The Music Industry in 2035: Predictions and Possibilities
July 9, 2022
2035 isn’t far off—but if we look at how fast music has evolved from 1995 to 2022, it’s easy to imagine the next decade bringing even more dramatic changes. Exponential growth in digital music, technological leaps, and global events like war and climate change are all shaping how people choose, listen to, and access music. As the world shifts economically, politically, and socially, so does the music marketplace—how we create, distribute, and earn a living from our art.
One of the most exciting developments in 2035 is the full studio capability now available to musicians. Gone are the days when artists had to rely on record labels for recording budgets and studio access. While home studios opened that door years ago, high-level mastering and production were still out of reach for many. But thanks to rapid A.I. advancements and more affordable tech, today’s artists can now produce radio-ready tracks from their smartphones or tablets. This levels the playing field in ways we’ve only dreamed of.
Another huge shift came in 2028, when a new copyright law placed blockchain at the heart of all recorded music. This update to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act gives artists more control and ensures fair compensation through digital services. With blockchain built into the process, artists are no longer at the mercy of stronger stakeholders. The system finally reflects the realities of modern music production and consumption.
The breakup of the big three record labels into six major players—alongside a surge in independent labels—has made the marketplace more accessible and equitable. A new Global & Universal Copyright Law (not affiliated with Universal Music Group) introduced technology that calculates accurate royalty splits and payouts globally. Latin America, in particular, has become the largest music market on the planet, outpacing North America and Europe in both live and digital sales. With blockchain baked into the infrastructure, and A.I. helping track and distribute payments, artists are seeing quicker and more transparent income.
One of the more controversial trends on the horizon is the emergence of implant technology—downloadable chips for music consumption. While still in its early stages, this kind of tech raises big questions about how we value and pay for music. As anyone with a phone can now produce a fully finished track, the sheer volume of digital music is exploding. This may push the industry toward micro-payments, where listeners are charged pennies per stream and each musician essentially becomes their own label.
A.I. also plays a huge role in simplifying the process. These systems now sift global data to instantly allocate funds, forecast hits, and even replace traditional A&R with automated artist discovery. The result? Artists who once struggled to break in can now record, release, and get paid within minutes—assuming their work connects with an increasingly savvy and discerning audience.
The old idea that breaking into the music business is next to impossible? It's shifting. Art is created and shared at light speed, judged and elevated by real-time feedback and data. What once took months or years—recording, mastering, distributing—is now streamlined to mere days or hours. In 2035, that high-end album you dreamed of making? You’re building it on your phone and dropping it to a global audience instantly.
While the structure of record labels is still evolving, one thing is clear: we’re moving toward a world where musicians are more empowered, more independent, and more in control than ever before.
Further Thoughts
After reading this paper, my instructor offered some thoughtful comments I wanted to share here. While blockchain offers incredible potential, there are still major challenges ahead, particularly in metadata standardization, database management, and transparency within the music tech sector. Another key concern is how we define the value of creative labor in a world where content is abundant and access is instant. There's also the tension between labels and publishers—often owned by the same corporate giants—that continues to complicate fair compensation for artists. These issues are complex, and I’ll be exploring them more in future posts.
Works Cited
Ellin, A. (2020, March 18). The future of record labels. Medium.
What is the Future of Music? — Sage Audio. (n.d.). www.sageaudio.com.
How will life be different in 2035? (2021, November 4). New Statesman.
Originally written for Berklee's Music Business Policy course
Broadcast Radio and Fair Pay for Musicians: A Persistent Problem
August 9, 2022
The main issue with broadcast radio today is the amount of revenue the medium generates versus the lack of payment to the people who actually made the music. While musicians are compensated in the digital space, there is still a huge gap when it comes to terrestrial radio—that is, traditional AM/FM broadcasting.
According to SoundExchange, American artists miss out on around $200 million in performance royalties every year. These are royalties that could be collected from international radio play but currently are not—mainly because of outdated U.S. legislation. Some experts believe that if American performers were fairly compensated for their music being played on terrestrial radio, it could actually boost the U.S. economy.
