The Ugly Truth About Spotify Is Finally Revealed(honest-broker.com)
honest-broker.com
The Ugly Truth About Spotify Is Finally Revealed
https://www.honest-broker.com/p/the-ugly-truth-about-spotify-is-finally
272 comments
> a proportion of the listeners don't recognize they are listening to slop
this is perhaps the crux of the matter!
Very few people in my social circle whose taste in music I share. The majority of them don't even have a "taste" and content with whatever their car-radio pumps out.
Does that drive me mad? Mildly.
Appreciating and recognizing great music is a deeply personal experience.
Like appreciating different culinary tastes that requires training and exposure (ideally from a young age), it's also hard work (the older and more settled our tastes get).
this is perhaps the crux of the matter!
Very few people in my social circle whose taste in music I share. The majority of them don't even have a "taste" and content with whatever their car-radio pumps out.
Does that drive me mad? Mildly.
Appreciating and recognizing great music is a deeply personal experience.
Like appreciating different culinary tastes that requires training and exposure (ideally from a young age), it's also hard work (the older and more settled our tastes get).
Most people are stupid. What an unexpected discovery! Considering the fact that the crux of the problem is that people love slop and always have, does the fact that slop has become AI-generated change anything?
Different topic: any recommended ways to search for new music? I usually just wait to somehow stumble upon something.
Different topic: any recommended ways to search for new music? I usually just wait to somehow stumble upon something.
I think "stupid" may be overstating it a bit. I think it's more that people only have a limited mental bandwidth and can only focus on a limited amount of categories of life. Person A may think person B is stupid for not caring about the quality of background music. But person B might think person A is stupid for ordering a $5 glass of the house wine at a restaurant instead of some special French vintage. And person C might be aghast that that both A and B have standard factory tires on their cars instead of high performance low-profile racing tires.
I love reading up on my fav musicians and have a listen at what their influences are and/or other fans recommend.
Or, in 2012, I torrented the then whole discog of a British duo called Autechre that I liked a track from on the soundtrack of the film 'Pi'.
12 years later, I have several vinyls, bought every release on multiple [streaming] services/shops, have been to one concert in '16... still cannot get enough and listen to their new releases all the time.
Funny to think about it this way, how a handful of beats in a movie can open you up to a world unseen, just gotta follow the tracks...
Or, in 2012, I torrented the then whole discog of a British duo called Autechre that I liked a track from on the soundtrack of the film 'Pi'.
12 years later, I have several vinyls, bought every release on multiple [streaming] services/shops, have been to one concert in '16... still cannot get enough and listen to their new releases all the time.
Funny to think about it this way, how a handful of beats in a movie can open you up to a world unseen, just gotta follow the tracks...
> Different topic: any recommended ways to search for new music? I usually just wait to somehow stumble upon something.
https://www.nts.live/
That one is my favorite, but there are lots of similar online radio stations out there that post track-lists of the sets. I use them for music discovery and I like it a lot. I find shows by people I like, listen regularly, when I hear things that jump out at me I'll look at the track-list and make notes, go to discogs, bandcamp, find other artists on the same label that released the thing I went searching for. So semi passively listening to a dj set and taking occasional notes leads to hours of exploration and frequent discoveries.
https://www.nts.live/
That one is my favorite, but there are lots of similar online radio stations out there that post track-lists of the sets. I use them for music discovery and I like it a lot. I find shows by people I like, listen regularly, when I hear things that jump out at me I'll look at the track-list and make notes, go to discogs, bandcamp, find other artists on the same label that released the thing I went searching for. So semi passively listening to a dj set and taking occasional notes leads to hours of exploration and frequent discoveries.
NTS is awesome!
rateyourmusic.com has great yearly charts and genre charts and the best granular genre tags on the internet. If you like an album or artist, going through the charts related to their genre tags very often finds me a lot of great music.
The second thing that has proven indispensable for me are recommendations from "peers" on private music torrent trackers. I found a few people where I know that if they recommend something, even if it's a genre I don't listen to frequently, chances are I will like this as well. This spawned a lot of fun music adventures.
rateyourmusic.com has great yearly charts and genre charts and the best granular genre tags on the internet. If you like an album or artist, going through the charts related to their genre tags very often finds me a lot of great music.
The second thing that has proven indispensable for me are recommendations from "peers" on private music torrent trackers. I found a few people where I know that if they recommend something, even if it's a genre I don't listen to frequently, chances are I will like this as well. This spawned a lot of fun music adventures.
I listen to radio quite a lot. There are commercial-free stations that play whatever they believe is good music.
My favourites are:
- Concertzender and all its theme channels. The main channel has a lot of classical during the day, but jazz, world music and electronic in the evening/weekend. I got deep into folk music thanks to their music. On Sunday evening there is even two hours with techno and adjecent music. Discovered a lot through that as well. The station is Dutch, but talk is minimal.
- FIP. A bit more main stream music, but also unexpected songs and generally very enjoyable programming. It's in French, but talk is usually minimal as well.
My favourites are:
- Concertzender and all its theme channels. The main channel has a lot of classical during the day, but jazz, world music and electronic in the evening/weekend. I got deep into folk music thanks to their music. On Sunday evening there is even two hours with techno and adjecent music. Discovered a lot through that as well. The station is Dutch, but talk is minimal.
- FIP. A bit more main stream music, but also unexpected songs and generally very enjoyable programming. It's in French, but talk is usually minimal as well.
> any recommended ways to search for new music?
Tracking down people involved in an album is a good one for me. Find the producer of a favorite tune and search out more of their work, or check if the bassist plays in other bands or has a solo project. Lots of fun and sometimes unexpected results.
Tracking down people involved in an album is a good one for me. Find the producer of a favorite tune and search out more of their work, or check if the bassist plays in other bands or has a solo project. Lots of fun and sometimes unexpected results.
> Most people are stupid. What an unexpected discovery
seems a very reductionist take of what I actually said. but let me phrase it better using this request of yours:
> Different topic: any recommended ways to search for new music?
it's not different but directly related to my point:
The "pain" and boredom, of sitting through countless hours of "what looks like slop", is what it takes to appreciate music.
I rarely "stumble" over great new content by accident, either because of a friend (or an algorithm) recommending it. It's hard work learning to love music. This work is exactly what makes it special. I wouldn't feel comfortable using the word "love" in the same sentence as "music" if it wasn't also a massive pain.
Maybe I'm old but I recall times when I dedicated entire Saturday mornings going on a "hunt" at HMV, browsing for what was new.
Even I found something promising I still wasn't in love. Often realized there was only 2 out of 16 songs I really wanted to hear. But the 2 songs initially interesting quickly turn out to be short affairs. It's the 14 other tunes that require multiple listens that I end up appreciating for decades.
Streaming digital media changed that "hunt", for better or worse. The pain is still there. What changed is everyone thinking all good music must come not only gratis but also "effortless". Some app or magic gadget that will one day take the pain out of finding good content. If it only knows my taste well enough. It doesn't work like that.
Albert Camus, "we gotta imagine Sisyphus happy" and all that.
seems a very reductionist take of what I actually said. but let me phrase it better using this request of yours:
> Different topic: any recommended ways to search for new music?
it's not different but directly related to my point:
The "pain" and boredom, of sitting through countless hours of "what looks like slop", is what it takes to appreciate music.
I rarely "stumble" over great new content by accident, either because of a friend (or an algorithm) recommending it. It's hard work learning to love music. This work is exactly what makes it special. I wouldn't feel comfortable using the word "love" in the same sentence as "music" if it wasn't also a massive pain.
Maybe I'm old but I recall times when I dedicated entire Saturday mornings going on a "hunt" at HMV, browsing for what was new.
Even I found something promising I still wasn't in love. Often realized there was only 2 out of 16 songs I really wanted to hear. But the 2 songs initially interesting quickly turn out to be short affairs. It's the 14 other tunes that require multiple listens that I end up appreciating for decades.
Streaming digital media changed that "hunt", for better or worse. The pain is still there. What changed is everyone thinking all good music must come not only gratis but also "effortless". Some app or magic gadget that will one day take the pain out of finding good content. If it only knows my taste well enough. It doesn't work like that.
Albert Camus, "we gotta imagine Sisyphus happy" and all that.
>I rarely "stumble" over great new content by accident, either because of a friend (or an algorithm) recommending it.
It's a bit funny because I feel that might be the difference between a child and an adult and how they consume content. or perhaps the difference between pre-internet and post internet.
Children do indeed stereotypically "watch anything you put in front of them". But they will still develop favorites and find things they dont like. For my millenial generation, Something like Spongebob wasn't just something that stuck because of the nostalgia of 10 year olds. The humor was simply very witty or very surreal, or just very funnny and managed to even scale to adult humor you'd miss until you re-watched it later (I'll spare you the entire video essay of "there will Never Ever be another cartoon like Spongebob Squarepants")
But all that shifted in adulthood. I'm anenthusiast who will keep tabs on media news, vibes of the people on social media and what they find, group to like-minded friends who give recommendaions, etc. The last time I simply "stumbled" into some unexpected piece of media was... well, kind of Puss and Boots 2. But that was simply because I liked the first film and then the sequel decided to deliver one of the best, tightly paced stories in over 15 years. Before that would have probably been Roblox way back in 2010, over a decade before it became this empire of gaming (and the talk of child exploitation and harassment).
>Streaming digital media changed that "hunt", for better or worse. The pain is still there. What changed is everyone thinking all good music must come not only gratis but also "effortless". Some app or magic gadget that will one day take the pain out of finding good content. If it only knows my taste well enough. It doesn't work like that.
indeed. I mostly agree and have some small reservations. All that old media was already vetted through multiple rounds of pitches and had some budget thrown at it for it to launch. The internet definitely changed that aspect to where I could technically pick up Audacity today and publish a song on Spotify next week. It truly is "effortless" in that sense if shipping is your goal.
But I think any craftman in any domain knows that there's a difference between shipping something and shipping a GOOD something. That's something many would never understand, as they never put that kind of effort into something. Or maybe understand in one industry but gets blinded by when they look at another.
It's a bit funny because I feel that might be the difference between a child and an adult and how they consume content. or perhaps the difference between pre-internet and post internet.
Children do indeed stereotypically "watch anything you put in front of them". But they will still develop favorites and find things they dont like. For my millenial generation, Something like Spongebob wasn't just something that stuck because of the nostalgia of 10 year olds. The humor was simply very witty or very surreal, or just very funnny and managed to even scale to adult humor you'd miss until you re-watched it later (I'll spare you the entire video essay of "there will Never Ever be another cartoon like Spongebob Squarepants")
But all that shifted in adulthood. I'm anenthusiast who will keep tabs on media news, vibes of the people on social media and what they find, group to like-minded friends who give recommendaions, etc. The last time I simply "stumbled" into some unexpected piece of media was... well, kind of Puss and Boots 2. But that was simply because I liked the first film and then the sequel decided to deliver one of the best, tightly paced stories in over 15 years. Before that would have probably been Roblox way back in 2010, over a decade before it became this empire of gaming (and the talk of child exploitation and harassment).
>Streaming digital media changed that "hunt", for better or worse. The pain is still there. What changed is everyone thinking all good music must come not only gratis but also "effortless". Some app or magic gadget that will one day take the pain out of finding good content. If it only knows my taste well enough. It doesn't work like that.
indeed. I mostly agree and have some small reservations. All that old media was already vetted through multiple rounds of pitches and had some budget thrown at it for it to launch. The internet definitely changed that aspect to where I could technically pick up Audacity today and publish a song on Spotify next week. It truly is "effortless" in that sense if shipping is your goal.
