My Love Affair With Spotify Is Over

There was a time when Friday meant Release Radar.

I’d open Spotify and there it was: a little digital treasure chest of new music.

Sometimes it was brilliant. Sometimes it was shit. Sometimes it was something I’d never heard of from a band I’d never heard of and suddenly I’d spent the next three weeks listening to their back catalogue.

That was the magic.

Spotify didn’t just give me music. It gave me the possibility of discovering something.

I’m not sure when that disappeared. But my love affair with Spotify is over.

Spotify won.

That’s the funny part.

It has mass acceptance. It’s become infrastructure. Music streaming isn’t some revolutionary new technology anymore. It’s plumbing.

And once something becomes plumbing, you stop asking whether it’s magical. You just turn the tap on. And the water is there.

Which raises an uncomfortable question: What happens when the thing you once loved becomes merely good enough?

Spotify keeps raising prices. The product keeps evolving. There are more features, more data, more playlists, more recommendations, more algorithms and more ways to consume music than ever before.

And yet I’m increasingly convinced that the actual experience of discovering music has become worse. That’s quite an achievement.

We’ve gone from having too little music to having virtually all of it.

And somehow I’m listening to the same records I bought thirty years ago.

The Discover playlist used to be good. Like, really good.

Eight years ago it could occasionally make me stop what I was doing.

“What the fuck is this?”

That’s the best feeling a music service can give you.

Now?

Not so much.

The recommendations increasingly feel like they’ve been generated by somebody who looked at my listening history and decided that the safest possible interpretation of it was the best one.

I listen to Thin Lizzy. Here’s some Thin Lizzy. I listen to Whitesnake. Here’s Whitesnake. I listen to Iron Maiden. Here’s Iron Maiden.

I’ve saved these songs.

So apparently Spotify thinks I want to hear them again tomorrow.

And the day after that. And perhaps in a different playlist on Thursday.

Saving a song does not mean I want to hear it every fucking day. It means I like the song. There is a difference.

The Daily Mixes are probably the perfect example. They’re not really discovery. They’re comfort food. They’re Spotify saying:

“We’ve studied your behaviour and concluded that you’d probably like the things you already like.”

Well, thanks. I knew that. That’s why I saved them.

The whole reason I use a streaming service is because I don’t want to have to manually construct my listening experience every day.

I want to be surprised. I want the obscure album. The forgotten B-side. The guitarist I somehow missed. The band from 1987 that released one great album and disappeared. The song that isn’t popular enough to have been algorithmically blessed.

I want the rabbit hole. And the rabbit hole is where Spotify increasingly feels lost.

Then there’s Release Radar.

This one hurts because Release Radar was once my favourite thing Spotify did.

Every Friday I’d go looking for new music. And now I get:

A new XYZ release from a Hindu Yogi. A new Loverboy release from a young rapper. A new Sykes release from someone who definitely isn’t John Sykes. A new Ratt release that isn’t from Ratt.

Somewhere between the artist, distributor, metadata database, record label and algorithm, something has gone spectacularly fucking wrong.

And I understand how this happens. There are thousands of artists. There are multiple artists with the same names.

There are distributors.

Labels.

Rights holders.

Metadata.

Automated ingestion.

Millions of releases.

It’s complicated.

But that’s the problem.

The system is complicated enough to explain the mistake and still not good enough to prevent it.

And every Friday, instead of opening a treasure chest, I’m checking whether Spotify has accidentally delivered somebody else’s mail.

And the music itself can disappear.

There’s another bizarre problem with the streaming age. We were promised access to everything. And for the most part, we got it.

But streaming isn’t ownership. It’s access. The music is sitting there until somebody decides it shouldn’t be.

Licensing changes. Rights change hands. Distributors disappear. Labels change. Artists change their minds. Regional agreements expire.

Albums appear. Albums disappear. Albums come back. Then disappear again.

Maybe some of the master tapes don’t even exist anymore. Maybe they burned down in one of those mysterious fires that seem to have consumed half the history of recorded music.

But here’s the strange thing: We were told digital music would solve scarcity.

Instead, we’ve created a different kind of scarcity.

The music isn’t necessarily hard to find. It’s hard to know whether it’ll still be there tomorrow.

The cloud looks permanent.

It isn’t.

Here’s where I really started to understand the problem. Ask Spotify for something simple:

“Best emotive guitar solos.”

Go on.

Do it.

You don’t get emotion. You get metadata. You get lists compiled by magazines.

Lists compiled by websites. Lists compiled from other lists. Wikipedia. “The 50 Greatest Guitar Solos Of All Time.”

And there’s the problem.

Spotify knows what an emotive guitar solo is supposed to look like in data. It doesn’t necessarily know what makes one matter.

Because how do you quantify Michael Schenker playing “Try Me”?

How do you quantify David Gilmour playing “Comfortably Numb”?

How do you explain Zakk Wylde on “Angel of Mercy”?

Mick Mars on “Home Sweet Home”?

C.C. DeVille on “Life Goes On”?

John Sykes on “Straight For The Heart”?

Warren DeMartini on “Giving Yourself Away”?

George Lynch on “Alone Again”?

John Petrucci on “Learning To Live”?

Al Pitrelli on “Blue For You”?

Gary Moore on “Empty Rooms”?

Eddie Ojeda on “The Price”?

Vivian Campbell on whatever particular piece of magic he happened to be responsible for that week during his stint with Dio.

Yngwie Malmsteen doing what Yngwie does.

Vinnie Vincent on “I Still Love You.”

Steve Rothery on “Easter.”

Bruce Kulick on “Tears Are Falling.”

Bob Kulick on “The Idol.”

Randy Piper on “Sleeping in the Fire.”

Richie Sambora on “Dry County.”

Dave Meniketti on almost fucking anything.

Adrian Smith on “Stranger in a Strange Land.”

James Hetfield on “Nothing Else Matters.”

Kirk Hammett on the outro to “Bleeding Me.”

Randy Rhoads on “Goodbye To Romance”. There are many others that I can’t think of right now.

These aren’t simply guitar solos. They’re moments. They’re performances. They’re context. They’re tone. They’re restraint. They’re excess. They’re the note that arrives half a second later than you expect.

They’re the bend that hangs in the air. They’re the player knowing when not to play. They’re everything that happens between the notes. Try putting that into a database.

And this is where I don’t buy the lazy argument that Spotify’s engineers are idiots.

They’re not.

They’re probably fucking brilliant.

