• Spotify has added a new 'skip ahead' button for all podcasts on the platform, except for Spotify Originals
• It allows you to skip over built-in ads and other promotional content, but does not apply to ads sold by Spotify
• Ad-funded shows could be significantly impacted, now there's concern for the future of podcasts

One of the best parts of having a Spotify Premium membership is the ad-free music streaming experience, however some podcasts still come with ad interruptions — but the platform has quietly rolled out a solution users have been pining for.

Last week users spotted a new ‘Skip ahead’ button that allows listeners to skip through certain parts of a podcast episode more efficiently, including sponsorships, introductions, and any kind of promotional content. This doesn’t apply to ads sold by Spotify, however.

Though Spotify hasn’t formally announced the new tool, it’s been cropping up for more users (including myself) since it was first spotted. We reached out to Spotify, who shared the following statement with us:

“We regularly conduct tests at Spotify — some tests become permanent features, while others help inform future product development. We're exploring ways to make podcast listening and viewing more intuitive for Premium subscribers based on how people use the platform, with the goal of helping listeners spend more time enjoying podcasts. We'll continue to evolve the experience as we learn.”

If you thought that all podcasts in Spotify were ad-free like music playback, you’re mistaken. Basically, when creators record podcast shows they often receive sponsorship from brands which are mentioned throughout an episode, so these podcasts are delivered to Spotify with ads already baked in.

Prior to the rollout of the ‘Skip ahead’ button you could skip through ads by tapping the 15-second skip icon, but this required a lot of guesswork and you're more prone to accidentally skipping further than needed. With Spotify’s new skip function, it skips through promotional messages straight through to the beginning of the next section doing the work for you.

It’s safe to say that many subscribers will be thrilled about the addition of the ‘Skip ahead’ button, because skipping through ads is one of the most-shared pet peeves among podcast listeners. Besides, it’s frustrating to be paying for a ‘Premium’ experience and still having to sit through these segments. It also puts a lot of the control back into the hands of subscribers, but what looks like a mere skip button to users is industry-changing for creators and businesses.

For a large number of ad-funded podcasts, creators and hosts rely on users to listen to promotional messages in episodes in order to generate revenue. Not only is it one of the primary ways for podcasters to make money, it's a tactical way to sneak ads into the Premium experience.

While the tool is a big win for listeners on the one hand, others argue that it opens the door for a huge loss on the other — the more users skip through an episode’s ads, the less money hosts make. And because the ‘Skip ahead’ button appears when a creator promotes premium subscriptions for brands that sponsor them, they miss out on other opportunities for monetization.

In addition to the losses it could pose for podcasters, the hypocrisy of Spotify exempting its own shows and ads from the ‘Skip ahead’ tool has sparked criticism as it could have a serious impact on its competitors and their ad-funded shows.

Max Tani from Semafor dissects in his own coverage, sharing the following: “The new skip button underscores Spotify’s push toward premium subscriptions. It’s prioritizing steady, recurring revenue and cementing a two-tiered advertising system, in which marketing bought directly through Spotify can’t be skipped — while publishers’ own ads can be, devaluing them”.

With these concerns circulating, Spotify clarified to us that its new 'Skip ahead' button won't cause any long-term changes to podcasts and creators alike. The platform told us that its new skip button "has been designed to improve the Premium listener experience while maintaining the integrity of ad delivery".

The platform added that it's been "seeing audiences reinvest the time saved by listening to more content and spending more time with podcasts overall, so [we] don't expect these changes to impact monetization for creators negatively".

Spotify’s new skipping function is still very fresh, but one that's already proven to be quite divisive. It's unclear whether or not the company will device to build on this, but as far as the user experience goes, the tool seems to have improved it slightly.

The 2020s has seen a huge shift in music, and the thirst for new releases has never been this parched — we have the pandemic to blame for that. Now, artists are pumping out albums like never before, and it’s become quite the challenge to keep up with this sonic saturation.

Back in 2023, I decided to take action. I started recording my favorite songs released throughout the year by adding them all into one big playlist on Spotify, starting afresh and creating a new playlist at the turn of the new year. Three years later, I’ve kept up the momentum, and now I’ve got four stacked playlists (one each for 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026).

But as the years have gone by, my playlists have done more than simply record the songs that defined every 365 days. Not only can I immediately refer to them whenever someone asks me ‘what were your favorite songs of 2025?’ for example, but they give me a comprehensive overview of how my music taste has evolved.

It’s become integral to my music streaming regime, and Spotify folders have helped boost my playlist organization further — but I’m waiting for an easier way to group my favorite albums of the year.

Spotify locked playlist folders behind the desktop experience for 15 years, but since it rolled the feature out for mobile back in April, it’s been a huge help in grouping my playlists, especially for my ‘Year in Music’ series.

Following the launch of folders, Spotify increased its Library pins limit from 4 to 20, so now I can finally pin my ‘Year in Music’ folder to my library without having to scroll through the cluttered mess to reach it. It’s a win-win situation, but I still think there’s room for improvement.

While I love a hit single, albums are my favorite way to enjoy music, and New Music Friday has brought back the album release as an event (thank you, Beyoncé). Though you can now freely group playlists in folders in Spotify, I’m still waiting for the platform to roll out the option to do this with albums.

That said, there’s currently a small workaround. You can create album folders by adding all the songs from one album to a playlist, then adding that playlist to a folder to keep track of your favorite releases, repeating the process with each album.

It’s handy, but it adds more steps to the process and doesn’t look as neat or refined. Additionally, I’ve also tried adding several albums to make one monster playlist of my favorite yearly releases, but this ends up looking even more ridiculous.

For a music platform that prides itself on being the first one with social media-like features, Spotify sure needs to improve the organization of these tools. As a result of the messiness of my Library, I’ve resorted to using third-party services to group my favorite albums into chronological and concise lists.

Musicboard is one of my favorites because you can review music, curate your own lists, and interact with other music fans more smoothly. It’s essentially Letterboxd for music, and just like Letterboxd Pro, you can have access to additional features and customize your profile to reflect your musical identity. That said, it would be even better if I could do this from one place in the streaming platform that gives me my music fix.

It’s refreshing to know that there are platforms out there that understand what tools music enthusiasts want alongside access to the music itself. For me personally, my listening experience isn’t over as soon as a song or album comes to a close — I need to actively log what I’m listening to, and having a cluttered abundance of albums saved into one massive list in Spotify just wrecks my nerves.

Spotify wants to introduce new ways for listeners to engage with the artists they love the most, all while expressing their own creativity.

The streamer’s audio mixing feature for playlists has sky-rocketed in popularity, introducing a new way for listeners to modify their playlists. Now Spotify is working on a new AI-powered fan-made covers and remix tool — and it’s seeking the help of Merlin.

Spotify’s upcoming remix tool will come as a subscription add-on, though we don’t know when it’s due to drop or how much it will be on top of the current $12.99/ £12.99/ AU$15.99 monthly Spotify Premium plan.

Despite knowing very little about it, we do know that the remix feature will garner significant attention across the board of users, artists, organizations, and analysts alike. So what’s the end-goal for Spotify, and what are people saying about its potential knock-on effects for musicians and listeners?

What is the agreement?

On August 4, Spotify and digital licensing partner Merlin announced a new agreement that would give artists on labels under the Merlin name the option to lend their music to Spotify’s remix feature. Merlin is the second organization to sign on to the deal, following Universal Music Group in May.

For Spotify, the goal is simple: to ‘give listeners a new way to engage with the music they love from participating artists and songwriters,’ as stated in the announcement. Spotify also says the tool ‘will create an additional revenue stream for participating artists’.

However, despite knowing the tool will be AI-powered, Spotify hasn’t gone into detail as to exactly how it will allow listeners to create their own remixes of their favorite songs. The discourse around AI-generated slop is still a hot topic, and Spotify is still bearing the brunt of harsh criticism, so its venture into launching AI-powered music add-ons has left everyone scratching their heads.

What are Spotify’s competitors saying?

As far as rival music streamers go, it’s safe to say the top dogs aren’t too interested in integrating AI throughout their respective UXs. While the likes of Apple Music and Tidal use algorithmic recommendations to fuel discovery, the number of generative AI tools is nowhere near as saturated as Spotify.

Listening to an artist’s music in the way it was released is the only concern for most companies, particularly for Dan Mackta, Managing Director at Qobuz, who gave us the following statement: “Qobuz isn’t looking at anything like this. The finished music that great artists release is good enough for us and our community”.

The desire to keep the traditional listening experience in place is quite prevalent on the one hand. Some users just want to kick back with an album or playlist, hit the play button, and let the music do its thing. But as music analyst and founder of MIDiA Research Mark Mulligan points out, the yearning for active participation is growing.

Mulligan detailed this in a comment shared with us: “A growing share of consumers want to do more than just listen. Audio modification is an opportunity both to tap into consumer creativity and fandom. Playing around with your favourite artist’s song is an ultimate expression of fandom”.

Additionally, he backed this up with his own findings from the recent MIDiA Q1 2026 consumer survey: “The potential of audio modification is significant. Consumer demand is clear, with 54% of consumers interested in some form of audio modification, from changing speed to swapping vocals, rising to 80% for 16–19-year-olds”.

