receive a movie adaption, and even that has been wildly successful: A Minecraft Movie, starring Jack Black, is the biggest box office hit of 2025 to date, having already grossed $550.6 million since it opened on April 4.
Because no one anticipated the game’s whirlwind success, or had the budget to properly pay him back in 2009, Rosenfeld was compensated for his work with a small fee and 100% ownership over Minecraft’s now-iconic score. Then, when Microsoft came calling in 2014, Rosenfeld made a fateful decision: he refused to sell the score to the tech behemoth, opting instead to bring on game composer manager Patrick McDermott to help him navigate building a business as an independent composer of Minecraft.
Trending on Billboard
McDermott counts himself as one of the rare folks who understands how to navigate both games and music. He started his career at Captured Tracks, and from 2015 to 2020 he built Ghost Ramp, a label which specialized in releasing game soundtracks on vinyl. At the time he was brought in to help Rosenfeld, he was also managing a number of other games composers, too.
Though McDermott says deals like Rosenfeld’s, where composers retain ownership of their IP, are increasingly rare, his Minecraft soundtracks have proven to be big business. The score, Minecraft Volume Alpha, which is distributed via TuneCore, was certified gold by the RIAA in 2023, and this month, it was inducted into the Library of Congress by the National Recording Registry, which cited it as an “audio treasure worthy of preservation.”
Since its release on digital service providers, streams of Minecraft Volume Alpha and its companion Volume Beta have averaged 38% year over year growth, and they have been streamed 2.8 billion times worldwide, according to McDermott. McDermott and Rosenfeld have built a surprisingly formidable vinyl business, too. The album, distributed by Ghostly, has sold over 200,000 units to date globally. Rosenfeld even has fans of his own who often congregate in a Discord server devoted to talking about his work, which includes the scores for other games such as Catacomb Snatch and Wanderstop.
But it’s not all fun and games for Rosenfeld. He thinks that by not selling the score to Microsoft, he might have sacrificed his chance to make future soundtracks for the Minecraft franchise — and it’s true that since the sale, Rosenfeld has not written anything for the game, with Microsoft instead turning to other composers. But because many Minecraft players are nostalgic for his original soundtrack, the score for A Minecraft Movie, composed by Devo’s Mark Mothersbaugh, interpolates it — giving Rosenfeld some upside from the blockbuster’s success.
In the end, Rosenfeld feels he made the right choice. “I don’t want to be stuck with the same thing for the next 50 years,” he says of Minecraft, and now, he can turn his attention to the new scoring gigs that excite him.
Here, Rosenfeld and McDermott speak to Billboard about the strange business of scoring for games and building a living off of Minecraft. “I know it’s hard to believe, but there’s a real argument that Daniel’s music is up there for the most heard audio by humans in history,” says McDermott.
How were you compensated for the original Minecraft game?
Daniel Rosenfeld: I asked for a share of the game, and I didn’t get a share. I got a tiny, tiny amount of salary for the music itself. The good thing, though, is that I owned the rights to the music, and that’s still persistent to this day. At the time, like 2010, people liked doing [revenue] shares for indie games as payment — like the musician gets 10 percent [of the game’s IP], the visual artist gets 20, and then the main developer gets 40 or whatever. That’s usually what happened back then. Mine was a little different.
Back in the day, when you made this score, is this also how larger game scores worked? Would Nintendo, for example, offer a deal like this?
Rosenfeld: Absolutely not. Nintendo is a Japanese company and in that culture, it’s typical that you would likely not get ownership but you’d just be employed there for, sometimes, the rest of your life. It’s the expectation of a company like Nintendo that it’s like a family — we work together and stay together. The mindset of American video game companies is different. The usual deal is the composer writes a song, and they get a single fee. That’s it. No residuals are typical in a AAA [a term used to describe video games produced by large publishers] big game.
Patrick McDermott: The typical structure is to get paid a price per minute of audio.
Has the way composers are paid in the independent game industry shifted since Minecraft launched?
McDermott: The way I see it is that there was a big boom of independent games. The comparison I use to explain this is what happened to the music business when [digital audio workstations] and home recording got easier. We got a lot more independent musicians, right? Independent gamemaking was the same. It got a lot easier because you had new tools like Unity and Gamemaker that make it possible to start building your own games. I’d say the heyday of indie games was something like 2008 to 2012 or so. The upstart, scrappy indie game business that allowed for a lot of this shared equity model was really successful for a period of time, but it’s just one of the sad, prototypical things that as people see more success in a market, the more bureaucratic and standardized things become.