They’ve built an extraordinary machine. Spotify knows what I’ve listened to. It knows what I’ve skipped. It knows what I’ve saved. It knows what people who listen to the bands I listen to also listen to.

It knows tempo. Genre. Popularity. Release dates. Listening patterns.

It can probably predict with frightening accuracy that if you listen to Judas Priest at 10:47pm on a Wednesday, there’s a statistically meaningful chance you’ll listen to Iron Maiden next.

It’s incredible.

And yet I ask it for an emotive guitar solo and it gives me an SEO list.

That’s the paradox.

The machine understands the data surrounding music extraordinarily well.

I’m not convinced it understands music.

This is where Spotify’s problem becomes everybody’s problem.

We’re increasingly trying to turn taste into data. But taste isn’t simply a collection of preferences.

Taste is memory. Context. Association. Experience. History.

You don’t just like David Gilmour.

Maybe you heard “Comfortably Numb” when you were fifteen.

Maybe you heard it when you were thirty-five.

Maybe the guitar solo reminds you of someone who isn’t in your life anymore.

Maybe you heard Gary Moore’s “Empty Rooms” at exactly the wrong moment in your life and now the opening notes carry twenty years of emotional baggage.

Spotify doesn’t know that.

And it can’t.

Because the emotional meaning of music isn’t contained inside the audio file.

It’s contained inside you.

That’s why two people can listen to the same song and hear completely different things.

And that’s why the idea that an algorithm can eventually know your taste better than you do is worth questioning.

Maybe it can predict your behaviour.

That’s not the same thing.

We lost the obsessive music nerd.

There used to be people who knew music. The guy in the record shop who’d hear you mention Van Halen and say: “You need to hear this.”

The radio DJ who’d play something you’d never heard. The bloke at school who had an album nobody else had. The friend who’d make you a mixtape.

The magazine writer who’d disappear down some obscure musical rabbit hole and drag you along with them.

They were often wrong.

And that’s what made them useful.

Algorithms want evidence.

Humans have hunches.

Humans make mistakes.

Humans have obsessions.

And sometimes an obsession is exactly what you need.

Spotify has become safe. It got too good at being Spotify.

It knows what I like. It knows what people like me like. It knows what songs are popular. It knows what songs are associated with other songs.

It knows what gets skipped. It knows what gets saved. It knows everything except the one thing I’m actually asking: Surprise me.

Not randomly. Not stupidly.

Not with another artist whose name happens to match the artist I’m looking for.

Surprise me intelligently.

Take a risk. Connect two things that don’t obviously belong together.

Tell me why. That’s what a great music obsessive does.

And then there’s YouTube, sitting there with an enormous music catalogue as well.

And YouTube has something Spotify doesn’t have in quite the same way: the internet’s collective memory.

Live performances. Interviews. Bootlegs. Old television appearances. Fan uploads. Rare tracks. Alternate mixes. Gear breakdowns. Concert footage. Someone filming a guitarist playing one obscure solo in 1989.

The ecosystem is chaotic. But chaos has advantages.

Spotify is beautifully organised. YouTube is a fucking junk drawer.

And sometimes the junk drawer is exactly where you find the thing you were looking for.

So what am I actually paying Spotify for?

That’s the question I keep coming back to. Because Spotify isn’t bad. That’s almost the problem. It’s convenient. It works.

The catalogue is enormous. The interface is good. The sound is good. The integration is good. It’s easy. (In saying all of this, I’m currently devouring the Bernie Torme history).

And that’s exactly why I’m frustrated.

I’m paying for convenience and getting increasingly less discovery.

The service is becoming more expensive while the thing I personally valued most about it seems to be deteriorating. Maybe that’s not a universal experience.

Maybe millions of people couldn’t care less about Release Radar.

Maybe most people just want to press play and hear songs they already like.

That’s perfectly rational. But I’m not most people.

And I don’t want Spotify to know me so well that it stops introducing me to things I don’t know.

We’ve never had more music. Millions of albums. Decades of recorded history.

Every obscure corner of rock, metal, jazz, blues, punk, pop, electronic music and everything else sitting inside a phone.

Humanity has created an almost unimaginable archive of sound.

And yet the technological solution to infinite choice seems increasingly to be: Here’s the stuff you’ve already heard.

That’s not discovery. That’s a loop. An echo chamber.

And the larger the database becomes, the more important curation becomes.

Not less.

Because abundance creates its own scarcity.

There is too much music. There are too many releases. Too many artists. Too many playlists. Too much content.

The scarce resource isn’t music anymore.

It’s attention.

And the service that wins isn’t necessarily the one with the most music.

It’s the one that can make me care about something I didn’t know I cared about.

I don’t want better algorithms.

Maybe that’s the wrong conclusion. Maybe I don’t need another algorithm. Maybe I need better curators.

Or weird curators. Or human curators assisted by algorithms.

Let the machines do what they’re brilliant at. Find patterns. Search billions of tracks. Surface connections.

Handle the impossible scale of the catalogue.

But let humans inject the thing machines are still terrible at: taste.

Give me the obsessive metal nerd.

Give me the person who knows every forgotten 1980s hard-rock record.

Give me the person who can tell you which pressing of an album sounds better and why.

Give me someone who has spent thirty years listening to guitar players. Someone who knows why that solo matters.

Maybe the problem is that Spotify stopped feeling like a record shop.

That might be what I’m really missing. The record shop wasn’t efficient. It wasn’t personalized.

It didn’t know my listening history.

It couldn’t calculate my predicted enjoyment of an album.

It didn’t have machine learning.

It had a bloke behind the counter who had listened to 10,000 records and had strong opinions.

And sometimes he’d hand you something and say:

“You’ll hate this.”

Then you’d buy it anyway.

And thirty years later you’d still be listening to it.

That’s discovery.

That’s the thing Spotify used to make me feel.

And somewhere along the way, the algorithm got better and the experience got worse.

So no, Spotify isn’t dead.

Far from it. It’s enormous. It’s successful. It’s going to be around for a very long time.

But my love affair with it is over.

Because Spotify has access to more music than any human being in history.

And somehow, I’m finding myself listening to the same records I bought thirty years ago.

Maybe the problem isn’t that Spotify doesn’t have enough music.

Maybe it has too much.

Maybe the problem is that somewhere inside that enormous machine, nobody knows what makes one fucking note matter.

The Album You Bought Doesn’t Exist

We’ve spent forty years arguing about whether vinyl sounds better than digital.

