One of Noah Kahan‘s biggest dreams happens to involve one of the world’s tiniest music venues — and on Tuesday (April 21), the singer-songwriter finally saw it become a reality with the premiere of his Tiny Desk episode on YouTube.

As the latest musician to stop by NPR’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., the folk-rocker played four songs total for the crowd gathered in the office space, two of which were unreleased tracks from upcoming new album The Great Divide. One of them, “American Cars,” kicked off the setlist, with Kahan singing as his rootsy band jammed out behind him, “Headlights, your plates, 4CB3A/ Didn’t know you drove American cars/ Ray-Bans on your face, you’ve been drivin’ all day/ But you’re here and we’re so grateful you are.”

He went on to play his new album’s lead single and title track, “The Great Divide” — which reached No. 6 on the Billboard Hot 100 in February — and “Orange Juice” from his 2022 breakout album, Stick Season. “Um, obviously I’m stressed,” he told the crowd candidly at one point. “I’m sweating deeply. I have makeup on. It’s getting in my eyes. It’s awful, but we’re so honored to be here.”

Kahan closed out with another unreleased track titled “Paid Time Off.” “And your love is like an open flame/ But you’re a running car and I’m a closed garagе,” he sang. “Someone once told us thеre’s a world out there/ But we don’t care enough to drive that far.”

He also told viewers, “The songs are really sad … so thank you guys for keeping your smiles on your faces.”

“The little item I’m leaving is my Lexapro for you guys — I figured we can treat it like a take one, leave one penny system,” Kahan joked, continuing the tradition of Tiny Desk performers marking their appearance by adding a personal knickknack to NPR’s overflowing shelves. “Ten milligrams. Severe side effects.”

The performance comes three days ahead of the release of The Great Divide on Friday (April 24). Leading up to the album, Kahan also announced a stadium tour and dropped a documentary that partly focused on his journey with mental health.

But despite everything he’s got going on, Tiny Desk might take the cake for him. “I’ve wanted to do tiny desk since I knew it existed,” he wrote on his Instagram Story after the episode dropped. “For some reason I just thought I never would. But here we are … this immediately becomes a life highlight.”

Watch Kahan’s performance on Tiny Desk above.

Last Christmas Eve, Cuban newcomers Ya Ice Dilan, Rey Tony and Helabusador dropped “Dichavate” — a reparto song that has made Billboard history in the top 10 of two charts.

Though it’s typically not advisable for independent artists who are looking for traction to release music during the holidays, the cheeky and catchy song quickly picked up speed on social media, becoming one of the most viral songs today.

“Everything happened very quickly. We didn’t have the opportunity to run advertising campaigns on Spotify or YouTube due to the explicit lyrics…we tried, but we couldn’t,” Helabusador tells Billboard. “We didn’t even have the chance to invest in the song. It was simply uploading the music video on YouTube and releasing it two weeks later on Spotify.”

Yet, with no official promotion strategy, “Dichavate” makes history on the Billboard Hits of the World Charts, peaking at No. 1 on Peru Songs dated March 21 (currently it stands at No. 2) and a No. 5 high on Spain Songs dated April 18.  The bop is the first reparto song to hit Top 10 on both charts that launched in 2022 and are based on streaming and sales activity from within the country, as tracked by Luminate. 

Produced by DJ Honda and released by JipMusic Global, “Dichavate” — which is Cuban slang for “take a risk” or “be daring” — has captivated with its provocative lyrics referencing the “best partner in bed” anyone has had. “Dichavate, dejame saber si en verdad yo te gusto” (I dare you to let me know if you truly like me), says the opening lyric, before going into a more direct and NSFW confessional in the chorus.

Backed by a bass, piano and the claves (key instrumentation in the reparto genre that fuses urban music with traditional Cuban sounds including son, timba, and rumba), the song and its music video were recorded between Miami and Cuba. 

