AI-generated music is appealing to streaming services, not least because it could potentially eliminate royalty payments and boost profits. While providers such as Qobuz are distancing themselves from AI-generated music, Tidal and Spotify already have very lax AI policies. According to a report by the Financial Times, Spotify is now planning a full-scale AI push, set to launch as early as the first quarter of 2027.

The streaming market leader is apparently adding an optional AI package to its Spotify Premium subscription, reportedly costing $4 to $5 per month, which could make the service's Premium subscription up to 39 percent more expensive. Those willing to pay these additional costs are expected to receive two main new features. First, the ability to have artificial intelligence regenerate existing songs as remixes. And second, the option to generate any song as a cover version by any band, thereby changing the song's style.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 6 days ago (15 children)

This is why I buy cds from the artists I like . I have never and will never pay for a music streaming service. I prefer to cut out as many middlemen as possible.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 days ago

    Same, it's nice throwing on a whole album too, something that gets lost in the shuffle streaming.

    Usually either try to buy from the bands directly or on Bandcamp. For older stuff, I'll check out local record stores or Discogs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 24 points 5 days ago (11 children)

    This is why I buy cds from the artists I like .

    I have a 50GB MP3 collection that I have curated since I was a teenager. Every time I hear news about streaming services, I watch from the sidelines and grab some popcorn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 days ago (9 children)

    Why MP3 and not lossless tho?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    smaller is more portable tho.

    (opus)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    I started with 128kbps MP3s (I was dumb when I was young as we all were) so I just stayed with the format. Nowadays they're all much higher bitrate and I honestly don't hear the difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago* (2 children)

    Have you done an ABX test? I love and produce music and have a good ear, and even though its embarrassing to admit, I don't hear a difference. Honestly I suspect very few people can. https://abx.digitalfeed.net/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    I haven't actually, although I've wanted to for some time. I just prefer to store my music in lossless format.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago

    That one is really easy to do, its the best out of many I tried. But yeah that's fair, I get it from the standpoint of archiving. That extra data could be used for remastering/mixing/sampling purposes potentially

  • source
  • parent