All the latest in AI ‘music’

Fenix Flexin is best known as a member of Shoreline Mafia, a rap duo from Los Angeles. But he’s recently found solo success with the track “Rubberz,” which has climbed to number 58 on the Billboard Hot 100. Almost immediately, though, questions were raised about the song’s origins, with many speculating that it was largely, if not entirely, generated by AI. Fenix has denied those accusations, but done little to dispel them.

Part of the suspicion is certainly due to the fact that the song is a dramatic left turn. Fenix has primarily trafficked in trap-influenced West Coast rap. “Rubberz,” on the other hand, is heavily influenced by ‘80s UK synth pop. The vocal melody is clearly influenced by Morrissey, with Fenix even adopting a fake British accent. But artists are allowed to evolve and experiment. That alone doesn’t prove anything.

Several record labels, including the big three — Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group — have proposed rules regarding chart eligibility for AI songs. In short, they wouldn’t be.

The proposal goes quite a bit further than a labeling proposal put forth by the RIAA, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), SAG-AFTRA, and others. That would create a set of standardized labels for AI-generated and AI-assisted music. The labels’ proposal would require songs be clearly labeled, but it would also keep them off international charts unless they met specific criteria, including being “substantially human made.”

When The Atlantic published a searchable dataset of works used to train AI, Kirk Wallace Johnson, like a lot of artists, looked for his name out of curiosity. And, like a lot of artists, he found it. Essentially, his books, like The Feather Thief and The Fishermen and the Dragon — nonfiction tomes that he spent “five to six years researching, writing, and investigating” — had been pirated and fed to a chatbot. He says he felt a “cocktail” of emotions: “anger over the brazenness of the theft, worry over what this means for writers, and a healthy thirst for revenge on these massive corporations that have become galactically wealthy” using his intellectual property.

He proactively reached out to Susman Godfrey, the law firm already leading the case against Anthropic on behalf of authors, because he saw their suit as a “middle finger on behalf of everyone that has tried to create something.”

I would never go so far as to say there’s no place for AI in music (I’m a fan of Holly Herndon, after all). But I generally find music made with generative AI to be offensively boring, especially the outputs of Suno. So I’m having a bit of a tough time processing the fact that I actually quite enjoy 1010Benja’s “Semiramis’ Dream.”

Benja has been unapologetic about his use of generative AI on his latest EP, Time Has Nothing To Do With What You Choose… The other three tracks can’t quite hold a candle to what you find on 2024’s Ten Total. But the opener “Semiramis’ Dream” is infectious. It explodes out of the speakers with a jungle beat and Benja’s incredible, obviously human voice front and center.

Suno data obtained in a hacking incident has exposed that the AI music generator was trained by scraping millions of songs and lyrics from online audio platforms, including YouTube Music, Deezer, and Genius, 404 Media reports. Given that Suno has avoided revealing what’s in its training datasets and how they were acquired, this a rare glimpse into what Suno has actually been taking from online platforms.

That’s relevant because Suno has been the subject of several lawsuits that allege it used copyrighted materials to train its AI models. In a notable case filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Suno openly admitted that it does so, arguing that training on copyrighted materials and publicly available music files from the open internet is legally permitted under fair use doctrine. Whether or not a court agrees with that, an amendment filed by the RIAA last year also alleges that Suno unlawfully circumvented YouTube’s copyright protections by intentionally “stream ripping” tracks from the platform.

Atlantic reporter Alex Reisner recently uncovered four datasets of music being used to train AI models and made them fully searchable for the public. Two of the sets are absolutely enormous at 12 million and 9 million tracks. The other two are much smaller, but still represent a significant amount of training data at over 100,000 songs each.

According to Reisner, the sets have been downloaded thousands of times and, while it’s impossible to know exactly who has used them, Google and Stability have both confirmed they have in research papers. Some of the sources, like the Free Music Archive dataset, are free to stream for personal use but require licensing for commercial applications.

Today I’m talking with Harvey Mason Jr., who is CEO of the Recording Academy — that’s the outfit that puts on the Grammy Awards. I last talked to Harvey in 2024, when it was obvious that generative AI would upend the music industry, but still not exactly clear how that would happen.

Well, it’s been 18 months since that conversation, and you’re going to hear Harvey say that AI is now “omnipresent” in music production. And Harvey knows what he’s talking about — he is himself a legendary producer who’s worked with everyone from Janet Jackson to Beyoncé. Harvey has said that every session he’s been in recently has had AI in it, and I really wanted to know what that meant — what kinds of tools are musicians using, in what way, and what kind of music is it making for us? Is it any good?

There’s this alarming trend in the Suno subreddit. People aren’t just prompting AI songs; they’re sitting around listening almost exclusively to their own slop. And in some cases, they proudly proclaim that they don’t listen to music on traditional streaming platforms anymore — it’s just AI all day.

I wanted to understand why users were consuming their own AI content over real artists’ music. So I reached out to well over a dozen people who have posted in r/SunoAI about primarily listening to their own slop, but nobody was willing to talk to me. Nobody seemed to want to go on record and explain why they preferred the hollow, polished-to-death output of Suno to the work of musicians or songwriters who had spent a lifetime honing their craft.

