There’s no denying, Kurt Cobain was a cultural icon of the 1990s. Not only did Nirvana take alternative rock into the mainstream in September 1991, but they also introduced fans to underground music of the 70s and 80s. This gave some of Cobain’s major influences a platform in the 90s to join the mainstream. Notably, bands such as Pixies, Sonic Youth, and Melvins directly influenced the band and get the most recognition for doing so. Here are 3 bands that Kurt Cobain also loved that deserve another listen and more credit.
The Vaselines
The Vaselines are a Scottish alternative rock band, formed in 1986. The duo, based in Glasgow, featured songwriters Eugene Kelly and Frances McKee. Kurt Cobain once claimed The Vaselines are “his favorite songwriters in the whole world.” Nirvana covered a handful of songs from the group, including “Son Of A Gun” and “Molly’s Lips”, included on their 1992 compilation Incestide. They later covered “Jesus Doesn’t Want Me For A Sunbeam” live on MTV Unplugged in November 1993.
Beat Happening
It’s general knowledge that Cobain emerged from the underground scene in the Pacific Northwest. He notably lived in Olympia, specifically during Nirvana’s formative years. One of his favorite local groups was Beat Happening, an indie pop band from Olympia. The band formed in 1982, with band leader Calvin Johnson co-founding K Records that same year. It’s an independent record label out of Olympia that later released early releases by artists such as Modest Mouse, Built To Spill, Beck, and more.
Cobain loved K Records so much that he got their shield logo tattooed on his forearm. He did so to remind himself where he came from as a youth, hanging around the local DIY scene in Olympia.
Cheap Trick
As much as Cheap Trick gets their due recognition in the world of classic rock, they don’t get nearly enough credit for their influence on alternative rock. Countless alternative bands of the 90s, including Nirvana, openly admitted their love for Cheap Trick. This may be lesser-known, though, as the band had a variety of different sounds in their heyday. It’s often overlooked, but Cheap Trick’s influence contributed heavily to the creation of grunge and even predicted it in songs such as “Auf Wiedersehen”.
In the liner notes of the 1992 compilation Incesticide, Cobain stated: “I’ll be the first to admit, we’re the 90s version of Cheap Trick.” He used this mentality to explain to producer Steve Albini which direction he wanted Nirvana to go for their third album, In Utero. Albini was notably a massive Cheap Trick fan, and it was known by anyone who worked with him.
It’s undeniable that L7 were one of the most important bands of the 90s alternative rock movement. Now, decades later, the grunge icons are hanging it up. But not before frontwoman Donita Sparks does a little reflection on their legendary career, as well as on their friendships with bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam.
Speaking to Guitar World, Sparks discussed the band’s legacy, starting with what the early days of the Seattle grunge scene were like. “Sub Pop [records] did well, mainly because of Nirvana and Soundgarden,” she said. “When they signed us, they said, ‘You’re in the inner circle of Sub Pop now.'”
Sparks quipped that “everyone got huge, except for Mudhoney,” and added, “There was so much hype, especially in the UK. We’d show up to a club and instead of saying ‘L7’ it would say ‘Sub Pop Artist’ or ‘Sub Pop’s L7.’ It was like the label was getting bigger than the bands were.”
L7 signed to Sub Pop Records in the late 80s
In 1992, L7 released Bricks Are Heavy, their third—and possibly most crucial— album. Butch Vig produced the record, fresh off having just done Nirvana’s Nevermind. When asked how his production style impacted L7’s music, Sparks explained, “We always had a very powerful sound on stage. You can’t put that in a bottle. Producers and engineers would go to an L7 show, after they worked on our record for months, and be like, ‘What the f**k?'”
“Butch was great because he encouraged our melodic stuff,” she continued. “When we started, we wanted to play hard music sans melody because we were tough cookies; then melody came in. Nirvana and the Pixies gave me more confidence to throw my musical roots into the stew. I love a lot of 50s/60s pop; I love a lot of country.”
Among her reflections, Sparks shared about playing a big benefit show in the mid-90s with Pearl Jam and Neil Young & Crazy Horse. “We met Neil Young that night,” she recalled. “I remember Pearl Jam asked us on stage because they were singing ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’, but I f**ked up my verse by one line!”
Finally, Sparks spoke about L7’s Last Hurrah farewell tour, which they’re currently on. The run comes after longtime bassist Jennifer Finch died in July, following a battle with aggressive brain cancer.
“The finality is starting to hit me,” Sparks said. “The emotion becomes overwhelming at times. I can hold it together until I get backstage – but every once in a while, there’s a little weepiness. We’re doing meet-and-greets for the first time to supplement the tour. People are saying how long they’ve followed us. One woman said, ‘You’ve taken me from puberty to menopause!'”
On Saturday, November 7, 2026, Richard Lloyd lost his battle with cholangiocarcinoma, a form of bile duct cancer. He had been diagnosed earlier this year in March. Lloyd is best known as a founding member and guitarist for the foundational punk rock band, Television. They were a band at the center of the punk rock movement in New York City in the mid-to-late 90s. Television pioneered art punk, standing out among the other punk acts from “The Big Apple” at the time.
Their 1977 debut album, Marquee Moon, has been widely acclaimed for decades, inspiring countless artists. Following their sophomore release, Adventure, they disbanded in 1978. In 1991, the band briefly reunited and released a self-titled album in 1992. Following this, the band called it quits once again until another reunion a decade later in 2001.
Lloyd’s guitar work allowed their other guitarist, Tom Verlaine, to front the group as the singer as well. Lloyd also played solos, splitting the lead guitar role in half, but his role was mainly to hold down the rhythmic side of the band. Additionally, he greatly contributed to the arrangement of their tracks. To this, he claimed in his final interview that he didn’t receive the credit he deserved.
Lloyd’s FInal Interview
In December 2025, Richard Lloyd was interviewed for the final time. Andrew Daly of Guitar World conducted the final interview. Lloyd detailed how he learned guitar from someone who was learning directly from Jimi Hendrix. At one point, his friend put him on the phone with Hendrix himself to prove this to be true. He also took Lloyd to a Jimi Hendrix concert around the same time. Additionally, he discussed joining John Lee Hooker on stage, learning a thing or two in the moment ahead of his own career.
On the band’s debut album, Lloyd claims he contributed more than he received credit for. On the album’s opening track “See No Evil”, Lloyd stated, “Tom was fooling around with octaves, and I came up with the rest. There have been debates on that – I didn’t get a penny for the songwriting, nor the other ones that I was responsible for. A real drag, because publishing is where you can actually make a living.”
When asked to elaborate, Lloyd said, “Tom went by the argument that everything is the melody and the lyrics, and that there was nothing deserving of credit for what he called ‘the arrangement.’ I debated that. For instance, with “Guiding Light”, I wrote the part that runs through the whole song. That was the final straw. I said, ‘You’ll either give me credit for this, or you can come up with something else because I won’t play it if you don’t give me credit.’ I got half credit on that. I fought him over “See No Evil” and “Friction”, but he went behind our backs – you’d find out he put it under his own name.”
Lloyd expressed that despite this, he kept Television as his main priority throughout his career. Even at times when working with Verlaine would “drive him nuts”, he’d drop his solo efforts for any reunion with the band.
Clawfinger, an infamous rock band from the 90s, refuses to perform one of its biggest songs these days. Their singer explains why they made that decision, and I, for one, wholeheartedly support the decision to leave this one in the past.
Hailing from Sweden, Clawfinger is a rap-metal band that dropped their debut album, Dead Dumb Blind, in 1993. The very first track on that record is titled “N****r,” and yes, it’s exactly the n-word you think it is. Listening to the lyrics, the song feels like it’s discouraging use of the word while also using it so, so, so much.
It is quite the conundrum, because the song is also one of their most popular. Right now, on Spotify alone, that song has more than 7.5 million streams. However, any fans who actually want to hear the song live should not hold their breath.
During a recent interview on the IMPACT Metal Channel, Clawfinger frontman Zak Tell was asked if he thinks Clawfinger would ever perform the song again. “I do not know,” he replied. “Times have changed since we released that song. There’s a whole new wokeness, and people are a lot more aware.”
One of Clawfinger’s biggest hits is a condemnation of racism with a very controversial title
He then mentioned the “Black Lives Matter” movement and offered some additional context on why the band doesn’t play the song. “I think one of the problems today is that things get taken out of context,” Tell said. “Nobody cares about the big picture; nobody cares about background. People get stuck up on words and small things instead of seeing the big picture.”
“I mean, we’re totally fine with the song,” he continued. “We know what we stand for. We know we’re not a bunch of racist idiots. The problem is everyone else out there who doesn’t know.”
Tell lamented that a “10-second TikTok clip” featuring only the “chorus” creates a misconception of the song. “It gets taken totally out of context,” he said. “I think it creates more problems than it creates solutions. And also it’s about being respectful to the fact that the times have changed, and people do see things differently. And maybe it’s a topic that’s more important than a three-and-a-half-minute song. It deserves to be addressed properly.
“Maybe we shouldn’t be the people addressing it anymore, if we ever should have been. But maybe now and here is not our time and place to be the agitators,” Tell added. “It’s not really our job to educate people about it, I feel.
“So it’s mostly just out of being respectful that we chose not to play it anymore,” Tell concluced. “Not because we don’t believe it’s a good song, ’cause we do. But it’s not our time and place anymore, the way the world is now. Maybe in the future that’ll change and people will understand the bigger picture more, and realize that it’s okay to say basically anything, as long as your intentions are good. But I don’t see the world working that way right now. Unfortunately.”
In early November, Olivia Rodrigo released her first Christmas song, inspired by “Christmas Wrapping” by The Waitresses. But some fans online claim that she lifted some of it from Robbie Williams’ 2012 hit song “Candy”. Amid calls for copyright claims and writing credits, Williams sent a message to both the fans raising suspicions and to Rodrigo herself.
Essentially, Williams said he wasn’t “going after” Rodrigo about the similarities between their songs. That’s allegedly what people online were calling for, but Williams proved he had a different mindset. In his expletive-laden way, of course.
“I love Olivia Rodrigo,” he began his post on Instagram. “It sounds to me as though she may have accidentally stumbled across a musical echo of mine in one of her new songs. And do you know what? I couldn’t care less.”
He continued, “I don’t know whether there’s technically a publishing issue, a copyright issue, or no issue whatsoever. And I don’t want to know. I’m not going after her. Because I think at some point, some f***ing sanity has to prevail.”
