Photo Credit: Andre Hunter
Spotify’s upcoming AI remix tool is already drawing criticism online from people questioning everything from fairness for artists to the ethics of the AI training.
You don’t have to look too far to find anti-AI sentiment in the wild, and it feels like it’s growing every day—much like the AI boom it criticizes. Whether it’s the impact of building data centers or the ethics of model training, these significant concerns are everywhere. But major tech and entertainment companies persist in their efforts to advance, releasing AI tools promising to simplify workflows or present a new gimmick to trend on social platforms.
Spotify’s AI music remix tool, set to launch early next year, is facing significant online backlash. Critics have expressed their concerns about everything from “more AI slop” in a platform that is already overloaded with features to questioning who the audience is for such a tool and whether musicians would stand to benefit fairly from participating. In fact, some Spotify users are even talking about leaving the platform altogether.
The tool will allow listeners to tweak the song they’re hearing, such as turning a slow ballad into an upbeat dance track or changing the vocalist to a different artist. The whole thing will remain locked within Spotify’s ecosystem, meaning users won’t be able to take their remixed tracks and release them elsewhere.
First announced in May, the upcoming remix tool came up again in late October, after the Financial Times reported that Spotify was looking at an early 2027 launch—and considering charging Premium subscribers an additional $4 to $5 a month.
But what that extra fee would actually provide customers depends entirely on what musicians opt into the remix project. Spotify currently has deals with Universal Music Group, Merlin, Believe, and Kobalt, but artists will decide on an individual level whether to actually participate.
Some Spotify users, even those who have been active subscribers for years, have debated whether to continue using the platform at all. Netizens have been comparing Tidal and Qobuz as primary streaming options, as well as buying their favorite music directly on Bandcamp.
“If Spotify ends up going through with this, then I’ll be cancelling my subscription,” wrote one user on X, who said they had been a Spotify subscriber since 2017. “I’m genuinely (going) back to paying for music on sites like Bandcamp. Fuck this,” a Redditor wrote.
“It’s really not as hard to switch as people seem to think. It took me an hour max to port my playlists over to Qobuz and get things situated there,” said another Redditor. “Most of my friends are still using Spotify even though they morally disagree with how the platform is run and where their money goes. Never underestimate the power of convenience, I guess.”
But it’s not just the users; the music industry is also unconvinced. The Future of Music Coalition raised some questions about artists getting paid through the use of the remix tool.
“Certainly many artists will find it distasteful, but Spotify’s forthcoming AI remix feature is not going to destroy or save the recorded music business. Key issues to watch are consent, credit, and compensation. What’s it being trained on? Is it opt-in only? How’s the (money) work?”
Some of these questions have already been answered, with reports indicating that the licensing deals thus far will still allow artists to opt in. “But will backing musicians get paid for this new use?” the Future of Music Coalition asks. And what if a backing artist doesn’t want to participate?
“What are naming conventions for the resulting generated musical work?” asks Abby North of North Music Group. “Who decides (and how) what percentage each work is entitled to of 100%? How are publishers alerted of (the) existence of a new derivative?”
Spotify and Believe have both said that each remix would link back to the original song and artist. Streams of these remixes would generate royalties for the participating artists and rights holders behind that original work. Those plays will count toward the original song on Spotify’s charts, so a fan-made version could earn an artist royalties through viral popularity.
The specifics beyond that remain relatively unknown, but even if these concerns were addressed, it still raises the question of who exactly is seeking more AI-generated music in the first place. With the rise in AI-generated music leading to issues like streaming fraud, it seems like the industry is far more interested in filtering the AI-created content that’s already out there rather than trying to find new ways to shoehorn it into established spaces.
Leave a Reply