Wrong argument.

The real question in 2026 is this:

What if your vinyl isn’t even the same album?

That’s exactly what’s happening.

Fans pre-order expensive deluxe editions because they’re told they’re buying the definitive version. The collector’s piece. The premium experience. The one worthy of sitting proudly on the shelf.

Then release day comes. Spotify gets one album. The record spinning on your turntable gets another.

A missing bridge. A different ending. An unfinished mix. An absent guest appearance.

Sometimes an entire song disappears.

For years, vinyl collectors chased first pressings because they believed they sounded better.

Now they’re buying something stranger. They’re buying history.

Every generation has a technological shift that quietly rewrites the rules.

Multitrack recording. The compact disc. MP3s. Streaming. Now it’s vinyl manufacturing.

Not because vinyl suddenly became the dominant format again. Streaming still owns that title. Vinyl is simply the slowest part of a very fast industry.

A record pressing plant doesn’t care that inspiration struck last Tuesday. It wants the finished masters six to eight weeks ago. Meanwhile Spotify is happy to wait until almost the last minute.

That gap has become a creative playground. Artists keep writing. Producers keep tweaking. Guests finally send their vocals.

Someone decides the chorus needs another layer. The ending isn’t working. The bass needs rewriting. The label hears another potential single. By the time the album appears online, it’s evolved.

The vinyl hasn’t.

For the first time in popular music, the physical record is no longer necessarily the finished product.

It’s yesterday’s version. Sort of.

I remember reading an interview with producer Tom Werman explaining how he often created different mixes for radio, television and vinyl.

At first glance, today’s situation feels familiar.

It isn’t.

Werman wasn’t delivering unfinished work. He was tailoring completed songs for different audiences.

Radio demanded impact. Television demanded clarity. Vinyl demanded technical precision. The performance never changed. The destination did.

Today’s vinyl differences exist for a completely different reason.

The destination stayed the same. The journey simply wasn’t finished.

That’s a profound shift.

People love repeating the myth that vinyl can’t handle bass.

Not true. It can. Just not carelessly.

A vinyl record isn’t a computer file. It’s physics carved into plastic.

Every kick drum literally moves a cutting stylus. Every bass guitar creates a groove.

Push those movements too far and you run out of room, or worse, the playback stylus struggles to track the groove.

So mastering engineers become architects. They collapse deep bass into mono. Remove inaudible rumble. Control extreme low frequencies. Adjust dynamics.

Then they apply the RIAA equalisation curve, reducing bass and boosting treble during cutting so your phono preamp can reverse the process during playback.

Nothing is lost.

Everything is engineered.

It’s one of the greatest pieces of analogue problem-solving ever invented.

None of this should surprise hard rock and metal fans. We’ve been collecting different versions our entire lives.

Original UK pressings. Japanese pressings. US pressings. Remasters. Radio edits. 12-inch mixes.

Tom Werman. Mutt Lange. Bob Clearmountain.

These producers understood something that’s becoming relevant again.

Every format has its own language.

A Metallica vinyl pressing doesn’t necessarily sound like its CD counterpart.

Iron Maiden fans debate original EMI cuts versus modern remasters.

Megadeth albums exist in multiple sonic identities.

Def Leppard practically turned alternate mixes into an art form.

But those records shared one important characteristic.

They were finished.

Today’s vinyl sometimes isn’t. That’s new. Here’s the irony.

The very thing frustrating fans today may become the reason collectors treasure these records tomorrow.

Not because they’re rare. Because they’re honest. They preserve the album before the final decisions.

Before the last-minute vocal. Before the rewritten lyric. Before the producer changed his mind.

They’re snapshots of creativity still in motion. Neither is wrong. One simply tells you more about the journey.

For years we’ve treated vinyl as nostalgia.

A warmer sound. A bigger sleeve. A ritual.

Maybe that’s no longer what we’re buying. Maybe vinyl has accidentally become something far more valuable.

A timestamp. An alternate timeline.

Proof that great records aren’t born in a single moment. They’re discovered through revision.

Streaming gives us the destination.

Vinyl increasingly preserves the road that led there.

That’s fascinating. But only if artists tell us.

Collectors don’t mind buying an alternate version. In fact, many would happily pay for it.

What they object to is believing they’re buying the finished novel, only to discover they’ve been sold the author’s penultimate draft.

There’s nothing wrong with alternate versions. Rock music has celebrated them for decades.

There’s everything wrong with pretending they’re the same thing.

Because sometimes the album on your shelf isn’t simply mastered differently.

It’s a different story altogether.

The Labels Want Songwriters’ Rights, Just Not Songwriters Themselves

The article.

Chaos for Who?

The music industry loves to talk about artists.

It loves to celebrate artists.

It loves to hand out awards, sponsor songwriter camps, run social media campaigns about creativity, and tell the world that music starts with the creator.

Until the creator asks for something back. Then suddenly the language changes.

Now it’s not about art. It’s not about fairness. It’s not about creators. It’s about “chaos.”

The major labels and BMG have petitioned the United States Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that would allow songwriter Cyril Vetter to reclaim worldwide rights to a song he wrote more than sixty years ago.

And their argument is fascinating. Not because it’s convincing. Because it exposes exactly how the industry thinks.

The labels claim that if songwriters can reclaim worldwide copyrights under U.S. termination law, it will create uncertainty, confusion and disruption throughout the music business.

Chaos.

That’s the word.

Chaos.

Funny how the same industry that spent decades telling creators to sign away global rights in perpetuity is suddenly worried about fairness and stability.

The same companies that built billion-dollar catalog empires from contracts signed generations ago now want us to believe they are protecting the music ecosystem.

Protecting whom?

Certainly not the songwriter. The songwriter is the one who created the asset. The songwriter is the one who took the risk. The songwriter is the one whose work still generates value decades later.

Yet when a court finally interprets the law in a way that potentially benefits creators, the industry’s first instinct isn’t celebration.

It’s litigation.

The hypocrisy becomes even more obvious when you look at history.

Labels routinely tell artists that contracts are sacred. Deals are deals. You signed it. Live with it.

Except when the labels don’t like the outcome.

Then contracts, precedents and long-standing interpretations suddenly become flexible.

Then the legal teams arrive. Then the lobbying starts. Then the scare campaign begins.

We’re told the sky will fall. We’re told investment will disappear. We’re told the business will collapse.

We’ve seen this movie before.

