Harvey Mason, Jr is CEO of the Recording Academy, the nonprofit organization most famous for the Grammy Awards. We spoke right before this year's Grammy nominations came out, and you'll hear us talk a whole lot about the changes he's tried to make with how the awarding membership works. I always say to watch what’s happening to the music industry because it’s a preview into what will happen to every other creative industry five years later. My chat with Harvey really drove the point home: AI, diversity, streaming distribution... it's all here, and all the tensions that come with. Links: 2025 Grammy nominations: The complete list | NPR The Grammys Move From CBS To Disney In Major 10-Year Deal | Deadline Recording Academy boots Grammy voters | Los Angeles Times Chappell Roan and the problem with fandom | Vox Grammys CEO: Music that contains AI-created elements is eligible | AP News Deborah Dugan Grammys Controversy: What to Know | Time For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music Is a Love Story | Wall Street Journal (2014) AI is on a collision course with music | Decoder Elvis Costello defends Olivia Rodrigo over ‘Brutal’ plagiarism claim | BBC Why Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen thinks AI is the future | Decoder Transcript: Credits: Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Our producers are Kate Cox and Nick Statt. Our editor is Callie Wright. Our supervising producer is Liam James. The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Support for Decoder comes from Stripe. Stripe is a payments and billing platform supporting millions of businesses around the world including companies like Uber, BMW and DoorDash. Stripe has helped countless startups and established companies alike reach their growth targets, make progress on their missions and reach more customers globally.
The platform offers a suite of specialized features and tools to fast-track growth, like Stripe Billing, which makes it easy to handle subscription-based charges, invoices, and all recurring revenue management needs. You can learn how Stripe helps customers of all sizes make progress at stripe.com. That's stripe.com to learn more. Stripe. Make progress.
They're not writers, but they help their clients shape their businesses' financial stories. They're not an airline, but their network connects global businesses in nearly 180 local markets. They're not detectives, but they work across businesses to uncover new financial opportunities for their clients. They're not just any bank. They are Citi. Learn more at Citi.com slash WeAreCiti.
That's C-I-T-I dot com slash WeAreCiti.
Support for the show comes from Alex Partners. If you're in the tech industry, wondering how artificial intelligence is going to affect your business might seem like the new normal by now. Alex Partners is a global consulting firm dedicated to helping you navigate the changing headwinds of AI without getting lost in the noise.
Learn how your business can navigate AI while making sure your strategic initiatives are aligned by reading Alex Partners' latest technology industry insights, available at www.alexpartners.com. That's www.alexpartners.com. In the face of disruption, businesses trust Alex Partners to get straight to the point and deliver results when it really matters.
Hello and welcome to Decoder. I'm Nilan Patel, editor-in-chief of The Verge, and Decoder is my show about big ideas and other problems. Today I'm talking with Harvey Mason Jr. He's the CEO of The Recording Academy, the nonprofit organization that puts on the Grammy Awards, the most prestigious awards in music, and which runs the Music Cares charity, which helps artists in need.
Harvey is a fascinating guy. As a musician and producer, he's worked on projects with Destiny's Child, Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, Girls' Generation, tons more. as well as produced the music in movies like Pitch Perfect and Straight Outta Compton. As CEO of the Academy, Harvey's had a lot of work to do since he started in January 2020.
His predecessor was ousted after just five months in the role in a swirl of scandals, and the Grammys, along with the Emmys and the Oscars at that time, were facing a reckoning with massive race and gender inequality in the awards. On top of all that, the music industry itself came to a crashing halt during the pandemic as live concerts and award shows stopped happening.
which made music cares more important than ever. So he's been busy these past few years, and now the world of music is having a moment with some of the biggest tours ever and an entirely new crop of emerging major artists. The 2025 Grammy nominations were just announced, and you can see it in the list.
Chapel Roan and Sabrina Carpenter are nominated for Album of the Year, right alongside Beyonce and Taylor Swift. Now, if you're a Decoder listener, you know that I'm always saying that watching how tech changes the music industry is is a preview into how tech will change everything else five years from now. And the Grammys and the Recording Academy are no exception.
See, the way it's worked for the past 50 years is that CBS pays a huge fee to the Recording Academy to broadcast the Grammys, and the Recording Academy takes that money and uses it to fund things like music cares and lobbying for legislation that protects artists' rights. This isn't a secret. You'll hear Harvey lay it out bluntly and say the Grammys is where all the money comes from.
This all worked great in an era where traditional TV networks had tons of money to spend and commanded a huge amount of attention because so many people watched traditional TV. But that era is over, and Harvey recently decided to move the Grammys to Disney starting in 2027, which will bring the show to ABC, yes, but also potentially to Disney Plus and Hulu.
If you've been paying attention to the TV industry, live TV is increasingly driven by sports and award shows like the Grammys.
So I wanted to know how Harvey was thinking about this deal, what the possibility of streaming distribution would mean for the show itself, and how much he thought the Grammys needed the prestige and brand power of a company like Disney versus the wider distribution of something like YouTube.
We also talked about the Grammy Awards themselves, what the categories are, how the winners are chosen, and who those winners get to be. That's actually been Harvey's biggest project. The Academy just completely re-qualified its pool of voting members for the Grammys as part of a years-long effort to bring in younger voters and more women and people of color.
At the same time, the internet means the very idea of genre in music has been getting blurrier and blurrier for over a decade. I asked Harvey to define pop music, and you will hear him think through the answer.
The internet has also created massive fandoms and stan culture, and I wanted to know how Harvey was thinking about that in the context of awards, which are supposed to be about recognizing art, not just popularity. Of course, Harvey and I also talked about AI, which has posed to disrupt almost every creative industry and which has already caused major lawsuits and controversy in music.
You'll hear Harvey explain that he's not a reflexive AI hater and that he thinks there's a place for some of these tools in music production. In fact, he made the major decision to allow music made with AI to be eligible for the Grammys. But like so many other folks we've talked to, you'll hear him tout the irreplaceable, irrepressible benefits of human creativity.
And you'll also hear him admit that he's nervous about it all, and that sorting it all out is just going to be complex. I'll be honest with you, this is one of my favorite Decoder conversations in a while. As you can probably tell, I love talking about the music industry, and Harvey was open to thinking through a lot of these issues out loud on the show.
Okay, Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr., here we go. Harvey Mason, Jr., you're the CEO of The Recording Academy. Welcome to Decoder.
Thanks, Eli. Good to be here.
I'm excited to talk to you. As you might know, I'm obsessed with the music industry. I think paying attention to the music industry is the best way to predict what happens to every other creative industry five years from now. You obviously have a deep amount of insight into that. And on top of that, we're talking a week before Grammy nominations come out.
So I'm always interested in how that works, how you're thinking about that process. That's such an important part of the cultural calendar every year. And we got to talk about AI. There's just an infinite amount of AI.
Everybody has got to talk about Eli and Eli. Why not us?
Yeah, I feel like I might get – like the readers might throw me off a ledge if every decoder is about AI. Or alternatively, if I keep going, they might throw me off a ledge. We'll find out. Let's start with the basics. You've been in this job as CEO since 2020. There was a big shakeup in the recording academy. There was lockdown, the music industry collapsed. went into hibernation for a minute.
We all did a lot of zoom recordings. Now we're back into massive tours. There's a new era of stars emerging. Let's start with the very basics though. Tell people what the recording academy is and how it participates in the music industry.
Well, it starts with our show and most people know us from our show, the Grammy show. We've been doing a Grammy show for 66 years. I've been doing them since, as you said, four years ago as the CEO. But the Grammy show celebrates music and lifts creators and showcases all the different genres of music. The recording academy that produces the Grammys generates revenue from that show.