Participatory music is a rising phenomenon, and software labels like A Vinyl Bar in Shibuya want to create experiences that go beyond just listening to a song. However, AI is out of the question, and the creativity is placed in the hands of the user, not generated by a machine.

What are artists/ organizations saying?

In light of Spotify’s announcement, it’s not just competitors that are having their say on the AI-powered remix tool. Additionally, artists and music organizations are questioning the long-term financial effects the feature could have.

Musician’s Union is a UK-based organization that represents artists in all areas of the music industry, and its General Secretary Naomi Pohl views Spotify’s partnership with two minds.

“The Merlin and Spotify announcement sounds positive as it suggests artists will have the choice to participate in licensing deals or not and, crucially, that they will share in any revenue generated by the use of their works. This is better than the blanket approach taken by some major labels,” she tells us, but she also raises concerns about how artists will be paid, adding the following:

“However, as with music streaming royalties, there is a question over how artists signed to independent labels will be paid by their label. Artists should in theory get 50% of any revenue their label receives, but in practice this may not happen in all cases as it will depend on the label’s interpretation of the artist’s contract. Many artists signed before AI deals were even conceived of. And, as with music streaming, session or backing musicians on tracks currently stand to receive no share of revenue”.

When it comes to royalties, Spotify has faced severe criticism due to its payment model. Because Spotify pools money generated from subscriptions, it means the most streamed artists over the year will receive a higher percentage of the profits made. So, even if you spend an entire year supporting and streaming an up-and-coming indie band, your subscription money is still going to artists like Taylor Swift.

Royalties aside, the other concern lies within the protection of music in its original form. PRS for Music, who handle the rights and royalties behind music, feel this strongly. “More generally, streaming services are embracing new technologies, including AI, to give fans new ways to engage with the music they love,” a PRS spokesperson told us.

But despite these emerging consumer tools, what could easily get lost is the care for the music itself. PRS fears this will become less of a priority, adding “Creators, and their work, must be central to the development of these new tools. They must be designed specifically to protect the integrity of the work above all else, and to ensure creators are fairly paid for the value they bring to each and every platform”.

At the end of the day, these platforms are there not only for fans to listen and engage with music, but they're there for artists to allow fans to hear music the way they intended. Though Spotify's AI-powered remix tool would be a creative addition to the service, how long will it be before everyone reverts to streaming AI-generated mashups instead of the real thing?

The current state of music streaming is interesting, yet unpredictable. The shift from the CD era into the streaming era has made access to music more ubiquitous, but it’s also thrown up problems: some users aren’t interacting with music like they did before, and the explosive spread of AI is threatening the entire streaming model. Enter Mauhan M. Zonoozy, former Head of Innovation at Spotify, who has plans to tackle both these problems.

Zonoozy left Spotify in 2023, and since then has set up his own music software label, A Vinyl Bar in Shibuya, a record label-meets-production studio that releases playful music apps the way labels drop records, including jetset.fm and Stacks. Essentially, it’s creating digital music playgrounds.

While Shibuya’s products don’t have extensive libraries of music like typical streaming platforms, they offer users different ways to create new sounds, even if you only use them for a couple of minutes. But despite the label still being in its infancy, Zonoozy knows exactly where he wants to take it.

I chatted with Zonoozy about where his post-Spotify career is heading, and his ambitious plans to insert his music services into a streaming world in which AI is becoming a growing presence.

Music is participatory

In a short period of time, Mauhan and his “small team of creative technologists” have released a slew of casual, interactive music platforms across web and mobile — but this is only the beginning.

“I spent years at Spotify and I loved it,” Mauhan tells me. “Incredible company, incredible team. But I think I spent most of my time effectively thinking about what comes next. I started A Vinyl Bar in Shibuya around a simple belief that music is a verb, that the next major music platform should give people something to do with the music. It should be more participatory, more engaging”.

Streaming has certainly made music a lot more accessible, but there was always one thing missing for Mauhan: interaction. “With streaming, you can hear almost anything, anywhere instantly, but the dominant interaction is still effectively sorting through folders and pressing play,” he continues. “There's an entire generation that was growing up playing with music through different mediums and different devices. I think their relationship with everything felt a lot more interactive.”

This sparked a lightbulb moment for Mauhan, and his mission statement is simple: “to empower more people to express themselves with music, or feel self-expressive with music”. This is where his latest project, Bop, comes into play.

Bop is a pocket DJ app, currently in beta, that lets you mix, mash, and mess with music. Its interface is like an MPC workstation, allowing you to create remixes of popular songs by dragging and dropping effects and sounds onto its grid. “We're not all about replacing the creative process,” Mauhan adds. “We're more about building instruments and new ways to express yourself.”

When it comes to the best music streaming services, tools like this aren’t a new concept — Spotify has its own DJ-style mixing feature — but Mauhan believes there’s still more room for music services whose focus is user expression.

“I think there's a yearning for creative expression (in music platforms),” he says. “I think listening to music the way artists created and intended is absolutely a big part of it, but I also think having Legos that you play and interact with, engage with is also very important.

“The next step in our journey is packaging that up into something that is platform scale, and we can actually deploy it and build a larger community of users and fans around it.”

Next stop: a larger music platform

It’s clear that Zonoozy has had a blast developing Shibuya’s array of sonic playground tools, but what I want to know is if there’s a larger music platform on the horizon — and turns out, there is.

“I think there's a bigger platform at the end of the tunnel for sure,” he tells me. “A Vinyl Bar in Shibuya is working actively on building it. I don't think it's gonna look or feel like any streaming platform you've seen before.” Now I’m intrigued — how will this platform compete with the likes of the music streaming big dogs? Turns out Zonoozy has thought about that too.

“We believe it's going to be more participatory,” he shares. “We're not building something that puts the music in the background, we want to put it in the foreground”. And it's as simple as that. “The hints are in the products, and we want things that feel more playful and approachable. I don't think anyone's going to accuse us of building a DSP,” he adds.

Despite it still being in early stages of development, Zonoozy has a lot of faith in Shibuya’s bigger project; but music streaming tools are evolving rapidly as is tech in general, so he’s had to do a lot of thinking ahead.

“My personal belief was that a lot of the cues around where media is going were in the gaming space,” he continues. “And I think interactive media was always a little bit ahead of the rest of the world in terms of film and music. I think because it was closer to technology, it was exploring the more creative technological boundaries of what you could do with media.

“I think now with what's going on and how powerful these computers in our pockets are becoming, there's so much new, cool stuff you can do. It's a responsibility for all of us working in music and tech to figure out ways to do it that supports the industry, the community, and more than anything, the art form.” It occurs to me that Zonoozy is as interested in conserving as he is in innovating.

Will music streaming survive without AI?

It wouldn’t be a discussion about where the music-streaming industry is going without me bringing up AI, and Zonoozy sounds dismissive about AI at first, telling me: “You know what I like about AI? It's easy to spell”.

AI is having a big influence on music platforms in many ways, with algorithmic recommendations and tools such as AI playlist generators now pretty much part of the package. Because these features are right at users’ fingertips, I ask, will there come a time where listeners won’t be able to use services without the help of AI?

Zonoozy has hope, saying, “It's hard for me to imagine a world where people are building things completely void of touching some semblance of AI, but I do believe that there will be products that are not purely driven by generative media.” While he doesn’t necessarily favor the reliance on AI tools to enhance the UX, Zonoozy isn’t against AI altogether. If anything, he acknowledges its benefits, and how it’s helped provide the foundations to his services.

“It's enabling technology for us, it's just not the consumer proposition,” he adds. “Shibuya doesn't build LLMs or ask anyone to prompt music and wait for a finished song, but we do use it as a co-pilot for coding and development. I'd be naïve to say that there's no AI somewhere in the stack there. But on the music side, all the stems are all hand produced”.

He continues, “I'm not anti-AI. I think AI is an incredible, powerful future-facing infrastructure. I think it can build so many cool things and empower so many cool things. I’m a traditionally strong techno optimist in that sense, I think it will lead to incredible discoveries and advancements — it makes coding infinitely easier. But AI is not our product thesis on our side.”

When it comes to streaming services, there’s a huge focus on churning out tools designed to make the listening experience more personalized, more convenient, and more interactive. Given the pace of this evolution, I find it difficult to envisage where streaming culture is headed — Zonoozy shared my uncertainty.

“In terms of streaming specifically, I don't know what's going to happen,” he admits. “The extreme levels of personalization to custom content made for you — I don't know where that line ends. Is it being personalised, or is it being generated for you?”

Growing up music-obsessed, my household CD collection was substantial. Along with my own music, it was largely made up of albums my parents had accumulated separately. Like a library filled with books, it unlocked an educational portal on all things music and ignited my respect for the album.

And yes, I use the best music streaming services to satisfy my daily music needs, but I’m still an album-listener, and I haven’t left physical music out of my consumption habits. That said, I’ve always imagined what it would be like to bring the nostalgia of CD-browsing into the digital era. Thankfully, Ricardo Amorim is doing just that with his start-up company Spine Music.

Launching on Kickstarter this fall, Amorim’s inaugural product is the Spine display, a digital music display you can connect to your Spotify, Apple Music, and Tidal account. But what’s impressive about Spine is that it displays all of your saved albums as if they were a CD collection, which you can browse and play through headphones and speakers.