Williams went on to explain that there’s so much music in the world that an artist will “inevitably find [themselves] somewhere somebody else has been.” That’s how songs with similar melodies, riffs, or chords come about.
“Genuine theft is genuine theft. Artists deserve to be protected,” he added. “But there’s a difference between protecting your work and treating every vaguely familiar sequence of notes as a winning lottery ticket.”
Robbie Williams Posts Sweary Insights into Music Copyright issues After Fans Claim Olivia Rodrigo Copied One of His Hits
The post continued, “We all stand on the shoulders of people who came before us. Sometimes consciously. Sometimes without even knowing it. If we keep punishing people for accidentally arriving somewhere somebody else has already been, eventually we’re going to frighten the creativity out of everyone.”
Robbie Williams concluded his response with a concise message for Olivia Rodrigo. “Olivia, if you’re reading this,” he wrote, “I think you’re f***ing brilliant.”
Elsewhere in the post, Williams addressed the fact that the same accusations have been levied against him in the past. “I’ve had plenty of people coming after me over the years because something I’ve released apparently sounds like something somebody else released,” he wrote. “And sometimes I listen and think, fair enough, I can hear that. Other times I think, are you having a f***ing laugh?”
The lengthy post provided some enlightening insight into how copyright infringement has turned into “ambulance chasing” in the music industry. Essentially, seeking out similarities between songs and filing an infringement lawsuit for writing credit and an easy royalty payout. Robbie Williams’ perspective echoes many others in that space, but the copyright infringement trials and accusations are often louder than those opinions.
However, Williams’ post had a bit of levity in it as well. He first explained that he’s been a fan of Olivia Rodrigo since her 2021 single “Brutal”. He wrote, “What a f***ing record. I wish I’d made it”, before adding, “Also, I can’t believe how much she swears on stage. And that’s coming from me.”
He noted that her penchant for swearing is making him “look like a Victorian schoolmistress.” Of course, Williams concluded his post by bringing that up again, writing, “Please stop swearing so much. It makes me feel like I have to keep up. And frankly, I’m already swearing much more than is necessary.”
Silly Goose has gone viral multiple times for their bizarre, high-energy pop-up concerts across the US. The band is known for their pop-up concerts in parking lots of gas stations or fast food restaurants. Typically, these locations are outside of concerts at large venues in the area. They’ll catch the attention of concert-goers leaving a concert, creating a high-energy metal show atmosphere wherever they can, whether they’re welcomed or not. Now, the metal band, which is reviving nu-metal, has aimed to capitalize on a famous unconventional show location.
Back in May of 2013, a hardcore punk band named Live Without performed in a spot that went viral on the internet. The punk band performed inside a Denny’s restaurant in Houston, Texas. At the beginning of the set, their frontman Kris famously announced, “What the f*ck is up, Denny’s?” seconds before their set. With this, the crowd and pit opened up, and the band became internet legends.
The video went viral, and has inspired multiple bands to perform in outrageous locations since. Also, the expression “What the f*ck is up, Denny’s” became an internet meme and a common thing to say ahead of any band’s set. A decade later, on October 26, 2023, iconic pop-punk band Blink-182 performed a surprise one-song concert at a Denny’s in Long Beach, California. They sought corporate approval for the concert, which promoted their 2024 album One More Time.
Silly Goose’s Denny Performance After Crashing a Corporate Conference
On November, 7, 2026, Silly Goose finally got their chance to continue the Denny’s concert legacy. The bands frontman, Jackson Foster, crashed the restaurant’s corporate conference in September. He campaigned for a collaboration with the restaurant chain called “Goose Slam.” At a Denny’s location in Norcross, Georgia, Silly Goose filmed a music video for “Goodnight”, a single from their album released back in May.
Normally, Silly Goose doesn’t ask for permission for their pop-up shows. At times, this has resulted in a clash with the owners of these establishments. For this performance at Denny, it marks the first time the band has been granted permission beforehand. The band has also announced “Goose Fest”. It’s an upcoming festival that’ll take place on January 16th in the bands home city, Atlanta, Georgia.
Former Iron Maiden drummer Nicko McBrain recently dropped his memoir, Hello Boys And Girls! The book recounts McBrain’s life, career, and experience with the legendary metal band. Interestingly, after the book was published, he said management feared one chapter in particular would upset bandmates.
In a November 2026 interview with Dave Kinchen and Shane McEachern for Rock Of Nations, McBrain was asked if he’d spoken to any of his bandmates about the contents of the book while he was writing it.
“No,” he confessed, then adding that he hasn’t even read Iron Maid Bruce vocalist Bruce Dickinson’s autobiography. “For the sole reason, McBrain explained, ” [that] I didn’t wanna get influenced by any of his stories or how he’s written it.
Nicko McBrain apparently had some stories that worried Iron Maiden’s manager
“I do have a copy,” the drumming icon added, as transcribed by Blabbermouth. “He signed a copy for me, and I will grab that and probably read that in the next couple of weeks. Now I’ve finished my book, I can delve into his. And I didn’t want any influences from any of the other guys in that respect.” He then said, with a laugh, that he “did start to read” Iron Maiden guitarist Adrian Smith’s book, “but it’s more about fishing than anything else.”
“But, no, I didn’t approach any of the guys,” McBrain continued. “I wanted it to be my memories carte blanche and without any influences from anybody else. [Iron Maiden manager] Rod [Smallwood] mentioned a couple of things, and he got them wrong, actually.”
Finally, the heavy metal legend revealed how his conversation with Smallwood went when the manager encouraged him to make changes. “There was a couple of instances where he didn’t want me to write a particular chapter because it would upset the band,” McBrain recalled “And I said to him, ‘Rod, this is my story. It’s not yours. I appreciate what you’re saying.”
Smallwood said that McBrain was “still part of the family.” To which the drummer replied, “And I still will be, even though I’ve written this book. And you may not like it, but it’s going in. And if it upsets someone, they will tell me. They will tell me, and then I’ll deal with it. But it’s going in. It’s going in.”
Hello Boys And Girls! is out now; published by Harper Nonfiction on October 22, 2026.
Photo by Francesco Castaldo\Archivio Francesco Castaldo\Mondadori via Getty Images
During a show in Philadelphia, Geese paid tribute to co-founding Television guitarist Richard Lloyd, who died on November 7, 2026. Lloyd passes away at his home in Tennessee after being diagnosed with bile duct cancer in March 2026. He was 75 years old.
New York alt-rock prodigies Geese have often been compared to fellow New Yorkers Television. The band formed in 1973, with their most consistent lineup being Tom Verlaine, Billy Ficca, Richard Lloyd, and Fred Smith of Blondie. Their art-punk sound influenced many bands after them, and they were a crucial fixture in the NYC punk clubs like CBGB.
On November 7, Geese briefly honored Lloyd with a cover of the 1978 Television song “Ain’t That Nothin'”, captured on video by fans in the crowd. Vocalist Cameron Winter acknowledged the tribute by saying, “Rest in Peace Richard Lloyd” before launching into a short rendition of the song.
Geese have cited Television as an influence on their sound in the past, and also covered other songs of theirs. In 2024, they performed a rendition of “Marquee Moon”, the title track of Television’s 1977 debut album. Speaking to GQ in 2025, Geese noted the comparisons to Television, but added that they deliberately try not to be a “rip off” of the punk icons.
Geese, Johnny Marr, and Others Pay Tribute to Iconic Television Guitarist Richard Lloyd
Following Richard Lloyd’s death, many artists expressed grief and shared condolences for the loss. Artists like Johnny Marr has often cited Lloyd and Tom Verlaine’s paired guitar playing as a notably influence on many guitarists of his generation. Lloyd’s style also influenced U2’s The Edge, Sonic Youth’s Thurston Moore, and The Pixies’ Joey Santiago.
Lloyd and Verlaine’s intertwined dance of guitars drew from many different musical influences that their peers weren’t exploring. Sources like jazz and art-rock that would influence how they approached their riffs. This technique set Television apart in an era of fast, loud, pummeling chords.
In a tribute on Instagram, Johnny Marr wrote called Lloyd “a seeker and finder and a true inspiration with and without the guitar. It was an honor to know him and a blessing to have been a fan.”
Richard Lloyd was with Television until their split in 1978, after their second album Adventure. The band reunited in the early 90s and released a self-titled album in 1992, but disbanded again shortly after that. Lloyd released several solo albums throughout his career, including Alchemy in 1979, Real Time in 1986, and The Countdown in 2018. He was also a session musician, contributing guitar most prominently on six of Matthew Sweet’s albums.
Lloyd also taught guitar from his New York studio, and produced albums for many local bands. These included Rocket From the Tombs, The Blondes Inc., Christopher Purdy, Miss Mother USA, Jim Neversink, and many others.
Typically, to be named a principal at a school, the school needs to be open first. That wasn’t the case in New York this year. In January 2026, Next Generation Technology High School hired Caleb Haraguchi-Combs to be the “project director.”
Despite the school not even existing yet, the New York Post reports that Haraguchi-Combs earned a $50,000 raise to principal-level compensation. In most cases, the project director of a school that is still under construction becomes the new school’s principal. What’s different about this scenario is that the planned school has been denied.
The proposed school, Next Generation Technology High School, would be located in the Financial District of New York. It would focus on artificial intelligence and computer tech. The new school has never been approved, and New York Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels shot down the proposal in April 2026. The proposed school received significant backlash due to fear of AI and its “merit-based admissions model.”
Who Is Haraguchi-Combs?
Aside from being an educator by day, Haraguchi-Combs is a rapper at night. Under the stage name Cal Combs, he has released two rap albums. In 2017, his album Carmel was named after a city in Indiana where Haraguchi-Combs once lived. It tells the story of a drug deal in the area, from which he had to flee due to gunfire. In another song, “Roundabout”, the song focuses on drug use and excessive drinking.
Previously, Haraguchi-Combs was an assistant principal at Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics in East Harlem. According to public records reported by The Post, Haraguchi-Combs made $141,960 a year in this role. Despite the school not even existing yet, Haraguchi-Combs received a $50,000 raise when accepting the role. This has been particularly frustrating for the Department of Education, as it has been an excessive waste of taxpayer money.
The DOE has questioned, “What was the plan? There are a lot of schools that could use a principal; there are opportunities to appoint principals since then, it’s a huge waste of resources.” They also added, “Unless a principal has tenure, they get bumped back to AP if their schools don’t open.” They also claim Haraguchi-Combs should have “never named a principal before the school was approved.”
