AI-generated music has reached a milestone. According to Deezer, in January 2026, 60,000 AI titles were uploaded every day on the platform, or 40% of new uploads. At the same time, 97% of listeners do not distinguish AI music from human creation, according to a study from October 2025, but 52% say they are uncomfortable when they learn it. In this landscape, Qobuz published in February 2026 a zero tolerance charter on content 100% generated by AI. Marc Zisman, music director of the platform, details his reading of the situation for BDM.
We can’t distinguish AI music but we are uncomfortable when we learn it… What is at stake in this gap between the ear and the consciousness?
Anyone could be fooled. Today we manage to do amazing things and I have no doubt that almost 100% of the people to whom we would make listen to certain pieces could also be confused by them. And like them, I would say that I am uncomfortable.
There is the mediatized example of the “group” The Velvet Sundown, which resembled Fleetwood Mac, with 70’s rock sounds. In a sidewalk microphone on the Champs-Élysées, we played the song, people said “it’s great”. At the end, the journalist revealed that it was AI. 80% of passers-by were disappointed or resistant, and maybe 10% said “I don’t care, the song isn’t bad”.
I often draw a parallel with the composition of a food. We can find something delicious, and we learn that there are disruptors, harmful products. Some will continue to consume it, others will not. Here, the role of a streaming platform is to inform the consumer: this song is 100% AI. Like a Nutri-Score on a packet of cakes, we give the information and the person can make their choice.
You talk about “a contract between an artist, a work and its listener.” Can you define this contract, and at what point does the AI break it?
At each stage of the chain, everyone has their responsibility. The musician, the label which chooses or not AI artists, the platform which decides or not to inform its consumer. And at the end, the listener, once we have given him all the information. There is not one innocent and one guilty, it is a technological advance.
Copyright must remain. A painting painted for my living room or a piece composed for my friends, no. But as soon as there is commercialization, an author must be remunerated for his creation, especially if another creation is generated from his own. But, between the extremes, there are nuances. Timbaland created a 100% AI artist that he didn’t hide. Conversely, the smart guy on the other side of the world who generates thousands of Tyler, The Creator-style titles with Suno, just to recover royalties, is a totally different approach.
Qobuz published an AI charter in February 2026 with a zero tolerance policy on content 100% generated by AI. How do we apply this policy in practice, and is it sustainable on a scale?
Every day, we remove and delete. Our internal tools quickly detect thousands of titles generated, either linked to a label that we have never heard of, or with enormous stream volumes while there are very few subscribers behind it, therefore bots. We also have subscribers who contact customer service saying “I spotted this”, they participate in the cleaning.
There could be billions of titles on the platforms, the days will still only be 24 hours long.
Marc Zisman
Music Director, Qobuz
Because beyond the tools, there is human curation. Some say it’s a small shield against the AI tsunami. I don’t agree. One thing hasn’t changed since recorded music existed: days are only 24 hours long, and the amount of time a music lover has to listen to music hasn’t increased either. There could be billions of titles on the platforms, that wouldn’t change. Every week, we manually select dozens of albums in all genres. It’s already huge.
Qobuz in numbers
- 130 employees around the world, the majority of whom are at the headquarters in Pantin,
- Offices in New York and Tokyo, collaborators all over the world,
- 50 000 playlists éditorialisées, 100 % manuelles,
- €18 paid per 1,000 streams, compared to €2.80 at Spotify (figures from an independent firm, spring 2025).
Your charter recognizes that AI can serve human creativity: demo, mixing, mastering, assisted composition. Where do you draw the line between an artist who uses AI as a tool and an entirely machine-generated product?
We cannot put in the same basket a guy hiding behind his computer who will generate 2,000 Radiohead-style tracks and a real musician who uses AI as a tool or an instrument. There are a lot of things in computer music that have already been AI for years, it’s not new. Certain uses serve to save time: what took three nights, we do in an hour. That has advantages.
To place the cursor, what matters is to provide the information.
Marc Zisman
Music Director, Qobuz
I’m not saying that AI is bad and humans are great. The proof: we too use personalization algorithms. To place the cursor, what matters is to provide the information. If a recognized artist says that he used AI in a certain place on his album, it is not for us to judge. What is important from our side is to provide information.
What does a potential saturation of platforms with AI creations change for a listener looking for music?
Already, we are working on a tagging tool for AI creations. But there are two real aspects: that a title is available is one thing; how a listener gets there is another.
For this, there are three access routes. First, the search engine: if the listener has neither the title, nor the name of the artist, nor that of the album, he will never arrive at these millions of AI titles. Then, the highlights in the application: at Qobuz, they are 100% editorialized, our 50,000 playlists created over 20 years are 100% manual, none are algorithmic. Finally, there are the recommendation algorithms, which we control. They are powered in part by the subscriber’s history (artists and labels liked, albums and tracks favorited), but also by human curation. We use our Friday selections to feed the algorithm, and we whitelist labels that we know are safe.
Two years ago, before the massive AI wave, it was estimated that almost 75% of tracks on Spotify had zero streams. In my opinion, today it’s at least 90%. These titles are found in the cellar, no one touches them.
Is human curation once again becoming a competitive advantage, or even an act of resistance?
People sometimes think it’s boring. But it’s concrete. Massive Attack has just released a single which is not available on Spotify, their next album is coming soon… There is a message behind it. Human curation is not a little standard to protect oneself, it is a reality.
Human curation is not a little standard to protect oneself, it is a reality.
Marc Zisman
Music Director, Qobuz
For 20 years, every year I heard “you are dead”. If we’re still here, it’s because we offer something different. Many people feel like they are stuck in an algorithm that goes around in circles, like a goldfish in a bowl. They come to us for human recommendations. Like when a friend recommends a great album. When it’s someone we know well and who knows us well, it surpasses all algorithms on Earth.
Qobuz is already positioned as the highest paying platform per stream. Is the fight against AI music also a fight for the economic viability of artists?
At Qobuz, there is no freemium. Unlike some platforms which offer versions with advertising, we started from the principle, from the start, that music had value, with a cost behind it. Low-cost streaming helped popularize listening, but it also devalued music: we went from an album for 15 euros to a billion titles for 15 euros.
We also kept downloading, which is direct remuneration like a CD or vinyl. Inevitably, it’s normal that we pay better than others. Today we are around €18.50 per 1,000 streams, while Spotify is at €2.80. The gap is huge. It was an independent firm that delivered these figures in spring 2025, which tickled quite a few artists, and also many people who saw the name Qobuz for the first time in an article. It’s concrete, and it has been beneficial to us for a year.
Marc Zisman, Music Director, Qobuz
Marc Zisman has been the Global Chief Music Officer of Qobuz, a French streaming platform, for four years. A music journalist by training, he joined the company upon its creation in 2007. He is now responsible for the platform’s overall music editorial policy, which covers streaming, downloading, magazine and supply chain.
