Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
AI Music

Music Insiders Call for Warning Labels After AI-Generated Band Gets 1 Million Plays On Spotify 94

Posted by BeauHD from the transparency-or-not dept.
Bruce66423 shares a report from The Guardian: They went viral, amassing more than 1m streams on Spotify in a matter of weeks, but it later emerged that hot new band the Velvet Sundown were AI-generated -- right down to their music, promotional images and backstory. The episode has triggered a debate about authenticity, with music industry insiders saying streaming sites should be legally obliged to tag music created by AI-generated acts so consumers can make informed decisions about what they are listening to. [...]

Several figures told the Guardian that the present situation, where streaming sites, including Spotify, are under no legal obligation to identify AI-generated music, left consumers unaware of the origins of the songs they're listening to. Roberto Neri, the chief executive of the Ivors Academy, said: "AI-generated bands like Velvet Sundown that are reaching big audiences without involving human creators raise serious concerns around transparency, authorship and consent." Neri added that if "used ethically," AI has the potential to enhance songwriting, but said at present his organization was concerned with what he called "deeply troubling issues" with the use of AI in music.

Sophie Jones, the chief strategy officer at the music trade body the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), backed calls for clear labelling. "We believe that AI should be used to serve human creativity, not supplant it," said Jones. "That's why we're calling on the UK government to protect copyright and introduce new transparency obligations for AI companies so that music rights can be licensed and enforced, as well as calling for the clear labelling of content solely generated by AI."

Liz Pelly, the author of Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist, said independent artists could be exploited by people behind AI bands who might create tracks that are trained using their music. She referred to the 2023 case of a song that was uploaded to TikTok, Spotify and YouTube, which used AI-generated vocals claiming to be the Weeknd and Drake. Universal Music Group said the song was "infringing content created with generative AI" and it was removed shortly after it was uploaded.

Aurelien Herault, the chief innovation officer at the music streaming service Deezer, said the company uses detection software that identifies AI-generated tracks and tags them. He said: "For the moment, I think platforms need to be transparent and try to inform users. For a period of time, what I call the "naturalization of AI', we need to inform users when it's used or not." Herault did not rule out removing tagging in future if AI-generated music becomes more popular and musicians begin to use it like an "instrument." At present, Spotify does not label music as AI-generated and has previously been criticized for populating some playlists with music by "ghost artists" -- fake acts that create stock music. Bruce66423 comments: "Artists demand 'a warning' on such material. Why? If it is what the people want..."

Music Insiders Call for Warning Labels After AI-Generated Band Gets 1 Million Plays On Spotify More | Reply

Music Insiders Call for Warning Labels After AI-Generated Band Gets 1 Million Plays On Spotify

Comments Filter:

  • How it's made (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fjo3 ( 1399739 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2025 @11:33PM (#65523810)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] This is an excellent and mostly to the point demonstration of just how simple it is to generate AI slop that would not sound at all out of place on a top 40 radio station.

    • Whether the music is by AI or a 5 year old child or the next Taylor Swift, does it matter?

      Surely all that matters is the end audience and whether they like it?

      Before someone mentions "artistic creativity", I'm sure many would say that most of the stuff written by the top 10 out there is just trash anyway. e.g. Lady Gaga, Bieber, Kanye West, etc.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It matters if the song is stolen and repackaged. You never know, with AI. A good way to think of music AI is "music laundering".

        • It's always interesting how many words and ways someone who makes money selling music can misdirect, appeal to emotion or other ways that they are really losing money and getting less music royalties.

          There are millions of places paying for music, stores, restaurants, sporting events, etc. which will have essentially a free way to provide background music.

          TV shows, movies, radio commercials, commercials in general will stop licensing well known songs.

          • TV shows, movies, radio commercials, commercials in general will stop licensing well known songs.

