Front Burner - Drake vs Kendrick and the music industry

Episode Date: December 6, 2024

Kendrick Lamar’s hit diss track ‘Not Like Us’ accused Drake of being a ‘colonizer’ and a ‘pedophile.’ Now, seven months after the song’s release, Drake has filed a legal petition against Universal Music Group (UMG) for orchestrating a plot to artificially boost the popularity of the song via algorithm manipulation, online bots, and payola, in a bid to undermine him.Is Drake taking on the music business, in the tradition of Prince and Michael Jackson, or is he a sore loser, seeking litigious retribution for the fact that he lost the most high profile rap beef of all time? Brian Zisook is a co-founder of the music streaming platform Audiomack, and long time writer and executive in the hip hop world. He joins the show to discuss the facts of Drake’s case, the tradition of hip hop lawsuits that have come before, and the industry practices that created the conditions for this moment. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Psst, I see dead people. I'm Matthew Amaha, in for Jamie Poisson. They not like us.

They not like us. They not like us. They not like us. Whether or not you fashion yourself a hip-hop fan, it's likely you heard that song this summer. Kendrick Lamar's Not Like Us was the crown jewel of one of the biggest feuds in hip-hop's 50-year history, one that saw the two biggest rappers in the world go head-to-head, song-for-song, in a battle for a

kind of cultural supremacy. To see who was the greater rapper and writer, yes, but it also became a referendum on race, belonging, nationality, and which of the two had a more genuine claim to the culture they sought to lead. It also became uncomfortably personal. Drake alleged that Kendrick Lamar had physically abused his wife, while Kendrick alleged, among other things, that Drake was a colonizer and a pedophile. In the eyes of many, Kendrick beat Drake. But now, seven months on, and just days after a surprise album from Kendrick, it appeared Drake had a surprise of his own.

Last week, the Canadian rapper filed a series of legal challenges focused on his record label, Universal Music Group, who he says conspired with major streaming companies and iHeartRadio to artificially manipulate the numbers and popularity of Not Like Us. The allegations, if proven true, could be groundbreaking for a billion-dollar industry that has long dealt with accusations of impropriety. Many are struggling to understand Drake's place in all this. You tapped out. Kendrick won. And he told you to squabble up, not lawyer up. But you chose to get the lawyers because you lost the squabble.

Many view him as a sore loser, unable to reconcile the fact of his public loss. While others view him as a whistleblower and the next in a line of artists, which includes the likes of Prince, Taylor Swift, and Michael Jackson, all of whom attempted to challenge the music industry. Brian Zizouk is a co-founder of the music streaming platform AudioMac, and a longtime writer and executive in the music world. And he's here to take us on the inside of Drake vs. the Music Industry. Hey Brian, thanks for joining us. Thank you, Matthew. Thank you for having me.

So let's start by first kind of understanding the case that Drake is making here. So there are two separate legal petitions that he's filed. These are not formal lawsuits, but a procedure which intends to secure information before filing a formal lawsuit. His first filing alleges that his parent label, Universal Music Group, conspired with Spotify to artificially inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar's diss track against him. We'll get into some of why he's saying this happened shortly, but what was your initial reaction to the general accusations being made here? Well, I was shocked because while there is a long history, as you outlined in your open, of artists going against their record labels

in terms of an artist, a modern artist of Drake's size doing so would be considered unprecedented for the reasons that are laid out in the two petitions, again, that you referenced in the open. And my initial thought was, what exactly is the end game? Of course, there is a swirl of speculation and rumors that this is related to Drake's desire to exit his existing recording contract and or renew his licensing deal with Universal. But Drake is perhaps, and in doing so, potentially put himself in a position where it would sully his reputation and make it difficult for him to continue to do business with that label on a move forward basis, didn't seem to make too much sense to me or various entertainment attorneys that I consulted with as soon as the

story broke. Yeah. And I mean, so to get into some of the accusations now, I mean, you know, these accusations are varied, but Drake is alleging these companies carried out this conspiracy against him a number of ways. One is that Spotify reduced licensing rates paid by Universal by 30%. And in exchange, Spotify would actively recommend Not Like Us to listeners that weren't yet searching for it. He also alleged that the label paid for bots and fake listens of the song on platforms like Spotify in order to make the song seem more popular than it actually was. And that Universal Music Group participated in payola, which is essentially when someone pays a radio station for airplay. At that point, and it has been the case since time immemorial, you can bribe people to play

your goods. In the old days, piano players in the Woolworths stores would get a $5 bill to play the sheet music so the customers would buy. Television, radio came along, payola came up. Disc jockeys would play records for pay. Do you think there's anything there? And which of those accusations do you think might be most dangerous for Universal? Sure.