But I think any craftman in any domain knows that there's a difference between shipping something and shipping a GOOD something. That's something many would never understand, as they never put that kind of effort into something. Or maybe understand in one industry but gets blinded by when they look at another.
youtube recommendations? subreddits? check tracklists of DJs, check your favourite labels on Bandcamp. Shazam is pretty good!
check lineups of concerts/festivals that you like.
check lineups of concerts/festivals that you like.
>Considering the fact that the crux of the problem is that people love slop and always have, does the fact that slop has become AI-generated change anything?
It changes everything. "Sellouts" are still humans. AI isn't. This is just going to further spiral the idea of coporate needing human labor, which will cause extremely large questions about society that no one in power wants to answer.
It changes everything. "Sellouts" are still humans. AI isn't. This is just going to further spiral the idea of coporate needing human labor, which will cause extremely large questions about society that no one in power wants to answer.
“The majority of them don’t even have taste” - by your definition of taste perhaps? :-) just sounds condescending - taste is whatever they like, not what you decide is good to like.
Taste is preferring something over something else. If they listen to any music without any preference (but I doubt it), they effectively do not have a taste.
To me the really gross bit is the dishonesty around the slop. Same track with multiple different names appearing under multiple different artist names is egregious. Classic corporate disregard for customers.
That's the tricky loophole. My understanding of this situation is that there are indeed different artists that are taking the time to comppose a track.
But they instead treat this process as an assembly line instead of an artistic pursuit. They give a template, so every song is going to sound similar, only giving a few freedoms to each artist.
Templating is almost second nature in tech, but in something like art it feels like there's this ethereal barrier being breached. It's like making a song then paying 10 other people to remix it. But worse because at least remixes disclose the template.
But they instead treat this process as an assembly line instead of an artistic pursuit. They give a template, so every song is going to sound similar, only giving a few freedoms to each artist.
Templating is almost second nature in tech, but in something like art it feels like there's this ethereal barrier being breached. It's like making a song then paying 10 other people to remix it. But worse because at least remixes disclose the template.
How is it harmful to customers?
You can listen to whatever you want on Spotify. It containing shit music that you will never listen to harms you in which way?
If people are genuinely listening to those tracks and are alright with it, how exactly are they harmed?
I already consider most contemporary pop music to be slop anyway, and people seem to be fine listening to it.
You can listen to whatever you want on Spotify. It containing shit music that you will never listen to harms you in which way?
If people are genuinely listening to those tracks and are alright with it, how exactly are they harmed?
I already consider most contemporary pop music to be slop anyway, and people seem to be fine listening to it.
Spotify has automated 'next song' and playlist creation. Those are (or used to be) valuable for finding new music, and for getting out of a rut. But now spotify isn't selecting what goes into the playlist based on their best guess of what people would like. Instead they put songs there based on what earns them money.
Does this have to be actively enabled by the user? I never really had this "next song" thing play for me, nor I ever looked at any playlists Spotify generated (I always presumed they would be bad).
Then again, if people are using these features and they are fine with the results, I fail to see the issue.
Then again, if people are using these features and they are fine with the results, I fail to see the issue.
Yes, though I think smart shuffle might be a default mode for playlists.
People who enable these functions will expect spotify to pick the best guess of what music they would enjoy. Not what music costs spotify the least to play.
If this is only a little bit worse, people will likely not notice. But they will miss out on new music. Certainly this is how I normal find new music.
If this is only a little bit worse, people will likely not notice. But they will miss out on new music. Certainly this is how I normal find new music.
I might have disabled this functionality many years ago. I don't really remember ever having this smart shuffle thing where Spotify would add their own suggestions to my playlist.
You see, I don't like Spotify. I don't trust any of those huge platforms, I expect them to actively work against my interests. I always disable or avoid anything they want to suggest me, and view it with suspicion, if now outright contempt.
More people should act the same way.
You see, I don't like Spotify. I don't trust any of those huge platforms, I expect them to actively work against my interests. I always disable or avoid anything they want to suggest me, and view it with suspicion, if now outright contempt.
More people should act the same way.
>I don't really remember ever having this smart shuffle thing where Spotify would add their own suggestions to my playlist.
I thought that was always the default behavior unless you paid or something? You find a song you wanna listen to, and then Spotify just spits out a playlist for you, in a Pandora esque radio way where you don't have control over the susequent songs played.
I liked Pandora back in the day, but there was something offputting about how Spotify implemented this. So I never really bothered and made my own playlists.
I thought that was always the default behavior unless you paid or something? You find a song you wanna listen to, and then Spotify just spits out a playlist for you, in a Pandora esque radio way where you don't have control over the susequent songs played.
I liked Pandora back in the day, but there was something offputting about how Spotify implemented this. So I never really bothered and made my own playlists.
You can’t understand why someone would be unhappy with a working product turns into crap, just because others don’t notice, cars or even know?
I’ve used Spotify since it was a closed beta and their library was from the pirate bay.
I’ve used Spotify since it was a closed beta and their library was from the pirate bay.
Payola scandal said that the mere fact the platform schemes to prioritize on-platform cheap dreck under multiple names says they are watering down product in a cheating fashion. Adulterated saffron got you burned on a pile of your own fake saffron in parts of medieval Europe. Such a concept as fraudulent activity exists and will not disappear with mere hand wavery.
It's unfair in that allowing multiple instances of the same song will almost surely lead to that song receiving more plays than it otherwise would due to how recommendation algorithms work.
I don't think this is the most egregious act of dishonesty in the article, though. I think Spotify deliberately seeding this music into its playlists is a worse abuse of its position as owner of the marketplace.
I don't think this is the most egregious act of dishonesty in the article, though. I think Spotify deliberately seeding this music into its playlists is a worse abuse of its position as owner of the marketplace.
> due to how recommendation algorithms work.
You have to actively accept the recommendations from the algorithm. If the algorithm ia recommending slop, and you are fine with it, actively listening to it, who was harmed?
> I think Spotify deliberately seeding this music into its playlists is a worse abuse of its position as owner of the marketplace.
Nobody is forced to listen to the slop playlists generated by Spotify. Spotify puts them in the front page, but they can be ignored.
If people are listening to those playlists and are satisfied with it, what is the issue?
If the consumption is genuine and not bot activity, I fail to see any wrongdoing on Spotify. If people like listening to slop, who am I to judge?
You have to actively accept the recommendations from the algorithm. If the algorithm ia recommending slop, and you are fine with it, actively listening to it, who was harmed?
> I think Spotify deliberately seeding this music into its playlists is a worse abuse of its position as owner of the marketplace.
Nobody is forced to listen to the slop playlists generated by Spotify. Spotify puts them in the front page, but they can be ignored.
If people are listening to those playlists and are satisfied with it, what is the issue?
If the consumption is genuine and not bot activity, I fail to see any wrongdoing on Spotify. If people like listening to slop, who am I to judge?
>If the algorithm ia recommending slop, and you are fine with it, actively listening to it, who was harmed?
Well that's the issue. I don't accept slop but it will sure keep trying to push it to me, no matter how many thumbs down and dislikes I throw at it. I'm still fighting all the stupid crypto recommendations from Youtube despite years of "I'm not interested in this" that I post everytime it comes up. In the end, the only proper fix was to remove my entire history.
Algorithms these days stopped even pretending they appeal to me, they appeal to what advertisers want you to consume.
>Nobody is forced to listen to the slop playlists generated by Spotify.
in the sense that "nobody is forced to use spotify, I suppose". But if spotify is the house and the dealer, spotify listeners have to go under a lot of friction to push back even if they don't like what is being dealt.
Well that's the issue. I don't accept slop but it will sure keep trying to push it to me, no matter how many thumbs down and dislikes I throw at it. I'm still fighting all the stupid crypto recommendations from Youtube despite years of "I'm not interested in this" that I post everytime it comes up. In the end, the only proper fix was to remove my entire history.
Algorithms these days stopped even pretending they appeal to me, they appeal to what advertisers want you to consume.
>Nobody is forced to listen to the slop playlists generated by Spotify.
in the sense that "nobody is forced to use spotify, I suppose". But if spotify is the house and the dealer, spotify listeners have to go under a lot of friction to push back even if they don't like what is being dealt.
Consumers' time is wasted by slop (by listening to it, skipping it, expunging it from playlists, etc.) Musicians are harmed when their material is lost in a sea of slop.
If they skip or remove from playlists, this would not be a problem would it? These songs would not have a meaningful volume of listeners.
Is consumers are actually listening to is, I fail to see harm.
Musicians are harmed only in the sense that consumers don't mind listening to slop instead of listening to their music.
Is consumers are actually listening to is, I fail to see harm.
Musicians are harmed only in the sense that consumers don't mind listening to slop instead of listening to their music.
Why do people try to excuse this shit?
Somebody works at Spotify, or is a hopeful Spotify wannabe themselves.
Somebody works at Spotify, or is a hopeful Spotify wannabe themselves.
Neither. I have no desire to work for Spotify. Never worked there myself. I do pay for their service. I find it okay, perhaps a little expensive.
You may think I am excusing Spotify, but I am not. At least not really. I am just completely unsurprised that people listen to bottom of the barrel musical slop as background noise and are okay with it.
Spotify was smart that they figured out to give people what they wanted in a way that costs them less.
But people in this thread act as if Spotify is committing a crime, using some very charged language. My approach is from another angle - if users are legitimately listening to crap, and they are alright with the crap they listened to, why are we making a fuss about it?
You may think I am excusing Spotify, but I am not. At least not really. I am just completely unsurprised that people listen to bottom of the barrel musical slop as background noise and are okay with it.
Spotify was smart that they figured out to give people what they wanted in a way that costs them less.
But people in this thread act as if Spotify is committing a crime, using some very charged language. My approach is from another angle - if users are legitimately listening to crap, and they are alright with the crap they listened to, why are we making a fuss about it?
Spotify is a market. Markets have two sides. You're fixated on one side. Repeating my earlier comment, "I don't think this is the most egregious act of dishonesty in the article, though. I think Spotify deliberately seeding this music into its playlists is a worse abuse of its position as owner of the marketplace."
> if users are legitimately listening to crap, and they are alright with the crap they listened to, why are we making a fuss about it?
Your angle is "enshittification isn't illegal, peopel still buy it. Why complain?"
By deinition, complaints are always brought up by a minority. If we ignored that minority, we wouldn't have acts like GDPR and its offshoots. Nor recent enforcement on making it easy to unsubscribe. We may not even have physical consumer protections, like refund windows or false advertisement".
Your angle is "enshittification isn't illegal, peopel still buy it. Why complain?"
By deinition, complaints are always brought up by a minority. If we ignored that minority, we wouldn't have acts like GDPR and its offshoots. Nor recent enforcement on making it easy to unsubscribe. We may not even have physical consumer protections, like refund windows or false advertisement".
Give Pye Corner Audio, Craven Faults and Warrington Runcorn New Town Development Plan a go
See also Lustmord, Detritus, Rafael Anton Irisarri, Poppy Ackroyd, Moon Ate the Dark
Just because I know RAI has talked about the crappyness of Spotify for artists for a number of years, here’s a snippet from a 6 month old interview that’s relevant to the original conversation.
https://igloomag.com/profiles/five-questions-with-rafael-ant...
