I Got 5 on It #Oakland #Classic

Numskull “Luniz” just crashed my wife’s - 2nd cousins wedding lol

.@kanyewest book the stadium in Seattle … preferably this month 😉 I want to see these peoples faces lol … I want to see the mayor shit her pants!

Spotify has rolled this out for well established artist. It’s in beta and suppose to rollout to all users later this year.

Naw lol. I pretty much gave the name away. 1 person got it right and he DM me.

Teaching Tatum senior year of HS lol music.apple.com/us/album/hyp…

One of your first artist you had on Gamma that left . . . He’s independent now “again” is NOT named in any of these allegations but he is always going after labels for boosting streams and etc! 🤔 musicbusinessworldwide.com/l…

1. Ted Lucas signed you to his slip n slide 2. Then Hov came in and do a JV deal with slip n slide 3. You don’t own all your masters 4. You never had a successful headline tour …. Maybe this current orchestra one might be your only one 5. J.U.S.T.C.E. League saved you lol

Thank you! 😊

You hear a lot about the negative side of the music industry, and some of it is valid. But a lot of people are also speaking from artist rants, half-truths, and situations they don’t fully understand. The bigger issue right now is oversaturation. It’s easier than ever to put music out, but harder than ever to break through. There’s so much music dropping every day that if you’re not making noise, people probably won’t find you. That means artists have to promote, market, create content, build community, and push themselves harder than before. And I get it — a lot of artists just want to make great music and let that be enough. But unless you have a team doing the dirty work, you have to do it yourself. No manager, label, or team is going to want it more than you do. If you want people to believe in you and push your music, they need to see you pushing it first.

That’s stupid! These wack ass DJ aka Podcasters. Y’all just ruin the game. Either play it or don’t! End of the day you are playing for the people coming to your party! Not for yourself!

🙌🏼 @KELLYROWLAND

If I had one wish, it would be for this fight to be over

I get the concern, but I don’t think it’s that simple. There’s a huge difference between private user-generated AI remixes for personal listening and letting random people publicly exploit an artist’s work, voice, likeness, or composition without approval. If it’s public, monetized, searchable, playlisted, or algorithmically pushed — then yes, artists/writers/producers need control, approval, and compensation. No question. But if it’s basically a personal listening tool — like a user making their own version inside their account that nobody else can hear or profit from — that’s a different conversation. The real issue isn’t “remixing” by itself. Music has always had remixes, covers, samples, mashups, edits, DJs, producers flipping records, etc. The issue is consent, control, attribution, and money. Calling every use “evil” ignores the fact that technology can be structured in a way that protects creators. But if platforms use AI remixes to flood the market, replace real artists, or let labels/platforms own the upside while creators lose control — then yeah, that’s a major problem.

This is a little dramatic. Putting your logo and © notice on a video is fine, but that’s not some magic shield against platform terms, Content ID, licensing, or AI tools. The real issue is consent, licensing, attribution, and compensation — not just typing “this is copyrighted” in the caption. If YouTube or Spotify are allowing AI remixes, the question is: is it licensed, opt-in, monetized correctly, and are the actual rights holders getting paid? That’s the conversation. Not “they stole my copyright because I didn’t put a logo on it.”

The issue is we don’t know the splits yet. Spotify and UMG announced licensed AI covers/remixes with participating artists, consent, credit, and compensation — but they haven’t disclosed who gets what. I agree labels see this as a new monetization lane and a way to keep catalog/major artists culturally active. But saying they “own every consumer remix and take majority revenue” is speculation until the terms are public. The bigger concern is whether these remixes stay private to the user or become public, shareable, algorithm-fed content. If it’s private, fine. If it starts competing in discovery with real artists, that’s where it becomes a problem for independents.

I’m not fully against Spotify experimenting with AI remix covers, but it has to be user-generated and private. Meaning: if a listener wants to make an AI remix or cover for their own personal listening, fine. But it should stay in their own account, their own library, and their own listening experience. It should not be publicly available, monetized, playlisted, recommended, or pushed into the same ecosystem as real artists’ releases. That’s where the line is for me. Personal use is one thing. Turning AI covers into public content that competes with actual artists is a completely different issue. But the earnings don’t come from the general pool of money!

Not gonna lie tho … Drake got some records on here. Production, catchy hooks and a flow! Shit people can rap too …