New York Post tracked down Haraguchi-Combs, spotting him outside his high-ride in Brooklyn. In this confrontation, Haraguchi-Combs refused to say where he worked.
Indie rock duo Babehoven shared tragic news on social media on November 4, 2026. The band, consisting of Maya Bon and Ryan Albert, updated fans ahead of their tour, which began on November 5. Bon penned the message, signed by both her and Albert, revealing that they’d lost their unborn baby.
“Ryan and I want to share some personal news ahead of our tour starting tomorrow,” the message began. “The past 11 weeks, I’ve been growing our baby in my body. We were so excited to almost be at the second trimester and get to share this news. We were surprised and thrilled to find this being was joining us.”
Bon continued, “We nicknamed them Bongo. We’ve been talking to them every day, writing songs for them, preparing our world for them. Two days ago, we learned that my latest ultrasound showed that Bongo no longer has a heartbeat and that my body hasn’t recognized they’ve passed to the next realm.”
Indie Duo Babehoven Shares Heartbreaking Update With Fans Ahead of First Headlining Tour in Two Years
The heartbreaking news from the Babehoven duo came the day before they were set to start a new tour. But they were only two days removed from learning the news themselves. Maya Bon’s message went on to share their reactions and next steps.
“I need to get a surgical procedure done called a D&C to remove them,” Bon wrote candidly. She added later in the message that she would receive the procedure between the New York City and Chicago tour dates. “Our bandmates arrived an hour after we got this update. The timing of all of this has been hard. This tour means so much to us. We are so excited to play all of this new music in a fresh form, adding our friend Seamus on fiddle, reimagining songs.”
On September 18, 2026, Babehoven released their third album, I See Them, They See Me. The upcoming tour was in support of that album, sharing their new songs with fans and reimagining others, as Bon stated. This is Babehoven’s first headlining tour in two years, with Bon adding that she suffered “covid, laryngitis and then vocal fold paralysis from the two combined” on their last headliner.
The post noted that they have been “so looking forward to having a clean slate on this tour and bring all of our best energy to it. We are still going to move forward. We love music. It revitalizes our hearts, it makes us feel renewed, connected and alive.
“We just wanted to keep y’all in the loop so you know what’s going on with us and what we’re dealing with. We are feeling tender and dazed but we still can’t wait to play these shows,” the post added. “We’re dedicating this tour to our Bongo Angel,” Bon wrote in conclusion. “We love them and are honored they chose their life to be alongside us. They’ve taught us so much.”
Today, I’m talking with Mitch Glazier, who is CEO and chairman of the RIAA.
This conversation was a real full-circle moment for me: I was in college when Napster hit, and the RIAA became everyone’s villain for suing kids for downloading music. That was when I decided to go be a copyright lawyer, which set the rest of my career in motion — and Mitch was in the background as a young lawyer at the RIAA working on those cases. So part of me was very deeply, very genuinely surprised to discover just how much fun I had talking to Mitch.
That’s because here in 2026, Mitch, the RIAA, the record labels, the artists, and ordinary people are all pretty unhappy with the big AI companies in the same way, for training on everyone’s work without permission and flooding our feeds with slop.
Verge subscribers, don’t forget you get exclusive access to ad-free Decoder wherever you get your podcasts. Head here. Not a subscriber? You can sign up here.
Everyone is mad about it! And since the RIAA is both the group that lobbies for changes to the law and also the group that files lawsuits about things that affect record labels and distributors, Mitch is a pretty busy guy these days. We got deep into the legal complexity of things like AI deepfakes, how banning them might affect other kinds of expression, and how the AI detection and labeling systems that we all seem to want might actually work in practice — especially if big platforms like Spotify and YouTube don’t get on board.
I just want to get right into it. This conversation is a real ride through how AI, the law, art, and commerce might all intersect. I think you’re going to be able to tell, Mitch and I had a lot of fun talking about it.
Before we get going, do me a favor and subscribe to Decoder on YouTube, where we put out new episodes every Monday and Thursday.
Okay: RIAA CEO Mitch Glazier. Here we go.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Mitch Glazier, you’re the chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, which people know as the RIAA. Welcome toDecoder.
Thank you. Thank you, Nilay. I’m excited to be here.
I am very excited to talk to you. I have to tell you, this is a very full-circle moment for me. My entire career got on track when I was in college. Napster came out, my university banned Napster from the school network, and I decided right then I was going to go be a copyright lawyer. And then I was a copyright lawyer, and I defendedkids who got sued for using Kazaa. I was not good at that job. It was not fulfilling. And I became a journalist because I could write about copyright law on the iPod. So talking to you is about as full circle as it gets for me. Thank you for being on the show.
Good. Well then, I’m no longer sorry for the policies that we forced your school to implement because it made you a copyright lawyer. So the world benefited at the end of the day. It had some silver linings to it.
When I first started at the RIAA, Napster was obviously the big issue. Nobody had seen anything like it before. The last technological change had really been CDs. I mean, it had been a long time, a much more gradual change and much less abrupt. So they decided it’d be a good idea, since I was youngish at the time, to make me go to college campuses, go to auditoriums, and convince these college students that they shouldn’t use peer-to-peer technology.
Wait, wait, wait. I imagine when you said that, it was more like a21 Jump Streetsituation, where you were posing in the dining hall being like, “We should pay for it.” Were you giving presentations?
Yes, it was horrible. Everybody had these anti-RIAA t-shirts on. I remember one time I followed Chuck D, who was there promoting peer-to-peer. And I didn’t know what to do, and I knew I was going to get booed. So I took a garbage bag, put it over my head, and I walked out onto the stage, thinking they were going to throw tomatoes at me; I might as well make light of it.
But I have to say, even though it was a very tough time, some of the conversations that we had with students at that time were some of the best conversations I’ve ever had — even now with AI — about the change in technologies, things being fan-driven, and the disconnect that can occur sometimes between an industry and the people who are out there driving change in the industry. So it was actually a good experience in the end, but it certainly did not feel like it at the time.
It didn’t feel like it at the time for me. Thank you for saying the butterfly effect is real. But it was heated. It was hot.
One of the things that has really occurred to me as I get older, and AI exists, and I see the platforms taking so much of the economic value out of art, is that my opinions about intellectual property enforcement have changed. It feels like I’m just giving up all of the ideals that I had when I was a kid about the internet, that open access to information was good, that… There was that meme ages ago: everything is a remix, and we should all build on each other’s art as much as we want because that will push the culture forward. I am still very idealistic about that. And I definitely did not think the recording industry suing kids was the appropriate way to protect the intellectual property of artists back then.
But here we are in the age of AI, and it feels like no one is making enough money for making art except the world’s biggest artists — who are all also tech investors now in some way — and the tech platforms that collect fractions of pennies from everything and are doing data center build-outs or whatever it is. And that just existential dynamic for me is where I wanted to start.
I want to talk about how the RIAA works and all theDecoderquestions, but I was just thinking about what I really wanted to ask you, and it comes down to this: we have to protect the work, but there’s some balance in overprotecting the work that makes it harder for people to make new things. And my own journey with the RIAA is a reconsideration of that as more and more things get taken.
Where have you landed? You’ve been there for more than 20 years. How are you feeling about that balance?
Yeah, so the word balance is the right one, and it’s not an easy one. It’s one of those things where, over time, a barrier pops up here and then you kind of pivot, and then a barrier pops up here and you kind of pivot, and you sort of land in a zone that feels right because the responses that you’re getting, both from the creative community and from fans, start to line up. And I think in AI, they are lining up much more closely than they did during previous years of disruption.
Some of it has been because of the democratization of the industry, where the gatekeeping roles have changed, where the partnerships between those who partner and invest with artists and the artists themselves have changed. In a world where artists and label services, like à la carte services, are a bigger part of revenue, in an area where catalog, forever exploitation, and new investors in the industry have come in, the landscape is much wider now. And it’s not like there are just two types of big actors controlling or sharing in all of the money.
Now there are dozens of different types of folks meeting artists in different places where they are and meeting fans in different places where they are. And so it feels to me like this disruption, which is huge, and I hope we talk about it… The good news is, unlike Napster, I don’t feel like we are facing it at odds, which is kind of what it felt like back then. Now it feels like we’re not in the same place, but we’re kind of rowing in the same general direction, which is that everybody understands that art and commerce have always had tension, and there’s always going to have to be a balance. But authenticity and that connection between a human being artist and a fan, the preservation of that seems to be paramount in everything that we’re doing, whether you’re investing, listening, or performing.
And to me, we’re not fighting in this space anymore between just a business model or an investment. We are now fighting to keep the art as human and the connection between an artist and a fan preserved and alive. And that to me just seems like a much larger purpose, I guess. So it feels very different to me. It feels like a good bookend.
Like you, I started my career with Napster, but I was on the other side, learned a ton as a young lawyer, and now on the other side, we have AI, and comparing the two is so wild. I mean, the polls during Napster were like fans over here, and creators kind of hiding a little bit, and the companies over here. And now it’s like AI’s over here, and we’re all together on the other side.
Yeah. I mean, again, I cannot emphasize this enough: I was a bad lawyer, and I should not have been doing that job.
[Laughs] I doubt that.
I was not good at it. I really wasn’t. And what I remember from that time was that it was college kids; their universities would turn over their IP addresses, and they would get their little lawsuit. We would tell them, “We’re going to go to the district court in Chicago; you’re going to settle for $5,000, because that’s what the RIAA is running this program at. It’s a $5,000 settlement to break even on the cost and to deter you, and then you’re going to go work at the pizza place for a semester, pay your bill, and move on.” And I thought, this can’t be accomplishing a goal. The thing I’m doing right now is nothing. And maybe that’s why I felt like I was a horrible lawyer. Maybe that’s why I got out of it. But what you’re describing is the poles there, where there was no pushback on, well, these kids just love music. The thing they love is just music, and now they can get it, and they have it. They weren’t thinking about the business model of CDs.
That’s what Napster fundamentally disrupted. There was a scarce physical object that you could go pay $15 for, and if Metallica sold enough of those, their plane would get bigger, and everyone could kind of see that. And, “I’m listening to a lot of this music, and it should make you rich,” was nowhere close to reality. We’ve built those models now. We have built Spotify and Apple Music and all the subscription models. I want to talk about YouTube quite a bit, actually, where you can listen to a lot of music and some people will get rich, but a middle class of artists may just be totally hollowed out. And now the AI companies are like, “And we’re going to set up a competitor where you can just ask for music and no one except us will get paid.” And that is probably built on a bunch of artists that used to make money by having a lot of attention.