Today — thanks to Cuban influencers such as Samantha Hernandez, who created the social dance in early January, and Anthony Vila, a former delivery man whose “Bota Compota” phrase propelled the song’s virality — the trend has gone beyond just its supportive Cuban community. 

Bad Gyal has performed the song inonher current tour; Beéle’s famed choreographer Baby Fox has jumped on the trend; Former CNCO members Erick Brian and Christopher Velez have as well; and Miss Universe 2023 Sheynnis Palacios expressed she’s “obsessed” with the track. 

“For me, it was the energy we had in the studio,” Rey Tony says. “I’m not sure if it was the beat, but back in Cuba, it just really took off. That first week [of release in December] was absolute madness—it felt completely natural. The whole backstory behind the song was completely organic.”

“Within our own genre, this represents a completely different style. It is very international—we draw upon that foundation in order to operate. We studied the sound, we incorporated our own slang, and I wanted to add a distinct vocal quality,” Helabusador adds.

He concludes: “It’s a song that — if you’re sad, it serves you in your sadness; if you’re happy, it serves you in your happiness. It is a very emotional song. It has something that connects. The song has magic.”

@akabadgyal

Que es lo que tiene esta música😩

♬ sonido original – Yanessa Garcia

@samanthaahrdz

♬ sonido original – Mus1ca_Cubana_@sere🇨🇺

@matiasochoa022

más cubanos que nunca 🇨🇺 @Christopher Velez Muñoz @erickbrian

♬ sonido original – Yanessa Garcia

R&B group Sentury achieves its second No. 1 on Billboard’s Adult R&B Airplay chart as “Forever” crowns the list dated April 25. The single, released and promoted on GateWay, ascends from No. 3 to cement its status as the most-played song on U.S. panel-contributing adult R&B radio stations in the tracking week of April 10-16, according to Luminate.

“Forever” takes the penthouse from Olivia Dean’s “Man I Need,” which falls to No. 4 after a two-week reign. Between the former and present champ, Tone Stith’s “Fly” darts 7-2 to mount a challenge for the throne, while Kehlani’s former leader “Folded,” which ruled for two weeks in February-March, slips 2-3.

Before “Forever,” the Houston-based quartet led the Adult R&B Airplay ranking with “Only Human.” Their reimagining of the 1990 Jeffrey Osborne hit topped the list for one week in August 2025. While Osborne’s original predates the Adult R&B Airplay chart, which launched in September 1993, it reached No. 3 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart in January 1991.

“Forever” required an extensive journey to the top spot, reaching the apex in its 30th week on the chart. It thus becomes only one of 13 songs in the 32-year history of Adult R&B Airplay to need at least that much time to reach No. 1, joining, among others, “Only Human,” which completed a 34-week march to the summit. The record overall remains with Snoh Aalegra’s “I Want You Around,” at 41 weeks.

Elsewhere, “Forever” climbs 27-26 on the R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart, which ranks songs by combined audience totals from adult R&B and mainstream R&B/hip-hop radio stations. There, it improved to 3.5 million in audience, up 7% from the prior week’s total.

This March, Jimmy Hession, an artist manager at Milk & Honey, was ironing out a producer agreement with the Sony-owned, European dance label B1 Recordings for his client Paul Harris, who worked on the Alok and Khalid track “Dive into Me.” When Sony Music Germany sent over the deal terms, Hession discovered some novel language: a broad release allowing the use of Harris’ work for AI training.  

Specifically, the contract granted the label the “unlimited, exclusive rights” for the company to “use the recording in models and systems of generative artificial intelligence and applications based thereon, including generative AI, including [but] not limited to the analysis of the Recording for the purpose of extracting information on patterns, trends and correlations (AI training).”  

Hession pushed back on this provision, and the two parties ultimately reached a compromise, giving Hession’s client some approval rights for the use of his recording in AI training. Crucially, though, these approval rights do not extend to any “blanket license” that Sony may sign to grant another party access to “all or a significant portion” of its catalog.  