            That's what they're really worried about. Notice the number of re-masters coming out recently and how songs you play on streaming services from the 80s and 90s from big artists don't sound how you remember them? That's because the artists re-record them due to the copyright coming to an end making minor changes from the original so they can refresh the copyright to that song and continue to make royalties from it.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

              Notice the number of re-masters coming out recently and how songs you play on streaming services from the 80s and 90s from big artists don't sound how you remember them? That's because the artists re-record them due to the copyright coming to an end making minor changes from the original so they can refresh the copyright to that song and continue to make royalties from it.

              This is... utterly untrue.

              Reperforming the song is not going to change the end date of the copyright of the work by a single day. The copyright term was fixed when it was created (if a corporate work) or when the author dies (typically 70 years from that date) for anything for the last half century or so.

              As an example: Bohemian Rhapsody was written by Freddie Mercury who died in 1991. The copyright is going to expire in 2061 and no amount of re-recording will change that.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Draeven ( 166561 )

          Story as old as time, and you never know with non-ai. It's actually very very common.

        • It matters if the song is stolen and repackaged.

          Nearly all music is.

          https://www.honest-broker.com/... [honest-broker.com]
          https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/03... [ipwatchdog.com]

          And there's probably a reason for this:

          https://www.psychologytoday.co... [psychologytoday.com]

          AI isn't the problem. Copyright laws in the US have gotten incredibly fucked up ever since we ratified the Berne treaty.

        • You never know with any source.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

        It matters if it is misrepresented. People are free to listen to what they want but they should know whether they are getting AI stuff or real stuff, especially considering the "band" in question faked the fact that they were real. That would be considered fraud normally.

        • Yeah, I also have to wonder - musical tastes and styles often shift every few years. What's popular right now will probably be dated and unpopular in 2030. Since these sorts of AI "bands" aren't likely to come up with new styles and experiment with new sounds... if they chase all the real musicians out of the business, the people behind the AI will probably find their profits drying up in very short order.

          • What I wonder is how creative people can be with AI, or if it is literally the same weeks stuff. You should be able to customize a lot with prompts. Things like Garage Band and Fruity Loops do a lot to show general people to make beats. A lot of sounds are also already sampled in today's music.

            I don't really know what AI will it won't bring to the table. It will be interesting to see.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jythie ( 914043 )
            There will probably always be small creators, people scraping by on youtube, or doing it as a hobby. You just need to plug in whatever gets popular in that scene and poof, take credit for creativity. Kinda like how it already works.

          • Not at all. AI slop is trivial to train on whatever is today's sound. Release an new album, AI will mimic it in under a week. They may be chasing the real innovation, but they do so at a rate that is not significant enough to make it financially unviable. AI will always be "current" in that regard.

        • It matters if it is misrepresented. People are free to listen to what they want but they should know whether they are getting AI stuff or real stuff, especially considering the "band" in question faked the fact that they were real. That would be considered fraud normally.

          Fraud, defines the music industry. Last time music had integrity was when Milli Vanilli was destroyed for doing shit that’s acceptable fraud now.

          The fact that AI slop is now directly competing? Go figure. It’s actually a battle between machine and machine anyway. Very few tracks laid down today represent a natural organic sound coming from a human actually singing it. You’re listening to the smooth sounds of Autotune. Who the hell needs singing talent when Autotuned entertainers have

          • Last time music had integrity was when Milli Vanilli was destroyed for doing shit that’s acceptable fraud now.

            I guarantee there's currently a hot/new rapper that's 100% a yamaha vocaloid who's 'embodied' by some model for videos. Like, I have no doubt about this.

            When you currently have actual humans effecting their voices to the point that they sound like vocaloids anyway, because that's the 'hot sound' of the moment, it would make absolutely no sense to not do it. It greatly lowers the cost and simplifies the supply chain to have the same Scandinavian producer who's creating the music, do the vocal performance a

          • You're defining music by "singing". That's not the relevant part. No one thinks EDM or something computer generated is fraudulent, and no fraud does not define the music industry, you can see the full disclosure on the back of every album cover. You not liking the sound, or that one album copies another doesn't make something fraud. It becomes fraud when someone claims they are original.