Every technological shift was supposedly going to destroy music.

Home taping. CD burning. MP3s. Streaming. TikTok. Now songwriter rights.

The industry’s prediction record on catastrophe is so bad that “chaos” should probably be treated as a marketing term rather than a legal argument.

Because let’s be honest.

If a songwriter reclaiming rights after half a century creates disruption, maybe the disruption isn’t the problem.

Maybe the underlying business model is.

The labels argue that billions of dollars and countless agreements were built around the assumption that foreign rights remain permanently with publishers.

That may be true.

But an industry building its future around assumptions doesn’t magically transform those assumptions into justice.

There was a time when artists couldn’t own masters.

There was a time when musicians signed contracts they barely understood.

There was a time when labels controlled manufacturing, distribution, promotion and access to audiences.

That world is disappearing.

And perhaps what we’re seeing in Vetter v. Resnik isn’t chaos. Perhaps we’re seeing correction.

The most revealing part of this case isn’t the legal argument. It’s the language.

The labels describe the songwriter’s position as a fringe theory. Yet a federal appeals court agreed with it.

Creator groups support it. And the logic is straightforward.

If termination rights exist to give creators a second chance at ownership, why should that second chance stop at a national border?

Why should a songwriter get half the apple?

The answer seems obvious.

Because half the apple is still enough for the labels to keep the other half.

That’s what this fight is really about.

Control.

Not creativity. Not fairness. Not artists.

Control.

The irony is that the music business constantly tells young creators that ownership matters.

Keep your rights. Build your catalog. Think long term. Become an entrepreneur.

Until those same principles start applying to creators whose songs were written decades ago.

Then ownership suddenly becomes dangerous. Then ownership becomes disruptive. Then ownership becomes chaos.

The labels want everyone to believe they’re defending stability.

What they’re actually defending is a system that has benefited them enormously for generations.

A system where rights flow one way. A system where creators are encouraged to surrender ownership but discouraged from reclaiming it. A system where fairness is celebrated in speeches but challenged in court.

If the Supreme Court ultimately hears the case, the decision will affect far more than one song.

It will answer a much bigger question. Who does copyright actually exist to serve?

The corporations that acquired it.

Or the people who created it.

Because if reclaiming your own work after sixty years is considered chaos, perhaps the real chaos was the arrangement that existed before.

Fender Wants Your Guitar Back

Fender has lost its mind.

It thinks it can copyright a shape, and call that “heritage.”

That’s corporate greed, pretending it’s preserving culture.

The Stratocaster body shape is not sacred scripture. It’s a guitar shape that entered the bloodstream of modern music decades ago. Pretending to own the shape now is like claiming ownership of the power chord, the double cutaway, or rock and roll itself.

And somehow this whole mess started with Fender suing an AliExpress seller in Germany.

The seller never showed up.

Fender won by default.

Then, suddenly, that default judgment became the foundation for a wider campaign. Cease-and-desist letters started flying. Builders, retailers and manufacturers of their own guitars using the Stratocaster body shape, found themselves being told that Fender now had legal proof that it owned the Stratocaster body shape.

Not a patent. Not a trademark. A copyright.

And that’s where things start getting ridiculous.

Because this wasn’t simply about stopping counterfeit guitars with fake Fender logos on the headstock. Most musicians understand that. Most builders understand that.

The company reportedly demanded that builders and retailers destroy their existing inventory.

Destroy it. Millions of dollars in manufacturing and research/development.

And then things got even uglier.

Fender allegedly wanted stores and manufacturers to hand over the names and addresses of customers who had already bought guitars with Strat body shapes.

The request?

Have those customers return their guitars so they too could be destroyed.

Read that again.

A billion-dollar corporation wasn’t just trying to stop future sales. It wanted guitars already sitting in people’s homes.

That’s the moment this stopped looking like brand protection and started looking like corporate intimidation.

And nobody likes a bully. Make no mistake, that’s exactly how this looks.

Then comes the inevitable question.

Why now?

The Stratocaster body shape debuted in 1954.

Seventy-plus years later we’re suddenly being told the shape is protected in a way that thousands of builders and guitar tinkerers somehow missed?

Think of EVH tinkering with a Stratocaster body, to come up with his sound and the Frankenstein look. George Lynch playing Charvel and then ESP’s that use the Stratocaster body shape. Hell, Lynch even makes Custom guitars right now utilizing the Strat body shape. Add to that list Kirk Hammett and his ESP guitars and every other guitarist that played a guitar with a Strat body that wasn’t Fender. All of the guitars are illegal according to Fender.

And let’s be honest about who’s making these decisions.

Fender’s CEO, Edward “Bud” Cole, is a Fender lifer. He knows the history. He knows the market. He knows exactly what the Stratocaster means to players.

Which means this isn’t confusion.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth.

Fender is no longer automatically the best guitar in the room. There was a time when the logo alone was enough.

Not anymore.

Today there are boutique builders producing instruments with better fretwork, better neck profiles, tighter quality control and greater consistency than many production-line Fenders.

We feel it immediately as soon as we pick up a guitar and within ten seconds we know.

No legal brief changes that. No cease-and-desist letter changes that.

The PR damage may be even worse.

Because Fender looks like the guy who arrives at the party after midnight, grabs the microphone and starts yelling at everyone.

Nobody likes that guy. Nobody respects that guy. And nobody forgets that guy.

The guitar industry has already lived through this movie. Gibson went after PRS over the single-cut body shape.

The courts ultimately rejected the idea that one company could permanently monopolize a broadly recognized guitar design.

That should have been the lesson.

Instead Fender looked at history and apparently concluded:

Let’s try it ourselves. Only louder.

And the saddest part?

Fender should know better. Its reputation wasn’t built by lawsuits or cease-and-desist letters or by demanding customer lists or threatening independent builders.

It was built by making great guitars.

This entire campaign feels disconnected from players and completely connected to spreadsheets.

That’s how great brands start to decay. Not because competitors catch them. Because they convince themselves that people love the logo more than the product. They don’t.

That’s why this whole thing lands so badly.

It’s petty.

It’s defensive.

It’s short-sighted.

And most importantly, it’s unnecessary.

If Fender wants respect, make better guitars. If Fender wants loyalty, earn it. If Fender wants to remain the standard, stop acting like the standard needs a lawyer.

Because the truth is already out there.

The shape is not the product. The player is.

And if Fender has forgotten that, the damage it’s doing to its own brand may last a lot longer than any body-shape ruling ever will.