Hession’s experience was not an isolated incident. Instead, sources tell Billboard it is part of a growing new trend in music dealmaking where labels are trying to accumulate AI training rights — either through explicit new contract language or novel applications of long-standing licensing provisions.

B1 Recordings, for example, included near-identical wording in a different artist single agreement this past November, according to a U.S.-based artist attorney. French music giant Believe put a provision in an October 2025 distribution contract which allows it to license their content in datasets to “research, train, develop [and] test gen AI models and/or products.” In a BMG distribution deal, obtained by Billboard via a European music executive and translated from German, the contract phrasing mentions AI in multiple contexts. This includes an “AI Right,” which refers to the right to use songs created during the contract term in whole or in part in connection with artificial intelligence systems, “in particular to feed the contractual products into an AI system as training, validation or test datasets” and to “exploit the output generated by the AI system.” 

That last contract also forbids the artist to turn in AI-manipulated or AI-generated tracks as part of the delivery requirement for the BMG deal; prohibits the creation of re-recordings (like Taylor Swift’s), including re-records that use AI to deepfake or otherwise simulate the artist’s voice; and grants BMG the right of adaptation — meaning remixes, sampling or other modifications, including those that use AI — and to exploit those adaptations.  

The addition of these novel contractual provisions around AI training and AI use in general appear to have coincided with the music industry’s move towards partnering with the new wave of AI music startups in recent months and settling parts of their lawsuits against them. In the fall, Universal Music Group (UMG) and Warner Music Group (WMG) both settled their claims in the blockbuster copyright infringement lawsuit against AI music company Udio and entered into licensing deals to “[create] new revenue streams for artists and songwriters, while ensuring their work remains protected,” as a press release about Warner’s deal stated. Kobalt and Merlin followed suit with Udio deals months later.

In December, WMG followed up with a settlement and licensing agreement with Suno, which had also been hit with a near-identical copyright infringement lawsuit to Udio’s. (Sony Music, the other major music company who sued Suno and Udio along with UMG and WMG, has not yet announced any deals with the two firms and remains in active litigation.) 

In these settlement announcements, music companies have made a point to state that these deals ensure artists’ work is licensed and authorized. The natural result is that AI training has now become an element of record deal negotiations — and sometimes a significant pain point.

At times, this comes in the form of labels and distributors drafting clear language that grants them the right to use content for AI training, as in the case of the European deals identified by Billboard. Talent lawyer Avi Dahan says he’s been presented with this kind of provision in some recent contracts, though there “isn’t necessarily an industry norm yet around these points.” 

Dahan describes the current dealmaking landscape as the “Wild West” — a transition period where it’s becoming common practice for labels to require the disclosure of AI used to create a recording, but only some are asserting rights to use music for AI training of their own.  

Colin Morrissey, an artist lawyer at Granderson Des Rochers, similarly says AI training clauses are “starting to creep their way into some new recording agreements” from smaller distributors and technologically-driven music companies. According to Morrissey, though, it’s still “pretty rare” to see an explicit grant of AI training rights in major-label deals.  

It’s likely not a coincidence that all the examples of explicit AI training language identified by Billboard were in German and French recording contracts. According to Estelle Derclay, a professor of intellectual property law at the University of Nottingham, many European countries have laws requiring contracting parties “to spell out exactly all of the rights that you give, not just in a general clause.”

This is different from U.S. and U.K. law, which allow for broad contract provisions in which artists often grant their record labels a nonspecific right to exploit their songs. It’s common for such record deals to include clauses granting the right to use an artist’s work in “blanket licenses” of a label’s entire catalog, such as deals with social media companies like TikTok and Instagram.

Multiple top artist attorneys tell Billboard they’ve recently begun to realize that labels could feasibly use “blanket license” clauses in U.S. record deals to opt-in artists’ works to train their AI partners’ models without seeking individual artist approval. 