For a company that’s so new, Amorim’s mission is tunnel vision: to reconnect people with music. As he awaits the launch of Spine, Amorim sat down with me to talk about his product in detail and why he thinks it will never replace physical music.

A display that's been years in the making

Spine was unveiled to the world just this year, but for Amorim, it’s something he’s been thinking about for a lot longer. “The idea itself is something I've been kicking about in my head for years," he tells me. "It started off with me wanting to buy something like it, so it wasn’t like ‘this is a company I should start’; it was more ‘this is a product I need because I love streaming’."

Just two minutes into our conversation, I realized Amorim and I are quite similar. We both appreciate the accessibility and convenience of music streaming, but our attachment to physical music is in our DNA. It’s what keeps us grounded. “I love everything that (streaming) brings me. I love having access to every album under the sun, but I grew up with physical music, and I missed that,” he says, and I get it.

With this in the back of his mind, it all became clear to him, as he tells me, “Surely there's something out there that can bridge that gap.

"I left my job and said ‘you know what, if nobody's making it, then I'll go ahead and make it’. I went on a sabbatical starting last year and took time off to recharge and rethink what I want to do. Then Spine came up again as an idea, and I thought it was the perfect time”.

While Spine is a handy digital music shelf that gives you immediate access to your streaming library, it’s so much more than that for Amorim. “The emotional reconnection with music is what I would like Spine to be able to achieve, but not leaving behind all the benefits that streaming and technology have brought us," he adds.

"I love streaming, but I do feel like if you truly love music and you talk about music and want to move your relationship with it beyond your phone, there are few ways of doing so."

Album-centric with minimal features

Unlike streaming platforms where the user interface is central to the experience, this isn’t a priority for Spine. Instead, Amorim argues that the device’s minimal display encourages higher levels of browsing.

“One core concept of the product is to have no UI. So we designed the whole experience to be about swiping to browse, tap to open, and tap to play," Amorim details, adding "and there are no buttons once you've loaded your library in, it’s just gestures to protect the music”.

The other core concept is to spotlight albums in all their glory, which I raise my glass to. “You can import your playlists, but Spine will behave like a music shelf that displays albums. So, say you import your late-night jazz playlist, it'll pull up all the relevant tracks that are part of that playlist and display that," he tells me.

"There's something different about listening to an album end-to-end that an artist puts so much effort into thinking about. That’s what I wanted to project, hence why there's a deliberate decision in trying to maintain that conceptual connection with a music shelf”. It’s music to my ears.

But there’s one thing Amorim wants to be clear about: Spine is a display, not a player. When you select an album from your collection on Spine, the rest is done through your streaming service of choice, meaning it doesn’t render audio files.

“Spine will trigger the beginning of an album or play something through your streaming service, and then the streaming service will own the relationship with where it goes to play and so on. Once you have that concept in mind, then it's not about queuing, it's about browsing and starting the listening journey,” Amorim tells me, and there’s one particular reason for this.

“People have invested a reasonable amount of money in their own audio gear and hi-fi gear, so it doesn't make sense to me to try to replace that. I feel like we have a different job to do”.

Physical music is never out of the question

Just looking at the images of Spine brings back so many memories of seeing my home CD collection lined up in the cabinet — not to mention it looks great in a home audio setup. There’s just one question going through my head, however: will the convenience of Spine prompt users to stop collecting physical music? Amorim doesn’t think so.

“I don't think it tries to compete with physical media in that sense. What I notice is every time someone connects their library to Spine, there's an emotional wave that hits you when you see your music back on the wall again. You can't explain it; you just feel it,” he elaborates, recalling one of his favorite parts about CD collecting.

He goes on. “My nostalgia comes from browsing the liners of the albums. I remember to this day there's a Pearl Jam album that came with a bunch of little Polaroids, I think it was No Code, and I still love that. I miss it. Spine is not going to go there, and I would love for people to still go and buy those albums and experience that themselves”. At the same time, he reemphasizes Spine’s singular goal.

“It's really about reconnecting people with music. I truly believe that the feeling of connection we have with music goes beyond just the pure sound coming off of it. It's the relationships it can start, it’s the conversations it sparks."

Casual discovery and conversations around music have dipped in the streaming era. For most people, listening to an album is enough, but for those who really appreciate music, discourse is vital. This is something Amorim wants to revive.

“I've recently written about bringing back serendipity and casual discovery. You know, it's having friends over, and they start browsing through your collection and saying ‘oh, I remember this album’, or ‘oh I never heard of this one’," he shares.

But as it stands, Amorim’s focus is introducing Spine to the world and developing a new kind of music player, but he believes there’s already room for growth.

“Right now the core focus is music doing one job really well, but I can see potential in browsing books in a similar manner, and potentially even films and TV to an extent," he believes. "It's that sense of curation that comes with a limited amount of space, even though of course you can swipe and keep going.

"But if you're going to put something up on your wall in your home, you're probably going to have a different level of curation than you would if it's something hidden in your phone that nobody can see. So, I feel like that can apply to other types of media at some point,” he says.

There's still a bit of time before users can get their hands on the Spine display. While pre-orders open on Kickstarter this fall, shipping doesn't start until early 2027, so there's still a bit of a wait. So far, Spine looks like a promising device, and I'm fascinated to see how music lovers take to it.

Things music-lovers enjoy about Qobuz: it was the original hi-res music streaming service and it also offers 24-bit hi-res downloads on demand (ie., no need to subscribe to buy) alongside a regular streaming model. Then, there's the digital Qobuz Magazine, human-first playlists over algorithms, a more ethical payment at significantly higher average per-stream royalties than mainstream competitors, the fact that it refuses to run a free ad-supported tier that devalues music, it continues to transparently publish its financial payout data, it recently added in-track lyrics… I could go on.

But I'm not here to talk to Managing Director Dan Mackta about any of those aspects of Qobuz today, admirable though they are. No, I want to talk to him about generative AI, and Qobuz's strong stance on it, as set out in its February-release AI charter.

If you haven't read the document, the following quote may be enough for now. It reads as follows.

Dan Mackta has made time to speak to me from a hotel room in Connecticut, at 9:30am local time, before setting off on the 100-or-so miles to Rhode Island and the Newport Folk Festival.

Anyone who speaks to Mackta will find a music lover from the Big Apple first and foremost — a businessman not afraid to talk openly and honestly about an industry he knows and loves deeply.

Right now, Mackta is hoping the rumors are true and that Lauryn Hill will indeed make a rare appearance to play a set (she did), adding with no small amount of excitement, "I've wanted to go my whole life, and this is the year it's finally happening".

Ready or Not

Yes, all of these sub-heads are now going to be Lauryn Hill tracks, because I'm jealous of Mackta's upcoming weekend of live music. I ask Mackta how long Qobuz has been concerned with AI-generated audio infiltrating the platform's otherwise notably human-centric offering. It's clear he's not a fan.

"It was a couple of years ago that we noticed the volume of AI content, fake music, whatever you want to call it. It was a problem from the beginning because of the volume of stuff that was being delivered.

"There was already a fraud problem in music streaming — basically content uploaded just for the purposes of fraudulent streaming, money laundering, organized crime and all of that crazy stuff — but generative AI allowed scammers to create this stuff at crazy scale. They do it to hide their tracks; create so much stuff that nobody can even really tell what the heck is going on. So we knew it was a problem.

"We also knew that this content did not fit into our vision for what our music service should be focusing on. So early on, the guys in France — because all of our tech is in France — looked at a few detection solutions that were on the market at the time, about two years ago, and decided to create their own detection methodology.

"So, we started analyzing. The thing is that the analysis takes a long time, so it's being rolled out in stages. All new releases are now analyzed."

Mackta is also refreshingly open about where the company's at with the rollout. "The actual tagging piece of it, which is where we notify the user if something has been detected as AI, hasn't rolled out yet, although it's planned for September. We shall sell no wine before its time!"

DDEX (That Thing)

I ask Mackta about the relevance (or effectiveness) of voluntary AI self-identification as a solution to the problem of 100% AI tracks — the 'Hey, here's an AI content badge; we've created it and given it to labels and distributors, so they'll use it' approach, because it's one we've seen in the form of 'Transparency Tags' on rival sites. Mackta is quick to clarify that actually, it is a new development and does have some value.

"I mean, the DDEX, (Digital Data Exchange, which is the metadata standards-setting organization upon which the music industry is run) recently added some fields to its structure. But it's basically voluntary for the person setting up the music for release.

"They fill in these fields in the DDEX. So it's 'you' and 'title' and the ISRC (International Standard Recording Code — a 12-character unique digital fingerprint that identifies a specific sound recording or music video) and UPC (Universal Product Code, which is similar but for the whole product) and other areas for credits. It's a whole elaborate standard.

"So, they added fields for AI where you're supposed to say if something is 100% generated by AI or if the lyrics were AI-generated.

"Now, some of the DSPs (Digital Service Providers, ie., rival sites) said, ‘All right, we’re starting to get this information from our suppliers, so we're going to surface it in a way that the users can see’ — and we'll have that too; we get the same information. But obviously, big problem: why would a scammer admit? If it's voluntary, it's a partial solution."