That swirl for me is the one that I can’t decide where my ideals fit into. As a person who has opened Suno and had a good time just making some music, I’m like, well, I understand how this is great for one kind of person with an artistic bent. I understand why this is fun, as somebody who likes music. I do not understand the economics that follow from this, the same way I had no idea how the economics of disrupting the CD would shake out. I’ll actually give you one example just to make this question even longer. We had theCEO of Cloudflare on the show, and they’re trying to set up a system where, instead of websites running advertising on traffic, everyone gets paid a fraction of a cent to make content on the web, like Spotify.
I was like, “Dude, Spotify changed the entire music industry. Artists have different jobs now because of that economic model.” And he was like, “No, I think the big ones are really happy.” And you can argue with him or not argue with him, but it felt to me like the tech industry did not understand what that disruption actually did to music at that moment. Now we’re standing on the precipice of it again. So again, I just want to start there. I’m feeling this existential tension; you described it as art and commerce, where commerce is going to change, and so art has to change as well. How are you thinking about that?
Since we’re talking about existential things, if you go back to why copyright exists, it’s to create more opportunities for more art in the future. That’s why copyright exists. That’s the reason why the property right exists. It’s to create an incentive to allow people to protect their creations so that they will go ahead and make a living doing it. We don’t want this just to be a hobby. We want this to be… Artists are extraordinary people in our culture. They are geniuses who need to be incentivized to share that genius because they’re not normal people. They’re not me. These are incredible people who have something to share, and if they can’t make a living doing it, then they can’t and won’t share it, and we are all worse off. That’s the whole purpose of copyright, is to be able to allow them to be able to benefit from that in some way, shape, or form.
Now, obviously all this infrastructure has grown up around it, all these companies have grown up around it, et cetera, but that’s sort of the basic premise. And you have to ask yourself the question: if non-human music, which can be made in two seconds without lived experience and, in my view, without a soul, can dilute or drown out the incentives for people to be able to make a living as humans making art, what happens? What happens to our culture? And I think that is an existential question that is not just academic to ask.
We could talk about differentiation in the marketplace; we can talk about whether or not Taylor Swift competing with an indie grunge band is the right model for everybody to be able to get their piece of the business on these streaming services. But at its core, it’s still essentially human, and it still distributes art that took sometimes 20 years to make, sometimes three minutes to make. It depends on the genius of the artist doing it, but it still has all of those human warts and craft. It has craft.
I think that if you have a system where the incentive is with the tech company that makes the AI to use everything that humanity has ever created to make money and, at the same time, then deplete the opportunity for future human music, we’re going to have a society that is one way going backwards and another way going forwards. If the culture suffers going forwards more than improving on what went backwards, we are in the wrong place, and we’re not doing the right things. And that’s what I mean about sort of rowing together.
I live in the policy world. You have to ask yourself, what policies can we put in place to create the incentives to allow that better future of human-made music? It’s really hard. It’s super hard.
When I say I’m having this existential dilemma… Just to put it into clear focus for the listener: In the age of the CD, the economic value was tied to a scarce physical object. There are only so many CDs. And then you could maybe copy CDs, and Apple would get in trouble for saying that you could rip, mix, and burn CDs. That was a whole ad campaign, and Apple got in trouble for incentivizing people to copy CDs. But you would pay money for an object that existed, and then we got to the digital world, and the friction to copy the song went to zero. We had to invent a new model, and that model looks like Spotify and the rest. Now we’re in the age of AI, and the friction to create might be going to zero. So there’s even less scarcity because you can just horsepower an AI pop star into existence singing an AI song, and there’s going to be a glut of supply.
Somewhere in there is marketing, somewhere in there is fandom. There’s all this stuff that can create other kinds of scarcity, but that’s the journey the music industry has been on. I always say whatever happens to the music industry happens to everybody else five years later. The music industry is always on the cutting edge.
Where does the new scarcity come from in this model? Is it you doing policy work and lobbying governments for changes to the laws? Is it fans revolting and saying, “We want human artists”? Is it the platforms labeling everything? Where does the scarcity come back in?
You’re the first person, I think, that I’ve listened to who has honed in on this particular question. At the end of the day, it’s always the fans, in my view. They will always win, because if you are any kind of service, with any kind of business model — I don’t care if you’re AI, I don’t care if you’re streaming — you need human beings to pay you money, usually by subscribing, as that’s the highest revenue source. And they’re not going to do that if they feel like they are losing out. I do think, given all of the focus groups, polling, everything that we’ve done, and other people have done on this, it is very clear that fans want to maintain a human connection with an artist.
It’s not just about the music. It’s also about the artist, the persona, the brand, the emotional connection. Taylor Swift’s fans love her music, but they also love her. Pearl Jam’s fans love their music, but it’s also, like, Pearl Jam. You know what I mean? They’re their own piece of culture. And so we know, for example, that if a fan knows that a song is AI, then they have a different view of it than if they know that it is human.
Do you think that’s going to last forever? I’m honestly curious about this. It has changed even in the last year.
It has. I think that, with generative AI, it will last forever. In other words, with a completely machine-made piece of art, it will, because you lose that connection. On assistive AI, where creators are using AI, even in a broad way as a tool to get their creation out there, right now it might be a little bit suspect. In a few years, it may just be like using a synthesizer or using Auto-Tune. There might be some people who think it’s not the greatest, but it’ll be an accepted part of the art form. So I think there’s a difference between… Are you maintaining the human connection? That’s the question. You can use AI as a big part of the tool to do that, but in some way, are you maintaining that human connection?
I think that’s the test, and that doesn’t happen with a prompt. I mean, that doesn’t happen with me sitting there typing in 18 words on Pseudo, then more words to get it to a place that sounds better to my ear, and then sticking it up on Spotify through DistroKid. I just don’t think that will ever cut it, even though I think there is a bigger scale when it comes to assistive AI.
So, fans rule. I think labeling is happening and will continue to happen because of fans; I think consumer reactions will happen because of labeling, and that will then drive the economics of the business. So labeling is actually a very important piece of this. But I also think that if you don’t secure the rights, fans never get a chance to then do their thing, which is to ultimately control the market. My focus all around the world is: have we secured the basic rights of creators? If we’ve done that, fans can take over and drive the market from there.
I want to talk about all that. It occurs to me that I have gotten immediately as deep into my feelings as I can with you, and I forgot to ask you the very basic questions that I ask everybody who comes on the show. So obviously the RIAA is well known; it’s either a hero or a villain, depending on where you are in your story, as we have both determined.
Tell people what the RIAA is, how big it is, and how it’s structured.
We’re based in Washington, D.C., because that’s where the federal government is. We used to be based in New York. RIAA actually started as a tech standards association. They created the RIAA curve, the equalization curve that allowed both the recording and the playback of vinyl records in a way that would work on every single record player. So it didn’t really start out as a lobbying organization or a litigation organization; that’s how we became famous or infamous, depending on where you sit. We started out as a tech standards organization, and we still do that. We still participate in international standard-setting organizations right now to try to set the fields, for example, for the metadata that people will use, whether it’s AI or any other technological format, or in labeling, for example. But we also run the gold and platinum program, which we’re probably best known for with the general public.
So we’re like those nerdy auditors that actually certify the gold and platinum records, like the PricewaterhouseCoopers lawyers that walk out on the Oscars or whatever. But that’s great because it allows us to interact directly with artists and celebrate their success, which is very cool. We also put together all the revenue from the entire recorded part of the music business, and we release that twice a year. That helps inform people about the markets, and it helps to, on the business side, give people the benchmarks that they need industry-wide. Everybody knows what their company is doing, what their management company is doing, but to know what the whole industry is doing and whether or not you are on par is quite helpful.
We are the spokesperson when the industry is aligned. We’re out there talking on behalf of the industry. We technically represent the major labels, but we forge coalitions because whether you’re major or indie, whether you’re an artist or a publisher or a songwriter, most of the time our interests are aligned. Every once in a while we fight with each other, but when we are aligned, which I would say is 90 percent of the time, the RIAA is sort of the driving force in building coalitions so that we can all speak together.
So we do a lot of stuff. We don’t just sue people and lobby the government, although those are big parts of what we do. And then we also take on the content protection force for the industry. Our content protection department operates 365 days per year, 24 hours per day. We work with sister organizations in London and New Zealand. So it doesn’t matter what time of day it is; we have people coordinated and working around the clock. And then we do all those take-down notices. We get a note from a manager saying, “A pre-release of this artist’s material that hasn’t come out yet is up. We need your help getting it down.”
We do all of that, and we do it… The entire organization is only 46 people.
Wow.
Isn’t that amazing? But the most passionate music lovers you would ever imagine.
It’s only 46 people?
Only 46 people.
How is that structured? Does everyone just do everything all day long?
There aren’t as many redundancies as there should be. We’re divided into those different departments, like content protection, communications and research, public policy and industry relations, and obviously legal affairs. So we are, I would say, small and nimble, but we punch above our weight. We are high profile, but our industry, if you think about it compared to the folks that we are up against, if you want to view it that way, is really small. I mean, the entire recorded music business was $11 billion wholesale last year in the United States. The market cap of just one AI company is $2 trillion.
So when we are out there lobbying, and we’ve got our three-person lobbying team at the RIAA trying to make a point to policymakers, and you’re dealing with super PAC money that equals $250 million in a midterm cycle, we don’t have that kind of revenue. But what we do have is music, and we have artists who everybody loves, who are culture makers, and who are messengers that people trust and listen to. I think we do pretty well for our tininess.
The other question I ask every CEO who comes on the show is about decisions. You have a lot of decisions to make. Some of these are decisions of first impression. No one has ever decided how AI and art should work together. How do you make decisions? What’s your framework?
Personally, my leadership style is that I like to have people around me who are not “yes” people. I don’t want people just sort of… If I come up with an idea, I don’t want it to be reinforced immediately. If you agree with that, great. But I like to hear from everybody. I think my team knows that I like to hear the truth, and I want to hear their raw opinion because I want to check my instincts. I usually have a gut instinct, but then I will survey people that I trust in our companies and people on my own team. I’m learning to be a better listener. When I hear people, as soon as in my mind, I feel like I know what they’re saying, I tend to then jump ahead to the next… I’m deposing them. I have a million questions.