A to Z of Making It, Copyright, Music

Masters of Nothing: Why Artists Keep Losing Their Own Music

The music business loves mythology. It sells rebellion. Freedom. Danger. Authenticity.

The starving artist with a guitar. The rapper with a dream. The band sleeping in vans before conquering the world.

But behind every platinum record sits another story nobody likes talking about.

Paperwork.

Contracts. Clauses. Ownership structures. Corporate definitions. And armies of lawyers whose job is to make sure the people who created the culture often never fully own it.

That’s the real story sitting underneath two major music industry battles unfolding right now.

One involves the major labels hiring elite Supreme Court attorney Paul Clement to fight a ruling that could allow artists to reclaim global ownership rights to their music decades after signing contracts. The other involves legendary hip hop pioneers Salt-N-Pepa fighting Universal Music Group for control of masters tied to songs that helped define an era.

Different lawsuits. Same system. The suits protecting the vault.

For decades the music industry justified ownership by arguing labels took the financial risks. In the vinyl and CD eras, there was truth to that. Manufacturing records, shipping inventory worldwide, financing studios, bribing radio through “promotion,” building distribution pipelines, it all required enormous infrastructure.

Labels weren’t just record companies. They were factories. Banks. Gatekeepers.

But streaming changed everything.

The catalog became more valuable than the artist. Not future music. Not artist development. Not creativity.

The old recordings.

Because songs no longer disappear with time. A hit from 1987 now generates money forever: Spotify streams. YouTube monetization. TikTok rediscovery. Netflix sync placements. Gaming licenses. Playlist algorithms.

Music became perpetual intellectual property infrastructure.

And once catalogs turned into billion-dollar assets, ownership became war.

That’s why the major labels reportedly hired Paul Clement, one of the most powerful appellate attorneys in America, after a recent ruling suggested artists may reclaim not only U.S. rights to their recordings, but potentially worldwide rights through copyright termination laws.

Think about the scale of panic required for that move. The labels didn’t respond with: “Maybe artists deserve more ownership.”

They responded by assembling a legal nuclear deterrent. Because if artists can claw back global rights, entire catalog valuations become unstable overnight.

And this is where the phrase “work for hire” enters the story, one of the most important and misunderstood weapons in music industry history.

Under U.S. copyright law, creators can often reclaim ownership of transferred copyrights after several decades. But there’s a loophole powerful enough to erase that future right entirely.

If a work is classified as a “work made for hire,” the corporation is considered the legal author from day one.

Not the musician. Not the songwriter. Not the band.

The company.

Which means the artist cannot later reclaim ownership because legally they never possessed it to begin with.

That distinction is worth billions.

The labels have long argued that recordings qualify as works for hire because they financed the recording process, paid advances, controlled distribution and supervised production.

But historically, musicians rarely resembled traditional employees.

They weren’t salaried office workers. Taxes often weren’t withheld. They weren’t clocking into Warner Music at 9am. Most artists functioned more like independent contractors creating intellectual property under negotiated agreements.

Which is why the work-for-hire debate has haunted the industry for decades.

In 1999, lobbyists quietly pushed language into federal legislation attempting to formally classify sound recordings as works for hire. The backlash was immediate once artists discovered it. Musicians including Don Henley and Sheryl Crow publicly opposed the change, and Congress eventually repealed it.

That moment revealed something enormous. If recordings were already unquestionably works for hire, the industry wouldn’t have needed Congress to try rewriting the law.

But ambiguity is profitable. Because ambiguity delays ownership challenges. Delay protects catalog value. And catalog value is the center of the modern music economy.

Which brings us to Salt-N-Pepa.

Long before corporations fully understood hip hop’s economic potential, Salt-N-Pepa helped drag rap music into the mainstream. They became the first female rap act to go multi-platinum and the first to win a Grammy.

Now, decades later, they’re in court fighting for rights connected to the very recordings that built that legacy.

Universal Music Group’s argument reportedly centers on the idea that Salt-N-Pepa either transferred no reclaimable rights or that the recordings were structured in ways that prevent termination claims.

Read that carefully.

The people who made the music are allegedly not the legal owners in the way that matters commercially.

That’s the magic trick of the modern entertainment industry.

The artist thinks they signed a record deal. The corporation believes it acquired a forever asset.

And forty years later, the paperwork matters more than the songs themselves.

This isn’t just about one rap group or one lawsuit. It’s about the foundational imbalance of the entertainment business: The creators generate cultural value.
The corporations engineer legal permanence.

The labels market authenticity while weaponizing technicalities.
They celebrate artists publicly while litigating against them privately. They sell rebellion while protecting ownership structures with corporate ferocity.

And streaming made the contradiction impossible to hide.

Because the old industry model assumed music depreciated over time. Streaming proved the opposite. The past became infinitely monetizable.

A song recorded in 1986 can generate revenue every single day in 2026 with virtually no manufacturing cost. Catalogs became digital oil fields, and suddenly ownership rights that once looked historical became existential financial assets.

That’s why these legal fights matter far beyond music. This is labor versus ownership. Creation versus infrastructure. Art versus contract law.

The same pattern exists across Hollywood, publishing, technology and streaming platforms: The people who create the emotional value often control the least economic power.

The suits own the systems. The artists create the meaning.

And once the money gets large enough, the system fights to preserve itself. That’s why the major labels are preparing for Supreme Court battles instead of surrendering catalogs. That’s why legacy artists are revisiting contracts signed before they had leverage. That’s why younger musicians increasingly obsess over masters, publishing and ownership.

Because an entire generation finally realized the biggest illusion in the music business: The artist was often never the owner.

Billboard – Major Labels Hire Supreme Court Lawyer In Global Rights Fight

Variety – Salt-N-Pepa and Universal Music Group Appeals Court Lawsuit

U.S. Copyright Office – Works Made For Hire Overview

A to Z of Making It, Copyright, Music, Stupidity

“They Won in 1966: The Hendrix Case and the Lie of ‘A Contract Is a Contract’”

There’s a moment when you read a court decision and you realise, this isn’t about justice. It’s about architecture.

Not justice. Architecture.

Because what just happened with Jimi Hendrix’s bandmates isn’t shocking if you understand the system. It’s only shocking if you still believe the system is trying to be fair.

The estates of Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell walked into court thinking they were arguing about rights.

They weren’t.

They were arguing against a blueprint that was locked in before they even plugged in their amps.