The Miseducation

Mackta is keen to impress upon me that while detection is a big part of the issue, it's not just about AI detection when it comes to Qobuz — or for the wider music industry. The company has thought deeply about what it's going to do with this content. "That's why the AI charter was a very comprehensive doc; it wasn't just about AI content", Mackta confirms.

What is the bigger picture? "It was about our philosophy as a company about AI and as a tool in our business — our everything. When we're going to use it and when we're not, and transparency around that. So that was about more than just the AI content."

Mackta sighs. He's ready to pin his colors to the mast. "You'll notice I do not call it 'AI music' because I don't think it's music. I think it's a simulacrum of music to get, you know, critical theory. But it's… it ain't music."

Everything is Everything

I want to know more about the different types of machine learning in music we accept, versus generative AI audio for fraudulent use.

Mackta is incredibly open about the versions of machine learning Qobuz does use. "Listen: there are a lot of tools in music creation workflow that have been around for a long time that are essentially versions of AI. But it's very different when you're using creative tools as a musician versus a scammer saying, 'Give me 10,000 things that sound like music that I can upload, for fraud.'

"Our number one most requested feature was autoplay. Right? When your cue ends, the Qobuz user wants the music to keep playing. So, that's machine learning! That's AI that looks at what you were listening to, and runs an algorithm to figure out what it should play next.

"So, we have that. Users wanted that. We have a few playlists now that are algorithmically generated based on your listening and your favorites. But that's like two clearly marked playlists, and if you don't want that, you never have to look at it.

"The thing is that some people — especially as Qobuz has been getting thankfully bigger and starting to poke into the mainstream — those people are used to those kinds of features and they don't realize it’s AI. We'll always make it clear what's been selected by humans versus what hasn't."

Lost Ones

I posit the idea that some have suggested — that AI is here, it's not going away, and there's an argument for not even trying to stem the slop. Mackta laughs, but he gets it. "I mean, let's be real. We're doomed! But let’s also try to hold it at bay, however we can.

"To me, the whole thing is just a really, really big bummer. You know, it just is so different from ‘why am I in the music business’? Why, really though, do I do this? Having to deal with this issue on top of all the other issues that were already there in music just makes me really sad, and so much time and energy and resources wasted.

"It’s largely an unintended consequence of the streaming business model, with the way revenues are shared; it's always been a target for fraudsters. It's like if every man, woman, child, and dog released three albums last year on the planet, it still wouldn't be as much music as the fake music that’s being shoved down our pipes."

Ex-Factor

I muse that perhaps as long as it's human beings making content for the emotional appreciation of other human beings (which is what Deezer's head of research recently offered, when I interviewed him), perhaps we'll be OK? Mackta is quick to jump in. "Well, and that's what music is! It's the whole thing that makes it all go!

"It's unique. It's a form of communication that taps directly into emotions of humans. So we can take humans out on either side of that equation — it ain't music anymore. What makes music music? You know, if you ask those questions, I think it all becomes pretty clear that this AI stuff may sound like music, but…"

Quite right. So what's the future for Qobuz? And can he speak to the music industry at large? Mackta is less certain, but he definitely isn't keen on one possible development.

"It's not really clear what's going to happen with this generative AI stuff. I thought the music industry would do its usual thing and try to stamp it out. But instead, now these companies are basically licensed by the major labels; if everybody's getting rich off of it, they're not going to try to stamp it out.

"But I do think, in terms of the fraud piece (of the puzzle) and the massive amounts of content that's just being generated purely for the purposes of fraud, the industry is going to come to some kind of resolution about it, because it's just not kosher.

"I don't know exactly what it's going to look like, but Qobuz is part of a trade group, the Music Fights Fraud Alliance (along with other DSPs and distributors and aggregators), and we're all trying to come together — the way the banking industry has come together to share certain information to be able to stop fraud. It's kind of like herding cats."

All Falls Down

And there's another 'what if?' Mackta wants to share. "At Qobuz, we sometimes talk about, like, what if AI fake music becomes something that most people want to listen to, you know? What if that's what's considered music in 10 years? Are we still going to have our philosophy? I would say I hope so. I hope that we stick to our guns and the stuff that makes music special is not going to change.

"And I do think that 90-whatever-percent of people probably could be played AI content and be told it's music, and they wouldn't know. They wouldn't care! And that's a shame. But that's reality.

"However, for people who are just even a little bit into music, I don't think we're going in that direction. I think, if anything, there'll be a backlash coming soon that really values human curation, human creation, and actual artistry and emotion and communication. You know, you just can't fake it."

I tell Mackta that I agree, and that as an occasional performer myself I really hope he keeps up the good fight. He laughs. "Yeah, I mean, if anything, it's gonna force us to dig in even more on these principles. And from a business standpoint, I think that's just fine. I think that success for us is going to be in how we differentiate and stay focused on what we think is important. And so far, so good!"

Agreed. As a loyal Qobuz fan myself, I'd go so far as to say it's a case of so far, so very good.

Deezer has never been backwards about coming forwards regarding the scourge of AI slop infecting our music streaming platforms. Just days ago, the French streaming site announced that over half of all new daily uploads to its site are AI — up from 44% in April and just over 30% at the end of last year. So, things are only getting worse.

Luckily, the platform not only implements its own proprietary filter to find, label and in some cases purge AI tracks from its site; it also recently made the tech available to everyone, irrespective of your chosen streaming platform.

But how was Deezer's own in-house AI filter developed, why is Deezer so keen on tackling AI tracks, and what does the company think the future of music streaming will look like — you know, for actual humans still trying to make it their career?

I spoke with Manuel Moussallam, Deezer's Head of Research, and Jesper Wendel, the company's Head of Communications, to get their takes on all this and more.

Moussallam agreed to speak with me on the morning after the company's summer party, held at a music venue in Paris. As he was "Checking if the hangover is showing on my face", I couldn't help but think it's good to know that proper live gigs and parties still matter to a firm whose success hangs on our love of music.

Identifying an issue (back in 2021)

How long has Deezer's research arm been thinking "Okay, this AI thing is an issue, and we have to do something about it"? Moussallam explains that the site's comprehensive AI filter, now available to anyone who wants it, has been almost five years in the making.

"It all started in scientific conferences back in later 2021 or early 2022, because the generative models that were already working for images and videos were starting to make real progress — like real scientific progress — for music," he says. "That was probably a couple of years before the first commercial services were appearing.

"So, since we participate a lot in these scientific conferences, we saw people from Google and from Meta sharing these foundation models that were starting to work quite well for creating whole pieces of music. Not just snippets of 10 seconds like before, but really whole songs. So I guessed that eventually, if you're able to generate a lot of music, you can also distribute it quite easily — and down the road, it would end up in our catalogs."

"I would say we started working on the project in 2022, first with some complicated methods, because that's unfortunately a reflex for people like me — to try to do AI to capture AI — but then eventually we simplified a lot because we made some mathematical discoveries on how those models work.

"We realized that we didn't actually need a big AI to understand and to detect these pieces. Just by relying on some plain signal processing and mathematical tools, we were able to actually detect these artifacts for most of the models out there.

"Yeah, I think we deployed the first version of the detector in September 2023 — and we communicated the first numbers when we were able to scale it up to the catalog a few months later."

A big problem — and it's only getting worse

I wonder why, given that various rival music streaming sites have implemented 'Transparency Tags' (read: optional AI badges that place the onus on distributors and labels to tell listeners that what they're listening to was not written or performed by a human), Deezer chose to create a comprehensive filter — and then to release it to all? While admirable and commendable, that's a lot of R&D budget on AI, no?

Moussallam laughs. "There are many aspects, but I guess firstly, we did it just because we wanted to see if we were able to do it. On my team, we do a lot of audio analysis. So, knowing was the first motivation."

"But then, I think since Suno, Udio, and all these tools are trained on unlicensed catalogs, I was pretty convinced that eventually we would have to take down all this music, because it would be considered as plagiarism or copyright infringement in some sense — which may be the case if the legal battles end up that way.

"So at some point we thought that, okay, if people agree with us that it's kind of unlawful to train this model with all this music and they ask us to remove all the content from Suno in the catalog, we need to be prepared. We need to be able to do it. So, that was another big motivation.

"It didn't turn out like that — for now — but it may be that one day people tell us, 'OK, everything that was generated with that AI model prior to this date in the future, when people actually have agreements and compensate musicians for their work, all of this needs to be removed'. And we would have to be prepared for that."

Putting information into the hands of people who need to make decisions

I mention that across all of my audio streaming subscriptions (not a flex, I simply review audio kit for a living), I tried the Deezer AI filter, and none of my playlists contained AI, bar one: my Tidal catalog listed 1% AI content — and to know what the pesky tracks are I'd need to switch to Deezer. I ask what the reception has been since the release of the software for all.

"Mostly people are happy with the tool, I think everyone just wants to know," replied Moussallam.

"Ever since we started deploying this detector, we've been talking to major labels, obviously, but also indie labels, sometimes small publishers. All of them just wanted to know. Some of them made some pretty interesting discoveries on how their members were using — or actually not using — these technologies; so overall it's really about putting this information into the hands of people who need to have it to make some decisions.