I’m learning to be a better listener and kind of understand where they’re coming from. Then I take all of it, and I synthesize it. And I would say about maybe 60 percent of the time I end up with my original gut reaction, but 40 percent of the time I take a different path because of what I’ve heard and the expertise of those who are around me. So it takes a little longer than it maybe should, and you don’t always have time. Sometimes you have to make a snap decision, but on something really big, like what strategy are we going to take? If we feel like we need to bring a lawsuit, which is going to be a major, publicized, precedent-setting lawsuit that could determine the rights that creators have, you have to take that as seriously as it is, and make sure that you are getting all the opinions that you need to get.
I also have a ton of friends who work, so to speak, on the other side. These are people who I trust, and I’ve known for many years, and I will often, without disclosing anything I’m not supposed to disclose, call them and say, “What is your perspective on this? I live in this world of creator rights where I’m thinking in one direction, but what would you argue on the other side? How are you looking at this?” And when that informs your decision-making, not only are you more prepared, but sometimes you will alter the way you think about something by putting yourself in their shoes and understanding there’s another side to this that’s going to make sense to a judge or to a policymaker because they’re not crazy. They have a different take, and it’s pretty valid.
Sometimes I have to be a moderating force even in my own industry, saying, “We’re living in our bubble, they’re living in their bubble, and so if we’re going to be effective at finding a solution, if that’s what we want, then we may have to think about this in a way that leads to a landing zone.” If we don’t want a solution and what we’re trying to do is make good trouble, that’s okay. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s a good thing. It can lead to good results. But if we’re trying to get to here, we better figure out a realistic path to get there.
Okay. I’m very sorry for this, but it feels to me like the rest of this conversation is just going to be nightmare law school hypotheticals. This is just what we’re doing now.
Nothing wrong with that.
That framework applies to a lot of different problems. Particularly on the other side, they make some good points too. So I opened Instagram today, and I saw nine million deepfakes of celebrities being put in the video for Pop Star by Drake. Have you ever seen this video?
Yes, yes.
Drake didn’t do it himself. It’s Justin Bieber acting as Drake in the video. And I saw one with Lewis Hamilton today. I saw one with Donald Trump today. I saw a full Star Wars one where it’s Darth Vader, and he’s just been deepfaked into Justin Bieber’s mansion singing a Drake song. And I thought to myself, I can’t even count the layers of intellectual property issues here. First of all, no one has the license to any of this likeness, right? Lewis Hamilton could probably be like, “Hey, that’s me.” I don’t know under which law he gets to show up and say, “Hey, that’s me,” and to whom he says it. Is it an AI company? Is it the person who made the video? Is it Instagram? Some of the platforms have private policies like YouTube now. Even just that, where to begin? That’s very connected to you saying the scarcity is in the artist.
The scarcity is in the relationship the fan has to the artist, but that has nothing to do with the copyrights you routinely enforce, which is the recording. You can see I’m just spiraling. I watched one video, eight seconds of Darth Vader doing a Drake song, and I thought, I don’t even know where to begin. Is it Disney who gets to be the angriest, or is it Drake, or is it someone in the middle? Can you help me just organize my thoughts here?
First of all, I’m so glad you’re bringing this up because we literally, over the past three years, have been dealing with exactly this. Because believe it or not, and it’s so bizarre to think about, none of us right now has a right to our own voice or likeness under federal law. Most of us don’t even have it under state law. State law, which is called the right of publicity, usually only applies to advertising or endorsements. I couldn’t take your face and put it on a Wheaties box without asking you because I’m selling it and making money, and I’d be using your popularity to do so. Those are very limited rights. Now we’re in the world of deep fakes where everybody can do anything, make you say or do something you never said, you never did, and that you might not approve of — and we don’t have a basic right to ourselves under the law.
It seems so weird in a country that was founded on individual liberty and individual rights that we wouldn’t have an individual right to ourselves. So we had to sort of start from scratch. And what we did was get together with YouTube in the very beginning. These things, even if they’re not created by the platforms, the avenue to the fan is through the platform. And everybody’s not going to bring a lawsuit against everybody in order to get this stuff down when it’s proliferating as fast as it is. So the question was, what responsibility does or can the platform have to give a very simple takedown mechanism that anybody could use? Because this is your face, it’s your right. It’s not like the record company owns the right to your face, or the movie company. You own the right to your face.
So if you don’t like the fact that somebody used your face or your voice in a way you didn’t like, you should be able to very quickly say, “That’s me, I can prove it’s me, and I don’t want it up there.” And the platform should want to do something to protect the integrity of the platform without liability.
Can I just stop you? This is why it’s a nightmare hypothetical, right? A longstanding trope atThe Vergestarted by our former colleague, Sarah Jeong, is that copyright law is the only functional law on the internet. The only way you actually really want to regulate the internet is to take things down. That is the thing that people want to accomplish. The First Amendment basically prohibits the government from creating some mechanism to take things down, except in the case of copyright law, where we have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. There’s a huge notice-and-takedown regime in that law, and it is frequently abused on all of these platforms to get things taken down.
The purpose of that law has been stretched beyond recognition. If you issue a YouTube strike to a YouTuber on that platform, all hell breaks loose. That is an act of war because unless you’re doing it for the right purpose, they know you’re doing it to harass them.
This is a lot, right? You’re describing a new notice-and-takedown regime that isn’t based in the law. It’s based on some private company’s understanding of what a likeness is. And there are all kinds of reasons that I might want to publish a video of Donald Trump. There are all kinds of reasons that I might want to publish a video of Drake that have nothing to do with using his likeness for commercial purposes. And granting those people the ability to take things down is the same problem without, I don’t know, a federal fair use regime or some other… How do you balance that?
Great. So this is why it took three years, and it’s still going on, because what you’re saying is, first of all, you need to learn from the experience with the DMCA. It is the precedent we have, and there are obviously problems on both sides. You need to learn from those. The second is you need to create a new intellectual property right, in this case, much closer to trademark than to copyright, but still an intellectual property right, because that is, as you said, sort of the functional way of balancing that against the First Amendment. If you have an intellectual property right, you are allowed to remove it despite somebody’s other free speech rights. In this case, there’s a weird analysis of, do you have a free speech right to control how your voice is used? So it’s like free speech versus free speech.
What we did was, besides getting together with many First Amendment law scholars and trying to hammer this out, which was a fascinating learning process, by the way… I feel like I got to go back to law school and listen to these brilliant constitutional scholars talk about the tension between the First Amendment and intellectual property rights. What you have to do, if you’re going to create a takedown regime, is put in hurdles on both sides. You have to put in hurdles on the “I’m telling you to take it down” side. And there are lots of things we’ve learned from the past, like: Are we going to force a, in this case, First Amendment review before you can send the notice? What’s the punishment if you send a false notice? Is that punishment high enough to deter false notices? Then on the back end, you have to have a counter notice, right? And then how do you make sure that that works well and that it’s not too low a hurdle, but a little bit of a hurdle because you want to have balance on both sides?
And then finally you have this middle area where there’s going to be a decision about whether or not it’s a parody, for example, which many are, and the First Amendment trumps copyright when it comes to a parody. What if it’s news? And what is news anymore? What is bona fide news versus some of the stuff I’m getting when I’m scrolling? We then created this middle period where a temporary restraining order, a very quick legal action, could take place and a judge could actually decide the constitutional question — because nobody wants the platforms deciding constitutional questions. The people on both sides are like regular people. They’re not going to be making ultimate determinations. So that’s ultimately what we came down to in the NO FAKES Act, which is the name of the federal bill that’s now being pushed. And whether the balance there is perfect or not yet, I don’t know, but I do know that we learned a lot of lessons from the DMCA.
I think everybody is very aware that the First Amendment defenses are really paramount in any kind of regime like this, and that overprotecting on either side… If you overprotect on the First Amendment side, then this also applies to a girl who’s bullied in high school and some kid takes her face and sticks it on a body that’s not hers. You don’t want that staying up when it shouldn’t. On the other hand, I have the right to use your face for certain things because that’s my free speech, and it’s really funny, or I’m making a point about underlying character or something like that. So, long answer: there’s no perfect response, but this time we had OpenAI at the table, we had YouTube at the table, we had people from Public Knowledge at the table who bring a different perspective than we would bring. We ultimately got to a place where I don’t think folks are thrilled on all sides of it, but I think they think it’s progress.
It’s something. I will grant you that it’s something. It’s better than what we have now, but it’s fundamentally the creation of a new intellectual property right.
Absolutely it is.
And there’s some balance there that almost certainly will track the same balance that copyright law and music have undergone over the past hundred years.
No question.
The initial debates about copyright law and music were about player pianos. We’ve built huge institutions to manage these rights.
I said I was going to talk about Google a lot, and the tension inside of Google when it comes to this is the next sort of nightmare law school hypothetical for you. Google has two conceptions of itself. YouTube describes itself as a licensing regime. There’s a lot of content on YouTube; the creators make it, and Google takes a license to it. Whether or not any creator ever gets to negotiate that license is of secondary concern. There’s a lot of music on YouTube, and the industry had to fight its way into licensing on YouTube. Music is existential for YouTube, and the industry knows it has that power. There’s a real back and forth. Maybe the only industry that has true negotiating power with YouTube is the music industry. And you can see this play out over and over and over again.
On the other side of the house, Google Search is a huge business; they will describe it to you as a fair use regime. We’re going to ingest all the photos in the world and let you search them; that’s fair use, and we’re going to litigate our way through that. We’re going to ingest all the books in the world for Google Books; that’s fair use, and we’re going to litigate that. And they have done that over and over and over again.
You can work with the people at YouTube. They’re very reasonable. Neal Mohan is a smart guy. He understands that he needs music on that platform to survive, and he will build you the tools that you’re asking for, and he has. And then the people running Google are like, “We’re just going to eat everything, and training an AI model is fair use.” And just in that one company, they are totally at odds with each other. They’re going to kill each other somehow. How do you make sense of that?
What’s so fascinating to me about YouTube is that it is the first real lesson in the arc of the DMCA. It’s where I think a technology-based company realized that even if you win the fight on intellectual property rights, if you don’t have a partnership through a license in the actual market where fans are, you are not going to have the service that fans really want. And so it was the first time that everybody realized that you can win the case but lose the business. Music is such a driver of YouTube, and I think this applies to AI too. Having pristine copies that fans really want, and then having marketing partnerships and partnerships with people who invest in and partner with creators, is what matters. Those creators have a better sense of how to create the bond between that particular artist that they’ve been living with and sort of building a brand around. They understand that, versus sitting in a cubicle in a tech company and trying to decide how to connect the fan with the artist in the best way, that the former piece is irreplaceable.