Minecraft was a surprise hit. Then, Microsoft came along and bought it. You’ve said before that they wanted to buy the music rights from you. Why did you decline that offer?
McDermott: We did have conversations about it. Honestly, beyond sheer dollar figures, there was a gap in our understanding of each other. This was the genesis of Daniel and my relationship — when these conversations with Microsoft started to happen. And Daniel was smart enough to say, “Maybe it would be good to have an intermediary to help with it.” We involved a really wonderful lawyer on our side, and we had a strong belief that this music really matters. We just never quite came to the same terms and understanding on it [with Microsoft]. Daniel’s music is doing incredibly well. Who knows? Maybe they’ll knock on the door again someday, but for now, we’re thrilled that Daniel maintained ownership through all this.
Rosenfeld: I’m still going to therapy for this whole process. [Laughs]
Do any of your peers have the rights to their music from popular games today?
Rosenfeld: I am in a unique position, but it’s a bit of a monkey paw. I think it’s still frowned upon by the Microsofts, Sonys and Nintendos of the world for an artist to have ownership like I do. I’m a proponent of keeping rights, but it comes with the problem of some people not liking you so much for it.
McDermott: A lot of these composers don’t have anyone to advocate for them in these deals. I’ve had a couple situations with clients that I’ve worked for that are less known than Daniel, and we’ve been able to secure some rights for them, just because video games lawyers typically don’t know the nuances of the music business language enough to iron some things out. In a number of cases, I’ve been able to get the full IP ownership [of the music for the composer] and give gaming companies the unfettered usages that they want, but we can still sub-license back the monetization of digital and physical royalties that the musician wants.
Patrick, when you go into a negotiation for one of your clients, what is the first thing you ask for?
McDermott: I always want artists to be able to maintain their digital royalties, their physical royalties and their autonomy to make those decisions where they can sign with a record label for the vinyl side of things — stuff like that.
I honestly wouldn’t expect someone to want a game soundtrack on vinyl, but it seems like you all have built a booming vinyl business.
McDermott: When we grew up, we would buy games, and we loved the physical boxes and manuals and keepsakes that came with it. Now, most things you buy you just fire up on Steam or on the PlayStation store. I think people are drawn to the idea of having something physical from the Minecraft game they’ve always loved. If I had to guess, probably like 75% of the people who buy it never put it on a turntable. Even beyond just Daniel’s music, there’s just a lack of physical collectibles in these digital spaces, so it just fills that need.
Patrick, you’ve mentioned before that there’s a lack of understanding, on both the music and gaming sides, of the other. What are some of the mistakes you saw musicians making in the gaming world?
McDermott: When I got into game audio, I would talk to these game composers and realize their sales numbers were so massive compared to the independent tier that I had worked on. It was akin to the top artists at a label like Captured Tracks [where I previously worked]. You’d find someone who casually had Mac DeMarco-level sales numbers. The biggest mistake I saw some game composers making is they would be selling 30,000 units on Bandcamp in six months, but they never registered their music with a PRO. They didn’t know about SoundExchange. They probably had not been receiving publishing royalties in a meaningful way. I realized I could at least bridge these gaps for these composers and help them capture the royalties that are out there for them.
Rosenfeld: Yeah, I wasn’t signed with a PRO [when I met Patrick]. There were a lot of back royalties that were owed to me that I didn’t know existed.
McDermott: BMI, to their credit, reached out to Daniel because there was uncollected money. Thankfully these PROs have a period of about three years for retroactive royalties. So some of his money was technically lost, but we were still able to garner three years of back royalties.
I imagine the streaming habits for fans of the Minecraft score are pretty different from traditional mainstream pop listeners. Patrick, can you explain what listening behavior you’re seeing?
McDermott: There are two main things that I find pretty wild about Daniel’s digital performance. One is just the sheer amount of organic listens that avoid any of the algorithmic and editorial playlisting. The other thing is Spotify started sharing streams per listeners, which obviously shows if listeners hear a single once and move on or if they are bingeing the track, and Daniel’s is quite high. It’s 15 streams per listener. That’s at least seven or eight listens higher than anyone else I have access to. It’s also very evenly listened to throughout the soundtrack.
How is Daniel’s score represented in the new Minecraft film?
