As a music streaming service, Qobuz isn’t exactly a household brand like Spotify or Apple Music. Its loyal, 1.2 million-strong user base — earned largely thanks to the platform’s commitment to hi-res audio, and an almost entirely human-curated catalog — is tiny when compared to the major services.
But in 2025, it was ranked as the second-fastest growing entertainment and media app in the U.S., with a more than 200% increase in year-over-year growth.
So when Qobuz Managing Director Dan Mackta said in a recent interview, “I do not call it AI music, because I don’t think it’s music,” that got my attention.
Given that I had just covered Tidal’s decision to keep AI music in its streaming catalog — yet prevent those tracks’ creators from earning money — now seemed like the perfect time to find out more about where Qobuz (and Mackta) stand on the whole issue of AI music. Not just how he defines it, but how he thinks it should be handled, and what it means for listeners, artists, record labels, and streaming services.
I invited Mackta to speak with me, and our conversation covered all that and more.
So what does he call AI music? Lots of not-very-complimentary things: slop, shlock, crap, garbage, pabulum, a gimmick, and most commonly, “a bummer.”
I tried to get Mackta to define his threshold for AI vs. non-AI music, but this isn’t his first rodeo and he deftly avoided providing a concrete answer.
Still, he did come out in favor of AI as a tool for musicians — as long as they don’t “substantively replace human ingenuity and creativity.”
Here’s the full interview. I hope you enjoy it. If you have questions about AI music specifically, or streaming music in general, let me know in the comments and I’ll try to address them in future articles.
If you enjoyed this Loudmouth article, please consider subscribing. It supports my work and ensures you won’t miss out on future coverage.