            In the music industry that is very much a one way ticket to all your royalties being paid to someone else. Then and now.

          • Let's not forget drug use and child exploitation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AvitarX ( 172628 )

          Additionally they very likely can't make copyright claims to it (courts need to define the line of where AI crosses from tool to author, but it seems likely that a lot of this is claiming royalties on stuff that is actually public domain).

        • People are free to listen to what they want but they should know whether they are getting AI stuff or real stuff

          What does "real" mean? How much autotune is allowed in that?

          If people care they're welcome to follow bands which exist.

          But people don't care about bands because of people, they care about the people because of the bands.

          • You misunderstand. No one cares about what people like or don't, the point being made is what you claim you are and what you're not. The band in question claimed they were a real band, they were not. They outright lied about everything to do with their production.

            If you want to be an algorithm cranking out EDM then great, more power to you. Just don't pretend you're a human playing an instrument.

            • I'm clear about what the complaint is.

              My point is that the word choice is bullshit.

              If you want real, you go see live and if not unamplified acts, at least those which aren't using so much as an effects pedal. Or, for that matter, the reverb knob on the amp. You're not listening to canned modern music where the "real band" may or may not have skills or talent.

              If you're willing to listen to music which was cooked up in a lab, what's the difference between that and listening to fully computer generated music?

        • I'm not sure you can really call it fraud - I'm not sure anyone's being ripped off here. If you like the music and you like looking at the band pictures, then good for you. No money is directly changing hands from listener to artist. You're paying for your spotify subscription whether you listen to anyone or not, or these people or someone else.

          If they started selling tour tickets that they obviously couldn't fulfil, that would be fraud. I think the best you can have at the moment is perhaps deception. Ther

      • Dunno I rather like bad romance. Outrageously catchy. Ear worms me every time.

      • AI will never get better on its own. It needs our creativity to feed on. Allowing everything to be AI will mean a cap on our progress as a species.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jythie ( 914043 )
          Depends on what you mean by 'better'. These bots are optimized for being picked up by the various algorithms that suggest things to listeners. I suspect they will get better at that, and that is all that really matters from their perspective.
          • I mean better in terms of adding creative elements to the music that connect with listeners. The kind of music you want to listen to instead of just play in the background. There was a study in how music changed in the 90's with computers and it is clear that people started to cut and paste. There were fewer key changes, fewer tempo changes, fewer attempts to make the song stand out against others. Those things just won't occur to AI, because AI is too perfect to create imperfections that humans find in

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jythie ( 914043 )
        Thing is, AI slop is not optimized for the end audience, it is optimized for the algorithms (which really means, more AI) that is selecting and promoting content. There has always been an element of this since what people listen to has always been filtered by what is being promoted and advertised, but this really ramps up that process.
      • Nonononono, we must have real music from real musicians and real bands with absolutely no fakery, like Milli Vanilli, The Monkees, Boney M, Backstreet Boys, Spice Girls, ...

    • (shrug) feels like people are missing the point, enraged about the AI origin, and not the fact that it's "fine" compared to the rest of the (human created) slop on the radio.

      I don't care in the slightest.

      A photograph can more accurately reproduce an image than the most precise painter ever. What did we get since? Picasso, Nieman, and "modern art" that pretends to greatness like the Emperor's New Clothes.

      Before the era of recorded music, musicians made a living by live performances and patronage. Now we h

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        We get it, you dont like that people have different tastes then you. Especially the kids.

    • No no no,we want our empty-headed drivel supplied only by humans.

  • It's funny when they say things like that: Clearly the computer turned itself on and spontaneously generated the music, the backstories, created the accounts, and uploaded the content with absolutely no human involvement, right?

    • Thats a really excellent rebuttal of an argument nobody made.

      What exactly is your point? Do you think mashing in "MAEK ME A SONG PLEASE COMPUTER" with your hulk fists into the chromebook counts as "art"?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        it counts as human involvement, which was exactly his point.