McDermott: There’s a song that the film licensed from us for interpolation across the score. It’s in there a number of times. There’s one song called “Dragonfish” that’s from a separate composition Daniel did during his negotiation with Microsoft, and Microsoft actually owns the rights to that one — well, Daniel owns the royalty and monetization rights, but Microsoft owns the IP. They actually play that song in full in the movie. We have no idea if that was gamesmanship on their part, using one of the songs of Daniel’s that they have better access to, or if they creatively just chose that one.
Rosenfeld: To their credit, I find the way they interpolated my song to be quite respectful. I haven’t seen the movie. I don’t know if I want to see the movie. I still need to go to more therapy. [Laughs]
The movie is still very new, but has hype around it translated into more streams for Daniel’s original score?
McDermott: Since the release of the film, his three highest streaming days ever were consecutive. Like within a range of 10 percent to 20 percent higher than usual.
Patrick, have you seen a noticeable impact in the consumption for this soundtrack since you came on as manager?
McDermott: Since Daniel and I started working together, the catalog is probably about eight to 10 times [more] in terms of monthly [listeners]. Still, every year has been bigger than the last since we started working together. I think it’s just worth saying that Minecraft is obviously continuing to add players — I think that’s what separates this. It’s such a unique IP to be associated with — so different from traditional music or even film. It’s just getting bigger over time.
Do you attribute the growth in listenership to Minecraft’s continually growing popularity, or do you also think that the trend is due to your various marketing efforts?
Rosenfeld: This is actually my little source of pride: as long as I have worked on Minecraft, there has been next to no marketing help.
McDermott: We don’t have a marketing budget for ads or anything. This is just organic. We just let it ride and see where it goes. But I think the reason it’s growing is twofold. It’s new Minecraft fans, and I think there was a transition of game audio listeners leaving Bandcamp and becoming Spotify users. We saw a big drop in Bandcamp and a big jump in Spotify in the last few years.
What about YouTube? There are so many gamers who are streaming their game play on there and other sites like Twitch. How do you handle monetizing your IP versus letting users enjoy the soundtrack?
Rosenfeld: We don’t collect any Content ID stuff on YouTube. We just rejected the idea of claiming those videos.
Why?
Rosenfeld: Legally I wasn’t allowed to. It was part of the original first contract.
McDermott: It’s a pretty unique thing to gaming. You would never want to short-change the marketing of the game to monetize the music. It just wouldn’t make any sense to pull monetization from these streamers because then they will just start muting the music. The spirit of the arrangement is to let content creators play the game and even do things beyond the game and let the score be part of it. It’s definitely different. If my music was being used on a random stream, I would claim it, but that’s not how it works here.
How much does Spotify account for Daniel’s soundtrack income now?
McDermott: Nearly 70 percent.
Back when you had the opportunity, you decided to not sell to Microsoft. Since then, there have been more compositions made to build on the Minecraft universe that came from other composers. Do you feel that if you had done it differently then maybe you’d be part of the newer scores?
Rosenfeld: Yeah, I bet I would, but here’s the thing: If I would have said yes, I would probably be able to write so much more music for them, but I probably would not feel great about it. I chose not to sell it, and now, I get the different sadness of, like, a messy divorce [with Minecraft] — but in return, I get my mental health and my freedom.
This story is part of Billboard’s music technology newsletter Machine Learnings. Sign up for Machine Learnings, and other Billboard newsletters for free here.
Something went wrong with Spotify this morning, leading to a widespread outage of the streaming service that impacted its desktop and mobile apps, as well as its web player, on a global scale for several hours. According to the company, the issues were not due to a security breach. The platform appears to be returning […]
All products and services featured are independently chosen by editors. However, Billboard may receive a commission on orders placed through its retail links, and the retailer may receive certain auditable data for accounting purposes.
The latest season of Celebrity Big Brother UK has kicked off with a little controversy, as actor Mickey Rourke has been booted from the reality competition series after using a perceived homophobic slur against fellow contestant JoJo Siwa.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
With Rourke asked to leave after his use of “inappropriate language,” singer and dancer Siwa remains the most well-known cast member in the house — at least to American audiences. And there are a few ways for U.S. viewers to follow Siwa’s journey on the show this year.
How to Watch Celebrity Big Brother UK in the U.S.