And we use that revenue that's paid to us by CBS for a licensing fee to do all the programs we do throughout the year. So it's advocacy, fighting for the rights of music people, talking about AI. We're doing a ton of stuff in that space to make sure human creators are protected. Other copyright and intellectual property protections that we're working on.
We spend millions and millions of dollars every year advocating for the rights of music people. So that's one area. The other area is...
philanthropic organization that's within the academy called music cares music cares is kind of a give back organization for anybody who's a musician you don't have to be a member but if you're a professional working in the music industry and you need help if you are sick facing a drug addiction mental health crisis if you crash your car someone broke in and stole your guitar
These are things that music cares, takes care of. And again, millions and millions of dollars every year during COVID, we gave $50 million in aid to music people that needed help. And then we do a lot through our museum, education and preservation of music, making sure the next generation of kids is exposed to music.
And if I didn't have an instrument in my hand or didn't know about all the different genres of music, I wouldn't have had a career. So making sure we do a lot of work through that. And that's what was funded and financed by our show and our performance. So that's kind of the structure of the Recording Academy.
So that's really interesting to me. You described some very important philanthropic work. You described some very important work. Music cares, I think, is a stabilizing force in the music industry. There isn't a great social service net in the United States. So touring musicians don't have regular jobs. That provides an essential stability for those folks.
There's a lot there that I think is important. But you're very open that the revenue comes from the show and from the licensing deal with CBS. We'll talk a little bit about where that deal is going and how it's changing because you all just announced that you're leaving CBS in a couple of years. But stick with the present day for a minute. Do you think the incentives are aligned there? Yeah.
Like if I look at that in the most broad possible way, it's CBS is paying for a TV show and that TV show is paying to provide essential stability to touring recording artists. And that might be a little weird. Do you ever, does it ever strike you that that's not all perfectly aligned?
No, actually it strikes me as being incredibly aligned because the idea of the show is to benefit creators, even in just on its face, the show itself, we know the economic impact the show has to creators and songwriters, producers, engineers. All the ancillary or tangentially connected people that work in our industry all get a lift from our show. The streaming goes up. The consumption goes up.
The ability to tour goes up. So that helps the creative community. And then all the revenue that we create, and you said most of the revenue is what we put, all of the revenue that we put into it comes from that show. The major drivers for revenue for the Academy are the show, other Grammy week activities, ticket sales, and sponsorships, which really kind of happens during Grammy week.
So all that money goes back into serving the community. So for me, the only thing that's a little bit misaligned is the lack of information That the creative community has about why we do the show and that we even do these other things. A lot of people just think, oh, the Grammys are just the show. And I spend a lot of time and energy and we've got to do a better job of this as an academy.
Letting creatives and artists and producers know the reason that this show is so important is because it creates a bunch of money. hate to be so crass, but it's cash that we can use and deploy it back into our music community. So the better the show is, the better the ratings are, the more money we can generate from that show, more money that comes directly back into our industry.
Yeah, and that's part of the reason I asked the question that way. I realized it was pretty blunt. But that idea that the show, which is a defining broadcast television production, is the thing that stabilizes the music industry in the way that it stabilizes the music industry, I think is a little opaque to most people. It sounds like it's opaque to some of your members.
It is.
But it also seems like a thing you can poke at and say, is this how it should be structured? Yeah. And so I'm curious. You're new in the role. Obviously, you've been through a lot of change. I want to ask you about the TV side of it, right? Because the idea that broadcast television is a rich source of revenue, I imagine you have some perspective on that as that is changing as well.
Absolutely.
But is this how it should be structured? If you could change that, would you want to diversify that revenue at all?
A thousand percent. And that's one of my big goals for my time here at the Academy is to make sure that we're not so reliant on just TV. Having said that, we are exploring a lot of different opportunities, how to best utilize the brand while still supporting music people and doing things within our mission. We don't want to just go... you know, sell coffee mugs or just do different random things.
We want to make sure it's on brand, on mission, this most coveted award, because it's our peers voting for our peers. So we want to make sure we keep that in mind. And it's got to be a part of whatever we do to expand. And I would love to talk about misalignment. I would love to find an additional way to generate a bunch of money and resources that we could use for our community. But right now,
Our deal with CBS is the thing that moves the needle the most for us and allows us to have the maximum impact within our community.
Let's come back to that in a minute. Let's just continue on just how the organization is structured for one second. How many people are the Record Academy? What does the business look like?
On the staff side, roughly 300 people between our different affiliates. As I said, it's the Academy, it's the Latin Academy, the Museum, and Music Cares.
Those 300 people, they're distributed equally. How many people work on Music Cares versus the show itself, for example?
It kind of fluctuates, but the majority of the people work for the Recording Academy. Approximately 200 people for the Academy, and then some split between the Latin Academy, the Museum, and Music Cares.
And how many people are spending all of their time just working on the Grammy Awards every year?
Zero. That's a seasonal effort. That's something that we do. It's a six-month focus. I mean, we're always thinking about the show. We're really directing a lot of our efforts towards the outcomes that will happen on the show. But the show production is very specific to a few months of the year, the rest of the year.
The team's working on awards, on membership, on advocacy, on all the things that I talked about throughout the academy. And we have a great staff of DEI department. We have people in culture. There's a lot of different departments that are focused on making sure that the academy can have that impact, making sure we are successful.
growing the right membership and we talk about the awards and our ability to monetize our intellectual property our grammys through a show we have to have the right awards so you got to have the right awards department thinking about that you got to have the right membership department because without the right members you're not going to get the right results in order to stay relevant we have to have relevant members so we've just gone through a membership overhaul 100 of our members have been requalified we have 66 of our members are all new within the last five years
And we've just added 3,000 new women voters. We've got almost 40% people of culture or people of color. I'm sorry. Those are not the numbers that we had four years ago. So we're all very proud as a staff and our elected leadership as to the work that's been done to change our membership, which then, of course, changes the awards, changes our show, changes our ability to generate revenue.
It's interesting. I interview so many tech CEOs on a show and ask them what their products are and how they're structured to make those products. They give me answers that are broadly familiar. We have a design team. We have an engineering team. We've got a go-to-market team. Your product is the awards. It seems very clear just in talking to you just for the first five minutes here.
You're very focused on the Grammy Awards as a product, and what you're describing is we need the right members to vote on those awards, and then we need the right team members – deciding what those awards should be so that at the end when we put on a TV show, it's the right list of awards and we come to the outcomes that people want. How much fiddling do you do with that year to year?
Because part of the – I think the value of the Grammys is that it is an institution, right? So that some things have to stay the same and some things obviously have to change as you're describing. How much do you think about that balance?
I think about it constantly, to tell you the truth. And fiddling is a nicer way of, or maybe a more playful way of saying it, but it's really the evolution of what we do in iteration around everything at the academy. And that has been a big area of focus for me and my management team over the last four years, because we are 66 years old is an iconic institution, if I could say so.
And it means a lot to a lot of people, including people in the music community, but also music fans. So we want to be respectful of what that is and what it has been. But for me, we cannot afford to be stagnant. Music moves so fast. And you and your viewers, listeners know technology and the way people are consuming music and art is evolving so rapidly that we had to evolve as an organization. So
I spend a lot of time thinking, how can we adjust? How can we pivot? How can we see around the corner what's happening next? So a lot of that work, I have to say, comes from our membership because the membership really submits the changes. They submit proposals. What are we going to honor in music this year? How are we going to title this new category?
What's the nomenclature behind this genre of music? And the reason it's so important is that the members are the ones that know. They know better than I do. They know better than a lot of the staff because our members are music professionals. So they might hear something in the new genre that's coming up and be like, oh, you guys aren't catching on. We have to honor this music.
