Why is the European Union like Warren G?

They both have to regulate!

These days, that can be tough going.

In March 2024, the European Parliament passed the Artificial Intelligence Act, the first serious law that would regulate AI. Procedurally, this represented an enormous accomplishment — it’s not easy to pass legislation at the speed of innovation. Practically, like most legislation, the act represented a compromise, applying different levels of regulatory scrutiny to applications with different levels of risk. Broadly, it fell far short of perfect, but it was much better than the proposed 10-year moratorium on enforcing state laws affecting AI in the American “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” (The act passed. This provision was eliminated. I am still unable to say the name of this law without giggling.)

Now all creators and rightsholders have to do is lobby the EU to enforce it — to “Stay True to the [AI] Act,” to quote the campaign that the recording business trade association IFPI and other rightsholder groups unveiled on July 15, complete with the inevitable but slightly ungainly #StayTrueToTheAct hashtag. At a time when technology companies already seem more powerful than governments, this is not a good sign.

The asks involved are simple and familiar: Transparency, consent and remuneration. The second two are at the heart of copyright — creators and rightsholders want to negotiate (consent) so they can get paid fairly (remuneration). But both of those could be difficult, if not impossible, without transparency. And now we get to the heart of the matter.

In Brussels, it sometimes seems like the U.S. technology business is the Wild West and the European Union is trying to bring a modicum of order to a lawless frontier. There’s more than a little truth to this. “Regulators, mount up!” to quote the sample of dialog from the 1988 Western Young Guns in the Warren G song — the startups are out of control again. Indeed, U.S. technology companies like to “move fast and break things” — to beg forgiveness rather than ask for permission. In the case of AI, it is assumed that technology companies have already ingested massive amounts of work in order to make their algorithms function. In some cases, this is pretty obvious, although it has never been confirmed.

Before the AI Act passed, European copyright law in some cases allowed for data-mining — ingesting copyrighted works for very limited purposes, unless rightsholders opted out. It’s not entirely clear which AI uses this covers, though, and most professional creators have a label, publisher or collecting society opt-out on their behalf. Based on what we know about generative AI music products, though, it appears that at least some technology companies ingested works controlled by rightsholders that had opted out. (It is unclear when and where the relevant copying was done.) In other words, technology companies have just gone ahead and done what they wanted, nevermind the law — business as usual in the U.S. but far less common in Europe. The guiding assumption is that this will eventually be solved by litigation or private deals that will make generative AI music a legitimate business.

Maybe.

Because using a lawsuit or legal settlement to legitimize the generative AI music business requires compensating rightsholders whose work was copied to train algorithms — which in turn requires knowing what was copied and how it was used. Once the generative AI business grows, hopefully, technology companies will be able to determine which works were used the most to create a certain output and credit and compensate creators accordingly. That’s why the AI Act required technology companies to track this — with provisions for transparency. Whatever future one imagines for AI, from making new #sleepwave music to going full fascist, it has to involve enough transparency to know which humans to credit — and, in some cases, blame.

The trouble is that the transparency requirements in the AI Act aren’t very specific. The idea was that companies would follow the spirit of the law, as well as its letter. There are fears this isn’t happening, though, partly because the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU, favors a more lax approach to AI. Perhaps, like other governments, it has concerns about “falling behind” in a technological field that presents serious national security issues. Perhaps there is U.S. pressure to lay off Silicon Valley. Perhaps both.

This isn’t the way to move forward, though. AI technology has the potential to change all sorts of industries, but ingesting albums by Dr. John and Dr. Dre isn’t going to improve medical technology. (And please don’t let medical AI listen to anything by Dr. Octagon!) The EU shouldn’t let the U.S. push it around, especially at a time when technology companies have so much influence in Washington, D.C. More important, the promise of AI is that we can build a digital media business that’s more fair to creators by crediting and compensating them — and loosening the record-keeping requirements would make this much harder.

Yes, the idea of lobbying the European Union to enforce its own law is a bit odd. But it’s also alarming. Although it’s hard to know how many people understand much about the AI Act, it was passed democratically by democratically elected lawmakers. We shouldn’t let it be undermined by technology companies — at least until AI takes over everything, anyway.

Massive Attack announced the formation of an alliance for musicians they say are facing “intimidations” within the music industry for their support of Palestine and the people of Gaza in the midst of the ongoing Israeli war against militant group Hamas.

In a statement posted on Thursday (July 17), the British trip hop group wrote, “The scenes in Gaza have moved beyond description. We write as artists who’ve chose to use our public platforms to speak out agains the genocide occurring there & the role of the UK Government in facilitating it. Because of our expressions of conscience, we’ve been subject to various intimidations from within our industry (live & recorded) & legally via organized bodies such as UK Lawyers For Israel (UKLFI); whose range of activities has now finally been exposed in a new documentary film projected last night by the Led By Donkeys collective.”