        When will you ever had an intelligent point to make?

        • it counts as human involvement, which was exactly his point.

          human creators

          One of these things is not like the other and the point is garbage.

          Typing prompts has nothing to do with creativity. Reading comprehension, on the other hand, is an important skill.

  • So when an algorithm copies a rift or cord progression, who does the copyright holder of the original content sue? The streaming service? The creator of the algorithm who was trained on their content?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      the answer is everyone who has money gets sued. Guilt is proportional to wealth.

    • It's likely near impossible to sue someone over a riff or chord progression since there's a large library of recorded music and sheet music that likely covers anything our ears and brains would consider "musical" enough to want to listen to more than once. As an example is "Four Chords" from Axis of Awesome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      This theme on nothing new in music was played with in a scene from Mr. Holland's Opus: (I'm too lazy to search for a YouTube clip, it's likely out there somewhere if yo

    • So when an algorithm copies a rift or cord progression, who does the copyright holder of the original content sue? The streaming service? The creator of the algorithm who was trained on their content?

      When a human rips off music, do you sue the guitar maker? The string maker? The recording studio? Let’s not get pointless in focus here. The fucking lawyers are already drooling enough.

      IMHO if someone claims ownership rights over anything that creates music then they had better learn to put a fucking leash on it. And when AI is smart enough to create music from nothing, it’ll be smart enough to beat every lawyer anyway.

  • Where were these people for Autotune? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @12:07AM (#65523838)
    Autotune is just as bad, they defraud people thinking the singers have good voices. Looks like the music coalition only cares if they aren't in control of making most of the money.

    cue an AI generated sound of the world's smallest violin.

    - true music is meant to be shared with and taught to others. at least Happy Birthday is free.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      No it's not. Autotune is nothing more than a minor correction. There's still some element of human creativity underneath, even if that creativity is limited to tune and lyrics and not singing ability.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It can be minor, but it can also take someone singing completely out of tune and turn it into something passable. There was a leaked recording of the original Paris Hilton session some years ago, and she may actually be tone deaf, it's that bad. The released track is pitch perfect and sounds like a professional, if uninspired, singer.

  • I'm sure this is what the labels want... (Score:3)

    by ctilsie242 ( 4841247 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @12:07AM (#65523840)

    I wonder if a number of the people are mad because they were not the first ones to do this, and someone else beat them to the punch. I wouldn't be surprised if AI is the ultimate thing that large record labels want. No musicians that might not show up, or bring drama, no contracts to sign, unlimited records, feeding back responses to keep tuning albums, etc.

    The only thing they don't have are live people for stage acts... but I wouldn't be surprised if holograms or even animatronics would wind up being used for this eventually.

    Vote with your wallets, and frequent artists on Bandcamp is what I recommend.

    • There is not a lot of money to be made in Spotify plays for anyone except for the owners of Spotify.

      The music industry trades in celebrity. You don't listen to crappy pop music because it's good you listen to it because you're excited by the celebrity.

      If you take that away all you're left with is the music which is just background noise to most people. That's not enough to sustain the industry at the profit levels that publicly traded companies require. They'll get eating alive by their shareholders

    • I wonder if a number of the people are mad because they were not the first ones to do this, and someone else beat them to the punch. I wouldn't be surprised if AI is the ultimate thing that large record labels want. No musicians that might not show up, or bring drama, no contracts to sign, unlimited records, feeding back responses to keep tuning albums, etc.

      The only thing they don't have are live people for stage acts... but I wouldn't be surprised if holograms or even animatronics would wind up being used for this eventually.

      Even Michael Jackson or Elvis would struggle to fill stadiums with the kind of revenue that is needed to justify “live” digital entertainment. Who the hell is gonna pay hundreds to see a hologram? If tens of thousands of fans are going to overflow venues and get crushed to death for that shit, then we need to raise prices about 900% more for “live” entertainers. Clearly there’s WAY more money to be made off Stupid.

    • There are comments that there is no artistry in this, but that's not true.