And that's how we continue to perpetuate the excellence in music so we can showcase different things. So it's constant, did you call it tweaking or fiddling? It's constant fiddling. Tweaking is nicer than fiddling. No, it's constant fiddling. And that process happens a couple times a year through our process of submitting proposals. And then they go into the trustee room. We vote.
Our staff adopts them, and they take place next year on the show.
How do you manage the tension between you have a professional organization that creates the awards, you have professional members who vote on the awards, and then you're making the Grammys for maybe the most mainstream possible audience on CBS, which is maybe the most mainstream of the broadcast networks, and all anybody really wants to see is Taylor Swift or Beyonce win every award.
And there's a mismatch, right, between fandom culture on the one side, particularly in music, and Stan culture on it, like to put a more precise name on it. And then a bunch of music professionals saying actually. this John Batiste album is the best album of the year, right? There's a real balance there that seems hard to manage.
Balance is nice. It's a collision sometimes. It is truly... It can be contentious. It can be controversial. But for us, and I'll say for me personally, what I love about it is there's no other award like it because it's not about popularity. It's not about who got the most streams or who had the most likes. It's truly about the people that are...
in the industry and who are working day in and day out around music, listening to the records or songs or albums, and then deciding which one they think is the best. It's subjective and we know that. It's not a basketball game. It's all up to the interpretation of the listener.
But what makes our show valuable, and as of now, and maybe this isn't always going to be the case, but as of now, the most valuable television show in regards to music is because it's not just about popularity. It's not predictable. It's about the voters giving attention. the award for the year to the artists or music that they love.
And it also attracts a different type of participation or attention from the artist community because it's a very desired thing to have your peers tell you you've done something special in that year, I think is meaningful. So there's an extra gravitas or weight to the Grammys, which I think translates to the viewers.
How do you think about that in the context of the criticism that the Grammys often gets from the larger public or from listeners? For example, Beyonce just doesn't win Album of the Year, Record of the Year. These are the awards people want her to win as one of the major artists in our space, one of the cultural icons of our time. She doesn't win them. I don't know what else to say.
We're heading into nomination season. I think this conversation is going to open up again. How do you think about that? That's what a huge, loud set of consumers wants from you from this show.
Sure. And I hear them loud and clear. I would love her to win Album of the Year. I would also love a bunch of other people to win Album of the Year. I think there's great music. I think it's also subjective. Beyonce obviously has a ton of very loyal and supportive fans, which I don't blame them for. Beyonce's won a ton of Grammy awards, so we really respect her. creativity and her artistry.
There's no question about that as a voting body. There's different things that happen throughout the year that the voters sometimes resonate with in certain categories and other categories it doesn't resonate. So it's really hard to predict. I am excited for this year because there's been so many amazing records. There's been great work by some amazing artists. So I'm very optimistic for this year.
As far as who wins what and who gets snubbed, who's happy and who's mad. I mean, I can't predict that, but what I can predict is The voters will do their very best to listen to the music, to evaluate the music. The other thing I can say is we also have a very different voting body now than we had three years ago, than we had five years ago, than we had 10 years ago.
That voting body, right, that's the thing you turned over. That's this year's big project. You announced the change. You said earlier you requalified 100% of the members. That's one way to change the outcome, right? It's to change the voters.
The only way.
Well, the other way is to change the awards themselves, right? Which I'll come to. I think we can pursue that on two tracks. But we're going to change who's voting is one way to change them. Did you actively think, OK, we're getting to some of the wrong answers in who wins these awards? We got to change the membership?
It didn't come so much from the answers. Yeah. Maybe personally it did. I'll back that up. But what it really stemmed from was looking at the makeup of our voting body and then looking at the makeup of music creators and who's making it versus who's consuming it versus who's voting on it. And we wanted to make sure our membership was representative of our music community.
And when I got here, it just wasn't. We didn't have enough people of color. We didn't have enough women. We didn't have certain representation in certain genres in dance communities. Rock community, country. So we needed to rebalance or tweak or can't remember the word you use, which I like so much. Fiddle. We needed to fiddle with the membership.
We needed to fiddle with it and make sure that it was aligning with not just the world. But more importantly and specifically with music and the music community, the genres, we had to look at the genres. What genres are really popular? Do we have enough members in those genres to evaluate it accurately?
What are the new genres coming up that we want to make sure that we're able to interpret and vote for and get good outcomes? Well, then if that's a new one, we got to make sure we have members to support that. Otherwise, having a new category with nobody that can understand the nuance or the fine points of that genre voting, it's a failed concept.
And so we want to make sure that the voters align with music and how it's being made and consumed.
You're at the end of the process now. You've requalified 100% of people. You've added new members. Do you think you're there? Do you think you have room to grow and change the wall further, to fiddle some more?
We still have room to grow, no question. We're where our goals were. We set those goals pretty aggressively. We met them a bit early, actually. But they'll continue to be new stretch goals and new things that I want to accomplish with our membership. And our membership team is amazing. They're so proactive.
And we have great committees around our membership team and elected leadership who are really passionate about membership. And as we said, until I hear your ideas for now, that's the way we think we can affect change in the outcomes and affect the relevance of our awards and continue to grow the Grammy brand on a global, global basis.
We have to take a short break. We'll be right back.
Support for Decoder comes from Mint Mobile. We've gotten pretty good at sniffing out scams. That free cruise probably isn't free. Your auto loan almost definitely does have some strings attached. And your neighbor's improv show will not be fun. But when Mint Mobile offers a deal that sounds too good to be true, they actually mean it.
All Mint Mobile plans come with high-speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. You can even keep your phone, your contacts, and your number. It doesn't get much easier than that. To get this new customer offer and your new three-month premium wireless plan for just $15 a month, you can go to mintmobile.com slash decoder.
That's mintmobile.com slash decoder. You can cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com slash decoder. $45 upfront payment required, equivalent to $15 a month. New customers on first three-month plan only. Speeds slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees, and restrictions apply. See Mint Mobile for details. Support for this show comes from LinkedIn.
Finding the right candidate for your small business is a little bit like digging for gold. You might sift through piles of rocks and pebbles looking for that one glimmering nugget that makes it all worth it. But most of the time you come back empty handed. LinkedIn is here to make that search a little easier, enabling you with the tools you need to find the right candidate fast and for free.
And LinkedIn isn't just a job board. It's your doorway to talent you won't find anywhere else, including top professionals who may not be actively job hunting but are open to the perfect opportunity. Plus, LinkedIn is consistently rolling out new features to help make your search easier, including a new feature to help you craft job descriptions.
Connecting with the right candidates on LinkedIn is now faster and simpler than ever. You can post your job for free at LinkedIn.com slash partner. That's LinkedIn.com slash partner to post your job for free. Terms and conditions apply.
support for this show comes from arm have you ever thought about the technology that makes this podcast possible to listen to on your phone in your car or on your laptop and then there's the data centers that make it all work one company is at the heart of it all it's the same company that powered the smartphone revolution and is helping define the ai revolution that company is called arm
Arm designs compute platforms for the biggest companies in the world so they can create silicon and solutions to power global technology. Arm is proudly NASDAQ-listed and became a NASDAQ 100 company within a year of its IPO. Arm touches nearly 100% of the globally connected population. 99% of smartphones are built on Arm. Major clouds run on Arm as well as all major mobile and PC apps.
Now, ARM's engineers are tackling the insatiable demand for compute and power efficiency that AI is creating. AI-enabled ARM CPUs are able to provide the compute platform for the global AI revolution in the years to come. But for now, relax and enjoy this podcast. It's very likely running on your own ARM-powered device. Visit arm.com slash discover to learn more.
