Rick Beato | Songwriters Got Poorer. AI Is Next. So Where Is Music Going?

Overview

Rick Beato (with host Ross Golan) argues that pop music quality varies by era and artist, but that the current era is among the strongest in pop history. He pairs that optimism with larger concerns: songwriter compensation is being squeezed, song credits are expanding, and AI is poised to disrupt both creativity and rights.

Pop music and legacy

• Beato challenges the notion that pop “today is worse,” saying the idea of a “best era” depends on definitions.
• He strongly emphasizes that the Beatles remain unmatched in songwriting variety and sophistication.
• Using modern chart/streaming comparisons, he argues that longevity and cultural gravity matter—citing how difficult it is to match multi-decade dominance (e.g., Taylor Swift’s scale compared to older acts like Queen).

The industry pivot: from Napster to home studios

• Beato frames 1999 as pivotal: Napster’s rise coincided with the arrival of home recording and prosumer technology (e.g., Digidesign’s Digi 001 / the Pro Tools foundation).
• He argues that digital recording didn’t initially make music worse, and he credits this period’s technology with enabling his own producing and later YouTube work.
• While he acknowledges tech democratized production, he also notes it contributed to value declines for many recordings and album tracks.

Songwriting credits are increasing, hurting payouts

A core part of Beato’s analysis is that the number of writers per hit has grown substantially:

• He cites a shift from roughly ~3–4 writers on major songs to ~7+ writers decades later.
• Because splits are spread across more co-writers, each individual share shrinks—meaning writers must accumulate more successes to earn what earlier writers earned from fewer hits.
• He adds that album tracks once carried more economic weight (he cites older album sales translating into meaningful per-song royalties), while streaming makes many album tracks “almost completely worthless” compared to the breakout era of radio singles.

Session musicians, “writing credit,” and AI’s role

• Beato contrasts earlier eras—where session musicians could shape tracks without necessarily receiving writing credit—with the question of what happens as AI improves.
• He argues that AI could increase “equity” for creators outside traditional power centers (like Los Angeles) by enabling high-quality instrument-like performances via prompts rather than expensive top-tier hiring.
• However, he warns about rights and compensation: AI models trained on recordings can effectively “regurgitate” others’ work, even when the output is technically new.

AI ethics, ownership, and advocacy

Beato’s position isn’t that AI won’t be used—it’s that the current rights framework is imbalanced:

• In the U.S., he notes that labels own sound recordings, and he claims artists may not fully own their voice/likeness in a way that enables meaningful legal control.
• He references efforts like a proposed “No Fakes Act” to better protect vocal/aesthetic likeness, and he notes international differences.
• He argues that fully generative AI should not automatically qualify for copyright, saying “skill and taste” aren’t meaningfully demonstrated when the system generates everything from prompts.

Identifying AI music (not necessarily banning it)

• Beato suggests DSPs/streaming platforms should identify AI-generated content—such as offering a filter/toggle so listeners can opt out.
• He doubts platforms will universally remove AI music because business incentives likely favor availability over restriction.
• He also argues that even if AI music isn’t protected the same way, other creators can sample/interpolate successful AI outputs (“AI slop”) into new human-made works—framing it as a pragmatic opportunity rather than a guaranteed artistic loss.

YouTube as a songwriting-education engine

• Beato describes how his YouTube channel started: a short theory/ear-training video featuring his son went viral from a small Facebook base to tens of millions of views.
• He says the YouTube format created a new kind of “hit”-like feedback loop—his “chart” is channel performance—and helped him connect with famous musicians who contacted him for lessons.
• He emphasizes that his podcast/YouTube presence supports advocacy, including contributions to the Music Modernization Act:
  • He argues that songwriter community outreach and visible advocacy helped change royalty collection—reducing certain intermediary cuts—so DSPs now fund the MLC model.

Presenters / contributors

• Ross Golan (host)
• Rick Beato (guest)
• T. J. “Teder” (referenced as a prior discussion partner; likely Tedder, though mentioned as “Teder”)
• Kevin Shirley (referenced producer in Beato’s early career story)
• Peter Gotcher (referenced as founder of Digidesign)
• John Tita (referenced as a PolyGram executive who signed Beato)
• Michael Boddicker (referenced via a studio runner job story)
• Kenny Aronoff, Leland Sklar (examples of session musicians’ parts)
• Steve Lukather (referenced as a session guitarist)
• Daniel Tashian, Tom Bukovac, Todd Lombardo, Cecilia Castleman (referenced in a Nashville/live tracking anecdote)
• Ryan Tedder (referenced)
• Dan Wilson (referenced)
• NMPA / National Music Publishers Association (sponsor)