> In this day and age, it is incredibly challenging to start a label. Streaming has massively depleted the revenue potential for artists and labels, and even those with a good following are struggling. For those starting out, it’s an uphill battle to build an audience and be successful.
> Only a small percentage of songs make a decent amount of money with streaming, so recording budgets for independent artists are next to none. I remember when an album had the support of a team of people devoted to realizing the artist’s vision. Something magical happens when you get that collaboration of people working together to achieve the same goal. Nowadays the artist/producer does the recording, the mixing, and in some cases, even the mastering. Consequently, the production quality has declined drastically over the last decade, and it’s not helped by how most people consume music (illegally downloading it, YouTube lo-fi, or paid streaming subscriptions) but rather contributes to the decline.
> For those who remember the world before streaming took over, this is a very different one in which we now live. Music is no longer the product being marketed or sold, instead, it’s the listener’s data. The artist is a “brand” and they create “content.” We are in a time where we are constantly bombarded with “content” on social media and streaming platforms. Take the so-called “Spotify Ambient.” This sound has become watered down and generic, thanks partly to all the Muzak clearing houses creating material for most of the “sleep” and “stress relief” style of playlists.
> Whenever an actual artist shows up on those playlists, let’s say the great Otto A. Totland for example, you can immediately hear the difference between his music and Muzak. Otto writes music that conveys rich and nuanced emotions with many layers of meaning. His music wasn’t solely written for the sake of playlisting it. His music was written because it genuinely meant something special to the composer. Muzak clearing houses have been discussed ad nauseam in many industry exposés about “Spotify fake artist” trends with companies like Epidemic Sound and their catalog of ambient rip-offs.
> Some companies exist solely to create content for playlists. Think about that for a moment! Composer staff are paid to make royalty-free clones of well-established artists. The companies see which songs are performing well on Spotify-curated playlists, and the clearing house creates a similar-sounding song so Spotify can remove the original from their curated playlist without paying royalties. This practice exists in advertising, when agencies create music for an ad “inspired by” (i.e. ripping off) the music they don’t want to pay the licensing fee for. Somehow, this is legal. You end up with “artists” like Jonci (yes, that’s Jónsi with a “C”) who have millions of plays, sounding exactly like Sigur Rós, and you have zero information about the artist.
> Clearing houses can now easily create thousands of meaningless ambient-adjacent tracks to be put on playlists with the unsuspecting consumer having no idea. AI technology makes this all even easier. The lack of credits on streaming platforms is another massive problem, particularly for music workers like myself who depend on album credits/credentials to generate business and get gigs as engineers, producers, etc. The music is stripped of production, artwork, recording, mixing, and mastering credits. I could go on, but the point is that there are many challenges for artists, labels, mastering engineers, and anyone making music now.
https://igloomag.com/profiles/five-questions-with-rafael-ant...
> In this day and age, it is incredibly challenging to start a label. Streaming has massively depleted the revenue potential for artists and labels, and even those with a good following are struggling. For those starting out, it’s an uphill battle to build an audience and be successful.
> Only a small percentage of songs make a decent amount of money with streaming, so recording budgets for independent artists are next to none. I remember when an album had the support of a team of people devoted to realizing the artist’s vision. Something magical happens when you get that collaboration of people working together to achieve the same goal. Nowadays the artist/producer does the recording, the mixing, and in some cases, even the mastering. Consequently, the production quality has declined drastically over the last decade, and it’s not helped by how most people consume music (illegally downloading it, YouTube lo-fi, or paid streaming subscriptions) but rather contributes to the decline.
> For those who remember the world before streaming took over, this is a very different one in which we now live. Music is no longer the product being marketed or sold, instead, it’s the listener’s data. The artist is a “brand” and they create “content.” We are in a time where we are constantly bombarded with “content” on social media and streaming platforms. Take the so-called “Spotify Ambient.” This sound has become watered down and generic, thanks partly to all the Muzak clearing houses creating material for most of the “sleep” and “stress relief” style of playlists.
> Whenever an actual artist shows up on those playlists, let’s say the great Otto A. Totland for example, you can immediately hear the difference between his music and Muzak. Otto writes music that conveys rich and nuanced emotions with many layers of meaning. His music wasn’t solely written for the sake of playlisting it. His music was written because it genuinely meant something special to the composer. Muzak clearing houses have been discussed ad nauseam in many industry exposés about “Spotify fake artist” trends with companies like Epidemic Sound and their catalog of ambient rip-offs.
> Some companies exist solely to create content for playlists. Think about that for a moment! Composer staff are paid to make royalty-free clones of well-established artists. The companies see which songs are performing well on Spotify-curated playlists, and the clearing house creates a similar-sounding song so Spotify can remove the original from their curated playlist without paying royalties. This practice exists in advertising, when agencies create music for an ad “inspired by” (i.e. ripping off) the music they don’t want to pay the licensing fee for. Somehow, this is legal. You end up with “artists” like Jonci (yes, that’s Jónsi with a “C”) who have millions of plays, sounding exactly like Sigur Rós, and you have zero information about the artist.
> Clearing houses can now easily create thousands of meaningless ambient-adjacent tracks to be put on playlists with the unsuspecting consumer having no idea. AI technology makes this all even easier. The lack of credits on streaming platforms is another massive problem, particularly for music workers like myself who depend on album credits/credentials to generate business and get gigs as engineers, producers, etc. The music is stripped of production, artwork, recording, mixing, and mastering credits. I could go on, but the point is that there are many challenges for artists, labels, mastering engineers, and anyone making music now.
Interesting.
Counter-intuitively, I think slop might have it's place in cultural development. There is always genre-death by exploitative cash-in slop and vomiting it out by machine might be an accelerant.
When you start getting that visceral deja-vu dilution ick from slop or just a scene getting derivative and samey, that's what prompts head-snapping invention of brand new sounds that seek clear-blue water between themselves and the slop.
Counter-intuitively, I think slop might have it's place in cultural development. There is always genre-death by exploitative cash-in slop and vomiting it out by machine might be an accelerant.
When you start getting that visceral deja-vu dilution ick from slop or just a scene getting derivative and samey, that's what prompts head-snapping invention of brand new sounds that seek clear-blue water between themselves and the slop.
>I'm not sure there is a problem if a proportion of the listeners don't recognize they are listening to slop. I do, however, think its a problem if Spotify is giving preferential treatment to slop, as is claimed in this post. I also would prefer a system that better supported musicians, while having the ease of use of Spotify.
This is not only a problem for Spotify, but for every platform on the internet that publishes content, particularly for social media. Most people don't actively discern whether something they observe is slop or not, and it's a huge problem concerning the autheticity of information and the consequences of it. This issue began with text content back in the 90's when internet spam boomed after Eternal September and the reachable market audience for it boomed, but has been slowly evolving until recently until the "passable" capability of artificial content generation has both increased exponentially and become finacially feasible for bad actors.
There have been reports of Spotify being gamed by gangs in Sweden (and iirc abroad) to monetize artificial engagement[0], which I found tied in very closely to some of the amateur research I've done regarding bots on Reddit. Before the public availability of LLMs and other generative AI, most content that was "monetizable" was mostly direct engagements (views, likes, followers, reposts, shotgunning ads, etc.); this resulted in bot farms all over the internet that focused on providing services that gave exactly these results. On Reddit specifically, many of the more sophisticated bot networks and manipulators would feature content that was scraped from other sources like Youtube, Twitter, Quora, and others (including Reddit itself) and simply consist of reposting content. Some of the more novel agents would use markov generators to get around bot detection tools (both first-party and third party), but they would often create nonsense content that was easily discernable as being such.
After generative AI took off toward the late end of covid, these bot farms and nefarious agents capitalized on generative AI instantly and heavily. This is particularly known as an issue on Facebook with the "like this image because this AI generater "person" lives in a gutter and has a birthday cake and is missing all their 7 limbs" pictures, but the text content they can produce is insidiously everywhere on sites like Reddit and Quora and Twitter. Some small subset of these agents are either poorly made or buggy and have exposed their prompts directly, which is rather embarrassing, but others are incredibly sophisticated and have been used in campapigns that reach far beyond just gaming outreach on platforms - many of these bot farms are also now being used for political disinformation and social engineering compaigns, and to great effect.
Witnessing the effects of these agents in such mundane places as a music playlist is a dismal annoyance, but learning that they are in fact being used to alter public opinion and policy on top of culture and the arts is disturbing. Many people have scorned large production studios such as A24 for their us of generative AI[1], but not being able to trust even assumedly-mundane content anywhere online is something that most people, and especially the the average consumer, is not prepared for. People who are genuinely interested in anything are going to soon recognize that there is a market for gatekeeping content, but they are not going to want to participate in it because the barrier for entry is going to be completely different from that of the classic internet that we have all generally come to accept and build upon.
[0]: https://www.stereogum.com/2235272/swedish-gangs-are-reported... [1]: https://petapixel.com/2024/04/23/a24-criticized-for-using-ai...
This is not only a problem for Spotify, but for every platform on the internet that publishes content, particularly for social media. Most people don't actively discern whether something they observe is slop or not, and it's a huge problem concerning the autheticity of information and the consequences of it. This issue began with text content back in the 90's when internet spam boomed after Eternal September and the reachable market audience for it boomed, but has been slowly evolving until recently until the "passable" capability of artificial content generation has both increased exponentially and become finacially feasible for bad actors.
There have been reports of Spotify being gamed by gangs in Sweden (and iirc abroad) to monetize artificial engagement[0], which I found tied in very closely to some of the amateur research I've done regarding bots on Reddit. Before the public availability of LLMs and other generative AI, most content that was "monetizable" was mostly direct engagements (views, likes, followers, reposts, shotgunning ads, etc.); this resulted in bot farms all over the internet that focused on providing services that gave exactly these results. On Reddit specifically, many of the more sophisticated bot networks and manipulators would feature content that was scraped from other sources like Youtube, Twitter, Quora, and others (including Reddit itself) and simply consist of reposting content. Some of the more novel agents would use markov generators to get around bot detection tools (both first-party and third party), but they would often create nonsense content that was easily discernable as being such.
After generative AI took off toward the late end of covid, these bot farms and nefarious agents capitalized on generative AI instantly and heavily. This is particularly known as an issue on Facebook with the "like this image because this AI generater "person" lives in a gutter and has a birthday cake and is missing all their 7 limbs" pictures, but the text content they can produce is insidiously everywhere on sites like Reddit and Quora and Twitter. Some small subset of these agents are either poorly made or buggy and have exposed their prompts directly, which is rather embarrassing, but others are incredibly sophisticated and have been used in campapigns that reach far beyond just gaming outreach on platforms - many of these bot farms are also now being used for political disinformation and social engineering compaigns, and to great effect.
Witnessing the effects of these agents in such mundane places as a music playlist is a dismal annoyance, but learning that they are in fact being used to alter public opinion and policy on top of culture and the arts is disturbing. Many people have scorned large production studios such as A24 for their us of generative AI[1], but not being able to trust even assumedly-mundane content anywhere online is something that most people, and especially the the average consumer, is not prepared for. People who are genuinely interested in anything are going to soon recognize that there is a market for gatekeeping content, but they are not going to want to participate in it because the barrier for entry is going to be completely different from that of the classic internet that we have all generally come to accept and build upon.
[0]: https://www.stereogum.com/2235272/swedish-gangs-are-reported... [1]: https://petapixel.com/2024/04/23/a24-criticized-for-using-ai...