Welcome back. I'm talking with Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. about his flagship product, the Grammy Awards. Right before the break, he was talking about how the Academy has shaken up its membership to better reflect the music industry of today. But now I'm dying to know how he's handling one of the hardest parts of this genre.
So the other way that at least comes to mind for me is the awards themselves. And maybe you'll disagree. There's the Halo Awards. There's record, song, album. Underneath that, there's just a bunch of categorizations. Best rap album versus best rock album. That implies that those genres exist and you can neatly sort albums into them.
The Grammys only just got rid of best urban album recently, right? That is a category with a long and loaded history. Maybe we don't need that one anymore. But what the internet has done to music broadly is –
really blur genre yeah completely endlessly blur genre in ways that are exciting and ways that are frankly confusing and maybe the only genre left is country which is why everyone's making a country album this year because you can just go there and say it's different than what you were doing before you could change those awards right you could just re-qualify all the genres too and say here are some hard lines do you ever think about that
Well, I'd love to hear your thoughts more. When you talk about hard lines, the goal for the genre awards is to try and find some guardrails in which to fit music. And that's very hard. You're talking about, again, art and then someone's interpretation of art and how to couple those in the different buckets so that people can evaluate them comparatively.
So we don't want to see hip-hop going against rock because they're so dissimilar. Dissimilar audiences, I think. Dissimilar...
people that are creating, but as music becomes more and more, uh, you know, blurred together or mashed up, I guess I'll say there will be some conversations around how we're going to title the words, how we're going to include them in different fields and who should be voting on them. Right now we have different fields.
So you have, you know, a rock field, none of that will be a bunch of different genres of rock. Then you'll have a hip-hop field and a classical field. The way our voting works is we encourage our voters to vote in three fields. You don't want somebody who doesn't know anything about country just going into that category because their favorite artist is over there or
Vice versa, you don't need someone voting in classical that only knows one classical artist. So the way we try and do it is have qualified voters voting for the music that they like. Now, to your point, as music changes and genre walls come down, we'll be able to open that up a little bit more. But that is, again, something that will be determined by our professional music community.
Our members will say, hey, Harvey, you know what? Membership team at the Academy, you know what? We think rock and jazz sound like it's coming together. Let's put that in one category. And when that happens, because our members are telling us these things, it will happen and that will change the way we vote.
Can you just do me a favor and try to define pop music in 2024?
Pop music in 2024, there's a definition.
Because I feel like I could define hip hop. I feel like I could take a run at defining rock. I don't know that I could define pop music.
Pop music is a bit amorphous because it changes from year to year and it has something to do with the term and the title itself, pop, popular. And it's the genre that tends to have The choruses, the sing-along melodies, the right style of production and vocalists. It's very difficult because there are a lot of records that get lumped into pop. As a creator, I can create it.
I can show you on a piano and I can sing it, but it is a hard definition to nail down. The voters tend to do a really good job of that and making sure that they're voting for music they feel should be in that category. And also the way our labels and artists and independent labels submit, they submit their music where they want it to be.
And so if somebody feels like, hey, this is a pop record, it'll go into pop. And for the most part, that's where it's evaluated.
I just think there's something so interesting happening with genre because of the rise of the internet. And we're well into it now. I think Taylor Swift wrote a piece about the death of genre like 10 years ago. I think for the Wall Street Journal. And there just seems to be a chaos in the industry that maybe fans have figured out. But the industry itself is still struggling with.
Whether that's Lil Nas X. ages ago, whether that's Cowboy Carter and Beyonce this year, it feels like we don't quite want to draw these lines anymore, but we need them in order to have things like the Grammy Awards or have enough awards to give out instead of one award for song. All music. Is that something you're actively talking about?
Does that come up with your members, with the staff of the Recording Academy? Where do these arguments really come from? Where do these arguments land?
They land by saying our members will tell us when it's time. And the members, again, are professionals. They're all the people working in studios, on tours, Engineers, writers, producers, artists, singers, they're the professionals. And when they say, you know what, we're tired of genres or we're tired of separating people and putting them in boxes, then we'll evolve.
I can promise you that because our organization has never moved faster, has never been more fluid. We've never listened closer to our members or our music community. So when that starts to happen, we will make sure that things adjust.
Do you ever think about just doing random microgenres like we're just going to have a drill award this year? Like how do you think about that? Because that's another way you could do it and you could get more artists in the theater. You could sell more tickets. You could get more ratings. Drill music, it was a moment. It's now kind of everywhere. You can hear it in fact all of hip-hop.
So it has kind of devolved into not being a micro-genre but just being a sound that's going to come and go, like sound's going to go. But last year you could have just been like, we're going to have a drill category and here's the best drill artist of the year. And then next year maybe we won't have that category and we'll have something else. Is that something that comes up?
Is that an option that you've thought about? Because it's something I've heard proposed.
Yes, and – What tends to need to happen is, again, the voters need to have an expertise in the genre. So if we had enough voters that knew exactly what was going on in the drill genre of music, then they would pop up and say, guys, we're missing a whole group of music here. We need to honor it. We would create the category. We'd go up in the next show and they would then vote.
But without that movement, without the momentum behind the genre that's sustainable, that translates into members, we would be popping new genres into the show without the support and kind of the underpinning that it needs to be relevant and to be accurate. Because if we put a drill category in now and we didn't have enough voters and we had the wrong outcomes because...
Just some random people started voting. Oh, I know this name. Let me vote for them. It would be disrespectful to the creators in that genre. It would also be, I think, detrimental to the brand of the Academy and the Grammys. So when the time is right for those new genres, I like to think that they'll be there. We just added the best African performance.
You see the rise of piano and all the different genres, Afrobeats. And we had the voters. We had the support. They proposed the award. It's now in.
Yeah. Let me ask you the big decoder question, and then I want to talk about that question in practice. You obviously have a lot of decisions to make. What awards are we going to give and to who is some of the biggest decisions there? What's your framework for making those decisions?
The framework for making decisions around awards is very different than my personal framework around decisions that I'd like to implement at the academy. As it relates to awards, it's a very straightforward process. The awards or other changes and proposals are different. introduced by our members.
They're discussed through appropriate committee, whether it's planning and governance or awards and nominations. It goes through the committee system. They vote it up or down. It then goes to the board of trustees, and it gets voted up or down. And I don't have a vote in those things. I try and make sure the conversations are going in the right direction, but that really comes down to
our board and our chair. Once those things are put in place, then I have to decide how to implement them. And that's a pretty straightforward process around awards. But maybe the broader question you're asking is like, how do I personally, how do I CEO? How do I make the decisions in my role?
And I spend a lot of time listening, to be honest, and I'm not sure what the answer is for some of your other people that you've interviewed or other CEOs, but I don't pretend to know more than I know. I'm a lifetime learner, not a knower. And so when it comes time for a decision, I tend to move relatively quickly. I don't sit and stew.
I think perfection sometimes can get in the way of making progress. So I'll listen. I'll assemble my team. I'll get the information that I need to make an educated and strategic decision. and then I'll weigh it.
And to this point, my instincts and my finger has been on the pulse of what our organization wants or needs, and our members seem to be resonating with the decisions that have been happening. But if my personal taste or feelings fall out of favor with that, then it would really change my decision-making process.
Because a lot of what I do is gather the information and decide from here what I think is right. It's almost like making music, to tell you the truth. I was a songwriter and producer for years, and If you're making music for everybody else and you're trying to guess what's next and you're trying to make people happy, you're going to make the same music that everyone else is making.
But if you're making music that turns you on, that excites you, that you love as a creator, and then you come out, as long as your tastes are aligned with the consumers, you'll win. So I feel the same way in the way I like to run our organization. A lot of listening, a lot of collaborating, and then trying to make smart, swift, thoughtful decisions.
