Music news has been arriving thick and fast in recent months, but it’s all been pretty jargon-y. Liz Pelly spoke of ‘ghost artists’ in her recent exposé on Spotify’s algorithmic playlists, Universal Music Group proclaimed the advent of ‘streaming 2.0’, and James Blake and Chappell Roan publicly criticised how major labels do business. As funny as it was, even Drake’s spectacular meltdown over the “Not Like Us” diss should’ve been seen as an omen of things to come. Clearly, there’s a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes right now, but what does it actually mean for you?

A common theme here is how new technologies are revolutionising the ways music is made and distributed – from the endlessly debated influence of AI, to start-ups like Indify providing a surprisingly robust alternative to the hitherto standard major label blueprint for musical success. While all of these trends have been in the works for years, what is new is how major companies are being forced to act, potentially overhauling practices that have been the industry standard for decades.

Below, we break down five musical revolutions that might be upon us in 2025, and what they could actually mean for listeners.

MAJOR LABELS MAY BE UNDER THREAT

What? “Labels we got you, but do you got us?” asked Chappell Roan during her acceptance speech for Best New Artist at last week’s Grammys, urging major labels to provide healthcare and a living wage for their artists. Only days before, British electronic artist James Blake had taken to Instagram to share his frustrations with how the majors handle artist funds. “The majors aren’t necessarily the best at anything,” he wrote. “It’s an industry secret that most of the artists who get big would have been successful anyway. Their job is to create value for shareholders, which is why the vast majority of resources go to the artists that do that.”

Instead, Blake advocated for emerging startup Indify, which allows independent artists to shop their music around various distributors, marketing specialists and content creators to get the best deal possible. Where the industry standard is for artists to receive 20 per cent of the royalties from their music, Blake explained, Indify allows no less than 50. Meanwhile, Chappell Roan put her money where her label-critical mouth is when she announced she would be giving $25,000 to struggling artists who have been dropped from their labels last weekend, sparking matched donations from Charli xcx and Noah Kahan.

While Roan and Blake’s actions won’t dismantle the music industry overnight, they do speak to a growing disillusionment with the dream of a major label signing, and how alternatives might be found in the digital space.

What does it mean for you? Likely, nothing – that’s the beauty of it. If models like Indify prove successful, listeners get the same beloved releases, and artists get a better deal. Labels would need to offer better deals or get cut out entirely. 

LISTENING HABITS MAY BECOME LESS DIVERSE AND MORE ARTIST-CENTRIC

What? There’s been a lot of complex talk about ‘streaming 2.0’, but the key takeaway is that Universal Music Group have struck deals with Spotify and Amazon Music to “increase revenue per user” (sell more stuff). This new direction leans heavily on the recent success of the Korean social platform Weverse (think Patreon for K-pop) and the mega-brands of artists like Taylor Swift, and hopes to extract more money from consumers by selling exclusive, artist-centric content. 

Artists have been using digital platforms to grow closer to their fans for years now, be it with Bandcamp-only releases, Patreon or a cheeky bit of OnlyFans content. What appears to be different here is that the major industry players are looking to get in on the action.

What does it mean for you? Expect to see both signed and unsigned artists targeting you with paywalled content, be it tucked away in LinkTrees or plastered across your Spotify homepage. This might take the form of behind-the-scenes footage, exclusive releases or even personalised fan messages. All in all, this isn’t awful – more money going to the artists you love is never a bad thing – but it will probably lead to listening habits becoming less diverse and more artist-centric. 

A RISE IN ‘PASSIVE LISTENING’

What? We’ve also seen a shift towards ‘passive listening’ (relying on curated playlists rather than active pursuit of particular artists) in contemporary music consumption. This trend formed the background to investigative reporter Liz Pelly’s recent dive into the nebulous world of editorial playlists on streaming platforms, and the unscrupulous business tactics that allegedly underpin them.

At the core of Pelly’s arguments are two key terms: ‘functional content’ (non-music audio like wave sounds or white noise) and ‘functional music’ (the sort of generic background music you’d find on a playlist called ‘workout’ or ‘study’) – both of which are mass-produced by corporate entities and can allegedly be licensed at cut-rates. Profit margins can therefore be increased by filling editorial playlists with mass-generated ‘filler’ content, effectively cutting struggling artists out of a paycheck.

What does it mean for you? Regardless of whether Pelly’s claims are true, what her article has drawn attention to is the potential ills of passive listening in the streaming era. This era is built on convenience, but that doesn’t mean a bit of healthy awareness can ensure that your monthly subscription pennies go to the artists you care about. 

AI IS HERE TO STAY

What? While much has been written about how AI threatens artistic integrity, so far it hasn’t been too bad. Recently, both Sega Bodega and Ye (abhorrent X rants aside) have come out in favour of AI as a tool in their musical process – for example, in using advanced machine learning to clear up drum sounds. Elsewhere, Adobe’s Audio Enhancer software has levelled the playing field by allowing anyone to achieve studio-quality sound, and no one can forget Metro Boomin’s creative use of AI vocals in his “BBL Drizzy” diss track. These more subtle uses of the technology point to an emerging divergence in the impacts of AI on music. At one end of the spectrum, these limited uses of AI can be seen as another tool in the music production process, and are shaping up to be a bit like the auto-tune debate 2.0 – much maligned, but actually not all that bad. 

At the other end of the spectrum, AI is essentially functioning as a spoof generator – creating entire songs from short, low-effort prompts. While these have spectacular meme potential (see the Charli xcx-inspired “they hit the pentagon”), this use of the technology does raise some concerns – namely, in violating artists’ intellectual property rights, and their potential to flood major streaming platforms (though Spotify has committed to cracking down on unlawful AI-generated content). For the most part, it seems that no one wants a musical landscape filled with cheap, AI knock-offs.

What does it mean for you? Prepare to feel a little more at ease with AI in music. Expect to see artists subtly incorporating the technology to produce cleaner and more interesting sounds while the more extreme, purely AI-generated music looks likely to be restricted or at least labelled more clearly on streaming platforms. 

Dive deeper into the nebulous AI music debate through our interviews with forward-thinking musicians Sevdaliza and Holly Herndon.

EVERYONE’S (STILL) TRYING TO WORK OUT WHAT DO WITH LIVE MUSIC

What? We all know the statistics by now: venues closing at an unprecedented rate, people going out less than ever, touring increasingly financially unviable; all while Live Nation grows its market share. What no one knows, however, is exactly what to do about it. Given Sadiq Khan’s newly created nightlife taskforce, and calls from the Music Venue Trust for a VAT cut on smaller venues, it seems that the UK’s live music crisis is only going to grow more relevant in 2025. 

One grain of hope can be found in the fact that, on paper at least, live music could be more appealing than ever this year. In a world supposedly driven by superfans, and where everyone seems to be moaning about AI and Spotify’s alleged ‘filler’ music, is live music not the answer?

What does it mean for you? Will more alcohol-free offerings be the solution? Will it be government-subsidised events and live tours? Will it be wider social change, like the implementation of a four-day working week, or the end of capitalism? The nightlife crisis exists at the intersection between various social forces, and it seems unlikely that there will be one elegant solution to it all. One thing remains certain though: expect to see a range of creative approaches to get you to want to go out and listen to live music.