The End of Music as We Know It

How Streaming, Corporate Greed and AI Are Killing Creativity

Few cultural industries stand at a more immediate crossroads than music. Like politics, science, and journalism, it faces a moment of reckoning where technological evolution might either save it or destroy it entirely. Once again, AI is both the problem and the solution.

With streaming platforms exploiting artists, AI-generated ghost tracks flooding playlists, and record labels tightening their grip, the industry is at a breaking point. From Spotify’s ghost track scandal to UMG’s increasing alarm over streaming economics, the cracks are widening. And despite artists like Taylor Swift successfully reclaiming their catalogues, most musicians remain powerless in a system that exploits them. Now, with AI-generated music flooding platforms, the industry must grapple with its biggest question yet: who gets paid when the artist is a machine?

Today we’re exploring:

• The existential threats facing music today – from AI-generated compositions replacing human artists to exploitative streaming models that prioritise corporate profits over creative sustainability.

• The historical trajectory that led us here – including the rise of DRM policies, the monopolisation of record labels, the digital transition from Napster to Spotify, and the industry's continued fight over digital ownership.

• The role of AI and automation in reshaping creativity – questioning whether AI will serve as a tool to empower musicians or a mechanism to make them obsolete, and examining the rise of ghost tracks that threaten independent artists.

• The Spotify ghost track scandal – how streaming services are manipulating algorithms and royalty structures to maximise profits at the expense of real musicians, homogenising music into algorithmically generated background noise.

• The power of blockchain and decentralised technology – exploring whether these innovations can revolutionise attribution, royalties, and digital rights, creating a more sustainable financial model for musicians.

• The fight against chokepoint capitalism – uncovering how corporate monopolies and major labels have constructed bottlenecks that limit artist earnings and control the distribution of music.

• The broader crisis in creative industries – analysing how music's struggles mirror those of other cultural sectors, from journalism to film, and what lessons can be drawn to preserve artistic integrity in an AI-driven era.

The stakes have never been higher. Music has survived technological disruption before, but the challenges ahead are unprecedented. Read on to uncover how we got here—and where we might be headed next.

Let’s get to it.

How Did We Get Here? A Brief History in Five Parts (and an important side rant about Spotify)

Music has been an integral part of human culture for millennia, serving as a medium for expression, storytelling, and communal bonding. Its perennial significance raises a pressing question: if music is so vital, how did the industry reach its current state of crisis?

1. The Birth of the Recording Industry

The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed the advent of recorded music, transforming ephemeral performances into tangible commodities. This shift allowed for mass distribution but also centralised control within emerging record labels, setting the stage for the industry’s modern structure. Companies like the Victor Talking Machine Company and Columbia Records became gatekeepers, dictating which artists reached the public and under what terms. This centralisation laid the groundwork for the power dynamics that continue to influence the industry today.

2. The Digital Revolution and the DRM Era

The late 20th century introduced digital formats, notably the MP3, which revolutionised music consumption but also led to widespread piracy. In response, the industry implemented Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems to protect intellectual property. Companies like Apple, through its iTunes Store, utilised DRM to lock consumers into their ecosystems, restricting the transferability of purchased music files. Steve Jobs, then-CEO of Apple, acknowledged the limitations of DRM, noting that while it aimed to curb piracy, it often hindered legitimate users and did little to deter determined infringers. Similarly, Sony BMG’s 2005 DRM strategy backfired when it was revealed that their copy protection measures installed hidden software on users’ computers, leading to security vulnerabilities and public outcry.

3. Chokepoint Capitalism: Consolidation and Control

In their book Chokepoint Capitalism, authors Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow discuss how major corporations have created bottlenecks in the creative economy, controlling access points to audiences and squeezing creators’ earnings. Platforms like Spotify exemplify this by positioning themselves between artists and listeners, dictating terms and capturing a significant share of the value generated. In other words: we have all the audiences, so if you want to make any money, you have to play by our economic terms. If you don’t like that, you can go elsewhere but you might just find no one’s over there. This dynamic has led to a situation where artists are increasingly dependent on a few dominant platforms, limiting their autonomy and bargaining power.

4. The Streaming Model and Its Discontents

The rise of streaming services promised convenience and access but often at the expense of artist compensation. The pro-rata payment model pools subscription revenue and distributes it based on total streams, disproportionately benefiting top artists and leaving independent musicians with meager earnings. This system has been criticised for devaluing music and prioritising quantity over quality. For instance, a million streams on Spotify might earn an artist between $3,000 and $5,000, a sum insufficient for sustaining a career. This model has led to widespread discontent among musicians, many of whom struggle to make a living despite their work being consumed globally.

INTERRUPTING MYSELF: The Spotify Ghost Track Scandal: How Streaming Devalues Artists

Spotify, once heralded as the saviour of the music industry, has instead become a case study in how streaming platforms extract disproportionate value from artists while maximising their own profits. A particularly egregious example is the ghost track scandal, in which Spotify has been accused of filling curated playlists with pseudonymous or AI-generated tracks—often created by production houses or third-party companies that accept lower royalty rates.

What Are Ghost Tracks?

Ghost tracks are songs attributed to unknown or non-existent artists, typically designed to blend into popular genres such as ambient, chill, lo-fi, or classical. They are frequently inserted into Spotify’s most streamed playlists—those dedicated to background listening, study music, and relaxation.

• Unlike traditional artists, these “musicians” do not tour, engage with fans, or build an audience.

• The production of these tracks is outsourced to music creation firms that accept dramatically lower per-stream payments (or complete buyouts!) than traditional licensing agreements.

• In many cases, Spotify itself allegedly commissions or promotes these tracks, allowing them to reduce their royalty payouts significantly.

Why Does Spotify Do This?

The financial incentive is clear: By replacing human-made music with corporate-commissioned or AI-generated tracks, Spotify minimises its royalty expenses while keeping listeners engaged. Every stream directed towards a ghost track is a stream not paid at full artist rates, allowing the platform to retain more of its subscription revenue.

Investigations by Music Business Worldwide and The Verge have suggested that major labels are complicit, as they often create ghost tracks through subsidiaries or affiliated production companies. These tracks then game the system, accumulating millions of plays while independent musicians struggle to earn a living.

The Consequences for Artists and Culture

The ghost track scandal is not just an economic issue—it’s a cultural crisis that erodes the integrity of music itself.

• Financial Devastation for Artists – For every ghost track inserted into a playlist, an independent artist loses a potential revenue stream. Spotify already pays artists a meagre $0.003 to $0.005 per stream (around $3,000-$5,000 per million plays). When ghost tracks dominate algorithmic recommendations, real musicians earn even less.

• Homogenisation of Music – By prioritising low-cost, anonymous tracks, Spotify is actively discouraging musical diversity, replacing human creativity with algorithmic filler.

• The Death of Discovery – Playlists once helped emerging artists gain exposure. Now, they serve as cost-cutting tools, ensuring that listeners engage with music that is cheap to license rather than culturally valuable.