Often, when deals between AI companies and music companies are being discussed, executives for both sides will reference what’s known as “opt-in,” a term used to describe the process of allowing artists to choose whether or not they participate in AI licensing. (That stands as opposed to “opt-out,” meaning that artists are automatically included in AI licensing unless they elect to take themselves out of it.) Over time, this has become an overwhelmingly popular stance in the music industry to assure that creatives will maintain their agency in an age of AI.

WMG CEO Robert Kyncl even called “opt-in” one of his three non-negotiable principles in a blog post in November 2025, saying that “artists and songwriters will have a choice to opt-in to any use of their name, image, likeness, or voice in new AI-generated songs.” Udio CEO Andrew Sanchez also referenced opt-ins in reply to a question from Billboard about his licensing deal with UMG, saying “[Udio is] not just [going to offer] remixing and mashing up. It’s also creating in the style of artists with their opt-in.” UMG’s chief digital officer Michael Nash also brought up opt-ins on Billboard’s On the Record podcast, saying, “We didn’t think that made any sense [to work with AI companies, like Suno, who let AI songs leave their platforms], [and] we didn’t feel like when going to artists for their support to opt-in to these services that it was going to be a very compelling pitch.”

Sony declined to comment for this story. BMG, UMG, Merlin, Kobalt and WMG did not respond to requests for comment. A representative for Believe responded with the following statement: 

“Believe and TuneCore’s GenAI policy is governed by the core principles of Consent, Control, Compensation, and Transparency, ensuring that generative AI remains a tool for artist empowerment rather than unauthorized exploitation. Central to this approach is a voluntary opt-in mechanism for the GenAI initiatives we propose to our artists and labels, which provides rights protection and early access to ethical AI opportunities. Contrary to concerns regarding the use of blanket licenses for training, Believe requires explicit opt-in to the programme and explicit consent on a case-by-case basis before the formal launch of projects involving artist content, and applies a defined scope, safeguards and transparency framework to any use of content, providing the basis for an informed decision.”

While many believe the music companies’ interest in using the “opt-in” approach was to allow artists the option both to control if their work is used in AI training — or inputs — and AI-generated outputs, such announcements seemingly never reference training specifically. And that has led to some suspicion among artist advocates.

“We’re seeing a differentiation between the way training — or inputs — and outputs are treated,” says Audrey Benoualid, partner at Myman Greenspan Fox Rosenberg Mobasser Younger & Light, pointing to the potential use of blanket licensing for AI training. Jason Boyarski, founding partner at Boyarski Fritz, adds, “Some of the labels have already taken the position that they technically don’t need special approvals to train.”

“As of now, the grant of rights in deals are broad enough to allow them to do it,” says Morrissey of AI training. In response, Morrissey says he’s “focused on the approval rights for our artist clients around not allowing their music to be trained in AI tools. We kind of assume, a lot of time, that the label will have rights in these sorts of cases and try to work back from there to give our client as much approval over that [as possible].” Benoualid says she has also had success in asking for approval rights, “depending on the artist.”

Derclay notes that artists in the U.S. and U.K. might have the right already to nix AI training uses of their work if their record deals include approval rights for “future technology.” Otherwise, they can try to win approval rights now through contract re-negotiations. 

Still, just because music companies could potentially rely on a blanket license to circumvent the need for individual artist approval for AI training, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will. Morrissey says he thinks “a  lot of these labels are going to ask regardless [of approval rights] because it is such a hot-button issue.” Boyarski holds a similar view, citing the importance of maintaining a positive artist-label relationship. “I don’t think they will [opt artists in without approval],” Boyarski says. “I think the labels genuinely want buy-in from the artist community in a way that makes it work. I think that there’s going to be a partnership between the artists and labels to find the right solution.” 

A small record label that sued Bad Bunny over a sample on Un Verano Sin Ti is now fighting back against his demand to be repaid nearly $500,000 in legal bills from the failed lawsuit, calling some of the star’s arguments “absurd.”