And the judge basically said:
Yeah… the blueprint holds.

Let’s call this what it is.

These guys helped build the sound. They played on “Are You Experienced”, “Axis: Bold as Love”, “Electric Ladyland”. That’s not background noise, that’s the DNA of rock music.

But legally?

They’re session players with better branding.

Why?

Because somewhere in the 1960s, when you couldn’t get your music heard without a label, when gatekeepers weren’t optional but oxygen, they signed a contract that said: “We (the producers) own everything. Forever. Everywhere.”

And the court looked at that and said:

Cool. Case closed.

Here’s where it gets twisted.

Everyone loves saying “a contract is a contract.”

Until it isn’t.

Because we’ve seen legislation, actual law, designed to give artists their rights back over time. We’ve seen frameworks like the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 termination rights that basically admit: “Yeah… artists got screwed. Let’s give them a way out.”

So the narrative becomes: when labels want certainty, contracts are sacred. When artists want relief, well, it depends…

And suddenly legislation becomes optional. Flexible. Interpreted.

Funny how that works.

But here’s the real game, and this is the part most people miss.

The label didn’t “win” this case.

They won it in 1966.

Because they didn’t just sign a deal, they defined the category of ownership itself.

They made sure the band never owned the master in the first place.

And if you never owned it?

There’s nothing to return. That’s not a loophole. That’s design.

Think about the power dynamics for a second.

You’re a band in the ‘60s. You want: Studio time. Distribution. Radio play

All controlled by the same entity.

So you sign.

Not because it’s fair. Because it’s the only door in the building.

That’s not negotiation. That’s survival. And decades later, a court looks back and says: “Well… you agreed.”

Technically true.

Practically absurd.

And here’s the part that should really bother you. The judge didn’t say the deal was fair. He said it was clear.

That’s the entire threshold. Not fairness. Not balance. Not context. Clarity.

So if you screw someone over clearly enough… it’s enforceable forever.

That’s the lesson.

Meanwhile, Sony Music Entertainment UK walks away saying:

“We’re pleased our rights have been confirmed.”

Of course they are.

Because those “rights” were engineered in an era where artists had none.

And before you think this is ancient history, it’s not.

The contracts look different now. Cleaner. Friendlier. But the structure?

Still the same.

Artists today don’t get told: “We own your masters forever.”

They get told: “We’re partnering with you.”

Then buried in the language: Licensing terms that never end. Revenue splits that never shift. Control clauses that quietly lock everything down.

Same game. Better PR.

So yeah, it feels like labels pick and choose when rules matter. But the truth is colder than that.

They don’t break the rules. They write them early enough that they never have to.

This case wasn’t about Hendrix’s bandmates losing.It was about a system doing exactly what it was built to do:

Protect ownership. Not contribution.

And until that changes?

You can play on the record. You can define the sound. You can help change music forever.

And still legally own… nothing.

That’s not a glitch.

That’s the business.

Classic Songs to Be Discovered, Copyright, Influenced, Music, My Stories

Who Really Wrote Wind of Change?

Rock history is built on myths. Some of them we know are true, Keith Richards falling out of a palm tree, Ozzy biting the bat, Axl showing up three hours late. Some of them are stitched together later, when journalists and fans try to impose meaning on chaos. And then there’s “Wind of Change”.

On paper, it’s simple: Klaus Meine, the Scorpions’ frontman, comes back from Moscow in ’89 with the smell of revolution in his lungs, fiddles around with a keyboard, and whistles the melody that would soundtrack the fall of an empire. No co-writer, no Svengali, just a German kid who grew up in a divided country, watching the wall finally crack. That’s the official story.

But then Patrick Radden Keefe drops his podcast “Wind of Change” in 2020, floating the idea that maybe, just maybe, this wasn’t a German ballad of hope at all, but a CIA psy-op slipped into the bloodstream of Soviet youth. A cultural Trojan horse disguised as a rock anthem.

The idea is ludicrous on one level, Klaus laughs when it’s put to him. But here’s the thing about conspiracy theories: they’re fun. And sometimes they stick not because they’re true, but because they feel like they could be.

Think about it.

The Cold War wasn’t just nukes and spies in trench coats. It was MTV, Levi’s jeans, smuggled cassette tapes. You couldn’t outgun the Soviet Union, but you could out-dream them. You could sell them freedom in four minutes and forty-two seconds, wrapped in a whistle and a chorus about brothers in Gorky Park.

So what if a CIA lyricist did have a hand? A guy in Langley, chain-smoking in his cubicle, listening to Bon Jovi, scribbling lines about the Moskva River because he knew soft power beats steel tanks? The romantic in us kind of wants it to be true. It makes the song bigger than the Scorpions. It makes it history, not just music.

But here’s the rub: songs don’t last because of conspiracies. They last because they resonate. You can orchestrate propaganda, but you can’t fake goosebumps. Whether Klaus wrote every word or some nameless spook polished the lines, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that when the Soviet Union cracked open, there was a soundtrack. And it wasn’t Beethoven or state-approved anthems, it was a German hard rock band singing about change.

And isn’t that the real subversion? That the most enduring act of the Cold War wasn’t an assassination, or a coup, or a summit, it was a whistle that every Russian kid could hum?

You want to know who wrote “Wind of Change”?

We all did. The fans circling the Scorpions’ cars in Leningrad. The soldiers in Moscow turning from guard duty to join the chorus. The kids who bootlegged the cassette until the tape wore thin. Whether or not Langley had a hand in it, the truth is simpler, scarier, and more beautiful: a song toppled an empire because people believed it could.

The Guardian Article

When the Devil’s in the Fine Print: David Coverdale, Ozzy Osbourne, and the Tragedy of Artists Who Don’t Own Their Souls

There’s a special kind of heartbreak that doesn’t come from love or loss, it comes from contracts. From signing a piece of paper that turns your life’s work into someone else’s property.

It’s the sound of a blues riff written in your kitchen, a vocal take recorded at two in the morning after a bottle of Jack, and a manager saying, “Don’t worry, this is just business.”

David Coverdale, doesn’t own the early half of his own story. Everything before “Slide It In”, six albums, countless nights, and an entire phase of Whitesnake’s identity, legally belongs to someone else.

Not a label he can negotiate with.

Not a partner he fell out with.

An estate.

A legal ghost.

“The albums belong to the estate of our former managers,” he said.
“I don’t even know if they still have the tapes.”

Think about that.