      The company involved (Suno [suno.com]) did quite a bit of work fine-tuning their AI to make sure the output is generally listenable. That's not straightforward, and you're not going to get it just by loading a ton of songs into a random neural network and taking whatever comes out.

      Unfortunately, it also means that they are limited to a fairly narrow set of song styles, and if you listen to them they all sound similar. You can massage it to

  • Well, here's a thought... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    People are listening and watching this AI-generated stuff, and they like it, and it's more popular than your stuff. Maybe you need to improve the quality of your stuff.

  • Song writers too (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @12:26AM (#65523862)
    If an artist uses a song writer, has plastic surgery, uses musical instruments... They should all have to disclose this.

    Velvet Sundown is no different than when a studio assembles a group of four boys, pays songwriters, dance choreographers, makeup artists, musicians, etc...

    An artist sat down, used AI as an instrument and made music.

    • Gorrillaz also comes to mind... We've had fake music and fake bands for decades. Granted, it hurts a lot of musicians (like myself) to know that most of our skills are somewhat devalued now, but putting our head in the sand instead of learning how to make the best of the situation isn't helping. It's like when drum machines, synths or DAWs were invented. People with less (or different) talents are able to make music more easily. That just raises the bar for what's "good" though, there will still be peop

      • Gorillaz wasn't really fake though. It was an animated front for an actual human band. The human band even played their live shows. It was pretty inventive, and it certainly gave a lot of work to not only the musicians involved but the many animators, planners, marketers, and others who pulled the whole thing together. It wound up being much more complex than a traditional guitarx2 + bass + drums quartet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      If an artist uses a song writer, has plastic surgery, uses musical instruments... They should all have to disclose this.

      Velvet Sundown is no different than when a studio assembles a group of four boys, pays songwriters, dance choreographers, makeup artists, musicians, etc...

      An artist sat down, used AI as an instrument and made music.

      I've long stopped considering electronic music to be music because a computer is not an instrument.

      The music industry has loved this kind of thing because musical instruments require talent to play, especially to play well which gives the artist a large mesure of power over their own destiny, rights, a voice... things that music execs hate because they can use that to get more of their precious, sweet, sweet profit.

      A "DJ" or rapper can be replaced easily as they don't have any actual talent. Doubly so

    • An artist sat down, used AI as an instrument and made music.

      Nope, you missed the point. An artists sat down, used AI as an instrument and made music, then claimed that a different instrument was made, and that a whole group of people were involved. Even the artist's picture was a fake.

      You can do and sell what you want, just don't pretend it's something different.

  • Tag AI and you got alot attentions, just like builder.ai?
  • People like shitty mindless tunes with a predictable beat, catchy hook, and familiar sound. The music industry has been doing this for 80 years now. There are too many artists with stories who had been turned down by execs because their music didnt fit the mold. Now people are so used to the mold thats comfortable and familiar they cant distinguish it from anything else. So what.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dvice ( 6309704 )

      According to studies, when people don't know who the artist is, people prefer music made by AI. If people know that other music was made by AI, people prefer human made music. And this includes also classical music and people even think that AI made classical music sounds more like the original author it imitates than what the original music actually is. Humans have absolutely no way to beat AI in music in blindfolded tests.

      So whether you have to reveal that music is made by AI or not, will pretty much dict

  • No it doesn't (Score:3)

    by henrik stigell ( 6146516 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @01:18AM (#65523930) Homepage

    "AI-generated bands like Velvet Sundown that are reaching big audiences without involving human creators raise serious concerns around transparency, authorship and consent."

    No it doesn't. None of these factors are relevant for why someone decides to listen to music.

    Consent? Was someone forced to listen to Velvet Sundown?

    This is just simple rent seeking from music industry insiders.

    • How many of the 1m+ listens were actual humans and how many were bots specifically created to "listen" to the output of a bot?