I don’t get the problem here. You can listen to whatever you want on Spotify. I listen to it everyday, already knowing what I want to listen to, and never encountered this. However, it sounds like they are paying real musicians to create music directly for Spotify, to bypass record labels. That sounds like a good thing all around- record labels don’t seem to do anything useful.
The problem is:
Step 1: create a music service and get on-board as many musicians as possible with attractive rates and the promise of a future with big audiences and less intermediaries
Step 2: the business grows because you have many famous/good artists in your catalogue
Step 3: Congrats, you are now the #1 musical service in the world! Many people associate "music streaming" with your brand. You get a lot of "musical normies" as customers in the process.
Step 4: start lowering royalties you give to musicians. They will stay anyway because you are the #1 brand and bring listeners
Step 5: add your own music to places where normies just listen to music, without caring who the hell the author is. So, you have to pay less revenue to the rest of artists, because they are now getting less listenings, even if the royalty per listening stays exactly the same.
Step 1: create a music service and get on-board as many musicians as possible with attractive rates and the promise of a future with big audiences and less intermediaries
Step 2: the business grows because you have many famous/good artists in your catalogue
Step 3: Congrats, you are now the #1 musical service in the world! Many people associate "music streaming" with your brand. You get a lot of "musical normies" as customers in the process.
Step 4: start lowering royalties you give to musicians. They will stay anyway because you are the #1 brand and bring listeners
Step 5: add your own music to places where normies just listen to music, without caring who the hell the author is. So, you have to pay less revenue to the rest of artists, because they are now getting less listenings, even if the royalty per listening stays exactly the same.
I get that is what they are doing, I still don’t see the problem. Hopefully they will gradually cut out the record labels entirely, and pay the artists the full cut directly that is currently going mostly to the record label.
People can listen to whatever they want- artists that are not being listened to aren’t being stolen from if the money is instead going to other artists that are being listened to. If people don’t care who the artist is but like what they hear, that seems great.
People can listen to whatever they want- artists that are not being listened to aren’t being stolen from if the money is instead going to other artists that are being listened to. If people don’t care who the artist is but like what they hear, that seems great.
The problem is that their automatic song selection now chooses songs based on what earns them money. Rather than their best guess of what people want to hear. This isn't disintermediating the record labels. It's taking audiences from real artists, and placing it with artists that have given up their rights to royalties.
That isn't disintermediating recordlabels. That is just serving customers worse music. Heck, it is disintermediating artists from their audience.
That isn't disintermediating recordlabels. That is just serving customers worse music. Heck, it is disintermediating artists from their audience.
> That is just serving customers worse music.
There is no music monopoly and customers have a choice in which music they listen to and what service they use (Spotify, Apple, Google/Youtube, Amazon, Bandcamp, buying CDs).
Surely if users get served worse music, they will dislike it, and move to another service or another way to listen to music.
There is no music monopoly and customers have a choice in which music they listen to and what service they use (Spotify, Apple, Google/Youtube, Amazon, Bandcamp, buying CDs).
Surely if users get served worse music, they will dislike it, and move to another service or another way to listen to music.
How big (and noticeable) does the reduction in quality need to be. Especially because spotify is such an easy platform.
Changing to another streaming service requires learning a new app, moving over all playlists, and likely means still a pretty bad music suggestion service. Because spotify has a pretty good recommendation engine.
Changing to another streaming service requires learning a new app, moving over all playlists, and likely means still a pretty bad music suggestion service. Because spotify has a pretty good recommendation engine.
> spotify is such an easy platform.
it's not for me. YT was. SoundCloud too. (Now SoundCloud also wants folks to sign in aggressively. I think you can't fast-forward otherwise, but at least listening works without signing in.)
Also ... you can upload to YT and SoundCloud, but not to Spotify. So their catalog is just meh. (So even if their recommendations are great in some genres, in general they are not for everyone.)
it's not for me. YT was. SoundCloud too. (Now SoundCloud also wants folks to sign in aggressively. I think you can't fast-forward otherwise, but at least listening works without signing in.)
Also ... you can upload to YT and SoundCloud, but not to Spotify. So their catalog is just meh. (So even if their recommendations are great in some genres, in general they are not for everyone.)
> There is no music monopoly
for now. Spotify is a market leader with 32%, though.
>if users get served worse music, they will dislike it
how many more twitters, facebooks, and youtubes do we need to show that this is not historically the case?
for now. Spotify is a market leader with 32%, though.
>if users get served worse music, they will dislike it
how many more twitters, facebooks, and youtubes do we need to show that this is not historically the case?
> Hopefully they will gradually cut out the record labels entirely, and pay the artists the full cut directly that is currently going mostly to the record label
Ok stop it. This is too much.
Ok stop it. This is too much.
>Hopefully they will gradually cut out the record labels entirely, and pay the artists the full cut directly that is currently going mostly to the record label.
nah, they will cut out the artist when they figure out how to AI generate this process. It's just begging to be automated.
> artists that are not being listened to aren’t being stolen from if the money is instead going to other artists that are being listened to
you see no conflict of interest with Spofity potentially paying specific "studios" to mass produce slop? The platform that has control over algoithms of what to listen to?
nah, they will cut out the artist when they figure out how to AI generate this process. It's just begging to be automated.
> artists that are not being listened to aren’t being stolen from if the money is instead going to other artists that are being listened to
you see no conflict of interest with Spofity potentially paying specific "studios" to mass produce slop? The platform that has control over algoithms of what to listen to?
The dominant platform might eventually cut out the labels and afterwards earn their margins.
That's why (I assume, I'm not in the music biz) labels stay relevant for now, because they act or sell themselves to artists as some kind of union to protect them from draconian streaming services. But I might be totally wrong on this.
That's why (I assume, I'm not in the music biz) labels stay relevant for now, because they act or sell themselves to artists as some kind of union to protect them from draconian streaming services. But I might be totally wrong on this.
Not too long ago music fans were pretty much all agreed the record labels were mostly rent seekers stealing from artists. It seems wild to me that people are now angry that music streaming services are disrupting that and paying artists directly based on actual listens.
>paying artists directly based on actual listens.
that's very likely not the case. hence the issue.
Even if it was, keep in mind these are focused in Sweden. This model may only get worse if an american "label" tries this.
that's very likely not the case. hence the issue.
Even if it was, keep in mind these are focused in Sweden. This model may only get worse if an american "label" tries this.
All labels are not the same.
Some really do function like unions: groups of artists sharing the functional/procedural/admin burden that comes with keeping their publishing as Saint Francis of Zappa advocated, or paying someone who cares (perhaps a small indie record shop owner) to do that for them as a side gig.
Some are little more than asset classes for private equity at this point.
Some really do function like unions: groups of artists sharing the functional/procedural/admin burden that comes with keeping their publishing as Saint Francis of Zappa advocated, or paying someone who cares (perhaps a small indie record shop owner) to do that for them as a side gig.
Some are little more than asset classes for private equity at this point.
> If people don’t care who the artist is but like what they hear, that seems great.
the confidence made in this statement is jarring
the confidence made in this statement is jarring
You've outlined the steps but not named the process outright : This is basically establishing a dominant platform and then abusing the dominant position that comes with it.
i just hate capitalism. couldn't you just stop a #3?
"these almost identical tracks were attributed to different artists and composers" doesn't sound like real musicians making real music to me.
And honestly I don't want anyone making cheaper music directly for spotify. I want an even playing field where everyone gets the same rates. (But preferably with a way to kick out spammers.)
And honestly I don't want anyone making cheaper music directly for spotify. I want an even playing field where everyone gets the same rates. (But preferably with a way to kick out spammers.)
> I want an even playing field where everyone gets the same rates.
The owners of Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift’s music are not going to agree to this deal.
The owners of Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift’s music are not going to agree to this deal.
>> I want an even playing field where everyone gets the same rates.
So no freedom for artists that want to market themselves with higher or lower rates? Should the Taylor Swifts of the world not be free to negotiate higher rates? Should not the upstart be able to accept a lower rate in hopes that doing so will get their music more recommended/played by the service?
So no freedom for artists that want to market themselves with higher or lower rates? Should the Taylor Swifts of the world not be free to negotiate higher rates? Should not the upstart be able to accept a lower rate in hopes that doing so will get their music more recommended/played by the service?
This is further complicated by how Spotify actually divvies up payments.
If they did it proportionally per subscriber you’d suddenly find money being distributed in a much fairer way.
Instead they divvy it up on a global aggregate basis so even if I were to pay the subscription and just listen to indie artists, my money goes towards pop megastars and artificial slop.
If they did it proportionally per subscriber you’d suddenly find money being distributed in a much fairer way.
Instead they divvy it up on a global aggregate basis so even if I were to pay the subscription and just listen to indie artists, my money goes towards pop megastars and artificial slop.
This is the actual problem, and something that should be properly regulated.
I would hope that the money I paid, after the Spotify cut, went to the artists/labels that own the music I actually listen to, proportionally.
The fact that it goes to some Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga annoys me more than Spotify adding their own slop to slop playlists.
I would hope that the money I paid, after the Spotify cut, went to the artists/labels that own the music I actually listen to, proportionally.
The fact that it goes to some Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga annoys me more than Spotify adding their own slop to slop playlists.
The proper regulation is copyright expiring after 10 years.
The original was 14+14. Given how life expectancy only increased, I fail to see anything lower passing in congress. Not that this is realistic to begin with.
Correct.
I don't see how that does anything but fuck over artists and allow corporations to exploit them even further.
“Artists” are not a monolith. For example, music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it. This reduces spend available for new artists.
Excessive copyright terms go from incentivizing creating art to incentivizing rent seeking. Society also spends a ton more resources litigating disputes and avoiding them.
Excessive copyright terms go from incentivizing creating art to incentivizing rent seeking. Society also spends a ton more resources litigating disputes and avoiding them.
This seems like an incredible naive way of thinking about how artists should be rewarded for their work.
> music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it
Music streaming services should spend their money on artists their customers are listening to, however old that music happens to be.
> music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it
Music streaming services should spend their money on artists their customers are listening to, however old that music happens to be.
> however old
Eh, I don't think there's a very convincing argument that the world is better off paying artists for things that were made more than 50 years ago.
(Yes I know the person above said 10, I think 10 is too aggressive.)
Eh, I don't think there's a very convincing argument that the world is better off paying artists for things that were made more than 50 years ago.
(Yes I know the person above said 10, I think 10 is too aggressive.)
Probably depends on whether or not they’re still alive after whatever arbitrary time period and some other factors, sure
For a radio-type service, I don't think anyone should be able to negotiate higher rates. I think there should be mandatory licensing.
For negotiating a lower rate... I wouldn't try to make it illegal, but I still don't like it. I have no particular reason to think it will be an upstart or an entity that you could say 'deserves' more attention. And taking less money for more exposure doesn't sound like something I want to encourage.
For negotiating a lower rate... I wouldn't try to make it illegal, but I still don't like it. I have no particular reason to think it will be an upstart or an entity that you could say 'deserves' more attention. And taking less money for more exposure doesn't sound like something I want to encourage.
What if I want to give it away for free? How does that fit in your authoritarian distribution system?
If you want to give your music away to people, that's great. This is just about the price to Spotify and services like it.
If you don't want the royalties from Spotify, you can do something like donate them to charity.