Season 24 of Celebrity Big Brother UK kicked off on April 7 and runs for 19 days continuously. Episodes air Monday to Friday nights on ITV1 at 9 p.m. British Standard Time (4 p.m. ET). Sunday night episodes air live at 10 p.m. BST (5 p.m. ET).
While some Celebrity Big Brother seasons are available to stream on Paramount+, the current UK edition is only available to stream on the ITV website and the ITVX app. American viewers can watch Celebrity Big Brother UK by using a virtual private network like ExpressVPN. Download ExpressVPN here and set your computer location to the UK. You’ll then be able to livestream Celebrity Big Brother 2025 online through the ITV feed.
ExpressVPN plans start at just $4.99/month and you can use it to watch Celebrity Big Brother UK in the U.S. along with other out-of-market content (think overseas sports, Netflix shows and movies in other countries, and even international music streaming).
We also like NordVPN, which is offering a risk-free trial for 30 days. Use it to watch Celebrity Big Brother UK from anywhere in the world, including the U.S. NordVPN plans start at just $3.09/month if you decide to continue with a subscription.
Once you activate your VPN, you can use it to livestream Celebrity Big Brother UK on ITVX online free without cable.
In addition to Rourke and Siwa, this year’s Celebrity Big Brother UK cast includes RuPaul’s Drag Race UK’s Danny Beard, singer Chesney Hawkes, British TV host Angellica Bell, Eastenders actress Patsy Palmer, Coronation Street star Jack P. Shepherd, actress Donna Preston, reality star Ella Wise, Olympic decathlon champ Daley Thompson, Love Island star Chris Hughes, talk show host Trisha Goddard, and former MP Michael Fabricant.
AJ Odudu and Will Best return to host the reality TV series, which will feature the 13 celebrities living under constant surveillance in the same house for three weeks.
Watch Celebrity Big Brother UK 2025 on ITV1 and livestream it online from the U.S. using ExpressVPN.
Interest in superfans and their revenue potential has become so strong that market research firms and equity analysts are digging into the topic. This week, Bernstein released a report on music streaming services’ potential moves and MIDiA Research released a new report about music streaming pricing strategy.
For the uninitiated, a music superfan has been defined by Luminate as those fans who interact with artists and their content in multiple ways, including streaming, social media, physical music purchases and buying merchandise. These superfans make up 19% of U.S. music listeners, according to Luminate, and are more likely than the average fan to buy physical music, spend more on music, discover new music, connect with artists on a personal level and participate in fan communities.
Efforts are well underway to tap into superfans. Labels and artists employ e-commerce to sell merchandise, LPs and CDs directly to consumers, circumventing traditional retail channels and building a direct billing relationship with the most valuable fans. Startups such as EVEN and Fave — Sony Music and Warner Music Group are investors in the latter — are focused on connecting artists with their most fervent supporters. Given the multi-billion-dollar size of the music streaming market, though, Spotify’s plan to launch a superfan tier could be the most impactful play.
Trending on Billboard
Bernstein’s “Superfan Economics 101” report argues that a super-premium tier will help music streaming platforms achieve “sustained success in an increasingly competitive environment.” Analyst Annick Maas sees superfan-focused products as a function of the shift from mass consumption to direct-to-consumer tactics. Reaching out to smaller subsets of a larger audience, he writes, allows a streaming platform to “create a sense of belonging for its subscribers” and increase loyalty and engagement. That an equity analyst would highlight superfans in a report to investors speaks to the revenue potential in targeting subsets of consumers and the likelihood that publicly traded companies will make superfans a larger priority.
MIDiA Research also added to the superfan knowledge base this week by releasing a report based on a survey of 2,000 U.S. consumers. The main takeaway is that MIDiA found widespread interest in paying a higher price for a streaming service with additional features: Just under three-quarters of people surveyed have “some level of interest” in paying for a super-premium tier as an add-on to the basic subscription plan.
Exactly what people are willing to pay varies greatly, though: 22% of respondents are willing to pay an additional $1.99 per month fee while 10% are willing to pay an additional $13.99, more than double the current $11.99 price for an individual subscription.
To give an idea of the amount of revenue at stake, consider that there was an average of 100 million subscribers of subscription music services in the U.S. in 2024 who paid an average of $8.91 per month, according to the RIAA. (That figure does not include limited-tier subscriptions such as ad-free internet radio.) Those 100 million subscribers generated $10.69 billion over the year, which works out to $106.87 per subscriber per year.