      1. Use AI to make a track
      2. Use an army of bots to "listen" to this track, gaming the chart figures
      3. Track trends and actual humans listen because they're sheep, boosting the figures further
      4. Automated article generators publicise track across the music press sites inducing more sheep to listen
      5. ??? (Spotify pays out)
      6. Profit!

  • To me, the 'origin story' of the music I enjoy doesn't matter and never has. Good music is good music regardless of the origin story. This desire by so called 'music insiders' to place labels warning of the AI origin story just goes to show how out of touch 'music insiders' have been to their consumers.

  • Did it really "go viral"? (Score:3)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @02:30AM (#65524004)

    I mean, did a million people really search out Velvet Sundown, or did Spotify just inject the songs into a million people's streams? The article doesn't really say, one way or the other.

  • Since humans have to say a song is a cover etc, why shouldn't you say it is AI generation?

    If the AI had been fed Katy Perry - Dark Horse as training material, what then?

  • Maybe (Score:2)

    by pele ( 151312 )

    Just maybe - also tag music that was written and/or composed under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Tag music whose "artists" were convicted of offences. Tag music that has been stolen and/or modified.
    Tag all sorts of shit.
    Or don't. If AI does it better than puf piffy then great! Less money for puf piffy and slut slutty to spend on their yachts, or? The ai developer gets rewarded instead.

  • Lol. If it slaps it slaps. Same shit when synths came up
  • Maybe some big artists should decamp from Spotify and form their own platform. Or at least withdraw their services from any platform that undermines artistry by platforming a) AI generated music, b) sound-a-likes, c) in-house covers / generic muzak.

  • Music Insiders Call for Warning Labels..

    Oh, so the “Insiders” are suddenly concerned? Sounds suspiciously like middle-earth cube farmers bitching to create RTW mandates, because middle-earth cube farmers.

    Shocking how most don’t give a damn about those who have perpetuated a bullshit job for years now.

  • Human connections (Score:3)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @06:29AM (#65524162)
    I can't really read these comments because it amazes me how dead people are inside. There is music that is full of human spirit and culture and there is AI slop mimicking it. I sincerely hope the AI slop is just being played in the background like elevator music, because if that is what people prefer than it will just take the human connection out of music.
    • Sad but true. We're headed for the same place as the rest of commercial AI, with all the know how encoded in the models and no one left to teach it anything. As others have pointed out, here, the current state of factory farmed commercial music using beat makers, top liners, and autotune, we are nearly there anyways. Also sad... but it's where we are. I'm of the impression that the consuming public has close to no discrimination what they are being served, and will consume the slop. Like going to a grocery
      • Even in electronic music there are good things to be found. For example, Daft Punk's mixing with a symphony orchestra for the Tron 2 soundtrack. My rule is that I won't listen to any music in which the drum beat sounds like a galloping horse. It happens a lot.
  • I know that people like to use the word "toxic" a lot, but in this case I don't think it's literal guys ...
  • If people listen to it, what does it matter how it's created? Artists have been using tools to enhance and change music for a long time, this is just th next evolution. Should studios be required to label albums where individual tracks were combined rather than the entire album done in one sitting? This is just the industry trying to protect their revenue stream, and as soon as labels find a way to pay somebody to use AI to generate music that sells they'll be all behind it and pushing for copyright prot

  • Since the courts have said that you can't claim copyright on AI-genned art, doesn't that mean that Velvet Sundown songs are now public domain? (Prior art and plagiarism excepting...)

  • If the music is appealing and people like it, why does it matter how it was made?

    Sounds like anger over having years of practice and skill in competition with a faster method.

  • How about warnings for songs that are real people with crappy voices just using autotune and high number of followers to get on the air?

  • I consider myself a musician. It's only ever been a hobby, but it's a hobby I've spent most of my life working on. I don't give two tosses about AI generated music because the main impact will be on the music "industry." Those fucks have been creating manufactured music for generations now, and attempting to crush originality in the womb by gobbling up promising artists, beating them into the molds they want them to fit into, then financially destroying them if they don't start immediately making massive ba

Slashdot Top Deals

The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune.

Close