Giving Spotify a discount is something I'm not fond of, because you're either hoping they give you better placement which is basically payola, or you're getting nothing back so you're making a donation to a giant corporation.
If you don't want the royalties from Spotify, you can do something like donate them to charity.
Giving Spotify a discount is something I'm not fond of, because you're either hoping they give you better placement which is basically payola, or you're getting nothing back so you're making a donation to a giant corporation.
But there is no "discount". There is just two parties agreeing to a price point.
If a big majority are the same price, I don't care what you want to call other prices. My point doesn't depend on what word we use.
then you give it away for free. Where does spotify fit into this?
If this is a metaphor to "I want to work for free", then no. You technically can, but the company will get into trouble for allowing that. Same deal here. Personal projects on your own free time is different from a billion dollar company hiring interns "for exposure".
If this is a metaphor to "I want to work for free", then no. You technically can, but the company will get into trouble for allowing that. Same deal here. Personal projects on your own free time is different from a billion dollar company hiring interns "for exposure".
Wouldn't the Taylor Swifts of the world get more money at the same rate, due to being streamed more?
The unknown upstart's stuff is not being searched for and played. Is that not already the lower rate that they accept? Does the revenue also have to be lower from those few plays they got?
The unknown upstart's stuff is not being searched for and played. Is that not already the lower rate that they accept? Does the revenue also have to be lower from those few plays they got?
Theoretically, it does not have to be.
Practically, the big names are not going to accept less than the maximum they can get. Just like almost all people would if they were negotiating multiple equivalent job offers.
Practically, the big names are not going to accept less than the maximum they can get. Just like almost all people would if they were negotiating multiple equivalent job offers.
>no freedom for artists that want to market themselves with higher or lower rates?
like how it currently is if you're not some 7+ figure earner? Sure, why not? There was no marketing to Spotify to begin with.
> Should the Taylor Swifts of the world not be free to negotiate higher rates?
Debtable, but given that Taylor swift gets millions times more listens than the average artist, I'm not going to pretend she's somehow being ripped off here. Those kinds of people do indeed have the power to jump to another platform, or make their own.
>Should not the upstart be able to accept a lower rate in hopes that doing so will get their music more recommended/played by the service?
to be frank, no. Just like how some deperate would-be employee should not be able to accept below minimum wage to "kickstart their career". We made these laws precisely because "work for exposure" has failed spectacularly and only hurts the working class.
like how it currently is if you're not some 7+ figure earner? Sure, why not? There was no marketing to Spotify to begin with.
> Should the Taylor Swifts of the world not be free to negotiate higher rates?
Debtable, but given that Taylor swift gets millions times more listens than the average artist, I'm not going to pretend she's somehow being ripped off here. Those kinds of people do indeed have the power to jump to another platform, or make their own.
>Should not the upstart be able to accept a lower rate in hopes that doing so will get their music more recommended/played by the service?
to be frank, no. Just like how some deperate would-be employee should not be able to accept below minimum wage to "kickstart their career". We made these laws precisely because "work for exposure" has failed spectacularly and only hurts the working class.
If I have a playlist and I get Spotify to add to it, I expect it to add things that people who like the things that I like also like. I do not expect it to add whatever is most profitable for Spotify. Especially since I pay for the service.
How bad this is depends on the time-horizon over which they are trying to maximize profit.
If the time-horizon is the next listen, it's terrible, as it doesn't care if it revolts the user so badly that they leave the platform immediately. This is bad for the platform, too, so they won't do it for long.
If it's very long term, then it's not as bad because it takes into account users listening more often and over a longer period of time. One way of getting additional longer term listens is including signals like tastes of similar users and other things many of us music-lovers would consider "good". And the profit part means including signals like cost-per-stream of each song. A very long time-horizon requires finding good tradeoffs between all these signals.
My guess is the time-horizon is monthly to quarterly. This is because of market pressures (public markets demand quarterly results) and the practicality of measuring the results. You can't measure/improve infinite time-horizon optimization.
This will still have the effect of selecting for users that aren't as sensitive to what they are hearing. They will not leave as quickly. These are the users the platform wants, as these users afford the platform more leeway in shifting the tradeoff from quality signals to cost-per-stream. Eventually, this will push out many of us music-lovers and the artists we love. Once this reaches a tipping point, there will be room in the market for another service to cater to music-lovers. But, given market pressures, they will almost certainly walk the same path as Spotify in the long term.
For me, the implication is to own my own music. I always have and always will. I only use streaming platforms for discovery. But as soon as I decide I like something enough, I buy it. I almost always buy albums, not individual songs. That lets me see if I want to follow that artist more deeply. This is expensive and time-consuming relative to streaming. It's dirt cheap relative to what I get out of music.
If the time-horizon is the next listen, it's terrible, as it doesn't care if it revolts the user so badly that they leave the platform immediately. This is bad for the platform, too, so they won't do it for long.
If it's very long term, then it's not as bad because it takes into account users listening more often and over a longer period of time. One way of getting additional longer term listens is including signals like tastes of similar users and other things many of us music-lovers would consider "good". And the profit part means including signals like cost-per-stream of each song. A very long time-horizon requires finding good tradeoffs between all these signals.
My guess is the time-horizon is monthly to quarterly. This is because of market pressures (public markets demand quarterly results) and the practicality of measuring the results. You can't measure/improve infinite time-horizon optimization.
This will still have the effect of selecting for users that aren't as sensitive to what they are hearing. They will not leave as quickly. These are the users the platform wants, as these users afford the platform more leeway in shifting the tradeoff from quality signals to cost-per-stream. Eventually, this will push out many of us music-lovers and the artists we love. Once this reaches a tipping point, there will be room in the market for another service to cater to music-lovers. But, given market pressures, they will almost certainly walk the same path as Spotify in the long term.
For me, the implication is to own my own music. I always have and always will. I only use streaming platforms for discovery. But as soon as I decide I like something enough, I buy it. I almost always buy albums, not individual songs. That lets me see if I want to follow that artist more deeply. This is expensive and time-consuming relative to streaming. It's dirt cheap relative to what I get out of music.
I have a few playlists on Spotify. I never had it add any track to it. Been using it for years.
Does it actually happen?
Does it actually happen?
You can enable it. Either through 'smart shuffle' or by looking at the suggested added songs.
There is also 'song radio', discover weekly, and automated playlist based on mood or Genre.
I presume those playlists based on mood and Genre is what these songs have been added to.
I presume those playlists based on mood and Genre is what these songs have been added to.
If they are paying musicians to create what is essentially “filler” and using this filler to lower their per song streaming costs, they’re simultaneously denying real artists, producing real music, an opportunity to appear in the stream. For listeners that care, this represents a reduction in the quality of their content, and aligns the platform towards pure profit, as opposed to being an ecosystem where working artists can try and carve out a living.
That only works if people, actual users, actively choose to listen to filler.
If they do, what is the issue?
If they do, what is the issue?
If the supermarket slowly adds more fat to their products, people will probably continue eating without noticing. But calling that an active decision is quite a reach.
Similarly, this isn't an active choice of users. And the harm isn't that they are listening to filler, it's that during their random listening, they aren't coming across any new good music. They are prevented from widening their horizons.
They aren't actively choosing this. Spotify deceives them into thinking this is music chosen because it is likely the users will like this music.
Similarly, this isn't an active choice of users. And the harm isn't that they are listening to filler, it's that during their random listening, they aren't coming across any new good music. They are prevented from widening their horizons.
They aren't actively choosing this. Spotify deceives them into thinking this is music chosen because it is likely the users will like this music.
> If the supermarket slowly adds more fat to their products, people will probably continue eating without noticing. But calling that an active decision is quite a reach.
What I buy in the supermarket is very much an active decision. I pay a premium on the bottles of milk because the ones I pick taste better than the supermarket branded ones. I do buy some things that are supermarket branded when I perceive the quality to be similar (or sometimes even better).
This might be different from consumers that due to budget limitations have to buy the cheapest things available, which is why food regulations are very important.
> And the harm isn't that they are listening to filler, it's that during their random listening, they aren't coming across any new good music. They are prevented from widening their horizons.
I presume that people that are actively listening to filler are not appreciating music in their cozy living room while sipping on a glass of fine whiskey.
They just want background noise while they drive, work, study. Something to make their hours more tolerable, or to improve their focus. Apparently the issue is that generic slop from Spotify serves that purpose just as well.
> They aren't actively choosing this.
If the music was bad for them, they would stop listening to it. They don't.
What I buy in the supermarket is very much an active decision. I pay a premium on the bottles of milk because the ones I pick taste better than the supermarket branded ones. I do buy some things that are supermarket branded when I perceive the quality to be similar (or sometimes even better).
This might be different from consumers that due to budget limitations have to buy the cheapest things available, which is why food regulations are very important.
> And the harm isn't that they are listening to filler, it's that during their random listening, they aren't coming across any new good music. They are prevented from widening their horizons.
I presume that people that are actively listening to filler are not appreciating music in their cozy living room while sipping on a glass of fine whiskey.
They just want background noise while they drive, work, study. Something to make their hours more tolerable, or to improve their focus. Apparently the issue is that generic slop from Spotify serves that purpose just as well.
> They aren't actively choosing this.
If the music was bad for them, they would stop listening to it. They don't.
> I presume that people that are actively listening to filler are not appreciating music in their cozy living room while sipping on a glass of fine whiskey.
That feels like a false dichotomy. Certainly for myself I can put on a generated playlist hoping to find new stuff I like, whilst still putting on the music as background. As filler.
If spotify has been serving me slop, then they have likely reduced the amount of new music I have added to my collection of things I like. That harms me, and it harms real artists whose music I might like.
In other words, I don't always actively choose the music I listen to. But serving me slop when I don't harms me.
That feels like a false dichotomy. Certainly for myself I can put on a generated playlist hoping to find new stuff I like, whilst still putting on the music as background. As filler.
If spotify has been serving me slop, then they have likely reduced the amount of new music I have added to my collection of things I like. That harms me, and it harms real artists whose music I might like.
In other words, I don't always actively choose the music I listen to. But serving me slop when I don't harms me.
If you are listening to bullshit playlists Spotify generated, you are the problem. You are actively consuming turds, and now you are complaining that eating feces is bad for your health.
Instead of blaming the company that provided the turds, you should perhaps reconsider your habit of eating feces.
Instead of blaming the company that provided the turds, you should perhaps reconsider your habit of eating feces.
Well measured and empathetic arguments.
The language may have been harsh, but the message is not.
Why do you willingly give a company such as Spotify power over what music you listen to? There are better ways to discover new music if that's what you are after.
Try finding communities of people with similar tastes, sometimes they share their own curated playlists.
Why do you willingly give a company such as Spotify power over what music you listen to? There are better ways to discover new music if that's what you are after.
Try finding communities of people with similar tastes, sometimes they share their own curated playlists.
I don't not care about music, but I don't want to put in effort. I can live my life without music, but I prefer having good music in my life.
Spotify suits my needs perfectly. Even if they do this fake music, it still works well enough. I doubt my half apathy is uncommon. The assumption of prevalence of this attitude is why this change by spotify is so damaging. It will harm my experience a little, and harms artists quite a bit.
Spotify suits my needs perfectly. Even if they do this fake music, it still works well enough. I doubt my half apathy is uncommon. The assumption of prevalence of this attitude is why this change by spotify is so damaging. It will harm my experience a little, and harms artists quite a bit.
Exactly- It seems pretentious to say it’s “filler” or not real music if people are happily listening to it, on a platform that provides any music you ask for.