If 10% of those 100 million subscribers — which include student and family plans in addition to standard individual plans — paid more than double the current price, total revenue would increase 10.8% to $11.76 billion, equal to $117.56 per subscriber annually or $9.80 per month. The 10.8% revenue growth is equal to $1.15 billion of incremental royalties.
The RIAA’s average revenue per user (ARPU) of $8.91 for 2024 is lower than the $11.99/$12.99 price being charged for the most popular individual plans, suggesting the 100 million subscribers figure includes many student and family plans. So, to measure the effect of the price increase on the RIAA’s ARPU, I multiplied ARPU by the ratio of the super-premium individual plan ($12.99 + $13.99) to a standard individual plan ($12.99).
So, without an increase in the number of subscribers or a price hike, doubling the fee for a tenth of subscribers would deliver a 10.8% revenue boost. Not all of those consumers would jump to the super-premium tier at once, however, meaning a double-digit increase in subscription revenue would accrue gradually over multiple years.
Charging an additional $1.99 super-premium fee on top of a standard subscription price would result in an incremental $334 million. Total revenue would increase 3.1% to $11.02 billion and ARPU would rise from $8.91 to $9.18.
Another option to expand the subscription base is a low-priced, “subscription-light” tier that incorporates advertising into paid subscriptions. Music streaming subscriptions have kept advertising out of their paid products, but there have been suggestions — namely from Goldman Sachs analysts who prepare the influential Music in the Air report — that a subscription-light tier that includes ads could help expand the subscription market.
Paid video subscriptions used to be a respite from the advertising world, but advertising has become well established on video platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. Amazon Prime now inserts ads in movies, and Netflix and Hulu offer a low-cost, ad-supported option to make their products palatable for more price-conscious consumers.
But MIDiA’s survey suggests a subscription-light option is unpopular. About three-quarters of respondents who aren’t currently subscribed to a music streaming service aren’t interested in starting. This sizeable group of consumers doesn’t listen to music often enough to pay, or they find the current prices too high. Excluding the 100 million U.S. subscribers, there are approximately 188 million Americans aged 13 or older who do not subscribe to a streaming service (there are 51.9 million people under 13). Based on MIDiA’s findings, roughly 141 million of them aren’t interested in paying for a subscription. For them, there’s also YouTube and ad-supported radio.
What’s more, a subscription-light offering could be problematic. MIDiA found that ad-supported paid streaming attracted interest only “at very low price points” and warned it could harm overall subscription revenues by cannibalizing normal subscription tiers. With paid subscriptions currently creating the majority of U.S. recorded music revenue, and with subscription growth playing a prime role in Wall Street’s expectations for music companies, both platforms and labels may be unwilling to put that revenue at risk by offering a less expensive choice to millions of consumers who may soon be looking for ways to tighten their belts.
In early March, a new James Brown recording strutted onto a Billboard chart for the first time in more than three decades. But Brown, the incendiary funk pioneer who died in 2006, wasn’t going viral on TikTok or putting out albums of previously unreleased material. Instead, he had been sampled by the rapper 310babii, who credited the Godfather of Soul as a featured artist on the new track, titled “Bad.” When the single subsequently hit the Rhythmic Airplay chart, Brown came along for the ride.
A prominent credit for a sampled act has the potential to propel an older name back into the conversation for “a whole new, young audience of fans,” says Karla Redding, daughter of Otis Redding. For legacy acts or artist estates, getting such exposure is more valuable than ever: It can frictionlessly translate into consumption at a time when listening to catalog tracks on streaming platforms is as easy as pulling up last week’s releases. And now that artists’ name and likeness rights have become a more desirable commodity for the investor class, a new wave of listeners raises the value of those rights.
Trending on Billboard
Getting a credit for a sampled vocalist isn’t easy, though. “Most people don’t want to credit samples [in that way],” says Rob Sevier, co-founder of Numero Group, which gets about three sample requests a week.
To prevail in clearance negotiations, the sampled artist needs leverage and a good lawyer. And negotiations can be charged. “All clearances are emotional,” explains Deborah Mannis-Gardner, president of DMG Clearances. “Someone either wrote this song or they recorded it — it’s their baby. [In many cases,] it’s up to them to decide, do they want it altered by it being incorporated into another song?”