"Implementing some transparency for our users was also a main motivation for us to flag the content on the website. And then we realized that people had to come to Deezer to check an album, say, to see if it had the label. And we said, 'Okay, we can also create a tool just for you to check — you will see for yourself how contaminated your whole library is on other platforms".

To purge or not to purge, based on AI markers?

Speaking to Moussallam even briefly, it become clear that he's a scientist as well as a musician (among his many accolades is a Master's Degree in Acoustics, Signal processing and Computer science applied to Music, from the Université Pierre et Marie Curie).

So when I ask how this proprietary new filter works to pick out 100% AI-generated content — which I assume is fully text-prompted music — and whether Moussallam and his team are looking to take it further, to stuff that's only 50% AI generated, say, things get more serious.

"It's a very complicated question," Moussallam concedes. "Right now, we can't really say that we only detect fully AI-generated songs, because what we detect is the presence of markers of AI generation in a song, and we detect the strength of these markers in the song.

"When we flag an album, it's because these markers are strong enough for us to be confident that it's been AI generated at some point.

"But we don't know if you wrote the lyrics for yourself, for instance. We also don't know if the song contains very few elements of human creation; that's not something that our detector is able to do right now — but that's the focus of our current research.

"So we really want to be able to boil down to the stem level and be able to make a decision based on a stem by stem case, because obviously we're seeing a lot of hybrid cases, and a lot of artists are also integrating AI tools into their creative process.

"So, these very strong markers of AI, we're starting to see them spread in human creations, and we need to be able to disentangle that from what you mentioned, like purely text-prompted music curation".

Can the markers the filter picks up recognize whether it has flagged an AI vocal, say, or artificially generated instruments — and how about stolen melodies?

"No, no, we can't go that far," admits Moussallam. "I mean, we are working on the stem by stem detection, but right now we detect markers — and we are not so sure where they come from."

He smiles. "I mean, we have ongoing research, but not something that I can publicly share. When it comes to detecting chord progressions or melodic impressions or plagiarism metrics, we are not so interested in that, because it would lead us too far. And I mean, there are so many songs that share only four chords! I think that debate is way, way out of our hands in any case."

What's next at Deezer — and can AI and humans coexist happily in music?

Perhaps surprizingly for someone who's spent nearly five years building the tech to flag and potentially quash AI music tracks, when I ask Moussallam where he thinks Deezer and online music will be in 10 years time — and whether he'd like to see all flagged AI tracks gone from the site — he instead builds a quite compelling case for computation in music.

"Well, the very first piece of music that was written by a computer dates back to 1953 I think, back in the days where computers were actually whole buildings built around them.

"Ever since people built computers, they tried to make music with computers. I think that's the story of the 20th century. I'm confident people are going to make great things with these new creative tools. It enables some stuff, and I guess as long as it's being used by humans to create cool music for other humans to listen to, we are very fine with that.

"What we're really fighting at Deezer is automated music generation, people who script computers to generate songs — I mean thousands of songs — and uploading them in batches to streaming platform to try to overwhelm and flood and basically really replace human creation with automated creation.

"So, I guess I hope music will stay artisan, as we say in French, so something that humans do to have the attention of other humans. That's really what I guess drives our motivation. If the music includes computers, that won't be a such a revolution — computers are fine, numerical instruments are fine — it's just who is using them to create that matters, in the end."

Jesper Wendell is keen to hone in on the fraudulent aspect of AI slop and the payment dilution for for artists, because that's also one of the motivations for stifling the recent development of the AI-in-music game.

"Fraud has always been there, it's just easier now with AI music," he says. "And if you upload thousands of tracks, then you can sort of spread that fraud across more and more tracks — and that's something that we want to get rid of as much as possible".

I mention that from the perspective of the consumer (i.e., me), the key annoyance is tracks making it into our recommended playlists and ultimately usurping streaming royalties — small amounts maybe, but still — which we'd prefer would go to a band that we actually like.

Moussallam emphatically agrees. "That’s really something we wanted to avoid. Anyone listening to AI music without knowing that it's AI music, like just feeding it to people in a recommendation? That's something that was very clear for us from the beginning we wanted to avoid. Because that's an awful feeling, I think for everyone".

Given that Tidal only recently drew its anti-AI line in the sand, Bandcamp's strong and concise stance was set out in January of this year, and Spotify's Verified by Spotify badge certifies that an artist is human but doesn't help filter out the slop from any generated playlists, I think it's safe to say that Deezer is leading the charge here.

Based on Reddit threads I see every day, I think I speak on behalf of thousands of music lovers when I say we're grateful for everything the Deezer team is doing to combat the AI infestation trying to take hold on our streaming sites. Where do we go from here? For now, trust in Moussallam's work.

• Spotify is rumored to launch its own song ID tool
• Changes in the Android app were spotted, with references to 'Identify a song’, ‘listening’, and ‘analyzing’
• It could add a level of convenience when adding identified songs to a playlist, just like Apple Music's Shazam shortcut

There’s one thing that Spotify has over Apple Music, and that’s music discovery features, though the latter service has the edge when it comes to music recognition — but that could all change soon.

In a recent investigation from Android Authority, the outlet found lines of code in the latest version of the Spotify app which suggest the platform is working on its own song identification feature. Though this has only been found in Spotify’s Android app, we wouldn’t rule out the possibility of it launching on iOS.

As it is with every rumor, we’re taking this with a pinch of salt until more information surfaces, but Android Authority’s findings present some pretty convincing evidence, showing text that reads ‘Identify a song’, ‘listening’, and ‘analyzing’. It seems the feature will need access to your device’s microphone, and will display pop-ups when a song can’t be identified.

Essentially, it sounds like Spotify is developing its own in-house version of Shazam, which could act as a band-aid for many music fans out there who, like myself, rely on third-party music-recognition software to put titles to songs.

When Apple bought Shazam in 2018, it thrust the music-recognition platform right into the iOS experience. Instead of needing to use the standalone Shazam app, you can add the ‘Recognize Music’ tab to your iOS Control Center for easier access, and Shazam will be right there at your fingertips.

It also works wonders for quickly adding songs to your Apple Music library. When you Shazam a song, a pop-up reading ‘Add to Apple Music?’ appears and all of your tracks will be sent to your library. Until now, this level of convenience wasn't available for Spotify users.

Since Apple took ownership of Shazam, Apple Music and its users have greatly benefited, but listeners who use Spotify, Tidal, and the rest of the best music streaming services have been missing out. Not all was lost however; last year Shazam rolled out a feature where each song you identified using the app would be automatically added to a special playlist in your Spotify account titled ‘My Shazam Tracks’.

I have to say, this small but effective feature has become one of my most-used tools for keeping tabs on new music, but if you Shazam quite a lot of songs from different genres, it creates a very messy-looking playlist.

Even after my Shazamed songs have been added to ‘My Shazam Tracks’, I still go back into the playlist to individually move songs into my other playlists — which is why a native Spotify song ID tool would go a long way, and would be even better if you can add it to your iOS Control Center.

Just think about it: you’re out and about and a song starts playing which you know you’ve definitely heard before, but can’t remember for the life of you what it’s called or who sings it. A simple swipe down to the Control Center and a tap of a button gives you the song title in seconds, and then it directs you to your Spotify Library where you can add your recently-discovered song to a specific playlist.

We’ve reached out to Spotify for a comment, who replied with the following:

"We're always exploring ways to improve our product and deliver more value to users, but we don't comment on speculation around possible new features and don't have anything new to share at this time".

Listen up, music fans: the best streaming service in the world* just got even better.

I'm talking, of course, about Qobuz — the French streamer that we consider to be the best music streaming service for high-res audio and which has just rolled out a bunch of updates that fix some of its biggest problems.

And, to be clear, it did have a few. While Qobuz is without question the best music streamer if you care more about audio quality than anything else (and are you really a music lover if you don't?), it has traditionally lagged behind the likes of Spotify when it comes to user experience and features.

This update brings a bunch of nice quality-of-life changes that make it a slicker, easier platform to use, as well as adding some sorely missed features that most of us have come to expect these days — for instance, lyrics.

Let's dig in.

* According to me, not TechRadar as a whole

Fixing a hole

There were two big things that jumped out to me when I switched from Spotify to Qobuz in late 2025.

One was the incredible leap in audio quality; oh my word, you have not lived until you've heard Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot in glorious 24-bit / 192kHz quality on a decent hi-fi.

The second was how bare bones the app experience was. Spotify is many things, and not all of them good, but its app is generally a joy to use. In contrast, the Qobuz interface felt distinctly lacking, as if so much effort had gone into making the music sound good that they hadn't spent much time making it look good too.

This new update changes that as follows:

1. The Qobuz player has a fresh new look

The first change is on the face of it a relatively superficial one: the player that displays when you're listening to music has been redesigned. However, I'd actually rate this as pretty consequential.

For instance, the player now changes color to match the artwork of whatever you're listening to. Who cares? Well, me. Immersion is a massive part of the music-listening experience, and opening the app to see that its background is of a similar hue to the album art helps to keep you in the mood. After all, if you're listening to Joy Division or The Cure, you don't want a bright yellow sunny screen to snap you out of your intentional gloom.