Maybe my stance is derived from the fact that I consider many of what is extremely successful in anything to be shit anyway. Music, movies, vídeogames, you name it.
People are fine consuming shit, they always were. Why would I be surprised that they are fine consuming shit music that Spotify add to slop playlists with the purpose of increasing their own profits? This is just a logical consequence of how things always were.
People are fine consuming shit, they always were. Why would I be surprised that they are fine consuming shit music that Spotify add to slop playlists with the purpose of increasing their own profits? This is just a logical consequence of how things always were.
Exactly this. Musicians do not have a choice but to engage with Spotify, but any hope that the discovery systems it offers will occasionally playlist their work in return is being cynically -- and secretly -- diluted with slop.
Same here. I don't use Spotify as a radio (I have radio for that) but as a very big record collection. I listen to records or my own playlists. You can switch off the auto-play feature in the settings, so that Spotify stops after the record or playlist ends.
I learn about new music the old school way, opening and supporting acts at concerts and recommendations by friends. Sometimes I read a music magazine.
I learn about new music the old school way, opening and supporting acts at concerts and recommendations by friends. Sometimes I read a music magazine.
Maybe I am old, but I am surprised people use Spotify any other way.
I think I never even clicked on anything on the app front page. I only ever go to library or playlist tab.
I think I never even clicked on anything on the app front page. I only ever go to library or playlist tab.
If you never click on anything of a front page, that's a good tell that you are exactly not the average user.
If the average user is alright with consuming whatever Spotify puts on the app frontpage, I fail to see what the issue is.
They are being given what they are promised.
They are being given what they are promised.
This is also how I use it, but I am not even sure exactly how one would use it any other way. The whole UI is organized around “Your Library” which is a list of artists you like.
It's a problem if Spotify is giving preference to its lower cost slop over other artists. If Spotify is going to be a marketplace for music it has to be a fair one.
It’s a problem if the algorithms are bad and try to nudge you towards slop (path of least resistance).
But I don’t really get the part about “someone should tell Congress”—sir, this is an IKEA.
But I don’t really get the part about “someone should tell Congress”—sir, this is an IKEA.
I bet they're pushing towards "slop" because they don't want to pay that much to the record label parasites which have been extorting a lot of money out of them.
And I think that's the core of the "problem" here - one group of rentseekers being angry at another because they don't get enough of their cut.
And I think that's the core of the "problem" here - one group of rentseekers being angry at another because they don't get enough of their cut.
Sure. Both Spotify and the Music Industry are just trying to maximize their profits.
The term “slop” is deliberate—music that sounds bad. Now, if Spotify manages to make music that is better than the music that they can get from the Music Industry? Good for them. I’m a music listener. I just want good music.
The term “slop” is deliberate—music that sounds bad. Now, if Spotify manages to make music that is better than the music that they can get from the Music Industry? Good for them. I’m a music listener. I just want good music.
I'm not a Spotify user, but people are really wild about it. The process is deceptive as Spotify has tried to hide this and pretend they serve music from "real" artists. It's enshitification. It used to be better, now Spotify is trying to squeeze out as much profit as possible.
> now Spotify is trying to squeeze out as much profit as possible.
Not the worst idea for a business that has lost money every year for 20 years:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SPOT/spotify-techn...
Not the worst idea for a business that has lost money every year for 20 years:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SPOT/spotify-techn...
They should try to profit. People seem to take issue with deception. They should just label the spotify songs as what they are and stop trying to trick people. It's weird and abusive.
If you don’t actually respect the artist who is getting cloned and replaced by lazy/AI versions of their work without compensation, sure. No problem with this at all.
This enshittification of the streaming industry comes after decades of enshittification of radio (all clear channel owned in the U.S. now) and the total collapse of any revenue opportunities for making an album for a new artist.
It’s no wonder that the arts are dominated by nepo babies today. People who can treat creativity as an unpaid hobby, taking all risks with no consequences, and short cutting the path to popularity thanks to having family connections and wealth.
Taylor Swift had a rich daddy buy a record label for her. For everyone else, why bother?
This enshittification of the streaming industry comes after decades of enshittification of radio (all clear channel owned in the U.S. now) and the total collapse of any revenue opportunities for making an album for a new artist.
It’s no wonder that the arts are dominated by nepo babies today. People who can treat creativity as an unpaid hobby, taking all risks with no consequences, and short cutting the path to popularity thanks to having family connections and wealth.
Taylor Swift had a rich daddy buy a record label for her. For everyone else, why bother?
> Taylor Swift had a rich daddy buy a record label for her. For everyone else, why bother?
Taylor Swift (an insanely hard-working artist) started gigging when she was like 12 or 13, and her dad invested in (didn't buy) a startup record label, that built up a roster of artists and did very well on its own terms. (Despite being attached to Toby Keith)
Record labels, publishing companies etc., do not cost much money to start up, actually. His investment was likely small, and also likely comparable to the cost of seeing a child through a college education. Less, perhaps.
A quick google suggests he got 3% ownership for perhaps as little as $130K, which indeed is comparable to the total cost of getting a child through higher education in the USA.
And of course her parents were helping her: she was 13. Did her dad make a pretty smart decision to ensure some influence over the people responsible for his daughter? Of course he did. You would.
More generally: hang around your local (proper) music scene sometimes, and pay attention to which young starter bands have helicopter parents, and which do not. And then try to correlate that with success. Pushy helicopter parents are very often an active disadvantage, because promoters hate working with them. And they are inherently uncool. Even -- perhaps especially -- when they used to be cool.
Taylor Swift (an insanely hard-working artist) started gigging when she was like 12 or 13, and her dad invested in (didn't buy) a startup record label, that built up a roster of artists and did very well on its own terms. (Despite being attached to Toby Keith)
Record labels, publishing companies etc., do not cost much money to start up, actually. His investment was likely small, and also likely comparable to the cost of seeing a child through a college education. Less, perhaps.
A quick google suggests he got 3% ownership for perhaps as little as $130K, which indeed is comparable to the total cost of getting a child through higher education in the USA.
And of course her parents were helping her: she was 13. Did her dad make a pretty smart decision to ensure some influence over the people responsible for his daughter? Of course he did. You would.
More generally: hang around your local (proper) music scene sometimes, and pay attention to which young starter bands have helicopter parents, and which do not. And then try to correlate that with success. Pushy helicopter parents are very often an active disadvantage, because promoters hate working with them. And they are inherently uncool. Even -- perhaps especially -- when they used to be cool.
If an actual artist is being plagiarized, I would presume there are avenues for them to sue for that?
Is this actually happening, or is this just a baseless claim?
Is this actually happening, or is this just a baseless claim?
My main grief as as a very long Spotify customer, their app is still bad and doesn't progress. It has often problems when the [edit] phone is offline e.g.
and it doesn't work beyond songs - radio play, audiobooks especially in playlists are PITA.
Spotify has about 10,000 employees. Their software engineers make 6 figures. Their only actual product is, as far as I know, a music player.
Despite all this, I had an issue for a while where some of the play buttons didn't work. I would click the play button and nothing would happen. Other users posted about the same issue in the "Spotify Support/Complaint Megathread" on Reddit's r/spotify.
I don't know how to adequately describe how ridiculous it is that they managed to break their music player's play button, of all things.
Despite all this, I had an issue for a while where some of the play buttons didn't work. I would click the play button and nothing would happen. Other users posted about the same issue in the "Spotify Support/Complaint Megathread" on Reddit's r/spotify.
I don't know how to adequately describe how ridiculous it is that they managed to break their music player's play button, of all things.
How many of the 10,000 are developers though? For a company like Spotify, I'd assume they have a huge legal/business team just to deal with record label.
It’s just absolutely dreadful. Using it on desktop is a laggy mess. I mean this quite literally what do the 10,000 people do?
It wasn't always like this. When Spotify was launched the desktop app was one of the best pieces of software I'd ever used. It launched quickly and songs played without buffering which was unheard of at the time. It was the work of largely one developer, Ludvig Strigeus who was also the author of the original uTorrent client (which was also used to be fantastic). As a software developer I'm biased but I think this ultra smooth experience was a large contributor to Spotify's initial growth.
It was also a native application on macOS (OS X at that time). But then it was replaced with this Electron abomination which would have a runaway process any other day and consume all battery and would require 2 years to implement sorting in playlists.
I truly ask myself what their development team is doing.
I truly ask myself what their development team is doing.
Come up with features no one asked for to justify their salaries. Seems to be rather common in product-driven tech businesses.
I can only imagine how many soul-searching meetings it took to decide to change the heart to the plus sign for liking songs.
Spam me with pop ups tell me what I should be listening too.
Jazz, apparently.
> I don't know how to adequately describe how ridiculous it is that
This is nothing else than enshittification: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41277484
This is nothing else than enshittification: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41277484
(Note for nongermans: Handy means phone in German, I think specifically smartphone but not sure. Edit: the word was edited out)
For me, I just use Spotify for music and that's what used to have real struggles with offlineness. Kept updating the app until a version worked properly and now I've stopped. I'm on 8.8.96 (installed December 16th 2023, going by apk file modified time) whereas 9.0.2 is the latest
No problems with this version, so I like the app currently. Let's see how long the servers work with this version. The only downside I've experienced so far is that the yearly overview requires updating every year again
For me, I just use Spotify for music and that's what used to have real struggles with offlineness. Kept updating the app until a version worked properly and now I've stopped. I'm on 8.8.96 (installed December 16th 2023, going by apk file modified time) whereas 9.0.2 is the latest
No problems with this version, so I like the app currently. Let's see how long the servers work with this version. The only downside I've experienced so far is that the yearly overview requires updating every year again
LOL sorry yes, too early + sick ;-)
That aside, it feels to me the same, some versions work, some don't.
That aside, it feels to me the same, some versions work, some don't.
Why not stick with the version that works? I don't think I've seen this approach before but I do it for any app that doesn't seem like a security problem when out of date
"that doesn't seem like a security problem when out of date"
When spotify has access to your filesystem and the spotify app would get hacked and owned by another party due to an unfixed security hole, your filesystem still would get owned. (or are all android apps really sandboxed nowdays? I doubt it)
When spotify has access to your filesystem and the spotify app would get hacked and owned by another party due to an unfixed security hole, your filesystem still would get owned. (or are all android apps really sandboxed nowdays? I doubt it)
They don't have filesystem access, see the permissions overview in the OS settings for the app
But also how would the client be vulnerable in a way that leads to a compromise? Connecting to a domain that doesn't exist anymore? Even then it would need to download executable code, or exploit a bug that leads to it reading and uploading arbitrary files—if it had filesystem access in the first place. Working in the security industry, I never hear of people needing to update mobile apps for such a bug, it seems to be exceptionally rare. Most issues are server problems, direct object access (missing permission checks on invoice pdf downloads or so) or such
I do update things like SSH (yes, on my phone) because that actually exposes a port on the network, or email/messaging clients where anyone can send arbitrary content (how many times have we heard of image parsing bugs being exploited through a messaging system like SMS or WhatsApp?); that's not really the case for Spotify. There's attack vectors like the URIs that the app can handle, but it's not wormable in the same way because it requires user interaction and so won't go viral. It would be a specific attack and there's easier ways to target me
> (or are all android apps really sandboxed nowdays? I doubt it)
You might want to read up on this. They've always been isolated.