So let's break them down. First, artificial manipulation. It has been a major problem in streaming for quite some time. So much so that last year, Spotify actually came out and announced that they would begin to find labels and distributors whose artists or clients were caught botting their songs past a certain threshold, which they announced was 90%. So you could cheat up to 89%, Matthew, but don't cheat past that level. 99%, Matthew, but don't cheat past that level. And as a result, a lot of independent distributors started to remove artists from their services because they didn't want to have to pay these fines.

But there is an entire culture of artificial manipulation and botting. We at Audio Mac call it juicing. And it often occurs without the knowledge of the artist or their label. What ends up happening is a song will be added to one or multiple playlists. And then invariably, any number of these illegitimate third-party marketing companies will artificially manipulate not just the song in question, but every song up and down an entire playlist with the intention of masking their true intention, obviously, which is to inflate the song in question. So I'm not saying that that necessarily is what happened here, but there is a ton of ambiguity. The other charge is that there was a

lowered royalty rate. Now, it is no surprise that through this petition, the rest of the world has learned that Universal Music Group is a partner of Spotify's. Universal Music Group, one of three major labels, has a licensing deal with the streamer. And when they first were approached, the only way that Spotify could convince the labels to license their music was to offer a piece of equity to the label. So looking at it through that lens, Spotify and Universal Music Group are business partners. And so they have a relationship. And the way that that relationship works best is if the streamer goes out of its way to amplify UMG's artists, providing valuable real estate and editorial looks. Now, as it relates to the lower royalty rates specifically, Spotify has

a program that it announced four years ago called Discovery Mode. Discovery Mode is an audience development tool from Spotify for Artists that can help your songs reach more listeners. You choose songs you'd like prioritized within Spotify personalized listening sessions. And then our system takes that signal into account, helping to increase the likelihood that the song is recommended to listeners. But it only works if fans... Now, the aim of Discovery Mode was to offer a way for independent, up-and-coming and developing acts the chance to gain more real estate and identification on the service.

And by accepting a lowered royalty rate of 30%, Spotify would add that song into their recommendation engine to make it available for more listeners. So it sounds like on the surface that Kendrick was able to use this program and not like us, reap the benefits of it. So I guess what I'm hearing here, I mean, when it comes to juicing records, when it comes to using bots to artificially inflate the popularity of a song, are these things that are inherently illegal? And I kind of contrast that with the accusation that payola may have been used, which, if I understand correctly, is a crime. Correct. Payola is illegal and pertains specifically to radio.

We're in uncharted waters here because there has not been any update since we have entered the streaming era. entire ordeal, whether or not this even makes it to a full-fledged lawsuit and trial, is that it will almost force the entirety of the industry to get on the same page. Because right now, there's still that element of the wild, wild west. It exists. Everyone knows it exists in various forms. People talk about it. It would be great if everybody got on the same page. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization,

empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Cups.

Universal has, of course, denied these allegations. But what I found interesting is that as a bookend to their denial, they added, quote, fans choose the music they want to hear. And that's an idea that really struck me. So to that end, I want to play a real quick clip here from Noel Gallagher of Oasis and have you react in a second. The consumer didn't f***ing want Jimi Hendrix, but they got him and it changed the world. And the consumer didn't want Sgt. Peppers, but they got it.

F*** the customer. The customer doesn't know what he wants. You f***ing give it to him and he likes it. And now there's an attitude in the music business where it's like, well, let's keep the consumer happy because that's what makes the music business go around. Customers are idiots. You know, Universal says that fans choose the music they want to hear. Noel Gallagher says that consumers don't know what they want until it meets them. And then they realize how much they like it. And to that end, that is the job of a record label. It is to identify a particular target demo and the likelihood that they will or will

not be predisposed to a particular type of artist or a particular type of sound or genre. to a particular type of artist or a particular type of sound or genre, and then making it clear that it's worth that person's time, attention, and money. We're sitting on this treasure trove of data in the streaming era. We know what people want to listen to depending on their location, their age, their gender, their income bracket, what their hobbies are. And so it's very easy to say that the customer is stupid. But when we have this data, we can pinpoint who is most likely to listen to what and when. And then as it relates to Kendrick and not like us, the early returns were very positive. and not like us, the early returns were very positive. And so what the job of a great label is,

is to pour gasoline on a fire. And so fans loved the record. And then it is very clear through its success that UMG did everything in its power, financially, digitally, and otherwise, to ensure that everybody heard the record ad nauseum forevermore. A lot of people have kind of reacted to this by pointing out that these are systems that Drake has used to benefit his career as well. I mean, do you understand Drake to be a credible broker here, given that he's also kind of benefited from these same systems that he's now complaining about? Matthew, I think this is a classic case of a solid message, but perhaps the wrong messenger. I think the establishment is in a pickle, right? You have a scenario where it is harder than ever before to develop and break an artist.