I feel like a lot of the other CEOs I talk to would be well-served. They spend some time trying to make some music as opposed to just trying to make AI. Everyone would. We'll come to that, though. Let me put that into practice. This week, you announced that you're going to leave CBS. You're going to take the Grammys to Disney and stream across Disney Plus, Hulu, and ABC. You've said it already.
CBS represents almost 100% of the revenue of the organization. You've been on CBS for 50 years?
Yeah.
That's a big change. That's a big decision to go to a new partner and to new platforms and new distribution. Why make that decision and how did you make it?
Definitely a sea change, transformational turning point in our organization. Yeah. it was a very difficult decision to be honest, because CBS has been a great partner. They've done amazing work with us, I believe for 54 shows. And when I came into this role, I realized that we had four years until there would be a renegotiation.
And I really had a vision and a plan for where I thought the Academy would needed to go, and partially that's why they have me in this role is to come figure out what that vision is and make sure we're executing on it, aligning with the board of trustees and our executive leadership and the executive committee, we know what has to happen.
And the idea behind who is going to be our partner to help us get there was a big part of that decision-making process. And we met with several people. And ultimately ended up going with a different partner because of the fact that it really aligned with our future vision and where we wanted to go and how we wanted to continue to build and grow the organization.
But more importantly, how we could serve more people and execute on our mission in a broader, wider, deeper scale. So we're really excited about the future.
You had to decide though, right? You're in a four-year – you come onto the job. You're renegotiating four years. The deal is up. You got to stick with CBS or you got to go find a new partner. After 50 years, it feels like maybe the default was to say to CBS and the first decision was to say, actually, I'm going to open this up.
How did you come to that just moment where you thought, I've got to make sure I know what my options are?
That was really the decision-making factor. I wanted to know what our options were and make sure that we were exploring all possibilities. I'm in this role temporarily for however long I'm here, but I'm really a fiduciary and a steward of the brand. I think it's an institution that needs to be protected. It's a not-for-profit. We're not doing this other than to serve music people.
So the idea was, how can we reach the best deal? How can we find the partner that most aligns with the future vision of the organization? So it was an opportunity to explore the market. I thought that only made sense.
Even with the 54-year history that we had with CBS, again, being great partners, I think anyone would say, if you have the opportunity to see what else is there, you should take a look and try and find that right alignment going forward.
Was there a bidding war? Did Disney just show up and say, we're going to pay more than everybody else? Did you have other options?
I will say we had other options. Probably won't go too much deeper than that, just out of respect for our partners on both sides. But CBS has been amazing to work with. And I also really look forward to seeing what's going to come next in our new partnership.
When I think about the value that CBS brought over that sweep of 50 plus years, they are one of the three big broadcast networks in the United States that They have a Tiffany network. They actually broadcast in slightly higher quality than some of the other networks, which I always appreciate about CBS. But they had a distribution monopoly.
They were just a nationally broadcast TV network that came into everyone's homes. They were on every cable system. That's how TV used to work. That is broken, right? Cord cutting is all over the place. People aren't even using over-the-air antennas anymore. That's just not how it works. And the big distribution is in streaming. Right. CBS does have some streaming in the mix, right?
There's a whole complicated story to be told about Paramount and all that over there. But Disney's a little more, it's very complicated. There's literally the plot of succession is embedded in me just mentioning Paramount. Disney obviously has Disney Plus. They've got Hulu. Was that what you were looking at? Like this is better distribution to a younger audience. It's more stable.
This is the future of how people are going to watch TV. Because it does sound like I need to make a lucrative TV show is the heart of everything your organization does.
Well, you've nailed it. We have to have the right TV partner, not only for the, revenue, but also for the future of the brand and the health of the organization. And for the good of the music community, what we do is to try and lift music and music creators. And how can we do that in the widest possible scale is something that I'm always thinking about.
But as it relates to CBS and their streaming platform versus ABC Disney, I just have to say that CBS has been great. We're going to make two more shows with them. They had a lot of very, very positive aspects of why we've been with them and why we might have considered to go forward. But we also had to look at the future of consumption.
We have to look at the future of how people are going to absorb or take in our show. Where does it need to be seen? How does it need to be seen? These are all considerations that I've been having since I took this role four years ago. So Got a couple more great shows to go with CBS. Looking forward to February 2nd this year.
And then after the next show, we'll start to think about what this new deal means. But up until then, you know, your listeners and your viewers know consumption is changing. Television is changing. Digital streaming, even social media, how that all plays into how people are consuming content.
Those are all things, as you can imagine, were top of mind when we started thinking about how are we going to move forward over the next 10 years.
When I talk to the CEOs of streaming platforms or other kinds of video platforms, The idea that the big catalog isn't as valuable as things that are live comes up over and over again. You can see it right now in the battles over how much to pay for sports rights. ferocious battles because people will tune into sports and they will make appointments to watch your service, to watch sports.
Award shows are right up there in the mix, right? People will watch award shows. But award shows need something a little different than sports. Like they need some prestige. They need some institutional heft. And it feels like putting the Grammys on YouTube is just not as fancy as being anywhere near ABC and Disney.
Maybe even putting the Grammys on Netflix is not as fancy as being somewhere near Disney and ABC. Did that factor into your decision making?
Yeah, it all did. The heft, as you called it, was important. And the gravitas behind the award and where it's consumed, how people are going to watch it. There's still something unique and special about network television to a lot of consumers. To other sets of consumers, they really couldn't care less about that. So there is a balance or fine line that I wanted to make sure we walked through.
with any partner that we join forces with.
But let me push on that just a little bit because there's a tension there. The biggest distribution you could have is YouTube. Everybody has it. Maybe you don't even have a choice to have it anymore. It's just there. YouTube is just there. Everybody has it. If you wanted the biggest reach for your award show, you would just put it on YouTube.
It wouldn't give you as much revenue and it probably wouldn't give you as much brand halo versus Disney, which is Disney. Is that an actual tradeoff you made? I could get more audience on YouTube, but I get more brand halo and perhaps revenue from Disney.
They're all trade-offs, to tell you the truth, and that's the balance. It's the juggle that we have to do. How do we reach the most consumers or viewers so that we can monetize the show? But also, how do we showcase and lift artists so that most people see them? It's a finely navigated line between those two things. There's a lot of other considerations as well, the history of the brand Sheen.
accessibility, different territories around the world where there's a presence or a focus for us. So there were a lot of factors that went into the calculus of deciding where's the right home for us. So hopefully we feel like we made a good choice, but I guess we'll see in the next 10 years.
Yeah. When you think about moving to more internet-native distribution, is it just a bunch of other stuff you can do? You can make it more interactive. You can cut up different pieces. Is that stuff you're thinking about to reinvent the concept of an award show in that way?
A thousand percent. We know consumers are changing the way they're you know, they're consuming and their habits are evolving at all times. So we're always going to try and be on the cutting edge of that. But again, balancing that with making sure we're showcasing different genres of music. And it's not just all one genre.
You're not just seeing only a certain group of creators and also making sure that we're honoring the tradition, the history of the brand. So that along with trying to innovate, trying to make sure we're meeting viewers where they are and matching their habits with what we're creating or producing is
something again this stuff is not easy none of it is straightforward and if I were to have assumed the role or taken the reins of the organization and said we're going to do the same thing we're just going to march straight ahead we're going to keep making the same show I think that would have been the easier route for sure but we're not doing that we're looking at everything every part of our
experience every part of our show every part of how we serve our members how we produce the show maybe you've seen over the last few years even how we seat our artists how we seat the music community how we celebrate them how we lift them the tone and you know we produce uh in a loving way and i know that sounds crazy but we produce in a way that brings people together that tries to
have camaraderie or collaboration between our community. And I think that means something to the viewers. So whether that means a three-hour show and three-and-a-half-hour show going forward or shorter versions or clips, we're going to be looking at all that and doing a lot of new things over the coming years.