AI covers and remixes of songs are already a blight on the internet. Spotify, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram are awash in flat reggae versions of “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” dinky country renditions of The Weeknd, and monotonous Motown reimaginings of AC/DC. Now, a new tool from Spotify will make them even easier to generate and share.

Spotify and Universal Music Group (UMG) signed a licensing deal that will allow users to generate remixes and covers from UMG’s catalog. How exactly it will work, beyond being “powered by generative AI technology,” or how much it will cost, is unclear. They’re positioning this as a premium subscription add-on service for superfans. According to UMG’s CEO Sir Lucian Grainge, it’s supposed to “deepen fan relationships.”

I’m not sure anyone was really asking for an AI guitar pedal. But it was inevitable that someone would build one. One of the first to take the plunge is Polyend, a well-respected music gear maker with a reputation for building niche, idiosyncratic devices. The company has built grooveboxes around old-school trackers and a multi-effect pedal that you can step sequence. So there was at least some hope that if anyone could do an AI effect pedal right, it would be Polyend.

Polyend’s Endless is a $299 programmable guitar pedal running an ARM processor. It’s paired with Playground, a number of interconnected AI agents that turn any text prompt into a functioning guitar effect. If you have an idea, you don’t have to hope that someone’s already built that pedal; you can simply prompt it. Maybe there’s a specific combination of effects that you’ve always wanted, but no company sells it because there’s no demand for a combination ring modulator / auto-wah. I’m not convinced this is what guitarists are yearning for, but it’s a well-intentioned first attempt to marry an effect pedal to an LLM.

Spotify and Universal Music Group (UMG) just announced a licensing deal that will allow users to prompt the creation of AI-generated remixes and covers for streaming songs. The tool will be a paid add-on for Premium subscribers. Artists will be able to opt out of the program, but those who do participate will collect royalties on these AI remixes.

In October of last year, Spotify announced that it was working with UMG, as well as other major labels, Sony Music Group, Warner Music Group, Merlin, and Believe, to create “responsible AI products.” At the time, it was unclear exactly what that meant. But this appears to be the first product of that partnership.

This is The Stepback, a weekly newsletter breaking down one essential story from the tech world. For more on how AI is changing music and the music industry, follow Terrence O’Brien. The Stepback arrives in our subscribers’ inboxes at 8AM ET. Opt in for The Stepback here.

The use of generative AI in pop music started almost as a gimmick. There was a sense of experimentalism to 2018’s I AM AI by Taryn Southern and 2019’s Proto by Holly Herndon, albums that were created with significant assistance from AI. Others got in on the action too, exploring the outer limits of tools like Google’s Magenta and even training their own models. But things quickly changed with the launch of Suno in December of 2023 and Udio in April of 2024.

Spotify is launching a new verification program to combat spam, fakes, and AI. Some artists will now have a “Verified by Spotify” badge and a green checkmark on their profile, indicating that the company has confirmed a real person is behind the music and the profile. At least at launch, Spotify says that AI personas or profiles that primarily upload AI-generated music are not eligible for the verification program. It did leave the door open to the possibility in the future, though, saying, “the concept of artist authenticity is complex and quickly evolving.”

Not just anyone can be verified, however. Spotify says that there must be “consistent listener activity and engagement over time,” suggesting that if you can’t cross the threshold for royalty payments, Spotify might not bother to verify your artist page. To verify acts the company isn’t asking people to send in photos of their driver’s licenses. Instead, it’s looking for activity both on and off its platform, including social media activity, merch sales, and concert dates.

Deezer says it receives nearly 75,000 AI-generated song submissions to its music streaming platform each day, accounting for about 44 percent of all daily uploads, as reported earlier by TechCrunch. Despite the increase in “fraudulent” uploads, Deezer says the consumption of AI songs makes up around 1 to 3 percent of total streams, as the platform continues to remove AI-generated music from its recommendation algorithm.

Deezer positions the tool as setting an “industry standard,” adding that the platform is currently the “only” music streaming service tagging AI-generated tracks. The service also demonetizes AI-generated songs and has stopped storing high-resolution versions of them. “AI-generated music is now far from a marginal phenomenon and as daily deliveries keep increasing, we hope the whole music ecosystem will join us in taking action to help safeguard artist’s rights and promote transparency for fans,” Deezer CEO Alexis Lanternier writes in the blog post.

AI music platform Suno’s policy is that it does not permit the use of copyrighted material. You can upload your own tracks to remix or set your original lyrics to AI-generated music. But, it’s supposed to recognize and stop you from using other people’s songs and lyrics. Now, no system is perfect, but it turns out that Suno’s copyright filters are incredibly easy to fool.

With minimal effort and some free software, Suno will spit out AI-generated imitations of popular songs like Beyoncé‘s “Freedom,” Black Sabbath’s “Paranoid,” and Aqua’s “Barbie Girl” that are alarmingly close to the original. Most people will likely be able to tell the difference, but some could be mistaken for alternate takes or B-sides at a casual listen. What’s more, it’s possible someone could monetize these uncanny valley covers by exporting them and uploading them to streaming services. Suno declined to comment for this story.