There's more to the overhaul than just the colors, though. The fact that the player stays visible during navigation is appreciated, while the split-screen tablet mode — which I haven't tried yet — promises to make multi-tasking easier still.

2. You now get lyrics!

This is a big one. I've been on the Qobuz Beta for several months and so have had access to lyrics on the app for a while — and frankly, I can't imagine (musical) life without them. After all, there's only so many times you can listen to Total Football by Parquet Courts before you really, really need to know whether he's genuinely saying something rude about Tom Brady at the end. (He is.)

It is fairly astonishing that it's taken this long for Qobuz to add lyrics to the service, admittedly, but better late than never eh?

The lyrics also scroll as the song is playing, with the current line highlighted, and there's even translation of foreign-language lyrics via single button press.

One caveat: your experience may differ depending on what you listen to. My tastes are geared more towards the relatively obscure alternative rock side of things, and some of my favorite tunes either don't have lyrics at all or don't have the fancy scrolling-and-highlighting-and-translating options. But hopefully the catalogue will expand over time.

3. There's a new Explore section

One of the big differences between Spotify and Qobuz is in how rarely the latter service tries to persuade you what to listen to. In many ways this is a plus point; for all of its supposed algorithmic expertise, Spotify never really knew me too well. And I definitely didn't need to be told that I should be listening to some high-energy party playlist just because it was a Friday, thank you very much.

Qobuz's new Explore section shows how it should be done. Simply click the icon when listening to any song and you'll be shown an excellent overview of related content: albums by the artist, playlists that feature them, magazine articles about them (yes, Qobuz has a built-in magazine), more from the same label, similar artists, similar releases, and genre classics.

It's a one-stop-shop for music you might well want to listen to next, and its contextual nature really lifts it above the competition and makes it far more useful than most.

4. You can easily go deeper

Want more than what the Explore section offers? You can go deeper still by clicking the Info icon. This already existed on Qobuz, serving up credits for the musicians on the track and the label behind it. But it's now been expanded to give easy access to an artist bio, label bio, info about the audio quality and the ability to follow artist and label.

5. The queue finally makes (some) sense

Qobuz's queue feature was definitely not its strongest point in the past, although many of the criticisms I've seen aimed at it are based entirely on the fact that it doesn't work exactly like Spotify's; not worse, it's just slightly different.

Anyway, it's another area that's received a freshening up here: it's easier to see what's coming up next, you can easily add or remove tracks from the queue with a swipe, you can reorder by dragging and dropping. Simple things, but things that make it slicker to use and so are welcome all the same.

What's next?

Qobuz probably still has some work to do on the user-experience front if it wants to convert more people from Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal. The desktop apps lack some of the enhanced features now found in the mobile versions, for instance, and I still have some major frustrations around playlists in particular — not least the 2,000 track limit that has broken some of my favorite collections.

But that's for the future. For now, I can rejoice in the fact that the gap between Qobuz's audio chops and its user experience has been sharply narrowed. If you love music I recommend you give your ears a gift and try it out.

The new Qobuz features are available now on the service's iOS and Android apps for mobile and tablet.

• Spotify has rolled out its first music video charts playlist
• It's part of the platform's steady expansion of its music video ecosystem
• Spotify is once again battling YouTube, but it's not close competition

Music videos in Spotify are becoming one of the most popular ways to engage in digital music streaming — now the service is expanding its video ecosystem in another attempt to one-up YouTube.

For the first time, Spotify is bringing music videos to its Charts hub with the launch of Music Video Charts Global, a new top 50 playlist of the most streamed videos. Additionally, the platform has also rolled out a new Videos for You editorial playlist, which offers personalized music video recommendations based on your streaming habits.

Music Video Charts Global rolled out on July 21, and is already playing a big role in Spotify’s gradual expansion of its video content. Recently, Spotify altered the video uploading process for musicians, allowing them to upload their own videos directly through Spotify for Artists instead of going through their label and distributor to do so.

Artists can also pitch videos to Spotify’s editorial team to give them a better chance to feature in playlists such as Best New Videos, Live Performances, and Today's Top Videos.

If you were like me and spent most of your youth scouring through music TV channels before they were sadly phased out, Spotify’s new music video charts might evoke a sense of nostalgia — but the platform is doing it in a way that’s designed for the streaming era.

Music Video Charts Global ranks the top 50 videos around the world based on daily music video streams, refreshing daily at 6pm ET / 11pm GMT / 8am AEST (the next day). Spotify also shared that it will spotlight the top 10 music videos across its social media channels every Tuesday — but there’s another reason why the best music streaming service is doubling down on its commitment to music videos.

Even though Spotify is trying to emulate these channels, a form of music consumption that once shaped listening habits, the platform is backing its music video expansion with data linked directly to streaming.

In an email sent to us, Spotify shared “After streaming a video on Spotify, listeners stream that song 64% more over the next three weeks, are 1.4x more likely to save it, share it, or add it to a playlist, and go on to stream the rest of that artist's catalog 57% more”.

For Spotify, its new ecosystem does more than lead to higher fan engagement and video views — it also gives artists an opportunity to boost audio streams. This is beneficial for both fans and artists, but as someone who doesn’t use Spotify for music videos I see this as just another way for it to compete with YouTube.

The Spotify-YouTube battle continues

Spotify has been playing catch up to YouTube ever since it rolled out music videos in 2024. Although there are users out there who do use Spotify for videos, and the platform has the numbers to support it, I’m just not one of those people. As soon as the music TV channels went bust, it was YouTube that filled the void for me, and it’s been that way ever since.

However, Spotify knows it can’t just build a music video ecosystem and hope that YouTube users will flock to it, it has to offer something extra — which is why it’s taken advantage of early releases. For example, artists like Taylor Swift and BTS have each released music videos to Spotify as exclusive content before uploading the videos to YouTube in the days after. This is where Spotify has the upper-hand.

Because Spotify is centered around music and audio streaming, it’s more likely that artists will gravitate towards the company when it comes to exclusive partnerships. Though YouTube has its own music platform, its standard video player houses content across countless genres from web series, interviews, how-tos, vlogs, and so much more — so music isn't the only place it makes its money. Besides, YouTube Music isn’t as influential as Spotify.

Do I think that Spotify is going good by bringing classic music video charts into the streaming era? I guess so — but I still don’t think it’s enough to entice loyal YouTube-first music video viewers to make the switch.

• Singer Lorde called out Spotify's AI 'About the Song' feature
• She says it featured incorrect details and limits free interpretation for listeners
• Users are starting to catch onto its flaws

Spotify is always dropping new tools to enhance your listening experience, but one of its newest features has been called out by one of the most influential pop artists of this generation.

New Zealand singer-songwriter Lorde slammed the best music streaming service’s ‘About the Song’ feature which launched back in February. The tool is currently in beta, and pulls information from third-party sources to create AI-generated summaries of individual songs offering context and background.

According to the pop star, one of the summaries for her song ‘Current Affairs’ mentioned incorrect details which were sourced from themusic.com.au, stating the following:

“On her Ultrasound World Tour, Lorde turns Current Affairs into a full-on performance piece, stripping down to underwear while a dancer pours water over her stomach so the song plays out like the shower scene she talks about on stage”.

The singer didn’t hold back, taking to Instagram Stories to call out the platform while highlighting the dangers features like this pose on listeners:

“Hey @spotify I’m gonna go out on a limb and say we don't want this. Not only is this inaccurate (not the song I did that in) but reducing a song to an AI-generated meaning right at the source feels like it limits free interpretation IMO. At least make it possible for artists to opt out please,” she wrote.

It didn’t take long for Lorde’s comments to spark reactions from all corners of the internet, and Spotify has come forward to offer clarity from its side. We reached out to the platform for further comment, and a Spotify spokesperson replied with the following:

“We built ‘About the Song’ because fans want to dig into the stories behind the music. It’s still in beta. The info comes from articles across the internet, and when something’s off, we move fast to fix it, like we did here. Getting it right matters to us”. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the song summary has been removed.

‘Half the fun is figuring out your own meaning’

At the time of the feature’s launch, many Spotify subscribers welcomed ‘About the Song’ with open arms — I even went into detail about how much I couldn’t get over it and how it taught me things I never knew before. But despite the positive reception from subscribers, Lorde’s observation of the AI feature has sounded the alarm for music lovers.

Comment from r/Music

Aside from its inaccuracies, Lorde’s comments highlight another big issue with AI features like ‘About the Song’; they remove the listener’s opportunity to interpret the music for themselves. This has been the topic of many online discussions since Lorde aired her comments, especially on Reddit — ‘half the fun is figuring out your own meaning instead of getting AI Cliff Notes right away,’ one user says.

But according to others in the same Reddit thread, it speaks volumes about how art consumption is evolving. Whether you’re reading a book, watching a movie, or listening to an album, everyone looks at things differently which is what allows conversations and debates to flow. Another user went the extra mile, saying “If you need AI to tell you what it thinks the song means, you've stopped thinking”.

That said, Spotify isn’t the only music platform that dives into the background of music — Apple Music includes detailed summaries of albums located under the Play button — but these pockets of context are all written and developed by Apple Music’s editorial team, who don’t rely on AI for third-party sourcing.