The man who wrote the songs, who sang the words, who bled the heartbreak, can’t even touch the recordings. Because someone who never played a note once drafted a contract that said: we own this forever.

It’s absurd. It’s tragic. And it’s normal.

This is what we call “music business.”

In the late 70s, every kid with a Les Paul thought they were signing for a future, not signing away one.

Managers like John Coletta (who handled Deep Purple and early Whitesnake) built empires by owning the paper, not the performance.

Coletta’s company, “Sunburst Records Ltd”, holds the phonographic copyright on Whitesnake’s early masterpieces.

He died in 2006, but those rights didn’t die with him. They passed to his estate.

The music lives, but the control sits in a filing cabinet owned by lawyers and heirs.

Coverdale can’t remix “Lovehunter”. He can’t remaster “Ready an’ Willing”. He can only talk about how much it hurts.

And when he says, “I just forget that catalogue because it’s a sore point,”
you feel the weight of a career held hostage by paperwork.

It’s not just Coverdale.

Ozzy Osbourne, made the same mistake. He signed a contract with Black Sabbath in the early 70s that included one fateful phrase: in perpetuity.

You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand what that means, it means forever. And “forever” is a long time to regret.

Ozzy admits in his memoir that he and his Black Sabbath band mates, didn’t check the fine print. They handed over their publishing rights to “a bloke called David Platz,” who later died, leaving those rights to his children.

When Ozzy finally asked how much it cost him, his accountant said quietly: about £100 million.

He had to sit down.

That’s the cruel irony: the system that profited from his madness made sure it stayed profitable long after the madness passed.

Here’s the dirty truth: the labels and managers weren’t trying to help artists. They were trying to own them.

And the tragedy is that most artists were too focused on creating to notice. They thought the business side was a distraction, that they’d deal with it “later.” But later never came. And when later did come, it was too late.

Contracts were designed to outlive them.

“In perpetuity” didn’t just steal their music; it stole their agency.
It’s like selling your house and discovering that the buyer also owns every memory you made inside it.

The music industry used to run on vinyl and cocaine. Now it runs on streaming and spreadsheets.

But the game hasn’t changed.

The same mentality survives, that art is negotiable, and ownership is a technicality.

Some people think this is all ancient history. That we’ve moved past the days of sleazy managers and unreadable contracts.

We haven’t. We’ve just digitized the exploitation.

Artists today trade away masters for algorithmic visibility. They sign away sync rights in exchange for “exposure.” The word “forever” still hides in the terms of service.

Coverdale’s early recordings are probably sitting in some warehouse owned by a holding company whose executives couldn’t tell “Walking in the Shadow of the Blues” from a Spotify ad jingle.
They don’t care about legacy. They care about licensing opportunities.

That’s what makes this situation obscene: the people who made the art can’t preserve it, but the people who bought it can bury it.

We talk about heritage acts, but we rarely ask who owns that heritage.

Every remaster, every reissue, every “anniversary edition” you see represents one of two things:
1. A creator reclaiming their past.
2. A corporation squeezing nostalgia for one last royalty check.

The law says ownership is a matter of contract. But morality says the artist should own their own story.

No manager should have more say over a song than the person who wrote it.

No estate should be able to silence a catalogue because it’s “not profitable.”

Coverdale wrote those songs in small studios on small budgets with big dreams.

Ozzy screamed those lyrics into the void of post-industrial England.

They earned their legacies note by note, not clause by clause.

And yet, the law sides with the paperwork.

The industry still trades in desperation. Every era has its carrot, radio play, MTV rotation, playlist placement.

And artists, eager for the break, sign whatever is put in front of them. Then they wake up 30 years later, unable to touch the music that made them who they are.

It’s not that they’re stupid. It’s that the system is engineered for their ignorance. And it thrives on it.

If there’s a lesson here, it’s that the devil doesn’t live in the music. He lives in the fine print.

He’s not wearing leather and playing power chords, he’s wearing a suit and drafting clauses.

Coverdale and Ozzy both made deals with devils they thought were allies.

And maybe that’s the real tragedy of rock ’n’ roll: that the songs meant for freedom were always owned by someone else.

Because in the end, the music never dies, but ownership does.

A to Z of Making It, Copyright, Influenced, Music, My Stories

Nothing’s Original, and That’s the Point

Every riff you’ve ever thrown horns to is a hand-me-down. Every chorus you’ve ever screamed at the top of your lungs is somebody else’s ghost wearing new leather. That’s the dirty little truth of rock and metal: it’s all borrowed, stolen, ripped apart, and reborn louder than before.

Music isn’t original. It’s immortal.

Take Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s “Carry On.” Gorgeous harmonies, that golden California glow, but underneath?

It’s Davey Graham’s “Anji.” No shame in it.

Zeppelin? They cannibalized Muddy Waters, Howlin’ Wolf, and Willie Dixon so hard they got dragged into court and still became gods.

Metallica built half of “Kill ’Em All” on riffs they lifted straight from Diamond Head. Nirvana took The Pixies’ soft-loud blueprint and weaponized it into a grunge anthem.

The “Burn” riff in G minor wasn’t just a Deep Purple opener, it was an embryo. Ritchie Blackmore lit it, Coverdale and Hughes sang it into history, and Glenn Hughes carried it forward like DNA in his bloodstream.

You can hear its shadow in Hughes/Thrall’s “I Got Your Number” (1982), sharpened in Gary Moore’s “Run for Cover” (1985), and reborn in John Norum’s “Face the Truth” (1992). Same pulse, shifted into F♯ minor, but undeniably the same bloodline.

Coverdale didn’t leave it buried either. With John Sykes, he bastardized the Burn riff into “Children of the Night” on Whitesnake’s 1987 juggernaut.

Sykes doubled down a year later, repurposing the same DNA into “Black Hearted Woman” with Blue Murder. Different bands, different contexts, but still the same riff in a new disguise.

What we’re looking at here isn’t plagiarism, it’s a dynasty. A single riff spawning offspring across decades, mutating as it jumped from band to band. Hughes carried it soulful and elastic. Coverdale and Sykes weaponized it for arenas. Each branch different, but every branch unmistakably part of the same tree.

This is how it works. It’s always how it’s worked.

We’ve been spoon-fed the myth of originality, the idea that every classic song is lightning in a bottle. But peel back the layers and you see the skeleton:

Deep Purple’s “Smoke on the Water”? Just a blues riff flattened and played like a war march.

KISS made a career Frankensteining Chuck Berry’s DNA into glam rock fireworks.