But also how would the client be vulnerable in a way that leads to a compromise? Connecting to a domain that doesn't exist anymore? Even then it would need to download executable code, or exploit a bug that leads to it reading and uploading arbitrary files—if it had filesystem access in the first place. Working in the security industry, I never hear of people needing to update mobile apps for such a bug, it seems to be exceptionally rare. Most issues are server problems, direct object access (missing permission checks on invoice pdf downloads or so) or such
I do update things like SSH (yes, on my phone) because that actually exposes a port on the network, or email/messaging clients where anyone can send arbitrary content (how many times have we heard of image parsing bugs being exploited through a messaging system like SMS or WhatsApp?); that's not really the case for Spotify. There's attack vectors like the URIs that the app can handle, but it's not wormable in the same way because it requires user interaction and so won't go viral. It would be a specific attack and there's easier ways to target me
> (or are all android apps really sandboxed nowdays? I doubt it)
You might want to read up on this. They've always been isolated.
> don't think I've seen this approach before but I do it for any app that doesn't seem like a security problem when out of date
Besides security:
There are apps that don't like you lagging behind with updating, like whatsapp and epocrates. Since whatsapp needs internet, there is no way around it. Old versions of Epocrates could be isolated from internet for the offline content, but they fixed that this year, and you can't download the databases with an older version.
Besides security:
There are apps that don't like you lagging behind with updating, like whatsapp and epocrates. Since whatsapp needs internet, there is no way around it. Old versions of Epocrates could be isolated from internet for the offline content, but they fixed that this year, and you can't download the databases with an older version.
Ah sure, but in the example given (Spotify), it sounds like they're updating but then not liking the new version a lot of the time so I was curious why update then
There are a lot of people here who don't seem to have a problem with the bait and switch business Spotify is doing here.
As a former (paid) composer, I know how, pardon my words, the music industry is utterly fucked up today.
That said we shouldn't just be cool with what Spotify is doing. Let me put it this way, what is happening is similar to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Personally I don't think much of Spotify today, and hope that we go back to buying music on medias and owning the music purchases. That is the key, to bringing back some sense to the Music (and Game btw) industry.
As a former (paid) composer, I know how, pardon my words, the music industry is utterly fucked up today.
That said we shouldn't just be cool with what Spotify is doing. Let me put it this way, what is happening is similar to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Personally I don't think much of Spotify today, and hope that we go back to buying music on medias and owning the music purchases. That is the key, to bringing back some sense to the Music (and Game btw) industry.
This is obvious rent-seeking behavior, along with probable false advertising. I’m not sure people are fine with it.
> Our single best hope is a cooperative streaming platform owned by labels and musicians.
There’s a coop Bandcamp alternative being built right now: https://subvert.fm/
Hopefully
There’s a coop Bandcamp alternative being built right now: https://subvert.fm/
Hopefully
[deleted]
Is Bandcamp evil now then?
They were bought by Epic Games and then Songtradr. There were layoffs, and the company is not recognizing the union of the employees.
It hasn’t changed yet, it’s still good, but it’s scary for the future.
It hasn’t changed yet, it’s still good, but it’s scary for the future.
The ugly truth is that most people (I dare to say 99%+) don't care much about music. They just need to listen to something while doing their jobs.
Well, it's not a secret, no? I mean, if you use Spotify with big holes in non-mainstream music and only the latest butchering known as "remaster" of your favourite albums, you definitely don't care much about music.
Which is why you'll never see me get off the comfy "local only" train, buying CDs and sailing the high seas with my skull & crossbones flag if needed.
Which is why you'll never see me get off the comfy "local only" train, buying CDs and sailing the high seas with my skull & crossbones flag if needed.
how people know when a remaster is good or bad?
With their ears. Though the most egregious examples are simply brickwalled when the original master wasn't, so it's easy to "see".
Broadcast Radios (FM and AM) did a much better job. Their music was real and each station was more or less an algorithm.
There were ads, but as you mention, people don't seem to care much.
The quality check was the non personalized streams cathered to please its audience and competition among stations. So, the solution is to kill targeted algorithms and monopolies, ha.
There were ads, but as you mention, people don't seem to care much.
The quality check was the non personalized streams cathered to please its audience and competition among stations. So, the solution is to kill targeted algorithms and monopolies, ha.
I dislike ads even more than slop. Ads drove me to change stations to music I didn't care for and listen to the same CDs more times than I would have otherwise. Ads made broadcast radio unplayable as interaction-free background music.
I’m not defending Spotify nor do I like the company but I have two problems with this article’s rhetoric:
1) the word payola isn’t technically correct to describe Spotify “optimizing” its cost of goods sold by replacing with mass produced, farmed content. It’s more similar to Amazon Basics category of goods.
So payola is not the right term, since no one’s paying them to promote some music on the platform. Actually there’s real payola and that’s from companies like Universal music promoting drake etc
2) calling the Spotify owned content “slop” is kinda unfair to the creators. Afaik it’s not AI generated and there is real musicians making money off of this (albeit little)
3) I’m almost positive that Spotify will just start using AI exclusively for creating this slop very soon
1) the word payola isn’t technically correct to describe Spotify “optimizing” its cost of goods sold by replacing with mass produced, farmed content. It’s more similar to Amazon Basics category of goods.
So payola is not the right term, since no one’s paying them to promote some music on the platform. Actually there’s real payola and that’s from companies like Universal music promoting drake etc
2) calling the Spotify owned content “slop” is kinda unfair to the creators. Afaik it’s not AI generated and there is real musicians making money off of this (albeit little)
3) I’m almost positive that Spotify will just start using AI exclusively for creating this slop very soon
To directly address point #2, this may be music played by real musicians, but it is produced in a way that systemically forces it to be slop. Consider these quotes from the Liz Pelly investigation cited where a musician who created some of this music described how the process went:
> As he described it, making new PFC starts with studying old PFC: it’s a feedback loop of playlist fodder imitated over and over again. A typical session starts with a production company sending along links to target playlists as reference points. His task is to then chart out new songs that could stream well on these playlists. “Honestly, for most of this stuff, I just write out charts while lying on my back on the couch,” he explained. “And then once we have a critical mass, they organize a session and we play them. And it’s usually just like, one take, one take, one take, one take. You knock out like fifteen in an hour or two.” With the jazz musician’s particular group, the session typically includes a pianist, a bassist, and a drummer. An engineer from the studio will be there, and usually someone from the PFC partner company will come along, too—acting as a producer, giving light feedback, at times inching the musicians in a more playlist-friendly direction. The most common feedback: play simpler. “That’s definitely the thing: nothing that could be even remotely challenging or offensive, really,” the musician told me. “The goal, for sure, is to be as milquetoast as possible.”
> As he described it, making new PFC starts with studying old PFC: it’s a feedback loop of playlist fodder imitated over and over again. A typical session starts with a production company sending along links to target playlists as reference points. His task is to then chart out new songs that could stream well on these playlists. “Honestly, for most of this stuff, I just write out charts while lying on my back on the couch,” he explained. “And then once we have a critical mass, they organize a session and we play them. And it’s usually just like, one take, one take, one take, one take. You knock out like fifteen in an hour or two.” With the jazz musician’s particular group, the session typically includes a pianist, a bassist, and a drummer. An engineer from the studio will be there, and usually someone from the PFC partner company will come along, too—acting as a producer, giving light feedback, at times inching the musicians in a more playlist-friendly direction. The most common feedback: play simpler. “That’s definitely the thing: nothing that could be even remotely challenging or offensive, really,” the musician told me. “The goal, for sure, is to be as milquetoast as possible.”
> calling the Spotify owned content “slop” is kinda unfair to the creators.
No artists are proud of having to create Muzak.
No artists are proud of having to create Muzak.
> Our single best hope is a cooperative streaming platform owned by labels and musicians.
Remember when the music labels themselves were the baddies?
Remember when the music labels themselves were the baddies?
> Remember when the music labels themselves were the baddies?
I remember when the biggest problem in music was how middlemen like labels had an oppressive role on music and didn't allowed artists to express themselves or even earn a buck from their work.
As far as I know, that didn't changed.
I remember when the biggest problem in music was how middlemen like labels had an oppressive role on music and didn't allowed artists to express themselves or even earn a buck from their work.
As far as I know, that didn't changed.
Plenty of indie musicians nowadays that self-publish on platforms like Spotify and YouTube. That just wasn’t possible 30 years ago.
> Plenty of indie musicians nowadays that self-publish on platforms like Spotify and YouTube. That just wasn’t possible 30 years ago.
Precisely. What changed between then and now is that major labels no longer control distribution, and thus they no longer hold a oligopoly over what music we can consume. This is clearly something that benefits everyone, except the major labels.
This fact alone makes me very sceptical of this blend of blog posts. It clearly pushes to go back to a time where everyone was screwed over by the music industry.
Precisely. What changed between then and now is that major labels no longer control distribution, and thus they no longer hold a oligopoly over what music we can consume. This is clearly something that benefits everyone, except the major labels.
This fact alone makes me very sceptical of this blend of blog posts. It clearly pushes to go back to a time where everyone was screwed over by the music industry.
You can't self-publish on Spotify, you have to go through a distributor like DistroKid. Not sure how this works with YouTube Music though, I guess for actual music (sans video) you have to use a distributor as well.
Tencent Music own almost 10%, UMG and Sony own almost 5% together, there are vested interests here.
It's just like traditional publishers and any "gatekeeper" ever existing.
Creators hate them until they face the consumers directly. And then they'll realize what consumers want is actually slop, and the only entities keeping slops from being even slopper are the gatekeepers.
Creators hate them until they face the consumers directly. And then they'll realize what consumers want is actually slop, and the only entities keeping slops from being even slopper are the gatekeepers.
> At this point, I need to complain about the stupid major record labels who have empowered and supported Spotify during its long history. At some junctures, they have even been shareholders.
I’ve warned repeatedly that this is a huge mistake. Spotify is their adversary, not their partner. The longer they avoid admitting this to themselves, the worse things will get.
I think this confuses record labels with artists. I don't see labels having a problem with replacing their artists with AI, as long as they still get the royalties.
I’ve warned repeatedly that this is a huge mistake. Spotify is their adversary, not their partner. The longer they avoid admitting this to themselves, the worse things will get.
I think this confuses record labels with artists. I don't see labels having a problem with replacing their artists with AI, as long as they still get the royalties.
You’d need labels at all then why?
Record labels, particularly indie ones are a great way to curate and discover particular music.
I’ve discovered a ton of great stuff I never would have otherwise come across by looking at what a record label I’m familiar with is releasing.
I’ve discovered a ton of great stuff I never would have otherwise come across by looking at what a record label I’m familiar with is releasing.
Because copyright lasts an obscenely long time so record labels can continue to rent seek and grab a large share of spending on music for work performed many decades ago.
This is not replacing artists with ai which is what is being discussed.
Spotify replaced artists with ai, they have no need to pay labels to do it.
Spotify replaced artists with ai, they have no need to pay labels to do it.
People like to listen to the music of their youth, record labels would still be needed for many decades to come to provide a comprehensive streaming catalog.
Any service without the biggest music acts of ~1970 to 2020 isn’t going to go far.
Any service without the biggest music acts of ~1970 to 2020 isn’t going to go far.