This practice of unpaid radio play has been standard for decades, and broadcasters have long resisted any changes. The Local Radio Freedom Act, which is supported by broadcasters across the country, aims to keep this system intact. Their argument? That any change in legislation would hurt the budgets of local radio stations and possibly threaten their survival. On the other side of the debate are those advocating for musician rights, who view this system as one of the most persistent injustices in the modern music economy.
A Potential Solution: The American Music Fairness Act (AMFA)
One possible solution to this long-standing problem is the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA). This proposed legislation would ensure that performers are paid for terrestrial radio plays and help establish a more equitable system across the board.
In addition to compensating performers, AMFA would also protect songwriters and copyright holders, and establish mechanisms to ensure publishers receive a fair share of the funds collected from radio stations. Notably, the bill includes a tiered fee system that would make sure small, local radio stations only pay small annual fees—just enough to fairly use the music without hurting their budgets.
The major targets of this bill would be large corporate broadcasters, whose profit margins benefit significantly from consistently playing popular music. Under AMFA, they would pay more than smaller stations, creating a sliding scale system. SoundExchange notes that the legislation aims to ensure “all music platforms are treated the same when it comes to royalty payment requirements.”
The bill also includes practical protections for smaller and regional broadcasters, and even public radio stations may be exempt altogether. The goal is not to punish radio, but to bring fairness and consistency to the royalty system.
Why Broadcasters Push Back
Broadcasters opposing AMFA mainly cite financial concerns. They argue that new fees would pile on top of existing costs and harm local radio. Many also believe that radio already plays a promotional role for artists, offering valuable exposure that should be considered part of the compensation.
There’s also a sense that radio has always worked this way—so why change it? To them, the current system isn’t broken, and changing it could introduce complications.
Who Benefits from Change?
The biggest beneficiaries of AMFA would be the musicians themselves—especially those whose performances are featured on radio-played recordings but who currently receive nothing. This includes not only headlining artists but also session musicians and background vocalists.
For many, the current model is outdated and unfair. Fixing this system could provide much-needed income for working musicians, and move U.S. broadcasting standards closer to international norms, where most countries do pay performers when their music is played on the radio.
What a Real Estate Pro Taught Me About Music Policy
August 19, 2022
For a recent project, I decided to get some outside perspective on a few music policy issues. Instead of diving into academic sources or industry insiders, I reached out to someone I’ve known for over 20 years—an old friend who’s got real business chops, some music industry experience, and a sharp perspective on how things work.
She’s 46 now, a full-time real estate agent, married with two teenagers. But back in the day, she was a live performer and even helped me with a fundraising campaign for one of my recent full-length albums. So while she’s technically “outside” the music industry now, she’s got enough experience to understand the landscape—and her insights really stuck with me.
Terrestrial Radio: The Unseen Rip-Off
First, we talked about terrestrial radio in the U.S. and the fact that American artists don’t get paid when their songs are played on it. She was genuinely surprised—and a little annoyed—to learn that. She had no idea that artists in most other countries do earn royalties from broadcast plays, while U.S. performers get left out.
Her take? Pretty blunt: it “forces artists to only get paid for live performances and merchandise.” That’s the reality for a lot of working musicians right now. And she’s right—it’s not just unfair, it’s structured to benefit the embedded industry players who, as she put it, “figured out how to profit from others’ art.”
That got me thinking: the more fans actually understand how this system works, the more likely they are to support changes. Touring and merch are already our main sources of income—but when fans realize radio play doesn't pay, they might be more inclined to support legislation that levels the playing field.
File Sharing, Streaming, and the Uphill Climb
Next up: the lingering effects of Napster and the current state of streaming platforms. Her opinions here were strong, and totally valid. She pointed out that platforms like Napster and even Spotify can be exploitative, while services like Apple Music and XM Radio might be slightly better in terms of compensation.
But even the “better” platforms aren’t exactly handing out checks. As she said, “like free radio, it forces artists to have to jump through hoops to make money.” It’s a constant hustle for indie artists just to break even—let alone turn streaming into a sustainable income source.