But the album summaries is where Apple Music draws the line. As soon as you hit Play the platform leaves you to get lost in the music — which subscribers would rather have over what Spotify is trying to sell them.

• Prices are going up across almost all the Apple Music tiers
• There are some bumps in Apple Music prices too
• These are the first price hikes we've seen since October 2022

Apple Music is the latest subscription package to get a bump in price, leaving users with the choice between paying more or losing access to the streaming part of their library. The bundled Apple One package that includes Apple Music now costs more as well.

As reported by Music Business Worldwide (via Engadget), the reason cited by Apple is "rising licensing costs". It's the first price hike for this particular subscription we've seen since October 2022. The new monthly prices are below:

The Apple One price increases are less clear, as they're not as easily available on the Apple website. It appears the Apple One Family plan is now $27.95 (up $2) / AU$24.95 (unchanged) per month and the Apple One Premier plan is now $39.95 (also up $2) / AU$52.95 (up AU$3), though the Apple One Individual plan has stayed at $19.95 / AU$24.95. Internationally, similar price rises are likely.

This comes at a time when everything tech-related is getting more expensive, from laptops to streaming services. Exploding AI resource demand has sent the price of memory and storage rocketing, and that continues to have a knock-on effect everywhere.

Loss of control

Apple raises prices for Apple Music and Apple One subscriptions from r/apple

Apple is of course by no means the first company to put up its subscription prices, but it's a reminder of the pitfalls of the digital rental model. As soon as you stop paying, you lose access — so if you need a service, you have no choice but to accept the higher price.

The online reaction has mostly focused on this too: "It's not even about the cost sometimes," writes one Redditor. "It's about loss of control over your finances. Companies can jack up their prices whenever they want." Few commenters seem ready to quit Apple Music, though many are pointing out the billions that Apple has in the bank.

Apple Music doesn't have a free tier like Spotify does, but it beats every other music streaming service in the support it gives you for local files. If you have enough MP3s and ripped CDs, you can use it perfectly well without a subscription.

As we've written about recently, Apple is selling more and more of its software products through recurring payments rather than a flat one-off fee, and one of the reasons is that it's more profitable — and makes it more likely that users will continue to pay up.

• Spotify has quietly updated its Mixed Playlists tools
• You can now fine-tune transitions smoother by amending effect curves
• It's starting to crop up for more users, and it's a smash hit so far

There’s one thing that Spotify does really well, and that’s offering a roster of different playlist-making tools for you to really get creative with. Though some are AI-powered, Spotify’s Mixed Playlists encourages you to use your originality when compiling songs, all while putting you in the DJ booth.

Just as you’d get with music-mixing software, Spotify’s Mixed Playlists allow you to create smooth transitions between songs to ensure your playlist flows like a classic DJ set. Its mixing interface presents you with preset effects, and even tells you the key and BPM of each track — and now users have noticed a new upgrade that gives you even more freedom on the customization front.

A recent post on the r/truespotify Reddit page shows the latest update, revealing that you can now amend the Volume, EQ, and Filter settings even more by simply dragging each effect curve to control how the transition runs. According to a small number of users, this feature has been live for a few months, but the majority of listeners in the replies are only now running into it — myself included.

Spotify first launched Mixed Playlists in August 2025, hot on the heels of Apple’s own AutoMix function. But instead of relying on AI to mix songs, Spotify’s version puts the control right into your hands, and it quickly became one of my favorite new tools.

Prior to the update, you could create song transitions by selecting a preset which would automatically amend the Volume, EQ, and Filter settings, or you could go into each of the three and select your own preset to curate a custom transition. While these are still available, you can fine-tune your song-mixing even more, and after testing things out for myself I can see why listeners have taken to it so well.

For starters, it allows you to clean up the small but noticeable imperfections in your transitions that you can’t achieve by presetting the three audio categories individually. For example, if you go into the Filter category and select the ‘High-pass filter out option’, it’s stuck in one place on the audio track. When you tap the ‘Customize’ button, three points appear on the effect curve which you can move around the audio track display so that your chosen effect comes in at a specific time.

Comment from r/truespotify

However, there are a few small blips (not so much setbacks) with the feature that users have picked up on. When you start off with customizing your transitions, it can feel a little fiddly when trying to find the exact placement for each of the effect curve points but this you’ll get used to.

Additionally, other users have also pointed out that the effect curve points sometimes move back to their original spots after you’ve shifted them. I’ve only run into this a few times, so it’s not a major issue that’s going to put you off for good.

For once, it’s refreshing to see Spotify give one of its existing tools some TLC instead of pumping out new features without a lot of thought behind them. If this is the approach Spotify is taking from here on, just think of what it could do to improve features like this in the future.

• Dire Straits' keyboardist/producer Guy Fletcher post about mixing their albums in Dolby Atmos
• He says immersive mixing of the original recording sessions is "quite addictive" and often very emotional
• 3D audio can reveal details that were previously buried when engineering for stereo

One of the things I love most about audio technology is how it can reveal things you've never heard before either because they were buried in the mix or because your setup, speakers or headphones weren't delivering all the detail.

And according to Dire Straits' keyboardist and producer Guy Fletcher, Dolby Atmos is delivering revelation after revelation not just to music fans, but to the musicians and producers who made the records in the first place.

The majority of records are made with stereo in mind, and according to Fletcher "stereo remains an extraordinary format". But as he explains on LinkedIn, redoing a stereo record for Atmos enables you to rediscover "the little things that get sacrificed along the way when you're making a stereo record. The tiny details. The decisions nobody notices because they're buried beneath more important decisions."

Fletcher makes an intriguing claim. Taking a stereo record and making it three-dimensional isn't about making it sound the same; "it's more to do with matching the emotional impact" as he says. It's not what you hear. It's what you feel.

What immersive audio delivers – and doesn't quite deliver

I think Fletcher is correct, and I'm going to compare audio to another art form: video games. I've been replaying some very old favorites recently and I'm amused by how terrible the graphics are; in my memories, those games were photorealistic as well as utterly compelling. When those games are remastered to higher visual quality they're effectively enabling me to play what I remember, not what I actually saw.

As Fletcher describes it, taking recordings into spatial audio does much the same. "The moment you begin placing objects or building beds around the listener, the music seems to breathe and expand. Mix or bus compression suddenly seems rather pointless. Sounds are no longer confined to a flat line between two speakers. Instead, they occupy a living, sculptural environment with depth, height and dimension."

It's not perfect by any means, because people listen to Atmos and other spatial audio on all kinds of different hardware that may be suboptimal: headphones, soundbars, and a range of speaker systems that don't deliver the full experience.

"Creating extraordinary Atmos mixes is no longer the obstacle," Fletcher says. "The real challenge is ensuring that the sense of space, scale and emotional impact that makes immersive mixing so exhilarating, can be faithfully experienced by the vast majority of listeners who do not own a dedicated Atmos speaker system.

Fletcher describes spatializing Dire Straits' biggest hit album, Brothers in Arms, whose original multi-tracks took him straight back to the recording studio in 1984. Although the album had previously been remastered for 5.1 audio, the Atmos edition still required extensive detective work as well as painstaking restoration.

"The real challenge lay in respecting an album that has become woven into the lives of millions of listeners," Fletcher recalls. "While 5.1 and Atmos share some similarities, Atmos offers a very different creative canvas. The challenge was never technical — the challenge was emotional."

For Fletcher, "Atmos has a curious ability to reveal not just the details within a recording, but also the memories embedded within it. In that respect, at its best, the spatial audio experience is as much about rediscovery as it is about technology."

Of course Atmos doesn't guarantee a mix is good: the record industry is very good at remastering records as a quick cash grab, and there are plenty of famous records by big artists whose remasters caused howls of outrage. But when an album is approached with care, patience and above all else, a love of the original material, the move to 3D can make songs sing even more beautifully.

Spotify has the upper hand out of all the best music streaming services because of its hyper-personalized feed and social features, but its app design isn’t the greatest.

I’m not the first power user to call out the platform for its stuffy and, at times, unorganized layout. The ‘Your Library’ section, for example, is a cluster of your recent activity, which you can only rearrange using the filters at the top of the screen — full customization is out of the question.

After using Spotify alongside Apple Music, there’s no comparison — the latter packs a simple and concise interface, with a bright and sleek finish, and there’s Spotify could certainly take a page out of Apple Music’s book on the organization front. However, one user has, at least, found a hidden setting that allows you to switch from Spotify’s dark color scheme to a brighter one similar to Apple Music's.

A Reddit post shared by u/Hot_Perspective (see below) shows two images of the Spotify mobile app with inverted colors enabled, which essentially replaces Spotify’s dark appearance with a ‘light mode’ one consisting of an all-white background reminiscent of Apple Music’s interface.

Do you know u can use Spotify in light mode in iOS it looks pretty 😍 from r/truespotify

The thing to note here is that it’s not actually controlled via the Spotify app; it’s all done through iOS or Android settings — and it’s simple to enable.

If you’re using an iPhone, open Settings and head to Accessibility, then tap Per-App Settings. From there, you’ll need to tap Add App and search for Spotify. Once you’ve added Spotify select Smart Invert and enable the toggle. Android users can enable this feature also by heading to Settings and tapping Accessibility, then Text and Display. Find Color Inversion and toggle it on.