And I think YouTube realized that and developed Content ID even though they technically won in court and didn’t have to, so to speak. Now, the partnership is so ingrained that there’s a dependency, or a codependency, and that’s how it’s supposed to work. It also works because of this concept in copyright law called substitution. If what you’re creating substitutes for something else, it’s probably not fair use. That’s what we’re arguing in our case against Suno. You’re basically creating music that is competing on the same platform right next to human-made music; you can click on either one, and you’re paying the same subscription fee. And so you’re affecting the economic pool, and you’re effectively substituting in the marketplace.
This is the fourth factor of fair use, which courts say is the most important: are you affecting the potential market for the underlying work? And if you are, that’s sort of problem number one. Google, unlike in the YouTube case under the DMCA, the case that they won in the Supreme Court was about creating an index. And the idea is if you click on it, it could lead you to the work that you might then buy. The search result doesn’t substitute for the work, but it could lead you to the work, which at the end of the day may not have the same economic consequence. It could even have a positive economic consequence. At least they would argue that.
So there’s this weird thing: Google won its case, and YouTube won its case, but YouTube formed a partnership despite the win because that’s the best fan experience. And Google didn’t because it wasn’t as related to the fan experience. The fan experience was potentially pointed to by their activity. So that’s my weird law school take on the two cases.
If you’re running Google, if you’re in charge of Google Gemini, you need all of the data in the world. That is just how it works. To make the models better and to win against OpenAI, you need more data, and all of those companies just took it. I do not think Google came to you and said, “Can we license all the music in your database even though we already have a license on YouTube?” In fact, they just scraped YouTube.
I don’t think creators have woken up to the fact that they’ve given a lot of economic value to Google and its models. The other AI companies also scraped YouTube, and Google can’t yell at them because then they will have to reveal that they scraped YouTube, and this is about as tense a fight in the AI industry as there is.
You’re going to come to Google at some point, and you’re going to say, “No, you got to pay us for that training.” I know you’re suing Suno, but that feels like a little test balloon for the people with the real money. At some point they’re going to say, “No, this training was fair use.” We’re watching this dynamic play out in dozens of these cases across the industry. How do you make sense of that? Where you’re going to say, “You’re going to kill us. If the AI models flood YouTube with fake music, you’re actually going to kill the supply of the data that you need.”
So there’s the legal side and the business side. On the legal side, obviously we’re bringing this as a precedent-setting case to show that it is not fair use to train on music. And whatever exemption you want to think of, it’s hard for us to imagine how it applies. I don’t think national security is at risk because you have to copy Drake. I don’t think that there’s-
Wait, what did we play in the war in Panama? We played Metallica at them at full volume?
Right, right. Maybe it’ll be used for soft power, or propaganda blasted on the screens.
The Clash was very upset when “Rock the Casbah” was the soundtrack to the Gulf War. I’m just letting you know.
I bet. I bet. Going back to securing the rights. We’re bringing this case to make sure that the rights are secured, so then every company knows that you are not allowed to make reproductions of other people’s music without consent or compensation. That’s basically what we’re trying to establish. And then once you secure the right, you let the marketplace develop from there. I’m sure that the good people at Google and at other companies understand the risks. It’s fascinating.
Nilay, I don’t know if you’ve read the SEC document that Anthropic just had to file in order to have their IPO, but in the risk section, it’s basically like, “Well, it could be that all this scraping that we’ve been doing actually violated all these laws and that could, if it’s willful, put us in a liability deficit of x. People who are investing as new shareholders should sort of know that information.”
So they kind of acknowledge upfront this could be a high cost of doing business going forward, and yet they’re going to have a spectacular IPO despite those risks. This means that they’re willing to bear them, and they’re also willing to accept the cost if and when that comes and it is secured.
Actually, I have a different view on that, and it’s related to the beginning of our conversation. I think yougave a quote to theLos Angeles Timeswhere you said being the RIAA is more fun now because the consumers are on your side fighting the AI giants instead of you fighting consumers. I get that. The valence of the RIAA and the culture may have changed. I’m sure we’ll get some people in our comments saying it hasn’t, but in general, it’s changed, right? You’re on the side of the artist fighting the giants.
Google won all of those cases about fair use when it was a baby, right? And they had slides in the office, and they were a startup, and no judge had ever used the internet before, and they’re like, “I love YouTube!” And Viacom, you’re posting your videos on YouTube because your people love YouTube, and you know the audience is there. There was something very happy about the tech industry at that time. Google, as a company, was a hero.
I think these companies are villains now. But truly, and if you look at the polling, they are not beloved. AI is not beloved, particularly with young people. The idea that AI is theft is held by young people. That gives you an opportunity to actually turn the screws harder, to say maybe you shouldn’t bear these risks. Maybe the artists should be the ones getting rich, not the AI companies. Are you putting that into policy, or are you just trying to negotiate to an outcome?
No, we’re putting it into policy. Everything is an arc, as you know, but in the beginning of a disruption, you try to put into policy the basic rights that are going to allow the creators to control their creation, to charge what they want for their creation, and to develop the licensing deals that they feel they want to develop. And it’s gotten to be even bigger now than in the Napster days because back then, as you said, the transition was from CDs. So the artist only made money in those days during a few months after release, and then some CDs still sold for years afterwards, but a lot of them ended up in warehouses, and you kind of had this small window.
The streaming revolution allows “exploitation,” not in the negative sense, but in the positive sense. It allows it to last forever. That’s why you have all these new investors coming into the music community because it’s a little bit more like a commodity now. That’s why Goldman Sachs is buying catalogs. That’s why all of these new companies are coming in, and they’re buying catalogs of music because music’s evergreen. It’s water. People are going to love it forever.
And as an artist, you now have an opportunity you never had in the past. It’s not just to make this chunk on the wholesale cost of CDs within a certain month period; it’s, “Hey, now that I’ve built up this following and people might love these songs 20 years from now, guess what? I can now sell my catalog for a large amount of money to an investor in the future.”
I just want to hit pause here and say that the baby punk rocker in me is… We could do another full hour on artists who now have the opportunity to sell their catalog to Goldman Sachs. It’s another hour. I know it’s there.
Listen, we are all 20-something at some time, and then we’re 50-something at another time. Everybody wants to take care of their grandkids at some point.
But this is an opportunity that they have now that they didn’t have before. And so I think that this disruption… I think there’s more skin in the game for the actual creator than there was in the past when the revenue was more bifurcated or trifurcated. Nobody on the creative side of the equation thinks that it’s right that Suno will be making all the money from all of the music that has been created in the past, and that substitutional effect is going to deprive the artist or any of their partners.
If the artist is in the middle of the sun and you’ve got all the folks around them from performing rights organizations, to record companies, to publishers, to managers, to producers, to agents, et cetera, they’re all sort of partners in a piece of that larger puzzle. And now the artist has more skin in the game than they ever had before, which is another reason why I think we’re sort of rowing together a little bit longer.
There are other outcomes here. I think it’s Warner that’s partnered with Suno; they made a model on Warner’s music so they don’t run into these issues. If that proliferates, then you don’t get to sue the AI music companies because they made their models with licensed music, but you’ll face a supply problem on platforms like Spotify where you can suddenly flood the platforms with music.
Your solution there, at least as I understand this conversation, is labeling. You’regoing to put labels on the AI stuffso the fans can make a market decision, and the bet is the fans will choose humans. Is there another solution to the glut of supply?
Yeah. I think an immediate solution for the marketplace for now is labeling. But I also think that these licensing agreements matter. I’m not privy to the licensing agreements that exist with Suno or any other AI company because I represent competitors, so they would never tell me. But I would imagine that it’s about dilution: where you don’t want to put artists’ music at risk on streaming platforms, because 90 percent of what they’re competing with is AI slop, if I could use that term. The licensing agreement gives you the leverage and the ability, if your rights are secured, to say, “I’m not going to let you download all this stuff.”
I mean, it’s rumored that in the Udio agreement, a walled garden had to be built so that fans could make music within the network on their own Spotify-like app. It wouldn’t discourage them from also having Spotify or Apple; it increases the revenue for everybody, but we’re not going to allow you to download from this platform and dilute that platform.
I don’t know if that’ll work. That seems to be one model. It could be that the terms with Suno had a limit on it or considered supply. I’m not a business person; I’m a policy person. But I think that there are plenty of ways, if the rights are secured, that through licensing arrangements and agreements, creators could then have the leverage to affect the supply so as not to cannibalize the work that they have on other platforms.
Well, I think the policy problem of supply is that it will affect the business somehow. We should talk about Spotify for a minute. It’s amazing that we haven’t spent more time talking about Spotify.
I know!
I think the model companies are not going to listen. You can see what they are doing. They are gluttonous for data, and they think that they can outrun the consequences. We’ll see what happens there. Spotify is not training a model. Spotify is just distributing music. That’s the thing that they’re doing; they’re a pure-play business in that way, and they have a lot of incentives for AI music to replace the music they have to otherwise pay for on that platform. They have a lot of incentives for white noise and fake streams in history to do these things, and they’ve gotten in trouble for some of it. This is a real thing that happens on this platform. Are they going to participate in a labeling scheme and say, “This is AI music?”
I think so, because as much as they have an economic incentive to lower their costs, their biggest economic incentive is to keep fans paying $9.99, $12.99, $15.99 per month. And so if fans feel duped, if you are putting —
Is that proven out in the market? I’m actually very curious about this.
Yes.
You’re saying there’s AI slop on Spotify now, or when you search for Taylor Swift, you get a bunch of weird Taylor Swift soundalikes, which is an experience everyone has on Spotify. It hasn’t churned those fans yet. There’s not some exodus to Tidal or Apple Music. Spotify is still dominant in its way.
Right. I think they’re walking down the road slowly, probably a little too slowly. I’m trying to see if they can do just enough to keep those two things in balance. Right now, for example, Spotify is saying, “We will only disclose or label a recording as AI in the credits.” Well, how many people look at the credits? I wish more people looked at the credits; they would discover producers and songwriters and other awesome folks who have contributed to the recording — but they don’t.