What Should the Government’s Role Be?
Last, I asked her how the government should fit into all of this—if at all. Her stance was nuanced. On one hand, she believes government involvement in any market should be limited. But when it comes to music and digital platforms, she also emphasized the need for policies that support creators, not just the big companies.
She name-checked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as a potential player in balancing the scales, helping to build a more equitable environment where small and independent creators have a fair shot. The key is creating legislation that supports innovation and young voices, not just protecting legacy players.
In her words, it's about building a structure that encourages harmony—not hostility—between all sides of the industry.
Final Thoughts
This conversation was a reminder that you don’t need to be deep in the weeds of the music industry to understand how broken some of these systems are. Sometimes, outside voices can see the flaws more clearly—and offer real clarity on what needs to change.
Royalty & Licensing Policy: The Mechanical Royalty Puzzle in the Digital Age
August 13, 2022
Current policies regarding mechanical royalties are based on an outdated provision that requires payment to songwriters and publishers. As antiquated as they may be, these mechanical royalty regulations—originally outlined in the Copyright Act of 1909—are still being used in the digital age. That law defined mechanical royalties as payments to songwriters and publishers “for the reproduction and distribution of their songs” (Royalty Exchange). While the system has seen updates over the years, the original structure still influences how these royalties are managed. Even though the law is over a century old, there are now more modern and dynamic ways in which songwriters and publishers receive mechanical royalty compensation.
With the growth of streaming and digital download services, it's essential to understand how current policy and law shape the royalty pay structure. Awareness here is key to creating a more fair and equitable playing field—for both up-and-coming and established artists. It’s been said many times, but it bears repeating: songwriters deserve to be properly compensated for their work. Even as the way people listen to music evolves, the phrase “mechanical royalty” continues to be the benchmark for how songwriters and publishers are paid. Still, it’s worth asking whether the current structure is really doing its job—or if it needs more scrutiny and refinement.
Today, mechanical royalties typically flow in a few ways. According to BMI, “mechanicals are often paid directly to the publisher,” though sometimes this is done through the Harry Fox Agency (HFA), which handles mechanical compensation to publishers. From there, royalties are then passed on to the copyright holder and the songwriter. Currently, HFA charges about 4.5% for this service.
It’s important to note that royalties are split into two categories: those attached to the sound recording and those attached to the underlying composition. Mechanical royalties focus more on how the composition is used—especially in cover versions or remakes. These issues are central to newer developments, like the Music Modernization Act (MMA), and how royalty payments are evolving in the digital space.
One of the most notable features of the MMA is the creation of the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC). This new entity is intended to collect and distribute mechanical royalties to both publishers and songwriters. Some advocates of the MMA believe that the formation of the MLC could streamline the payment process, making it easier and more accurate for creators to get paid.
A major reform under the MMA is the idea of blanket mechanical licenses for digital platforms—licenses that apply “for the distribution and streaming of musical works” (Rory PQ). Mayfield notes that this blanket license would apply to all legal streaming services, which is promising in theory, but may also be overreaching. There’s a concern that such licensing could make it harder for new platforms to enter the market, especially if they’re forced to comply with systems that may not yet fit their models.
This is where the American Mechanical Licensing Collective (AMLC) comes in. As a competitor to the MLC, they’ve raised important questions about how royalties are managed—and whether the MLC is equipped to do it fairly. In some ways, the AMLC is trying to act as a watchdog or potential regulator. Their concerns point to the risk of favoritism or self-interest within the MLC. Without proper oversight, independent songwriters and small publishers could find it difficult to claim the money they’re owed.
Ensuring that the MLC is held accountable seems like a strong path forward. Oversight is essential—especially for new agencies promising to handle royalty funds efficiently. The MLC's ability to issue blanket licenses could be a good thing if implemented fairly. But, much like how checks and balances work in government, we need to make sure there's a mechanism to call out any issues before they become systemic. Otherwise, we risk ending up in yet another scenario where creators aren’t getting the support or payment they deserve.