Yeah, that was my other question. Broadcast television imposed a kind of discipline on TV production, whether it's we're going to have 30-minute sitcoms instead of sort of like endless you can look at your phone streaming shows, or whether it's, boy, this award show has gone on for a long time and it's time to wrap it up. There is a discipline that was imposed by the distribution.
Streaming just doesn't have that. You really could have 10 Grammy Award shows a year. You could have an all-day-long Grammy Award show and show people highlights later. But the compactness and the discipline of this is a show and it begins and ends, that lends some tension to it. It lends some stakes to it. I know you're saying that's kind of open and you're thinking about it.
But that seems important to preserve.
Nilay, you are a smart guy. You're asking me all the questions that I ask myself, and I'm going to come get you to work with me, man. You know how to think about this stuff. But it is really, really top of mind for me and for our team as to how do we continue to be relevant. Because if you do the same thing over and over again, it's not cool. No one's going to take it.
No one's going to be excited about it. So the hard part of it is... I hate to be, again, super basic about it, but it's revenue, making sure we're balancing being forward looking, thinking about what's next, how people are consuming with, how can we continue to monetize the brand and the show? Again, not because we want to make profit. That's not the motivation.
The agenda is to generate more revenue so that we can push it back into the industry, back into the community. For us, it's about the health and the uplifting of music. I mean, this stuff is important. Music is so dang important, especially right now, maybe more than ever. with the way the country's gone, the world's gone, with so many disparate ideas and opinions. But I've seen it.
When I travel, when I see other parts of the world listening to music or listening to artists, we might have a crazy disagreement. But when the music comes on, everybody's dancing and clapping and singing. And it just opens up people's minds and their eyes. And so because of the power of music and because of my belief and the Academy's belief in the power of music,
We're going to do everything we can to try and make sure that we're supporting it, we're lifting it up, we're showcasing it, and giving it a chance to do what it does. And if that means shortening the show, we'll do that.
If that means lengthening the show, more artists, less artists, different genres, more voted, we're going to continue doing that work to change and evolve every day so that we can keep doing what we need to do to lift music people.
We have to take another quick break. We'll be back in a minute.
Support for Decoder comes from Stripe. Payment management software isn't something your customers think about that often. They see your product, they want to buy it, and then they buy it. That's about as complex as it gets. But under the hood of that process, there are a lot of really complicated things happening that have to go right in order for the sale to go through.
Stripe handles the complexity of financial infrastructure, offering a seamless experience for business owners and their customers. For example, Stripe can make sure that your customers see their currency and preferred payment method when they shop. So checking out never feels like a chore.
Stripe is a payments and billing platform supporting millions of businesses around the world, including companies like Uber, BMW, and DoorDash. Stripe has helped countless startups and established companies alike reach their growth targets, make progress on their missions, and reach more customers globally.
The platform offers a suite of specialized features and tools to power businesses of all sizes, like Stripe Billing, which makes it easy to handle subscription-based charges, invoices, and all recurring revenue management needs. Learn how Stripe helps companies of all sizes make progress at Stripe.com. That's Stripe.com to learn more. Stripe. Make progress. Support for the show comes from Toyota.
For many of us, driving is just what you need to do to get from point A to point B. But why not think of it as a reward instead? Make it an experience that captivates the senses by driving a Toyota Crown. The Toyota Crown family comes with the quality and reliability that Toyota is known for, along with bold and elegant exterior styles.
The Toyota Crown sedan has an available hybrid max powertrain with up to 340 horsepower and comes with an available bi-tone exterior finish to help you stand out on the road. And the Toyota Signia gives you the space you'd expect from an SUV with a stylish design unlike any other.
Whether you're a daily commuter or weekend road warrior, you can make any drive a thing of beauty with the Toyota Crown. You can learn more at toyota.com slash toyotacrownfamily. Toyota, let's go places.
Support for the show comes from Alex Partners. You already know artificial intelligence will be transformative. Beyond that, it might be a little bit of a mystery. As AI upends the tech industry, Alex Partners is dedicated to making sure your business knows what really matters when it comes to artificial intelligence, because disruption brings not only challenges, but opportunities.
In these pivotal moments of change, Alex Partners is the consulting firm chief executives can rely on. With clarity, direction, and most importantly, implementation, Alex Partners provides a steady hand for your business needs when decisive leadership is vital.
Alex Partners spoke with nearly 350 tech executives from across North America and Europe to dig deeper into how tech companies are responding to these changing headwinds. You can see the results and learn how you can turn digital disruption into growth by reading Alex Partners' latest technology industry insights, available at www.alexpartners.com. That's www.alexpartners.com.
In the face of disruption, Alex partners are who businesses trust to get to the point and to get things done when it really matters.
Welcome back. I'm talking with Harvey Mason Jr., CEO of the Recording Academy, about the absolute biggest elephant in the room right now, the disruptive potential of generative AI on the music industry. Let's talk about what's going on with music and technology. Where the money comes from in this industry. Because that seems under a lot of pressure as well.
And it doesn't seem like anyone knows the answer, which is why I like paying so much attention to the music industry. We went through the Napster revolution. We're at what feels like a plateau in streaming. Everyone has moved to streaming. We understand how the economics work. That seems stable for a minute. Oops, here comes AI. And that might upend everything once again.
There's a lot of work in AI in music right now. There's a lot of controversy. There's some pretty good diss tracks made with AI. Last year, Reservoir Media's Gulnar Khoashawi came on Decoder and she said, AI is on a collision course in the music industry. And she's buying catalogs left and right. She's doing it. And she says, this is a collision course.
You last year said music with AI-generated elements would be Grammy eligible. All right. So this is an important checkmark. OK. We're going to allow some of this in here. Where do you think we are right now? We've gone through BBL Drizzy. We've gone through some AI-generated beats. There's a handful of pieces of legislation maybe that we should talk about.
But where do you think the state of play is right now?
The state of play is so much uncertainty and I'm concerned because AI as it relates to human creativity scares me to death. I know it has a lot of power and potential to enhance and amplify human creativity. But right now we don't have guardrails in place. We don't have any systems or processes set up so that human creators can be protected.
So the state of play is like we've got to get to work as an industry. And I know a lot of the smartest people are investing in AI, which I totally understand because it is so powerful and there's so much potential. But for me as a musician, as someone who also represents 25,000 members and music people from around the world, I want to make sure that human creativity is protected.
For all the reasons I just said, the importance of music and the ability for us to tell stories and change hearts and minds, I think the human component to that is really, really dang important. So a little nervous that we haven't got it sorted out, but I'm also optimistic, to be honest, Nilay, because... Human creators are not like computers.
We take the chaos and the uncertainty in life and the stuff that AI hates, and we make incredible art from it. And we are able to dig down deep into some of our most creative spaces and pull out the next amazing thing and make great art that I don't think any computer is going to match our head.
As much as we're nervous and we worry about it, I don't think you can tell me that AI can create songs in the key of life or Nevermind or Illmatic. I don't see it happening. So I want to make sure we're able to use AI and I'm not an AI hater. I think it's got great potential. I've been using it for eight or nine years in different forms. I've always been an early adopter to new tech.
So I'm with it. I get it. But we have to make sure human creativity is protected. And we have a chance to make sure we're remunerated properly. We have proper approvals and make sure it's credited properly. Those are the things that are really important to me.
So I look at the industry right now. I brought up BBL Drizzy. I think that beat was made with Udeo, which is one of the AI song generation tools. Udeo and then its competitor, Suno. were sued by a bunch of record labels because they've just ingested a vast catalog of music in order to build those tools and train on, that seems like a comet that's gonna hit the earth, right?
