Music industry calls for greater AI transparency from DSPs after The Velvet Sundown controversy
The rise of AI band The Velvet Sundown has triggered calls from industry bodies for more transparency from DSPs like Spotify. Here’s what you need to know.
Who are The Velvet Sundown, and why is everyone talking about them?
The Velvet Sundown has been drawing a lot of attention lately. Approaching almost 1.4 million monthly listeners on Spotify, this mysterious “band” seemed to come out of nowhere- dropping tracks, racking up streams, all without an online presence. Initial conversations focused on whether they were an AI-generated band or a clever streaming experiment, but now it’s been revealed.
They aren’t a real band at all. Not in the traditional sense, anyway.
After two full album releases and rising public scrutiny, the band finally updated their Spotify bio to reveal the truth. Their profile now describes them as “Not quite human. Not quite machine. The Velvet Sundown lives somewhere in between”. The band claims it is designed to “challenge the boundaries of authorship, identity and the future of music itself in the age of AI” – and they’ve certainly done that.
Why this matters: Royalty, recognition & real artists
Those in the industry are worried about what this could mean for authentic artists, especially those trying to earn a living through their music. With AI music flooding streaming platforms at lightning speed and without human fatigue, there’s growing concern they could saturate DSPs. This includes claiming playlist opportunities, royalties, and listeners that would otherwise go to authentic musicians- all of which The Velvet Sundown is already doing.
What the industry is saying
Unsurprisingly, The Velvet Sundown’s rapid rise to ascendancy (their first album dropped at the start of June) has sparked conversation from industry bodies.
In a recent Guardian article, Ivors Academy CEO Roberto Neri stated that AI-generated bands like The Velvet Sundown “raise serious concerns around transparency, authorship and consent”.
This was doubled down upon by Sophie Jones, the Chief Strategy Officer at the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). Jones is urging DSPs like Spotify to offer greater transparency over AI-generated tracks:
“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.”
In this aspect, Deezer is already ahead of the game. Last month, the platform rolled out tags that clearly mark 100% AI-generated music– the world’s first to do so. This move makes it easier for listeners to know what they’re listening to, and gives human artists a fighting chance to stand out amongst the AI noise.
Is Spotify cracking down on AI-generated content?
After dropping two albums yesterday alone – Paper Sun Rebellion and Paper Sun Rebellion II – it appears that streaming platforms may have had enough. The sheer volume of output may be raising eyebrows, especially given the band have dropped four albums (52 tracks) since the start of June.
Shortly afterward, Paper Sun Rebellion II vanished from their artist profile. Not long after, the tracks on an associated Velvet Sundown account (missing the ‘The’) also disappeared on Spotify- an account which had amassed around 12,400 monthly listeners itself, according to DMN.
It’s not exactly a public statement, but it looks like Spotify may be quietly taking action. That said, I could still find the Paper Sun Rebellion II on the associated Velvet Sundown account on Apple Music alongside the other tracks- perhaps indicating that any crackdown (if any) is far from universal.
What’s next for AI music?
It’s clear we’re in uncharted territory.
Not only does AI music raise issues around transparency and impacting real artists, but it also brings up copyright concerns. These generative AI models often use copyrighted works without permission or payment to rightsholders.
Legislation is slow to react to these concerns, and new artists could keep cropping up under slightly altered names. The risk? A flood of AI-generated content that is trained on real artists’ work without credit or compensation, while drowning out genuine artists in the process.
A recent Deezer report indicated that it now sees 20,000 AI-generated tracks uploaded daily– a sign that this issue isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. While Deezer’s tagging system is a start, it’s far from a full solution. It only tags tracks that are 100% AI, but what about tracks that still substantially feature AI? Contrastingly, as music production continues to embrace AI in the creative process, many artists likely won’t want the tag if it only plays a minimal role in their music. Where do you draw the line?
Once again, The Velvet Sundown saga shows that the music industry needs clear guardrails and greater transparency. All of which will need to be carefully considered by lawmakers worldwide.
No time is like the present for DSPs, and lawmakers, to act.