The group added that they were aware of what they described as the “aggressive, vexatious campaigns” by UKLFI, as well as “multiple individual incidences of intimidation within the music industry itself; designed solely to censor & silence artists from speaking their hearts and minds,” adding, “having withstood these campaigns of attempted censorship, we won’t standby & allow other artists — particularly those at earlier stages of their careers or in other positions of professional vulnerability — to be threatened into silence or career cancellation.”

While the statement did not name any specific bands, it got re-shared by two acts that have come under fire recently for their pro-Palestinian comments, Northern Irish rap group Kneecap and Irish rock band Fontaines D.C., as well as Brian Eno and Garbage.

British punk duo Bob Vylan recently courted controversy by shouting “Free Palestine” and “Death to the IDF” during their Glastonbury Festival set — the latter in reference to the Israel Defense Forces — an action that led to their being dropped by their booking agent, as well as a police investigation into the incident and the cancellation of festival appearances and European tour dates with Gogol Bordello.

Those actions followed a campaign calling for Kneecap’s set at the fest to be cancelled over a terror offense charged to MC Mo Chara (born Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh) by the London police in May for allegedly showing support for the militant organizations Hamas and Hezbollah — both of which are defined as terror groups by U.K. law — by displaying a Hezbollah flag onstage during a show in London last year.

In an accompanying statement, Kneecap wrote, “END threats and censorship against artists who speak out against the genocide in Palestine. Speak out. Stand up. We are the majority.” As a result of their advocacy, Kneecap were removed from the Scottish TRNSMT festival over safety concerns and their Glastonbury set was not aired as part of the BBC’s life broadcast of the show.

Fontaines D.C. posted the phrases “Free Palestine” and “Israel is committing genocide” on screens during a pair of recent sold-out London gigs and then invited a member of a pro-Palestinian group on stage at the Roskilde Festival in Denmark in June, where he led the crowd in chants of “Free Palestine.”

Massive Attack have long supported Palestinian causes, boycotting performances in Israel since 1999 and issuing a statement in April supporting Kneecap that read, “Kneecap are not the story. Gaza is the story. Genocide is the story.”

Israel’s nearly two-year war against Hamas following the Oct. 7, 2023 attack by the militant group on the Jewish state in which 1,200 people were killed and more than 250 taken hostage has led to the deaths of nearly 59,000 Palestinians in the conflict so far, according to Palestinian authorities. Over the course of the military assault, Israeli forces have serially displaced the citizens of Gaza and destroyed much of the area’s infrastructure as the administration of Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to eradicate Hamas from the territory.

The massive devastation has also led to severe food shortages and claims that Israel is conducting a genocidal operation in Gaza, charges that Netanyahu has repeatedly denied. On July 3, Amnesty International issued a statement claiming that evidence the group gathered in the month since Israel introduced a controversial “militarized aid distribution system,” points to the Netanyahu administration’s continued use of “starvation of civilians as a weapon of war against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip and to deliberately impose conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as part of its ongoing genocide.”

Massive Attack’s statement ended with a call to artists who feel they’ve been censored for their views about Palestine to contact them, in addition to a list of demands including an end of UK arms sales to Israel, an immediate cease fire and “immediate, unfettered access to Gaza for recognized international aid agencies without military threat.”

See Massive Attack’s statement below.

More than 700 artists representing over 1,700 releases were submitted for best new artist consideration at the Latin Grammys this year, according to its officials, making it tough even for chart-topping names to make the final cut.

That’s because the Latin Academy’s rules for the category are very different from those of the Recording Academy for the Grammys. Earlier this year, the Grammys’ competition for best new artist read like a who’s who of chart-toppers, with winner Chappell Roan competing against Sabrina Carpenter, Shaboozey, Teddy Swims and more. The nominees reflect the definition of the category itself, which “recognizes an artist whose eligibility-period release achieved a breakthrough into the public consciousness and notably impacted the musical landscape.”

In contrast, according to the Latin Academy’s rules, a best new artist is “any performing artist or group who has not yet achieved a prominent level of regional recognition within the Latin market.” According to the organization’s chief awards, membership and preservation officer, Luis Dousdebes, “The Latin Recording Academy views the [category] as a platform to spotlight 10 emerging artists from the Ibero-American region on a global stage.”

While both academies share the minimum number of releases an artist must have to qualify (five singles/tracks or one album), there is no maximum number of releases for the Grammys. Yet at the Latin Grammys, as of 2021, there is a release limit of three albums or 15 singles, or any equivalent combination, though the Academy errs on the side of inclusion.

In an era where emerging artists deliver singles at a quick clip in hopes of gaining traction on social media and scoring a record deal, this ruling shrinks the pool of talent. But it also forces artists and their teams to put a premium on artistry over volume. Witness Joaquina and Ela Taubert, winners in 2023 and 2024, ­respectively, both of whom graduated from Julio Reyes Copello’s Arthouse program in Miami and are signed to Universal, which laid out a strategy of patience for their respective roads to a nomination.