What an eyesore

If you haven’t yet come across this tool, it’s a stark difference from Spotify’s traditional dark-theme interface to say the least.

While it flips the dark in-app color scheme on its head, it’s smart enough to know not to invert album and playlist covers, so not every part of the Spotify app is inverted — which I think is quite clever. But despite its accessibility benefits, it hasn’t been a huge hit with music fans, myself included.

For one, it doesn’t solve the issue of the cluttered and unorganized interface, it just adds funky colors to the app. That aside, it’s frighteningly bright, I’d say even brighter than the average smartphone display setting — the meme replies in the Reddit thread have cracked me up (see the countless reaction images).

Comment from r/truespotify

I can’t exactly explain it, but there’s something very 'uncanny valley' about Spotify with inverted colors. It sort of looks like Apple Music, but I know it’s not. I even lost my muscle memory while trying to navigate it — it threw me off that much.

As we all know, Spotify loves a good visual, and most songs on the platform display a short looping video in the playback section of the app, but inverted colors interfere with this, making visuals look like X-rays. But even if you like how it looks, it has a knock-on effect for both iOS and Android smartphones.

Because Android doesn’t allow this tool to be enabled for individual apps, you’ll have to put up with inverted colors across your entire system, which is quite a strain on the eyes. While iOS allows you to enable inverted colors for separate apps, you need to have the system-wide Light Mode setting turned on for it to work. This means that if you’re like me and prefer to use Dark Mode in apps like Instagram and iMessages, you’ll have to sacrifice this — it’s an all-or-nothing situation.

I think it’s appropriate to say that, overall, it doesn’t sit well with a lot of subscribers. It does, however, remind us that while Spotify has yet to fix a few layout issues, at least the platform has a solid brand identity.

• Tidal has published a new policy on AI-generated music content
• Along with labelling 100% AI tracks, it targets "substantially generated" stuff too
• Tidal "will not tolerate AI-generated music that impersonates an artist or group"

Tired of the AI slop in your music — or tracks your delicate ear perceives to be AI-generated — in recommended playlists? You're not alone.

In a welcome move for recording artists, their parents, their loved ones, and just lovers of original musical works with human vocals, hi-res music streaming giant Tidal has published a comprehensive AI policy with the strapline "Promoting Fairness and Economic Empowerment in the Era of AI-Generated Music".

The publication of the policy follows extensive progress in this area from Deezer, with its free AI-detection tool that works on any streaming platform, Bandcamp's strong and concise anti-AI stance set out in January of this year, Apple's March-issue (but somewhat shaky) 'Transparency Tags' which rely on record labels and distributors to tag AI content in Apple Music, and Spotify's… er, Verified by Spotify badge, which certifies that an artist is human, but doesn't help filter out the slop from any generated playlists.

Tidal's stance, while not before time, is particularly firm. The company's extensive six-point document was published today (Monday, June 29) and opens with the statement:

"Tidal defines AI-generated music as music that is wholly or substantially generated by generative artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are not new to music creation, they have just become more commonplace and advanced. Our policy as it relates to AI-generated music is intended to capture recent developments in — and the rapid proliferation of — text-prompted AI music generation."

The missive adds that while the streaming platform will accept AI-generated music ("Artists should have the freedom to create with AI tools, and listeners should have the autonomy to choose the type of content they consume"), it will "hold AI-generated content to a higher standard of content integrity". How? By identifying it, tagging it (by mid-July of this year) and crucially, not paying any streaming royalties for it.

The tide is turning on text-prompted AI music creation

Interestingly, Tidal is seemingly looking to go even further than Deezer here. While the rival platform's anti-AI filter currently works only on 100% AI tracks, Tidal's policy states: "As AI-detection methods become more reliable, we will expand this tag to content that is substantially AI-generated". Bold.

The Tidal document adds, "But the responsibility to identify and tag AI-generated content should not rest with Tidal alone. We expect — and will begin to enforce — that content distributors identify AI-generated content before it reaches our platform."

So, a two-pronged attack on AI? It's a move that can only be seen as a win for musicians and bands. That said, it remains to be seen how effective Tidal's specific anti-AI software will be — and also, who exactly is helping the company achieve its admirable aims.

I asked Tidal whether it had perhaps implemented Deezer's anti-AI tool (which the company made available to rivals back in January and subsequently offered to anyone who wanted to check their playlists for AI tracks regardless of the streaming service) and was told "We're currently working with an external partner to manage detection."

So it seems Tidal is keeping its cards very close to its chest regarding how it's going to make good on the policy. Either way, it's a positive step in the fight to keep music and musicians (a)live.

It's Amazon Prime Day, and one of my favorite deals of day isn't actually a huge discount, but I think it's a really worthwhile buy at the lower price. It's the WiiM Amp Ultra, which is available for $449 at Amazon US (down from $529), or you can get it for £425 at Amazon UK (down from $499).

• Browse the full Amazon Prime Day sale

I have the WiiM Amp Ultra at home, and it's an amazing streaming amp for this price. It's really well-built and looks at home among nice furniture, with a solid metal finish — and it's shockingly compact, considering that it provides up to 100W per channel, so it can work with some really hefty speakers,

Most importantly, it sounds excellent, and there's support for nearly every music service you could want (but I'll come back to that "nearly), plus useful inputs for a turntable and so on.

I use it with a pair of Dali Oberon 5 bookshelf speakers, and the combination is off the charts for a hi-fi system that barely takes up any space. Obviously, floorstanding speakers are tall, but the Oberon 5 only have the same footprint as bookshelf speakers, so these three boxes overall can be used even in space-starved homes, but sound like you've got a much bigger, beefier setup.

When I started this configuration, I auditioned it against using the Amp Ultra with a pair of Dali Oberon 1 bookshelf speakers, and against a pair of Sonos Era 300 speakers (a pair of which costs about the same as getting the Amp Ultra and Oberon 5 speakers).

The Oberon 1 bookshelf speakers crushed the Sonos Era 300 when it came to detail and dynamic response in music, but they were equally crushed by the Sonos for bass depth and dispersion of sound in the room.

However, the Oberon 5 are the best of all worlds with the WiiM powering them — big and controlled bass, fantastic detail in the mids and treble, superb dynamic attack, and great dispersion in the room.

So I'd recommend the WiiM Amp Ultra generally, but if you're thinking that you'd like a whole magnificent hi-fi setup for under £1,000 in the UK, here's my recommendation today — if you're in the US, scroll down, because I've got a recommendation for you right after.

Today's best UK WiiM Amp Ultra and speaker deal combination

Today's best UK WiiM Amp Ultra and speaker deal combination

Some speakers are quite a lot more expensive in the US than in Europe, and Dali speakers are chief among this category. So when looking for an equivalent system to suggest with the WiiM Amp Ultra in the US, I wanted to find something that was also a huge bargain, and that's just as good, and the ELAC Debut 2.0 F6.2 is the perfect option, because their bookshelf version also got five stars from What Hi-Fi? in their review.

The downside to the WiiM Amp Ultra

There is one thing I want to note about the Amp Ultra: it's not 100% ideal for Apple Music households, despite its aluminum look and slick design. It lacks any kind of Apple support outside of Bluetooth — not just Apple Music (which is normal for streaming amps, only Sonos has this natively), but even AirPlay 2, which nearly every other music streaming device on the planet supports.

It doesn't have a USB audio input either, which seems like an odd omission for an 'Ultra' device — and it's annoying that it rules out using your Apple device's USB port to send Hi-Res Audio to it.

Now, Spotify is the most popular service, and that's supported. I have a Tidal subscription, so I'm all good. This is far from affecting everyone, but there are plenty of people who are deep in the Apple system, who use Apple Music only, and the Amp Ultra is oddly hostile to those people.

More Prime Day deals in the US

• Amazon Devices: Fire Sticks & Echo from $18
• Amazon Haul: viral gadgets, tech & appliances from $1.99
• Apple: MacBooks, AirPods & AirTags from $29
• Beauty: 50% off toothbrushes & hair tools
• Cheap TVs: smart TVs from $69.99
• Garden: tools, mowers, planters from $24.99
• Headphones: 50% off Beats, Bose & Samsung
• Laptops: Apple, HP & Dell from $199
• Mattresses: Sealy, Serta & more from $186
• Patio: outdoor furniture, rugs & decor from $19.99
• Sports: 50% off fitness gear, treadmills & clothing
• Vacuums: Dyson, Shark & Bissell from $34

More Prime Day deals in the UK

• Amazon Prime: get a 30-day free trial
• Amazon Devices: Fire, Ring & Blink from £13.99
• Amazon Haul: up to 30% off
• Apple: up to 33% off AirPods & Apple Watch
• Appliances: up to 45% off Ninja & Tefal
• Beauty: up to 60% off Philips & Oral-B
• Essentials: household goods from £5
• Fans: from £20
• Fashion: up to 50% off
• Gaming: £90 off PlayStation 5
• Headphones: up to 50% off Beats & Sony
• Laptops: from £149
• Tablets: Samsung & Lenovo from £79.99
• Toys: up to 25% off Lego and Tonies
• TVs: from £129.99
• Vacuums: up to 40% off Shark & Roborock
• Wearables: up to 30% off Garmin & Oura