They can benefit by saying yes. Sampled artists who get co-billing raise their profile on streaming services. On Spotify, if an act is credited as a collaborator on both the “product level” (where the artists are listed under the title of the single) and the “track level” (where the artists are listed below and to the right of the “play” button), any plays count towards their “monthly listener” number. For an estate that no longer puts out previously unreleased music, this is a way to pump up an often-cited metric on a popular platform.
And in recent years, many legacy artists have sold part or all of their name, image and likeness rights, including Stevie Nicks, the Beach Boys, Bryan Ferry and Pink Floyd. If a sample clearance is done right, those “NIL rights can get boosted through new audience recognition,” says Jason Boyarski, an entertainment attorney who handles the estates of Donny Hathaway and Antônio Carlos Jobim, among others. That in turn can “help boost brand-related projects like biopics, documentaries and musicals.”
In Mannis-Gardner’s view, though, awarding a sampled singer co-billing is unseemly — the sampler is giving away the farm, paying more than they need to for a license. “When I do sample clearances, I work very hard on behalf of my clients not to grant feature credit,” Mannis-Gardner adds, unless her client directs her otherwise.
Some sampled artists don’t request to have their name in the lights. Kendrick Lamar‘s “luther” borrows a piece of Cheryl Lynn and Luther Vandross‘ “If This World Were Mine,” a tender lover’s duet originally written by Marvin Gaye in 1967. Although Vandross’ voice, glistening like fresh snow, is the first vocal on “luther,” he is not billed as a featured artist on the track.
David Gottlieb, who manages the Vandross estate, says it “didn’t ask for any sort of credit” in exchange for clearing the “If This World Were Mine” sample. “You don’t hear Luther and Cheryl a tremendous amount [on Lamar’s track],” he explains. “It would be obnoxious to ask for a feature.
“There’s always a discussion [internally],” Gottlieb continues. “We have our set of guidelines for samples [called] W.W.L.D. — What Would Luther Do? If someone is using Luther singing ‘Never Too Much’ in the chorus, we would raise our hand and say you need to put a feature in, if that was something we wanted.”
Primary Wave acquired a stake in Vandross’s publishing, master royalties and name and likeness rights in 2021. The company also works with Mark Morrison, the man behind “Return of the Mack,” a thunderous ’90s R&B single that reliably incites sing-alongs.
“In the last week, I’ve seen a license request for ‘Return of the Mack’ come across our desk,” says Justin Shukat, president of publishing at Primary Wave. “When we spoke to Mark, he’s like, ‘Yeah, I definitely want the feature.’”
Spotify customers in the Benelux countries will be paying more for their subscriptions after the streaming company raised prices in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. In both the Netherlands and Luxembourg, an individual subscription plan increased to 12.99 euros ($14.73) from 10.99 euros ($12.46). A family plan jumped to 21.99 euros ($24.94) from 17.99 euros […]
Speaking to Howard Stern on Tuesday morning (April 8) just two days after the controversial season three finale of his hit HBO series The White Lotus, Mike White said he doesn’t really know what the beef over the the show’s soundtrack was all about. Last week, show composer Cristóbal Tapia de Veer told the New York Times that he was permanently checking out of the gig after what he said were years of creative disputes with White over the Chilean musician’s unconventional musical style.
“Oh man… I honestly don’t know what happened, except now I’m reading his interviews because he decided to do some P.R. campaign about him leaving the show,” White nervously laughed while speaking to Stern on his SiriusXM morning radio show. “In reading the interviews I just realized he… I just don’t think he respected me. I think he basically, he wants people to know he’s edgy and dark and I’m… I watch reality TV,” added White, who, has, in fact, joyfully competed on both The Amazing Race (twice) and Survivor: David Vs. Goliath.
Trending on Billboard
In his chat with the Times, Tapia de Veer compared his collaboration with White as being akin to the kind of rock bands he’s been in before where, “the guitar player doesn’t understand the singer at all.” In fact, the composer who has won three Emmys for his work on the show said he’d had creative conflicts with White since the very first season of the show. He noted that he thought the show runner’s script for the first go-round was very “well-written,” but that he felt the comedic, “reality TV kind of vibe” did not fit with his “super dark and edgy” musical leanings.
“But when we had the talk with Mike, I just told him in a joke that I thought we could do some kind of ‘Hawaiian Hitchcock,’ and he really grabbed on that and he started laughing,” Tapia de Veer said, while also dinging White’s original temporary score as “nice background music” with a “chill, sexy” Ibiza club vibe but “literally no edge to it.”