They need to do it at the track level. They’re not there yet. But they are disclosing AI personas that are made, because that’s sort of the highest on the dupe scale. And then under that, they’re looking at the fact that 90 percent of the recordings available on Spotify get 10 percent of the revenue, and 10 percent of the content gets 90 percent of the revenue. It’s because most of what’s on there gets less than 10 listens, or less than a hundred listens, and all of this slop is just going on, which means storage costs and all sorts of other things that they have to think about.
So I think that they will go as far down the road as fans will demand, as their users will demand. I think we’ll get to a point where people get these recommendations in their algorithm. “If you like this song, you’ll also like this one.” And when you listen to it, it turns out it was AI, you didn’t know it was AI, and you’ll feel deceived. That’s when they’ve got a giant problem because they’re responsible for that recommendation. They’re the ones that fed that to you. And we do have lots of consumer research out there showing that subscribers, just like all consumers, want to feel like nobody’s pulling the wool over their eyes.
But is there an actual market pressure? I can think of all kinds of times fans have revolted against Spotify. I love the band Stars, and every now and again they’ll tweet, “We didn’t make any money on this song on Spotify.” And everyone tweets at Spotify, and they’re mad. Spotify’s not paying artists any more money. Is there an actual market pressure that will make this labeling happen, or is it policy pressure?
It’s both. It’s a combination, because there are already laws in other countries that are mandating labels. And once a market like the EU or the US — that’s such a big market — or the UK or China, once they demand labeling on a global system, it’s actually cheaper to do it all around the world than it is to just geo-block it in one country.
This is the California car emission model of regulation, right?
It’s amazing what California can do because these companies are headquartered there. I mean not Spotify, but Apple and Google and others. And so the transparency law in California is the reason why Suno has to, as of August, put a watermark saying, “This is AI-generated” that’s machine-readable. One state, but they’re doing it all over the world because that’s what… So it’s a combination of policy, which obviously we are very directly engaged in, and competition. I predict that what Apple decides to do that is more fan-friendly will drive Spotify, and vice versa.
There’s not that much churn between them, but if there’s some sort of perception that you’re being more subscriber-friendly than somebody else, that tends to drive results. It does the same on the privacy issue, for example, where there’s no law on it, but now companies are competing to say, “We’re the private browser. Apple, we protect your privacy.”
One company says that. Let me ask you this. I’ve only got a few minutes left, and I want to take one turn at the end to talk about how you measure for platinum certification, because that’s also up in the air.
But let me just ask you one more question here on labeling. We have spent a lot of time atThe Vergecovering labels for images and media. There are all these standards that exist. I have one poor reporter, her name is Jess Weatherbed, and she has been forced to learn everything about the C2PA standard and content, SynthID, and all these things.
I’m so sorry. It’s really important, though.
They’re very important, and we spend a lot of time covering them because they have to work. And they have to work in a number of different places in the chain, right? They have to work in the camera, in Photoshop, on Twitter, and everyone has to agree. If Elon Musk does not want SynthID to show up on his platform, it doesn’t matter if it worked in the camera. This is a big chain.
It seems harder in music, much harder because a bunch of bedroom DJs are probably not going to participate in your technical scheme for labeling when they upload to DistroKid. An artist getting a beat from a producer over iMessage — who knows if that metadata will survive. You might have to watermark the sound files themselves in some deep intrinsic way, and that can get you into all kinds of trouble because now you’re screwing with the audio files at the software level and artists don’t like that. How do you make labeling work at all?
Yeah, you’re hitting on our daily meetings. So I mean, there are the international organizations like DDEX, for example, that can help align fields and stuff like that. C2PA, which can give you a model for provenance. But at the end of the day, it has to be the platforms and the distributors that are willing to do it. Because when it comes to generative AI, the record labels are not tagging and putting generative AI up on Spotify. That’s out of the DIY world.
That’s somebody going to a music generator, downloading it, and putting it up through DistroKid. So your gateway is DistroKid, TuneCore. It’s the distributors. Are they using AI detection technology to determine that it’s fully generated? You might not be able to use AI detection technology to say your song is five percent of this or use it for attribution yet, but you can definitely use it to say this is fully generated AI. And if so, are they willing to tag it so that it works with Apple and Spotify’s platform?
Then, on the platforms themselves, this is sort of like the parental advisory program; it might be voluntary, and everybody might have a little bit of a different way of implementing it, but fans are pretty clear. When something’s labeled as parental advisory, which probably just draws more young people to listen to it —
It did to me.
But when it’s labeled as parental advisory, people kind of get it. They know. It’s become sort of a culturally known thing. I think labeling for fully generated AI can definitely get there, but the distributors have to be willing to play. It can’t just be the platforms because if it doesn’t go downstream, they’re going to go in different directions. And already, Deezer’s going in one direction, Apple’s going in another direction, Spotify’s going in another direction. To me, the fully generated problem, which is a DIY problem, is a distributor problem. And we have to provide incentives to the distributors to get them to take responsibility and play ball.
Do you think that technology exists to support the policy there? You need a technology that can detect AI-generated media. I’m not sure that any of that exists or works well.
I think it exists and works well for fully generated AI music. We also do a lot of testing at the RIAA. That’s another thing that our tech team does. And then we disclose the results back to the folks who gave it to us. We won’t disclose it to anybody else, but if you want to know what our test says about your technology, we’ll tell you.
And I think when it comes to fully generated AI, there’s plenty of detection technologies out there that do a really good job. Once you get below that, time will make it better. So I don’t know that we could get into a lot of gradations right now. Deezer, very successfully, on a platform level, uses AI detection technology and then labels what it detects as fully generated AI, and it’s got a very low false positive rate.
I want to end by talking about the certifications for platinum records and so on. It’s an important part of what you do. All the artists want their little records on their wall. It’s amazing that it’s still records. One of our jokes atThe Vergeis also that no one knows how to count anything, that Nielsen ratings — I should probably disclose, we are now part of the company that owns Luminate, which powers the Billboard charts.
The Billboard charts and their methodology are always in flux. Actually, I think as of this year, they’re in a fight with YouTube. YouTube does not want to be counted on the Billboard charts because some methodologies are… Counting is very political.
It is.
You literally give awards for counting to a big number. That is in flux as artists gain more attention on TikTok. And I have probably heard that whole Nicole Kidman song, in fragments on TikTok. I’ve never listened to the whole thing all the way through, and I’m certainly never going to buy a copy of it. Again, all in flux, and then somewhere in there is a bunch of AI remixes, and now I’ve listened to “Pop Star” by Drake 10,000 times because Darth Vader is singing it to me.
How are you thinking about that methodology, as to who’s creating what? AI is in the mix, and we’re listening to more and more fragments to discover songs on social platforms than anything else.
I swear to God, you are in my daily meetings.
Can I just tell you? I’m happy to hear that. I driveThe Vergeteam crazy because I’m like, the music industry is the future always. And they’re like, no one wants to listen to that. So thank you for indulging me. I appreciate you.
I mean, you have your finger on the pulse. This is exactly the type of stuff we’re thinking of. So right now we’re still in the world of 1500 streams equaling one unit, and what used to be the sale of a CD. Now it’s obviously singles-based more than albums-based, although we still do certify albums. And if you look at the chart eligibility program that is now being implemented outside of Billboard and OCC, in other places of the world, they have made rules to say, unless it’s substantially human, we are not going to allow it to be eligible for the chart because you’re literally taking the place of a human artist on number 49. Billboard, so far, will allow it, but they’ll label it.
We haven’t, because we certify albums that were released by record companies. We have yet to run into the issue of the AI slop or the machine-created piece. But as we get more into assistive AI, as creators start to use AI more, and you look at the chart eligibility of substantially human, does a stream as part of that 1500 mean that it still has to be a human stream? Yes, I’m sure that we will come down on that side.
But what does substantially human mean? I think over time that might change. It might be different three years from now than it is today. But at the core, it’s got to be in the control of the creator. And some people would argue that putting nine words into a music generator is an act of creation.
Oh, they will. They’re going to. Yeah.
And that they are a creator, and therefore it’s the same thing. It’s not the same thing. Not saying that craft doesn’t change over time, and that in songwriting it’s also different than in producing and creating a recording. Using AI in the songwriting process may look very different than it does in the recording process, so we have to think about that too. But as far as gold and platinum go, we are still in the reliably safe zone of being able to know with a great deal of certainty exactly what we’re doing. I think the evolution over time is going to be in how creators use AI more than it will need to be in something that’s fully machine-readable or machine-created.
Well, Mitch, you’ve given us so much time. As you can tell, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. I could keep going for hours and hours now.
Me too. I mean, honestly, this has been awesome. You freaked me out a little bit because you… It’s so great to see, though, because the stuff that you’re focused on is exactly what we are trying to grapple with every single day. And I think where we’ve come to is that we can’t pretend that there are easy answers. We can’t just react sort of in a knee-jerk way. We’ve got to try to figure out a path forward that’s going to allow the industry to change and grow. This industry’s adapted more times than any other industry in the history of our country. I mean, nobody goes from wax cylinders to AI in a hundred years. Can you imagine asking Boeing to make cars? So, a very adaptable industry.
I agree with you that we’re ahead of the game and that we are the future. We’re sort of living it. And the lessons that we learned from the music industry, we can apply to a lot of other things. So this has been awesome.
Thank you so much for being onDecoder. Really appreciate it.
Veteran drummer Bobby Taylor, a staple of the St. Louis rock scene, has died. His passing comes after a years-long cancer battle. His family announced Taylor’s death in a heartbreaking tribute.
“Love is knowing when to let go,” Taylor’s wife, Jami, wrote in a Facebook post. “Rest in peace, my beautiful sweet husband. You don’t have to fight or suffer anymore. Fly high, my love. We WILL be together again one day. Bobby Taylor lost his fight today. He fought until the bitter end. He was NOT going without a fight! Even the hospice nurses couldn’t believe what they were witnessing with his tenacity and to fight and hold on!”
St. Louis drum legend Bobby Taylor has passed away
Local music group Jamming.LIVE STL also shared an online memorial to Taylor. “Bobby Taylor wasn’t just a drummer,” they wrote in a Facebook post. “He was an absolute BEAST behind the drums!” the post read. “His energy, passion, and talent could light up any stage, and his powerful presence left a lasting impression on everyone who had the privilege of watching him perform. But beyond the music, Bobby was a genuinely kind soul with a big heart. He loved his wife deeply, and that love was just as powerful as the music he played.”