“While the Latin Academy acknowledges the evolving industry trend of frequent single releases as part of modern music marketing strategies,” Dousdebes says, “it believes that placing a limit on the number of prior releases helps preserve the integrity and original intent of the category to recognize truly new and developing artists.”

This story appears in the July 19, 2025, issue of Billboard.

Legendary lyricist Alan Bergman died on Thursday (July 17) at his home in Los Angeles at the age of 99, it was announced Friday by family spokesman Ken Sunshine. His daughter Julie Bergman was present.

Bergman suffered from respiratory issues in recent months, but continued to write songs till the very end.

Bergman and his wife, Marilyn Bergman (who died in 2022 at age 93), are probably best known for writing exquisite ballads such as “What Are You Doing the Rest of Your Life,” “Pieces of Dreams” and “How Do You Keep the Music Playing?,” but they refused to be typecast. They also wrote the witty theme songs for such TV series as Maude, Good Times and Alice.

The Bergmans won three Academy Awards, including best original song for “The Windmills of Your Mind” from The Thomas Crown Affair and “The Way We Were” from the movie of the same name and three Grammy Awards, including song of the year for “The Way We Were.”

The Bergmans received 15 Oscar nominations for best original song, a total equaled or bettered by only four songwriters in history – Sammy Cahn (26), Johnny Mercer (18), Diane Warren (16) and Paul Francis Webster (16). The Bergmans collaborated on their Oscar-nominated songs with seven different composers – Michel Legrand, Henry Mancini, Maurice Jarre, Marvin Hamlisch, David Shire, John Williams and Dave Grusin.

In 1983 they became the first (and still only) songwriters to be nominated for three Oscars for best original song in one year for “How Do You Keep the Music Playing” from Best Friends, “It Might Be You” from Tootsie and “If We Were in Love” from Yes, Giorgio.

They also won four Primetime Emmy Awards and two Golden Globe Awards.

The Bergmans were inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1980 and received that organization’s highest honor, the Johnny Mercer Award, in 1997. They received a trustees award from the Recording Academy in 2013.

The Bergmans also received lifetime achievement awards from the National Academy of Songwriters and the National Music Publishers Association. They received honorary doctorates from Berklee College of Music and the University of Massachusetts. Alan Bergman’s alma mater, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, recognized him with its Distinguished Alumnus Award.

In the years since his wife’s death, Alan Bergman continued to write, record and perform. His final collaboration was with guitarist and composer Pat Metheny, who is set to record an album of nine Bergman/Metheny songs later this year.

Bergman died just eight days after the announcement of a celebration in his honor on what would have been his 100th birthday on Sept. 11. Many of his friends and admirers were set to perform at a concert in his honor that night at The Broad Stage in Santa Monica, Calif.

The roster includes Patti Austin, Shelly Berg, Aloe Blacc, Jackson Browne, Peter Erskine, Michael Feinstein, David Finck, Mitch Forman, Jason Gould, Dave Grusin, Tamir Hendelman, Trey Henry, Roger Kellaway, Seth MacFarlane, Serge Merlaud, Greg Phillinganes, Paul Reiser, Lee Ritenour, Sheléa, Tierney Sutton and Lillias White.

In addition, there were to have been video appearances by Bill Charlap, Natalie Dessay, Pat Metheny, Neima Naouri and Barbra Streisand, who paid tribute to Bergman and Marilyn on her Grammy-nominated 2011 album What Matters Most – Barbra Streisand Sings the Lyrics of Alan & Marilyn Bergman. 

The event would have served as a benefit for the Jazz Bakery, of which Bergman is a founding member of the board. The non-profit listening room has been called “the most prestigious jazz space in Los Angeles.”

Two of the artists who were on the bill for the birthday event shared comments in a statement.

Five-time Grammy nominee Michael Feinstein said, “The songs Alan and Marilyn have written are part of a pantheon of enduring music that will live long beyond Alan’s Centenary, for they are timeless expressions of the human condition, and will never grow old. The love that they fundamentally lived, expressed and demonstrated in life, imbues their work with a special eloquence and truth. It is an honor to celebrate Alan on his 100th!”

Actor, comedian and writer Paul Reiser commented, “My goal in life is to try to be even a small fraction of the man — and artist — that my dear friend Alan Bergman is. (I may need more than 100 years to get there, but … working on it.)”

In addition, Ruth Price, founder of the Jazz Bakery, said, “100 years on this planet is no small achievement, but to have graced those years with such love, beauty and art speaks to a life extraordinarily well lived. Alan is incomparable, and I love him for all kinds of reasons.”

Survivors include his daughter Julie Bergman, a writer and film producer, and granddaughter Emily Sender, who just completed her masters in global food studies. There will be a private graveside burial.