That lawsuit will get resolved one way or the other, and then we'll all live inside of that framework. Why let the people using those tools When no one knows how the money works or even if they're appropriate or legal, be eligible for Grammys now before the industry has sorted out the morality or economics of those tools.
Same way that we let music that have samples be eligible or we let music that has synthesizers or auto-tune or pro tools be eligible. It's a technology, an evolution that has allowed people to do more, create differently, think differently, make sounds we've never heard before.
So for us to draw a line in the sand and say, if you used artificial intelligence, you are ineligible, would be, I think, short-sighted. And I think it would also cut down on a lot of the music that's being created and submitted. Also, where would you draw the line?
I mean, there's AI and so much of the software we use now for even analyzing and doing mixes and sound design, not even just the generative AI that's making music, but The finer point is that we'll allow AI to be utilized, but we're not going to honor AI in the sense that if AI is performing a song, it's in our rules. We will not give the performance an award.
If AI is writing the song, we will not give an award for the songwriting component. For example, if you wrote a song, it was a beautiful composition, it was the best lyrics, best music, best chord progressions, and you had AI sing it, you could submit it. It's not going to win for singing. It could win for songwriting.
Conversely, if you had AI just write a song as a great song, but some vocalists sang it or rapped on it and they performed the heck out of it, I'm not going to penalize the human creativity that went into that. I'm not going to give it an award for the songwriting, but I will give it an award for the performance. That's the way our rules are currently. I'm sure it's going to change.
This stuff is moving so quickly. But for now, that's how the academy is moving.
You are a songwriter. I'm confident that some of your work is in some of these training databases. How do you feel about that?
I believe there needs to be an understanding of what these models are training on. And I'm not sure exactly to what level it will come down, whether there's compensation payment or crediting. But I do think something has to change. And I don't believe that people's personally copywritten material should just be used or accessed by everyone to do anything they want with.
So we have to come to a bottom line and understand there's fairly trained models out there, people that are licensing groups of music or catalogs to train AI on, and I think that's a good place to start. But there's a lot to talk about. That's probably a whole other show that we could dive a little deeper into.
Yeah, I mean, I'm just looking at your list of credits. I mean, you've got Destiny's Child, you've got Britney Spears. It's all in here. Do you think that that stuff should be compensated if Suno and UDO are using it to train their models?
You know, it's a complicated subject. So I think there's some real talks that need to happen around that. Should it be compensated on the training side? At least we need to know what it's training on, how much of it's being used. So there's a lot of nuance to that question.
By the way, for the listener, you should just go look at Harvey's Wikipedia page because I named two out of like 500. Brand name artist that you have worked with is an incredible list. I should have just been asking about that the whole time.
The way that you would solve this problem economically in a framework of the law that we have right now is you would assign ownership to something like your voice or the way you sound or your likeness. The Recording Academy was in support of a bill that passed in Tennessee called the Elvis Act, which is a great name that adds voices to likeness protections.
I read some of the coverage of that bill and it says, hey, there's no carve out in here for Elvis impersonators, right? We're going to solve the AI problem and we might have just made Elvis impersonators illegal in Tennessee. How do you see that balance? That's tough.
There's no perfect solution or magic bullet to any of this stuff, especially the speed at which it's moving. We are really proud of the legislation that's been introduced and passed in a couple of different states, but now we're pushing for federal legislation with the No Fakes, No Frauds Act in the House and the Senate.
But that's dangerous to make Elvis impersonators federally legal.
That's not the intention. That's not our desire.
I know, but how would you write that law to say a robot can't sound like Elvis, but this guy can?
Again, there's a lot of nuance. There's no perfect bill. None of these bills are exact. Everyone is trying to compensate and accommodate the needs of a lot of people that have concerns and fears.
Of course, we don't want to prevent someone from impersonating Elvis, but we do want to prevent people from impersonating artists, singers, and using their voice without any form of payment or approval whatsoever. or the right crediting. And these bills are starts. I'm sure they'll be revised. I'm sure there'll be new bills, new things enacted.
But right now, we've got bipartisan, bicameral support. There needs to be some legislation that supports and protects human creativity, human artistry. So for us, it's a first step.
But even those two things you said, right? We don't want to stop Elvis impersonators. We don't want people to use artists' voices without compensation. Yeah, that means the Elvis impersonators have to pay. Like just that little basic thing. Don't use my voice for that impersonation. Does it matter to you whether it's AI or whether it's an Elvis impersonator or a Britney Spears impersonator?
It does, but also laws protect certain usage of other people's voice even if it's another human doing it. You can't pretend to be an artist and then go monetize that in certain ways. So there's laws in the books that already prevent that from happening.
As the money moves around in the music industry, we've tried to solve that problem in different ways. So streaming rates went down, and now we all argue about songwriting credits to make sure some of the pennies come back to the original artists because the streaming isn't paying those artists. I'll give you an example.
Only just because Olivia Rodrigo's Guts tour movie just hit Netflix, so I saw a bunch of coverage of this again. Taylor Swift came and took a credit on Deja Vu. I'm already playing with fire now. The two fandoms are going to come for me. But that's the thing that happened. It's very controversial.
And then Elvis Costello, who's one of my favorite artists ages ago, came out and said, OK, I agree that Olivia's song Brutal sounds a lot like Pump It Up. And then his quote was, this is fine by me. That's how rock and roll works. You take the broken pieces of another thrill and make a brand new toy. That's what I did.
I did not find any reason to go after them legally for that because I think it would be ludicrous. Other people clearly felt differently about songs on that record. So we've now created a scenario where it's like the artist's choice, whether they go after other artists for using things like chord progressions or loud bridges. Like how do you see that resolving in the world of AI?
Like it's already chaos without AI. And now we're using AI tools when we're saying the answer to AI is to create more ownership of things like voices and chord progressions and sounds.
It's all going to continue to be a mess until we get a story out because, yes, it's difficult.
By the way, can I just say that is one of the most candid answers to that question.
Yeah, I think that's the best I can give you because, as you said, certain artists tend to claim ownership differently than others. Also, artists sometimes have publishers or record companies that own pieces of their catalog that tend to be more aggressive than some artists might naturally be. But as you start introducing AI, unless we can understand
where it's coming from, what it's replicating or learning from and trying to simulate, it's going to be really dang hard to figure out where the money needs to go or how the money can flow. I'll tell you one story. I met with the head of the copyright office. She was an amazing woman.
She came to my studio actually and we started pulling up some of the generative AI platforms and I was showing her how it works. This is probably eight months ago. She hadn't really been exposed to a bunch of it and I typed in a few words And we made a track, a song. And I said, is that copyrightable? She says, no, it's not. It has to have human interaction or human involvement.
I said, well, I typed in the prompt. She's like, oh, Harvey, that's not enough. So I took the same track and I typed a response. I said, well, change the key, change the tempo, and change these three lyrics. Then I sent it back to the platform and sent back a new song. I said, now is that copyrightable? She says, no, it's getting closer, but I don't think it's enough. So I did another prompt.
So I did three rounds of prompts. It came back. It was a slightly different song. And she said, okay, I think that's right. I think that's human interaction. So none of this is figured out. The head of the copyright office, who I thought was amazing and incredible, and I love the fact that she was interested and cared enough to come to my studio.
But the fact that we don't have an understanding of how this moves forward and how we protect creators, whether that's the songwriters you mentioned or people that just had catalogs from 20 years ago, we're not going to have good, clean answers until we get those understandings.
But those understandings come from litigation, right? I mean that's – we're going to have to go fight this out. Someone is going to have to sue the copyright office. Someone is going to have to sue – one artist is going to have to sue another.