Empawa Africa claimed last year that Bunny’s “Enséñame a Bailar” featured an illegal sample, but the label later effectively dropped the case. So last month, Bunny (Benito Martínez Ocasio) demanded that Empawa reimburse the whopping $465,612 legal bill he racked up defending it, arguing the case “should never have been brought.”

In a response filing on Monday (April 20), the label is strongly opposing that request — arguing that it still believes its case against Bunny could have been successful and that copyright accusers should not be so harshly punished simply because their lawsuits didn’t pan out.

“If fees are awarded to defendants in this case, such an award would send a chilling message to songwriters, artists, and other copyright owners,” Empawa’s lawyers write. “Awarding fees against Empawa for bringing a good faith lawsuit … would be completely antithetical to the goals and purpose of the Copyright Act.”

To support that claim, Empawa says Bunny and his lawyers admitted he had used the sample, and that his only justification was that he had properly cleared it with somebody else. But Monday’s filing says the superstar never provided any evidence of such a deal.

“Ocasio has admitted sampling Empawa’s music, and, in almost three years, has not presented a scintilla of evidence that the sample was authorized,” the company’s attorneys write. “Empawa’s claims were brought and prosecuted in good faith.”

The case, filed last spring, claimed Bunny’s track included an uncleared sample of a 2019 track called “Empty My Pocket” by a Nigerian artist named Dera (Ezeani Chidera Godfrey). Bad Bunny argued he had done nothing wrong, since he properly cleared the sample with another rightsholder on “Empty My Pocket,” a production company called Lakizo Entertainment.

The lawsuit was a big deal because Un Verano Sin Ti was a big deal — spending 13 weeks atop the Billboard 200 and more than 150 weeks total on the chart. “Enséñame a Bailar” was a hit in its own right, charting on the Billboard Hot 100 for two weeks and earning 72 million views on YouTube.

But earlier this year, Empawa and Dera’s lawyers withdrew from the case, citing “irreparable differences” with their clients. Without lawyers, both Dera and Empawa abruptly stopped litigating the case, and a judge eventually dismissed it for lack of prosecution.

Bad Bunny isn’t ready to close the case just yet, though. Last month, his lawyers argued that Empawa should not be allowed to walk away after filing “frivolous” accusations in court that forced the superstar to incur a huge legal bill to defend himself.

“This case was meritless from the beginning and should never have been brought,” his lawyers write. “Instead, Empawa filed and aggressively litigated it, apparently hoping that Bad Bunny’s wealth, prominence and desire to avoid attorneys’ fees and bad publicity would enable Empawa to extract an undeserved, multimillion-dollar settlement.”

In Monday’s response, Empawa says there is “no merit whatsoever” to the argument that it tried to use the threat of media coverage to gain leverage.

“It is undisputed that Ocasio is world-famous artist, considered one of the largest Latino artists of all time. Quite obviously, any claim against such an artist would garner publicity,” the company’s lawyers write. “For defendants to suggest bad faith conduct on Empawa’s part simply for raising good faith infringement claims against a popular artist because it garnered publicity, is absurd.”

In the American legal system, each side usually pays its own legal bills, even defendants who defeat a lawsuit that they feel they shouldn’t have faced. But such awards are more common under copyright law, which has a specific provision allowing for fee awards to deter bad lawsuits. Mariah Carey, Nelly and other stars have recently used such requests in an effort to punish accusers.

But Empawa argues Monday that its lawsuit doesn’t warrant such a penalty because it had good reasons to think Bad Bunny had infringed its copyrights. The filing includes a sworn declaration from the label’s former lawyer, Robert Jacobs, in which he says the star’s lawyers repeatedly refused to provide any proof that the sample had been validly cleared. He also says his withdrawal had nothing to do with the validity of the case.

“The merits of the lawsuit had nothing to do with the [withdrawal] motion, and … I believed more than ever that Empawa and Mr. Godfrey would prevail on their claims,” Jacobs writes in the sworn statement.

A judge will rule on Bunny’s request for fees in the months ahead. An attorney for the star did not immediately return a request for comment.