Tapia de Veer also noted that after his divisive soundtrack for the just-concluded season received push-back from fans who missed the beloved melodies from the first two seasons, he planned to slyly bring back the “ool-loo-loo-loo” vocalizations they desired, but that White “wasn’t happy about that.”
White seemed perplexed by the apparent animus, telling Stern “we never even really fought… he said we feuded. I don’t think I ever had a fight with him, except maybe some emails. But it was just basically, like, me giving him notes. I don’t think he liked having to go through the process of getting notes from me or wanting revisions or ever. I guess he just didn’t respect me.”
In fact, White told Stern that he’s “never kissed somebody’s ass so hard” just to get them to be on board as he did with Tapia de Veer.
The show creator added that he knew Tapia de Veer was “not a team player and that he wanted to do it his way,” but that he was thrown that the musician would go to the Times to “s–t on me and the show three days before the finale. That was kind of a b–ch move.” Stern shot back that as the show’s writer and creator, White should have had the power to weigh in on the musical choices on the series that is his sole vision.
“Anyone that you hire, they gotta go with your vision, that’s it!” Stern suggested.
“Well that’s honestly why it did work the first couple seasons, because we did go through the process,” White explained. “But by the time the third season came around he’d won Emmys and had his song go viral, so he just did not want to go through the process anymore. He didn’t want to get notes from me… he always had this contemptuous smirk on his face whenever he was dealing with me. I think he thought I was just a chimp or something. I don’t know.”
In the end, White said he was confused by the ire over what he said was a pretty typical “creative difference” with the composer he readily praised as “really talented.”
Artists working with record labels in Latin America have a higher percentage of monthly listeners and generate more revenue on digital platforms than those who are self-released, according to a new report by Worldwide Independent Network (WIN) and the Latin American Independent Music Observatory (OLMI) on digital distribution in the region.
The report also shows that “the existence of local infrastructure (such as digital distributors) is related to higher levels of professionalization, income and knowledge of the digital value chain by artists, for example in relation to the types of existing contracts and the terms offered.”
Released on Tuesday (April 8), the study — which was conducted between 2023 and 2024 — analyzes the situation in eight countries, including Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay, and highlights how artists’ presence on digital platforms and affiliation with independent record labels positively influences their economic sustainability.
Trending on Billboard
“These results reinforce the notion that the structural and financial support that labels provide to artists is key to their success in the music ecosystem,” Noemí Planas, CEO of WIN, said in a press release. “Public and private investment to promote a professional music infrastructure in the region is key to ensure the growth of all players.”
One of the challenges the music industry faces in the region is the “heavy reliance on live performances,” the report states. That’s because “although more than 60% of artists generate income through streaming, less than 10% earn more than US$5,000 per year,” it notes. The report adds that “artists with more than 500 monthly listeners barely represent 30% [of artists]” — meaning a large majority may be affected by the recent royalty payment reforms introduced by the major streaming platforms that contemplate the demonetization of content below certain thresholds of streams and listeners.
The study found that almost a third (32.2%) of respondents market their music through distributors that have recently integrated — or are in the process of integrating — with majors, denoting a trend towards market consolidation.
“Consolidation in the music sphere is concerning because of its impact on the dissemination of Latin American independent music, especially in the digital market, where we see that there are fewer and fewer independent operators,” Planas adds. “The concentration of power, information and access channels in the hands of three large multinationals translates into worse conditions for independents, such as streaming models that demonetize their content and that they have no choice but to accept.”
The report highlights the importance of strengthening the relationship with record labels and investing in the education of key players. “[It] reaffirms the need to consolidate a professional, informed and collaborative ecosystem in Latin America,” Cristóbal Dañobeitia, director of OLMI, said in a statement. “The union between key players and investment in education, research and technology are essential to ensure equitable and sustainable growth.”
Titled “La Música Independiente en Latinoamérica: Cadena de Valor y Distribución Digital” (“Independent Music in Latin America: Value Chain and Digital Distribution”), the study was commissioned by WIN and developed by an interdisciplinary team of experts from OLMI, in collaboration with trade associations ABMI, IMICHILE and AMI PY, as well as AMPROFON, Sociedad Chilena de Autores e Intérpretes Musicales (SCD), Alianza Francesa Costa Rica and Universidad de los Andes.
To access the full report (in Spanish) click here.