Motörhead was Little Richard played through a chainsaw, Lemmy spitting gasoline on the mic.

Mötley Crüe swiped Sweet’s glam strut and Aerosmith’s sleaze, turned it into Sunset Strip debauchery.

Whitesnake borrowed Zeppelin’s swagger wholesale and polished it for MTV.

Kingdom Come? They didn’t even pretend, just straight-up cloned Zeppelin and dared you to complain.

And it goes deeper.

Black Sabbath slowed down the blues until it sounded like an earthquake.

AC/DC took Chuck Berry riffs, plugged them into a Marshall stack, and built an empire.

Guns N’ Roses was Aerosmith if they grew up on heroin and nihilism. Every “new” sound is an echo chamber of something older.

The bands that matter don’t deny it, they double down. They take, they mutate, they make it their own:

Motörhead never apologized for playing Little Richard at 200 bpm.

Nirvana admitted the Pixies blueprint but twisted it into generational rage.

Metallica wore their Diamond Head influence on their denim vests and built a movement around it.

Even Deep Purple’s Jon Lord said it out loud: they were just a classical keyboardist and a blues guitarist smashing their worlds together.

That’s the alchemy. You take with intent. You stitch together parts until the monster lurches to life and crushes cities.

The irony?

The more derivative, the more universal. That’s why your brain locks into a riff before you even realize it’s been done before. A familiar structure, dressed up and set on fire, is irresistible.

KISS concerts didn’t sell out because they were original, they sold out because they gave you rock ’n’ roll you already knew in a stadium-sized package. Motörhead didn’t endure because Lemmy invented something brand new, they endured because he made rock’s ugliest roots sound like the apocalypse.

Music survives by being contagious. Like a virus, it spreads, mutates, infects. Sabbath to Metallica to Pantera to Slipknot, it’s all one family tree, just different branches twisting toward the sun.

So let go of originality. It’s a marketing gimmick. What matters is whether the riff hits your gut, whether the chorus feels like a mob chant, whether it makes you want to smash a beer bottle and howl at the night sky.

Because nothing’s original.

And nothing’s ever hit harder.

Classic Songs to Be Discovered, Copyright, Derivative Works, Influenced, Music, My Stories

The Riff That Spawned a Dynasty

Some riffs are one-and-done. Others breed. The “Burn” riff, G minor, 1974, Deep Purple Mk III, isn’t just a classic. It’s a genetic code that’s been mutating for half a century, producing bastard children across bands, decades, and egos.

At the center?

Glenn Hughes and David Coverdale. The co-vocalists on “Burn.” One carried it like DNA in his blood (Hughes), the other twisted it into new forms with fresh partners (Coverdale).

The Glenn Hughes Line

Hughes/Thrall – “I Got Your Number” (1982): the first clear mutation, transposed into F♯m, slicker but still the gallop of “Burn.”

Gary Moore – “Run for Cover” (1985): Hughes on vocals again, Moore’s firepower channeling the same pulse.

John Norum – “Face the Truth” (1992): Hughes back at it, the riff sharpened into a darker ’90s hard rock blade.

Glenn doesn’t just sing. He drags the riff’s DNA forward, project after project, like a courier smuggling contraband across borders.

The David Coverdale / John Sykes Line

Coverdale didn’t let it die either. Teaming with John Sykes during Whitesnake’s MTV conquest, they bastardized the “Burn” riff into:

“Children of the Night” (1987, Gm): sleeker and turbocharged for the arenas of the late ’80s. Still “Burn”, just wearing more eyeliner.

Sykes wasn’t done. When he launched Blue Murder, he cloned his own mutation:

“Black Hearted Woman” (1989, Gm): “Burn” reborn again, heavier, moodier, drenched in Sykes’ Les Paul tone.

Coverdale and Hughes may have split paths, but both carried that same fire. One kept it soulful, elastic, shifting keys and contexts. The other turned it into arena thunder and hard rock melodrama.

But the story doesn’t stop there.

“Burn” didn’t come out of thin air. Nothing does. Ritchie Blackmore was reaching backward, too, straight into Gershwin.

Go spin “Fascinating Rhythm.” The horn stabs, the syncopation, the way it jerks forward like it’s about to combust. That’s the skeleton. Purple just plugged it into an amp and let it roar. Suddenly the city’s ablaze, the town’s on fire.

And it wasn’t just Hughes and Coverdale carrying the torch.

The infection spread further. Paul Stanley, yeah, the Starchild, was listening.

You can hear it in “I Stole Your Love.” Same pulse, same fire, dressed up in sequins and pyrotechnics.

Don’t take my word for it. Don’t argue. Hit play. The riff tells you everything.

The Family Tree

– “Fascinating Rhythm” (1924, George Gershwin) – the Jazz Standard

– “Burn” (1974, Deep Purple, Gm) – the hard rock origin.

– “I Stole Your Love” (1977, Kiss, C#m) – the first descendant

– “I Got Your Number” (1982, Hughes/Thrall, F♯m) – the second descendant.

– “Run for Cover” (1985, Gary Moore, F♯m, feat. Hughes) – the third generation.

– “Face the Truth” (1992, John Norum, F♯m, feat. Hughes) – the echo in the ’90s.

– “Children of the Night” (1987, Whitesnake, Gm, Coverdale/Sykes) – Coverdale’s bastard child.

– “Black Hearted Woman” (1989, Blue Murder, Gm, Sykes) – Sykes cloning himself.

It’s a family tree of riffs, sprouting new branches every time one of its carriers stepped into a studio.

Because this isn’t plagiarism, it’s proof of how riffs behave like living organisms. They survive by mutating, jumping bands, crossing decades. Glenn Hughes and David Coverdale, often painted as rivals in Purple, ended up as co-parents of a riff dynasty.

And every time that riff comes back, whether in Stanley’s face paint, Hughes’ soulful howl, Sykes’ molten Les Paul tone, or Coverdale’s snake-charmer swagger, you feel it. G minor or F♯ minor, it doesn’t matter. It’s still “Burn”.

The riff refuses to die. It just keeps coming back, louder, slicker, dirtier.

	destroyerofharmony on My Love Affair With Spotify Is…
	destroyerofharmony on My Love Affair With Spotify Is…
	bubba8328 on My Love Affair With Spotify Is…
	2loud2oldmusic on My Love Affair With Spotify Is…
	destroyerofharmony on My Love Affair With Spotify Is…