It’s Napster redux.

Universal telling DSPs not to host AI music… What could be better! Think about it, you’re an act that’s so popular, so desirable, that the audience wants even more of your music!

Can we stop trying to hold back the future? It has never ever worked, why should it now? Furthermore, we’ve seen this movie already. What looks scary at first ends up adding to as opposed to taking away.

Let’s talk Napster vs. CDs. There’s no debate that file-trading put a dent in recorded music revenues. But forgetting the evolution, the intermediary steps like iTunes, streaming is better for the music business. Not only have recorded music revenues rebounded, they’re still growing and…

Live music, the touring business, is through the roof.

Think about this. If everybody couldn’t hear the music for free on YouTube or for a de minimis cost on a streaming service like Spotify, et al, would they all be going to the show?

There are acts with little or no radio airplay that are selling thousands of tickets, they wouldn’t have been able to do this in the pre-internet era. First, they can record the music for a very low cost using computer equipment in their house and they can distribute it for almost nothing. And if people want to listen to it…

We still haven’t scraped away the detritus of the past, all those who won in the old world who aren’t doing so well in the new. In a closed market if they got signed by a label they were one of the few and were the beneficiary of all that marketing and promotion. So now they say their streaming royalties are low… But all these people bitching can still work on the road. Think of the old paradigm, physical and retail. Only old fans would be aware of their tunes and as far as new fans… There’s a good chance most retail outlets wouldn’t even be stocking their records!

And as far as progress goes, something is always lost in the march to the future. Like vent windows. Pretty cool, but seen as unnecessary when all automobiles came with air conditioning.

So someone uses a platform to create a new song based on what you’ve done previously. What we’ve learned in the past twenty-odd years is you don’t try to eradicate it, you license it! At the software level, like they used to tax blank cassettes, or at the distribution level, or both. You want to host AI music, you have to pay for it! And the underlying artist gets most of the money.

We lived through this with sampling. The music was stolen, and once you needed a license…many rightsholders refused to grant one, and as a result we now have beats created by newbies. If we’d had a clearinghouse to license samples…

And if we don’t license AI songs built on old songs, do you know what is going to happen? There are going to be new AI songs not based on the work of any preexisting artist and the rightsholders will lose out. You embrace the future, it pays.

And can we stop being afraid of AI?

So AI can write a term paper. Well, pocket calculators came along fifty years ago, did they eliminate math? If anything, they made calculation easier and more precise. Just think about it, when you go to Venmo the cost of your lunch to your buddy… It’s the software in the phone that splits the bill for you. Where’s the loss here?

I’d be more worried about the opposite. That there would be new AI songs based on underlying works/artists that no one wanted to listen to. That’s the crisis in the internet world today, you can make it, but no one can find it, never mind listen, play or experience it.

As for replacement of the underlying artist… Give me a break. I’ve been sent AI versions of my newsletter. Sure, I’m in there somewhere, but it’s not even a reasonable facsimile. Don’t forget, AI works based on data that is scraped from the internet. As far as coming up with new ideas… They say that’s going to happen, but so far nothing has come close, and I’m not worried. Because machines have no humanity.

Steve Jobs and Apple are the classic example here. Steve made decisions based on his gut. He did no research, because research will tell you where you’ve been, but not where you’re going.

Innovation, disruption, how often does it come from the established company? Almost never. Tesla broke the electric car. GM was even there first and didn’t know how to do it. Furthermore, to this day none of the traditional companies has realized that the key to Tesla’s success is software, and that the body/electronics are nearly fungible. It’s a computer on wheels. That’s not what GM delivered. And VW still can’t get the software right. If you’re waiting for change from the established outfits, keep waiting, because they don’t believe it’s in their interest, they want to maintain the status quo, they abhor disruption.

Lucian Grainge should be starting an AI division of Universal Music. We still don’t know where AI music is going. Maybe it starts off sounding like Drake but the end result isn’t human at all. Go along for the ride or be left behind. You must disrupt yourself to survive.

So back to me. Let’s say the internet is flooded with fake Lefsetz Letters. Man, if the demand is there, think how big I’ll be! As far as the authentic me… Come on, you know whether you’re buying a fake Rolex, but somehow you’re not going to be able to tell whether the screed was written by me?

As for “Business Insider” and other outlets firing people and employing AI instead… Have you read any of the articles? Almost all of what is already online is clickbait, unreadable. Google anything. Go to the Apple News. Writers who can’t write trying to hook readers who can’t read. Are we losing anything if this crap is written by machines? Maybe the humans who used to do the work can get more productive jobs. This stuff, both human and AI, is so boring, usually just a recitation of facts that you already know underneath a deceptive headline. This is what we’re trying to keep alive?

And should we throw over the entire industrial revolution while we’re at it, never mind the computer revolution? The machines make our jobs easier. What, do you want to wash your clothes on a rock?

And I find it hilarious that all these acts employing technology to make their records want to draw a line. Come on, endless software, plug-ins, Autotune… They can use it but nobody else can?

And then there’s the theory that posits all these negative articles about AI are spread by those behind AI, to get the word out.

And we’ve been hearing about AI for decades, and it’s finally arrived. Remind you of anything? Digital photography. Was going to kill film and it never happened, and then overnight it did. Now we all have high-end cameras in our pockets.

So film companies are history. Kodak is unknown to the younger generation. But think of all the benefits. Come on, you shoot the pillar showing the location you parked at before you enter the venue. Forget all the little things, you can share photos with your friends and families… So, old wave camera companies bit the dust. Is that enough to hold back digital photography?

You cannot replace humanity. Absolutely impossible. Inject humanity into what you are doing, be honest and real, and not only can the machine not replicate this, your work will resonate with the public even more.

Got a problem with electronic instruments? Go acoustic. Stop comping the vocals, leave the mistakes in recordings. Sure, you can tell AI to put in mistakes, but where, and of what character? Art is about the surprise. And to be honest, that’s not where music is at right now, AI could help push the envelope. Like synthesizers. Or the drum machine. They’re additive, not subtractive.

Stop being scared. Do we need to work out rights and distribution? Of course. But let’s start down that path instead of trying to shut things down. God, it took forever for record companies to realize this. You license and reap the rewards, you don’t litigate and try to kill that which can never be buried.

Man, I’d love a new Beatles song. Do I think AI can generate a good one? No. But if AI does, and people want to listen to it and the Beatles get paid…what is wrong with that?

Nothing!