And the means through which we can make an artist available to the masses have splintered. The media landscape is entirely fractured. We all sort of just now exist in our own little corner of the internet. I like to call it the niche era. You could be a superstar, but only be known to a few hundred thousand individuals. And so it's interesting because Drake made this about how it impacted him, how it harmed him, how he lost revenue and he lost credibility. The reality is artificial manipulation, botting, payola, what all of this does, if any of these things are proven to be true, It takes away time and attention from up and coming and developing artists who do not have the cachet, the repertoire and the history of a drink. It also directly impacts their ability to generate revenue through streaming platforms.

And the reason is because every major streaming service uses the same payment method, which is a pro rata method in that the streams that you create on the service, you were paid out that percentage of total listenership. So everyone that listened to Not Like Us was not listening to someone else. Drake's saying that someone else would have been him, when in reality, it would have been tens or hundreds of thousands of other artists whose time and attention they did not get. Yeah, so here we have essentially one of the most streamed artists

in the history of American music accusing the largest musical conglomerate in the world, which he also belongs to, of improper behavior and crimes. But to put this into context, this is not the first time that industry giants have attempted to take on the music industry in some way. Both Michael Jackson and Prince, for example, have previously mounted legal challenges against music labels. Michael accused Sony's chairman of institutional racism and business sabotage.

The record companies really, really do conspire against their artists. They steal, they cheat, they do whatever they can, especially the black artists. While Prince's challenges were pretty squarely focused on his masters and corporate exploitation. Ever since my third album, I wasn't really taking large advances from the recording companies.

I was recording the albums myself in my own studio. So the way I looked at it, I owned the work because I paid for it. And I did all the work. I created it. So I felt like it should belong to me. That said, the... What do you think distinguishes this effort from Drake from the kinds of challenges that we've seen before? Well, specifically, Drake is not complaining about what the label has or has not done for him. For all intents and purposes, the label has been has not done for him. For all intents and purposes, the label has been a fantastic partner for Drake.

He has been within the same structure, UMG, since the dawn of his career. Now he's changed labels underneath that structure, whereas previously he was signed through Young Money Cash Money and now has a licensing agreement through Republic. But in both petitions, he's complaining about what the label did not do with respect to

Kendrick Lamar and Not Like Us. He isn't necessarily complaining about how they mistreated him as it pertains to his own business. Whereas, obviously, as you articulated, that was the case with respect to Michael and publishing and the marketing and promotion of Invincible and Prince and both master ownership and also name, image and likeness. I think the biggest difference, though, between then and now is social media and the way that we talk about these issues and the way that we analyze them and undoubtedly the reputational harm that can come from appearing

to be a litigious character. I'd like to believe that Prince and Michael's reputations would precede them if those cases played out in the social court of public opinion today. But perhaps they wouldn't. Many are kind of framing this case from Drake as belated retaliation for the fact that he lost a highly publicized battle and he just isn't able to get over it. That he is essentially calling the police in some way, or like calling HR or something, which would be cultural heresy in hip-hop. But in reality, this is far from novel. I mean, hip-hop has seen a number of high-profile lawsuits before, even following previous battles. Eminem sued Benzino,

then co-owner of The Source magazine. Dr. Dre has sued Suge Knight. Rick Ross and 50 Cent have been involved in lawsuits as well. Why do you think public reaction to this action from Drake seemed to resonate so differently than hip-hop lawsuits from years past? It's probably the target, right? It's probably the target, right? You know, he named UMG and Spotify and iHeartMedia in the two petitions that were filed. He didn't name Kendrick Lamar. And as you mentioned earlier, when he talked to UMG, UMG instructed him if he was going to file a lawsuit against anyone that he should do so against Mr. Duckworth and not sue them. And so in all the examples that you mentioned, this was an artist going against another artist following a public spat or beef,

whereas Drake did not take that tact here. That's first. And second is, I think, you know, perception shapes reality, fair or unfair. And so we've seen all of this, the beginning of the beef to now play out on social media. And that has not benefited Drake whatsoever. Just for those listening, Mr. Duckworth is indeed Kendrick Lamar. But the reasons why Drake actually mounted this challenge are varied and layered. There are a number of theories out there, but I think the one with the most steam is probably the theory that Universal Music Group essentially used this song from Kendrick Lamar as a tool of leverage against Drake in what is essentially a power struggle between Drake and the label related to his upcoming contract negotiations.