The labels are going to have to sue the platforms. If we can advocate –
properly and loudly enough even within the tech platforms throughout the labels and publishers journalists podcasts hosts we can talk about this enough come to an understanding of how this needs to function as confusing as that might be we can start to manage some of it internally you know some same things happened when we started sampling other people's records we had a bunch of hit records that included other people's samples and that ran its course we kind of figured out how it needed to be treated and handled
Same thing with streaming. There's things like people are putting music all over the internet on streaming services, and we've gotten to a place where we're slightly better still work to do there. I believe we'll come to some solutions around AI and how we can all equally or equitably participate in the revenue.
Can I actually just make the comparison to sampling and how that played out? Because you lived it very directly. I watched it as a young copyright lawyer, and it seemed like the thing that got us through that was this is a pretty closed ecosystem, right? There's only so many producers. There's only so many labels and the number of labels is just getting smaller.
There's only so many clearing houses and there's really fundamentally only so many artists that are going to try to clear a sample, right? There are only so many managers and lawyers. So all those people could talk. And you could say, I need to clear the sample or in the case of some very famous songs, forget.
And then someone could show up and get all the money, which has happened more times than not. But it's a closed ecosystem.
Very different than AI. You're right.
Right. And AI is just like massive open ecosystem. And then at the top of it is Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai at Google and Sam Altman who just don't seem to give a shit. Like if you're some lawyer for some artist and you try to roll up on Sam Altman, he's going to – look, I stole Scarlett Johansson's voice. Like what are you going to do to me?
Is that going to play out the same way or is it going to be messier? Because it seems like no one has any leverage over these companies.
I'm sure it will be messier because it is such a wider reaching issue. But I do think there's a way, maybe I'm overly optimistic in rose-colored glasses, but I think people realize the importance of music, maybe broader, the importance of art and AI has an impact across all the different disciplines of artistry. And if we can
continue to emphasize the value and the importance of it and point out that this has the potential to really be harmful to it. I have to believe in my human heart that anybody would want that to be addressed and would want to come up with a solution that made sense. whether it's the guys you mentioned or heads of other companies, I just think there's a way to do it.
I know everybody's trying to build their companies, make value for their investors and shareholders, and there's a lot of levels to this. But at the base, it's music, man. It is music. We can't have... wild, wild west around copyright and ownership and intellectual property protections.
Stuff needs to be done properly so that we can continue to tell these stories, to have these emotions and the heart and soul behind these songs. Otherwise, what are we doing? We're just going to have the computer make everything? Now, if you look at AI for other things that are... Can you talk to Sam Altman? Because that might be his answer. I'm hoping to, but I have to. He has a favorite artist.
I know he does. He has a band he grew up listening to his whole life in his bedroom while he was programming some computer. He loves somebody. Or he's read a book that mattered, or he saw a piece of art that moved him. Everybody has. Well, maybe not everybody, but most people. So all that to say, I believe in human creativity.
I believe in AI and the power that it has to enhance and amplify human creativity. And there's a way that they can coexist, I believe.
The theme of this conversation for me is the tension you have between your members who are professional musicians and part of that community and their audience of consumers and fans. Whenever we write about AI, the parts of our audience that are professional creatives are furious, right?
I'm pretty sure that we got more responses to my interview with the CEO of Adobe that basically added up to, you should have arrested him than any other episode of Decoder we've ever done. Because people were just mad that there's generative AI in Photoshop. What do your members say about this? Are they as upset? Are they as furious?
Our members are split. There's a lot of members that say AI is the devil. Don't put it in the house. And they... are fearful, rightfully so. And then there's another group of our members that are really excited about the power, the potential of AI. And they're all in. They're creating, using it. They're doing everything they can using AI. And neither side is wrong.
And again, the beauty of music or art or creativity, everybody creates differently. So my role is a difficult one. It's to try and serve our membership and our music community fairly and and in a way that allows for a bright future for our creators, whether that's using AI or whether that's limiting AI or making sure there's guidelines around AI.
It's to be determined, but my focus when I wake up is to make sure our human creativity is healthy, it's allowed to endure, and we can continue to make a living. We have a whole group of people who make their money, their living. They pay their rent and take care of their kids by creating art.
And we have another generation that's coming up that wants to do the same thing because they know how we express ourselves. We know how music can sometimes heal and unite people. I was on a plane the other day, and there was a woman sitting next to me, a couple seats over, on a laptop. She was crying. I thought she was typing a letter to somebody. She was programming in Logic.
on her keyboard crying so this is therapy this is expression this is a human emotion and so I want to make sure that we're realizing that and we're realizing yes AI is a part of that how can it be integrated in a way that's responsible and reasonable yeah
Harvey, I've got to let you go, but I can't let you go without asking one question I've been dying to ask you the whole time. Who's a young artist on the come up that people should be paying attention to? Because I know you have a full view of this industry.
I do. I have a view of some of the coolest and best new artists in music. It's one of my favorite parts of the job is getting to meet these creators. But I'm going to ruin the question because it would be irresponsible of me to tell you who the next person was or somebody that I love because there's just so many. And I don't want it to seem as if it's an Academy endorsement. But I will say this.
i think there's more new creators making music making great art than in the history of music because of the access because of the technology because of the young woman i saw on the plane programming on a laptop like this because of the fact that you can put music out without gatekeepers without barriers to entry you know the amount of songs that is being created and released it's astronomic and it's prolific and so i will say to your question
there's great new artists in hip-hop. I've now heard a new crop of incredible rock bands, which I think we've had a little bit of a shortage of. I've heard, obviously, the move into country and the popularity. There's some great new artists. I love how you're seeing genre-bending artists creating different types of music in those genres.
Jazz, there's a rebirth around jazz that I'm loving and I'm really excited about. So I mean, I don't know. I can geek out all day on music and new music. But this is a topic that I love to talk about. Great music, great new artists, and how we're going to celebrate them.
All right. I did my best. That was the hardest question I could think of, which I saved it for the end. I'm going to have to find you. We're going to have to talk about music some other time, just for an hour. But thank you so much for coming, Dakota.
I love it.
I'd like to thank Harvey Mason Jr. for taking the time to join me on Decoder, and thank you for listening. I hope you enjoyed it. If you'd like to let us know what you thought about this episode or really anything else, drop us a line. You can email us at decoderattheverge.com. We really do read all the emails, as many of you have discovered recently. You can also hit me up on threads.
I'm at Reckless1280. And we have a TikTok. Check it out. It's at DecoderPod, and it's a lot of fun. If you like Decoder, please share it with your friends and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Our producers are Kate Cox, Nick Statt. Our editor is Callie Wright. Our supervising producer is Liam James.
The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. We'll see you next time.
Thank you so much for having me. You can discover insights and learn how to convert digital disruption into revenue growth by reading the 2024 Digital Disruption Report at www.alexpartners.com. In the face of disruption, businesses trust Alex Partners to get straight to the point and deliver results when it really matters.
Support for the show comes from New York Magazine's The Strategist. The Strategist helps people who want to shop the internet smartly. Its editors are reporters, testers, and obsessives. You can think of them as your shopaholic friends who care equally about function, value, innovation, and good taste.
And their new feature, the Gift Scout, takes the best of their reporting and recommendations and uses it to surface gifts for the most hard-to-shop-for people on your list. All you have to do is type in a description of that person. Like your parent who swears they don't want anything. Or your brother-in-law who's a tech junkie. Or your niece with a sweet tooth.
And the Gift Scout will scan through all of the products they've written about and come up with some relevant suggestions. The more specific you make your requests, the better. Even down to the age range. Every single product you'll see is something they've written about. So you can be confident that your gift has the Strategist seal of approval.
Visit thestrategist.com slash gift scout to try it out yourself.