“Bobby fought a heroic and courageous battle with cancer, showing incredible strength and determination along the way,” the post added. “Though his battle has come to an end, his legacy will live on through the music, the memories, and the countless lives he touched. We extend our deepest condolences to his beloved wife, family, friends, and fellow musicians. The stages may be a little quieter without Bobby, but the beat he left in our hearts will never fade.”
Finally, Taylor’s bandmates in the band Foreplay issued a statement on his passing. “The original Foreplay is mourning as a band,” they wrote. “We have lost a bandmate, a brother, a friend and an enormously talented drummer. He is loved and will be missed more than words can express.”
“When Bobby Taylor joined Foreplay, it was like finding the missing piece of a puzzle. He made us complete. It was at that moment that the magic began. He loved playing drums with Foreplay. This is how we will remember Bobby,” the statement concluded. “May his memory always be a blessing!”
After 20 years with ’80s rock band The Cult, drummer John Tempesta announced his departure from the group. He shared the news with fans on social media, posting a message on Facebook. This decision comes in the wake of tickets going on sale for The Cult’s upcoming U.S. tour.
“After 20 years, my chapter with The Cult has come to an end,” Tempesta wrote in his post. “So many unforgettable shows, experiences, and memories. I’m incredibly thankful to every single fan who was there along the way. Your support has meant so much to me.”
He continued, “I’m looking forward to getting back out there, playing music and seeing where the next chapter takes me. Here’s to 2027! Wishing the guys all the best!”
The Cult has a tour planned with A Perfect Circle for 2027, and Tempesta’s departure comes just several weeks after ticket sales went live. Currently, Tempesta has not shared the reason for his departure, and the remaining members of The Cult have not responded. Fans should keep an eye on the band’s social media pages for the latest updates on the tour and the drummer.
Beloved Drummer of 80s Rock Band The Cult Announces Departure Ahead of Upcoming U.S. Tour
The Cult formed in Bradford, England in 1983, and their blend of post-punk and goth rock earned them acclaim in the U.K. and U.S. John Tempesta joined on drums in 2006, after getting his start as a drum tech for Anthrax’s Charlie Benante in the 80s. From there he joined Exodus in 1989, then Testament. He later performed with Rob Zombie, Tony Iommi, Helmet, and Zakk Wylde.
The comments of Tempesta’s announcement were full of fans sharing support for the drummer. Many also posted speculations about what he would do next, with the most popular theory being a White Zombie reunion.
“Reuniting with Rob Zombie to complete the original solo band line-up?” on comment asked. Another wrote, “White Zombie getting back together????” Other fans simply shared encouragement, such as, “Excited to see your next chapter!!” and “You’re without doubt the best drummer the Cult have ever had.”
Other comments mentioned Pearl Jam’s drummer situation. “Pearl Jams looking,” one person wrote. Another commented, “You would be awesome in Pearl Jam!” A more confident fan posited, “I’m guessing he’s already had an offer. Probably Pearl Jam.”
But among all the suggestions that Tempesta join Pearl Jam, only one person mentioned how his drumming style would sound with the 90s grunge icons. They compared Tempesta’s drumming to a high-powered Rolls-Royce engine, and Pearl Jam to a three-wheeled fiberglass car from the 70s.
“So many people saying about Pearl Jam needing a drummer,” they wrote. “I love PJ but it would be like putting a Merlin Engine in a Reliant Robin.”
The composer’s song “On the Nature of Daylight” has popped up in countless sob fests including “Arrival” and “Hamnet.” With billions of streams, he’s become one of the most popular and successful composers of our time.
Soul Glo has a new record called NA I'M GON GRAB ALLAT coming out in January, and I, for one, can not wait. While two singles have dropped, it's not enough to truly tide me over, so I've been revisiting Songs to Yeet at the Sun and my favorite album of 2022 - Diaspora Problems.
"Gold Chain Punk (whogonbeatmyass?)" is an opening salvo for the ages. Bong rip, into a catchy-as-hell hardcore riff, with frontman Pierce Jordan ranting. Then comes the half-time stomp as Jordan gets fully unhinged, screaming "Who gon beat my ass? Who the fuck gon beat my ass?" From here on out, as the music shifts through a few different sections, the energy never …
A typical Los Angeles late-night outing turned very scary for former boxing star Adrien Broner. During a livestream with Blueface (captured by TMZ), he was completely out of it while attending a Skilla Baby concert. Though it’s not certain if it was a health crisis or if he was grappling with substances, he clearly couldn’t act on his own volition.
Consequently, an EMS worker and Broner’s friends lifted him off a couch and carried him down a flight of stairs. Slowly but surely, he started to regain composure. Then, he was transported to a wheelchair before leaving the venue completely and heading into a car.
Adrien Broner was best known for his days as a professional boxer. In his prime, he was a history maker; in 2015, he was the second-youngest boxer to win a world title in four different weight divisions. His amateur career saw him win 300 times out of 319 fights. In his professional career, he won 35 fights out of 42. 24 of those wins came by knockout.
Nowadays, Broner is an online streamer. He’ll make frequent appearances with fellow celebrities and streamers like Ray J and Blueface on platforms like Kick.
Adrien Broner Gets Carried Out of Skilla Baby Concert While on Stream with Blueface
This is one of many wild instances to take place during a Blueface stream in 2026. Most recently, he was arrested following a swatting call while wearing a Mr. Incredible costume. While perusing Santa Clarita, California on his Kick stream, someone called the police claiming a man was pointing a gun around.
By the end of the investigation, authorities determined it was a swatting call. But because Blueface made the process difficult, they still ended up bringing him in.
Experiencing swatting calls during his Kick streams has been constant for the West Coast rapper. For instance, during another ugly experience in Santa Clarita, he was at a seafood restaurant with his then-girlfriend Nevaeh Akira and their son. Reports at the time indicated there was severe violence and the police responded accordingly with their guns drawn.
However, the entire exchange proceeded relatively smoothly. Both Blueface and the officers went through the procedure as usual and sorted out any confusion at the time. Moreover, even the police themselves seemed familiar enough with the rapper to determine that these kinds of swatting calls are frequent.
Everyone has their go-to movies when the holiday season commences. It’s a Wonderful Life, A Charlie Brown Christmas, Home Alone, maybe you throw a slight curveball and go with Die Hard. Another popular Christmas film is the Will Ferrell comedy Elf in 2003, where he learns he’s actually a human instead of one of Santa’s elves.
In an age of constant sequels and remakes, it’s a shocker that no one in Hollywood attempted to reboot it. However, apparently, someone already tried it: David Howell Evans, aka The Edge in U2.
According to comedian Andy Richter on Obsessed: The Podcast, producer Shauna Robertson received a message from Evans that he wrote a script for Elf 2. Obviously, neither the script nor the film ever came to fruition. However, apparently, the script is completed, and no one has ever seen or read it.
“Somebody reached out to her and said, ‘The Edge from U2 has written a sequel to ‘Elf,’ and he wants to talk to you about it,’” Richter recalled. “It’s the weirdest story, but apparently it was fully written. Somewhere in the world there is an Edge-penned ‘Elf 2’ out there… I would love for that to make the light of day. It never happened. It’s one of those things where she’s like, ‘All right, sure, I’ll meet him.’ Then it just petered out and never happened.”
The Edge Once Channeled His Christmas Spirit for an ‘Elf 2’ Script
Ultimately, Richter and all parties involved in the original Elf found it was for the best that they never made a sequel. “Now that time has passed, the movie has become so special that I think that people, rightfully so, are loath to mess with it because we all can think of movies that have been tarnished by their sequels. And this is so special and so perfect and so beloved… Why risk it?” he said.
As far as The Edge is concerned, he hasn’t addressed any secret Elf 2 script. Moreover, he has never been connected to another film before or since as a writer. Instead, he has maintained his position as lead guitarist, keyboardist, and backing vocalist for U2. He’s recorded all 15 albums with the band as well as one solo effort. Moreover, his legacy largely revolves around his instrumentation, recognized as one of the most prominent and acclaimed guitarists in rock.
There are tons of precautions fans have to take when attending a concert. Any health concerns have to be worked around beforehand and during the show. Dehydration is a massive concern; countless fans have passed out trying to watch their favorite artists. That’s before you even consider any mosh pits and generally awful concert etiquette from others.
But for one Kanye West fan, there were a ton of variables at hand that would’ve resulted in his death if staff didn’t take care of him. In a post on X, professional boxer Steven Nelson shared his experience watching Ye in concert. In some of the videos, it seems like the kind of blockbuster experience you’d come to expect at one of his shows.
However, due to all the smoke in the air from Kanye West’s pyrotechnics, Nelson nearly died. “I had a severe asthma attack and EMS had to come get me. Y’all don’t understand how happy I am to still be here. Thank you to the paramedics for having an emergency albuterol kit,” he wrote.
Then, in a follow-up post in the thread, Nelson couldn’t help but laugh at the absurdity of dying at a concert after all he’d been through.
Smoke From Pyrotechnics at Kanye West Show Nearly Killed Professional Boxer
“Kept thinking as I’m fading, I survived the hood, been shot, survived the military, been deployed, jumped out of planes, flew planes, been shot at, blown up in a IED explosion, been an elite boxer, and done all types of extreme stuff… ALL THAT TO DIE AT A KANYE WEST CONCERT,” he added.
Despite the traumatic experience, Ye’s concerts have seemingly gone off without a hitch. In fact, he’s spent a bulk of them reuniting with old friends and collaborators over the years. From Lupe Fiasco to Playboi Carti, his blockbuster concerts have essentially served as a comeback tour.
Evidently, the attempt at getting fans and past allies back in his corner has worked out for Kanye West. For instance, Kid Cudi, who previously vowed to never be friends with him again, warmly called him “my brother.”
“Damn near 2 decades of art and friendship,” he wrote back in September 2026. “Ive been around Ye, and I can honestly say talking to him now is how it use to be when I first signed to him, but even better. He was dealing w mental health struggles for years and now hes good. Everyone deserves some grace when they family. I was the hardest on him out of anybody. I held him accountable. He apologized and it was sincere.”
Suno is facing yet another pair of lawsuits. A group of rights holders of Elvis Presley's music and the publisher of some of Eminem's biggest records are suing the AI music company, claiming it illegally generates music and lyrics that mimic those artists. The lawyers in the Presley suit claim that Suno has violated Tennessee's Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act, which makes it illegal for an AI company to clone a singer's voice.
In the suit, lawyers representing Presley's rights holders argue that "Suno has mechanically encoded itself with artists' identities, hard-work, creativity, and time, and harnessed them all for …
Login