But Kendrick Lamar's song provided an avenue to strong-arm Drake into having to play ball in some way. It should also be said that Drake recently dumped hundreds of unreleased songs and videos on an Instagram page ironically called Plot Twist, as well as a private website, which people also believe to be a part of this billion-dollar power struggle. These are also allegations that Drake has been openly talking about in his music for many years now. He's openly been saying that bot manipulation has been weaponized against him. About the music industry's power brokers conspiring against him, and about a red button that he may one day have to press. This now seems to be that red button.

So what do you make of that framing that this is all related to what is essentially a business feud between UMG's golden child and the label's brain trust? Yeah, I don't want to go down the conspiratorial path that I have seen play out over social media in the past few months that suggests that, you know, UMG is in cahoots with Kendrick Lamar. I don't think it goes that deep. I think there are a few things that likely happened in parallel. It is very possible that Drake is up to the point of completing this existing recording contract with UMG and is looking to renew with his longtime label partner. At the same time, this feud happened to play out, not to say that it was orchestrated by anyone other than the individual creator participants. The idea, though, that Drake is doing this as a leverage play in these negotiations is an interesting one, because Drake is perhaps, outside of Taylor Swift or Adele or The Weeknd, one of, if not the most

leveraged individuals in music. You can just look at this year. Over the past few weeks, all the streaming services have announced the most streamed artists by country and globally. And Drake remains at the top, both domestically and internationally. So, you know, making the claim that UMG intentionally pushed Not Like Us to a greater degree than any other record that was already taking off and that it greatly impacted him specifically. It's a shaky position to take when you take a step back and look at the success he has been able to achieve over the past 12 months, mind you, without releasing a new album during that time span.

In a material sense, I think by most measures, people would conclude that Kendrick Lamar won his battle with Drake. Drake has poked fun at the fact that Kendrick is a critical darling, Drake has poked fun at the fact that Kendrick is a critical darling. But since the battle, Kendrick has dropped a number one record. He secured a Super Bowl halftime show. What the deal, everybody? My name Kendrick Lamar. And I'll be performing at Super Bowl 59.

Will you be pulling up? He's united Los Angeles' gang culture at a concert, he's dropped a surprise album, and he may very well win a Grammy for the song itself. Ultimately, Drake and Kendrick have always kind of represented different things in rap. Kendrick is hip-hop's poet laureate, Drake is hip-hop's commercial king. But ultimately, what do you think the legacy of this battle

will be in maybe 10 years from now? And is there a world in which these disclosures or depositions could impact its memory in any way? Great question. So to tackle the first part, I think time will be on Drake's side. I think we all tend to be prisoners of the moment. And there's a lot of recency bias that is happening right now just because this is the dialogue. All Drake needs to do is either go away for a little while and then come back strong or release another hit record. This industry has been and will always be a what have you done for me lately business. So I think Drake will be just fine. I also think that the

conversations that happen on social media are not always indicative of what exists in the real world. And we've already seen that play out wherein Drake announced a multi-date tour in Melbourne, Australia, and it sold out. And so clearly there is no direct backlash. In terms of long-term best outcome, it would be great if Spotify either could lead the charge or in concert with other streamers could work together to stomp out artificial manipulation, which is harmful to literally all parties involved. It's harmful to the streamer and their bottom line. It's harmful to their label partners. It's harmful to the user experience. And so if they could figure out or we could figure out collectively

a way to either stop it from happening or integrate new ways to promote above board channels through which artist discovery can be possible. I think we'll see a reduction in this behavior. Okay, excellent. Thanks so much for that, Brian. I think this will be something that we'll be looking at and tracking over the next few months and years. I think this is a conversation that's going to help people make sense of a phenomenon in a culture

that you know a whole lot about. So thank you. Thank you so much for having me. Front Burner was produced this week by Joyta Sengupta, Matt Mews, Mackenzie Cameron, Kieran Outshorn, and me. Music is by Joseph Chabison. Our senior producer is Elaine Chao. Thanks for listening. We'll talk to cbc.ca slash podcasts.