I forced myself to use YouTube Music 7 years ago and haven’t switched back (included with YouTube premium), also improved a lot the latest years
YouTube wants you to pay for rubbish quality uploads by their users. You want to listen to an album and put on the playlist, track 3 was a single so you get a mono recording of the rock video complete with theatrical dialog that makes no sense to listen to when you want to listen and not watch. Is that playlist actually the list for the album? Maybe not but even if it is, how many tracks are missing because of copyright claims or similar?
YouTube does nothing but rely on the crowd for quality and it’s rubbish.
But sure, I’m sympathetic when they ask me to pay for “premium” - I’m sure it’s a premium rate.
YouTube does nothing but rely on the crowd for quality and it’s rubbish.
But sure, I’m sympathetic when they ask me to pay for “premium” - I’m sure it’s a premium rate.
Nowadays YouTube Music has separate accounts for artists, the music is uploaded through the same mechanisms as to any other streaming platform (by big labels or digital distributors), it does not rely on users uploading videos with music.
and yet so often, right now, today, these rubbish upload and playlists missing files is what you get from youtube.
This probably depends on the label and artist, Spotify is also missing lots of stuff. Just wanted to clarify that YouTube Music is not monetizing on old user uploads. Yes, YouTube still has tons of uploads of varying quality by normal users, but it doesn't really make part of "YouTube Music", sometimes it's rare and obscure stuff like 80s cassette tapes or limited edition records that don't risk any copyright strikes, and I'm happy it's there.
[deleted]
I don't understand what YT Music is, but I listen to all my music for free on regular YT. Just download it, use an adblocker, or an alternative viewer. Any album I've ever sought is available usually in multiple versions.
(Sarcasm warning). Surely the music industry will be fine in the long term when everyone switches to Google, Apple, and Amazon.
YouTube pays artists much better than Spotify, but artists still look at Spotify success as music career success
Why? (sounds interesting as a very very long Spotify customer)
I did it because why pay for Spotify and for YouTube music if I was going to pay for YouTube premium anyways. The one thing it is missing is when you are at a party on Spotify can have a shared playlist where people can just add songs to it from their own phones. But YouTube can’t do that. It also won’t crossfade songs which Spotify does. But I don’t feel like I’m missing out because of those reasons.
What is YT premium and why would you pay money to use YT? It's the best free service that still exists if you have an adblocker. A lot of content has baked in ads now, but you can skip or just view something else.
I've learned what Youtube Premium is: "YouTube and YouTube Music ad-free, offline, and in the background"
For me, that's nothing as I can already view with no ads, and download whatever I want.
I've learned what Youtube Premium is: "YouTube and YouTube Music ad-free, offline, and in the background"
For me, that's nothing as I can already view with no ads, and download whatever I want.
>What is YT premium and why would you pay money to use YT?
To me, it's a matter of principle that evolved over the years. I grew suspicious of free services. So, I pay for what I use, at least, in the terms that the provider lays out. I pay for my domain, I pay for my email, and I pay for YouTube as well, as I use it heavily. I still think that the subscription cost absolutely doesn't compensate for my usage, there is just no way in hell. But I do really like the service, and so, I would like to contribute, so I like that I can have this subscription relationship with it. I also like to express my opinion with my wallet: "I don't like being sold to advertisers, I would rather pay directly". I think youtube is fair for offering this alternative, I wish more providers did.
To me, it's a matter of principle that evolved over the years. I grew suspicious of free services. So, I pay for what I use, at least, in the terms that the provider lays out. I pay for my domain, I pay for my email, and I pay for YouTube as well, as I use it heavily. I still think that the subscription cost absolutely doesn't compensate for my usage, there is just no way in hell. But I do really like the service, and so, I would like to contribute, so I like that I can have this subscription relationship with it. I also like to express my opinion with my wallet: "I don't like being sold to advertisers, I would rather pay directly". I think youtube is fair for offering this alternative, I wish more providers did.
You're paying the largest marketer in the world to consume content that's a large percentage ads. I agree with paying for things, but subscription model provide no ownership and limited value. I avoid all subscription services.
>You're paying the largest marketer in the world to consume content that's a large percentage ads.
Untrue. I pay the largest marketer in the world (debatable, but not the point) to consume content on-demand, of which some, negligible percentage is ads. And usually I don't care about those being ads either. For example, I enjoy Abroad in Japan, and he is sometimes sponsored, invited to present a Japanese restaurant or tourist place. I don't mind at all.
>I agree with paying for things, but subscription model provide no ownership and limited value.
I know exactly what I get, and I don't mind that at all. I desire no ownership over these videos. It's very rare that I re-watch them, and I am comfortable that if, for any reason, it all goes away in an instant, I can move on to other things, with not feeling that I have lost my money in it or anything.
I do understand that the value proposition doesn't work out for you personally, but since the original question was "why would you pay money to use YT", this is why. It's an excellent service for an excellent price.
Untrue. I pay the largest marketer in the world (debatable, but not the point) to consume content on-demand, of which some, negligible percentage is ads. And usually I don't care about those being ads either. For example, I enjoy Abroad in Japan, and he is sometimes sponsored, invited to present a Japanese restaurant or tourist place. I don't mind at all.
>I agree with paying for things, but subscription model provide no ownership and limited value.
I know exactly what I get, and I don't mind that at all. I desire no ownership over these videos. It's very rare that I re-watch them, and I am comfortable that if, for any reason, it all goes away in an instant, I can move on to other things, with not feeling that I have lost my money in it or anything.
I do understand that the value proposition doesn't work out for you personally, but since the original question was "why would you pay money to use YT", this is why. It's an excellent service for an excellent price.
My point is by voting for the subscription model by buying into it you're encouraging bad corporate behavior. Subscriptions are anticonsumer. Additionally, all that is available for free. I'm boggled.
I get your point, but I think the opposite of it.
For one, there is nothing wrong with a subscription model, in exchange for a service. How else is a continuous service supposed to be funded, if not continually? This is not encouraging bad behavior, it's a fair exchange. It's not anti-consumer at all. I don't see how it's different from my electricity bill, for example.
>all that is available for free.
The free opportunity does not mean that it's the best course of action automatically, same as how not every legal thing is moral or encouraged also. For example, computer games are also available to me for free, even legally, because in Hungary, I'm entitled to have my personal copy of an intellectual property, no matter how I got it. Going on with this, choosing to pirate all my games would be optimal, as it would require the least amount of resources from me. But then, I don't just want to maximize my own gains, I want to see a healthy gaming ecosystem, where the creators of the games are financially rewarded for their effort, so that they are enabled to create more or better games. So, I contribute to this ecosystem with my money. Even subscriptions, so to say, for example I always buy the "game pass" for my multiplayer game of choice, because while I bought the game also, they host the servers, do matchmaking and create in-game content continually - so I participate continually as well.
I kinda get the point that with these subscriptions, we don't get to own what we "buy". But I think that if one realizes this, and consciously goes into a transaction like this, then it is not a problem. In fact, I don't want to own many things, for example, the YouTube videos I watch I specifically don't want to own. What I enjoy is the access, and the experience, and I don't mind at all to pay for those.
For one, there is nothing wrong with a subscription model, in exchange for a service. How else is a continuous service supposed to be funded, if not continually? This is not encouraging bad behavior, it's a fair exchange. It's not anti-consumer at all. I don't see how it's different from my electricity bill, for example.
>all that is available for free.
The free opportunity does not mean that it's the best course of action automatically, same as how not every legal thing is moral or encouraged also. For example, computer games are also available to me for free, even legally, because in Hungary, I'm entitled to have my personal copy of an intellectual property, no matter how I got it. Going on with this, choosing to pirate all my games would be optimal, as it would require the least amount of resources from me. But then, I don't just want to maximize my own gains, I want to see a healthy gaming ecosystem, where the creators of the games are financially rewarded for their effort, so that they are enabled to create more or better games. So, I contribute to this ecosystem with my money. Even subscriptions, so to say, for example I always buy the "game pass" for my multiplayer game of choice, because while I bought the game also, they host the servers, do matchmaking and create in-game content continually - so I participate continually as well.
I kinda get the point that with these subscriptions, we don't get to own what we "buy". But I think that if one realizes this, and consciously goes into a transaction like this, then it is not a problem. In fact, I don't want to own many things, for example, the YouTube videos I watch I specifically don't want to own. What I enjoy is the access, and the experience, and I don't mind at all to pay for those.
Google doesn't need the money. I don't get it, but I'm sure I'm in the minority.
In a way yes you are, because people pay subscription to a lot of services, but in another way, not really. Every time YT premium comes up, there is a lot of people who exhibit defiance paying the giant, for one reason or another. And there are Vanced users, etc.
I too have a pet revenge peeve like this though, and for me, it's Microsoft. I'm using Windows for my multiplayer games, and I refuse to ever pay a cent for the piece of shit. Right now I'm activating it with my own activation emulator, for example.
I too have a pet revenge peeve like this though, and for me, it's Microsoft. I'm using Windows for my multiplayer games, and I refuse to ever pay a cent for the piece of shit. Right now I'm activating it with my own activation emulator, for example.
haha. nice :)
Content creators get more money per view from Premium Subscribers. Sure Google takes their cut, but content providers also need revenue streams. For me it’s similar to using Patreon. I don’t mind paying for things I get value from.
Not the person you asked but for me, it's because Youtube Music actually has the music I care about (fan edits of songs, compilations, mixes, etc). Then I also get to watch the videos when I want to or just listen to the music when on the move. These two, but especially the first, are the big reasons I use youtube music.
Lower price and just wanted to try. Forced myself to use it, started creating new playlists, listen to the radio created based on songs etc.
Now my YouTube Music is more used by the kids and the family than Spotify
Now my YouTube Music is more used by the kids and the family than Spotify
You get YouTube premium and YouTube music with one subscription. For me it’s a no brainer, I’ve had it for years
This seems analogous to a supermarket selling its own private label product. Should be disclosed though.
[deleted]
How is this any different than Walmart or Amazon having their own brands that are sold alongside name brands from other companies?
There are two concerns here.
First, that Spotify doesn't make clear when a track is produced by a Spotify "ghost artist".
And second, Spotify is in an unfair position as both the controller of the marketplace/platform, and as a participant on it. The allegation in this article is that Spotify are using their platform position to promote their own PFC program tracks over third party artists/labels.
To be clear, it's not necessarily consumers who are being harmed here. These tracks are supposedly targeted to cases where the consumer doesn't really care that much about the songs that are being played. Rather the party harmed are third party artists/labels who are competing for Spotify playlist space on an uneven playing field.
First, that Spotify doesn't make clear when a track is produced by a Spotify "ghost artist".
And second, Spotify is in an unfair position as both the controller of the marketplace/platform, and as a participant on it. The allegation in this article is that Spotify are using their platform position to promote their own PFC program tracks over third party artists/labels.
To be clear, it's not necessarily consumers who are being harmed here. These tracks are supposedly targeted to cases where the consumer doesn't really care that much about the songs that are being played. Rather the party harmed are third party artists/labels who are competing for Spotify playlist space on an uneven playing field.
> And second, Spotify is in an unfair position as both the controller of the marketplace/platform, and as a participant on it
GP asked how it was different from what Walmart or Amazon are doing, but what you describe is precisely the same as what Walmart and Amazon do. I go to my local Kroger and there are a bunch of Kroger brand knock offs of the “name brand” stuff, being promoted heavily. Kroger makes more money off that stuff because they don’t have to split the profits. Nobody’s complaining that this is unfair.
Your point #1 still stands though, and if the slop in question was clearly labeled as “spotify originals” or something and was something you could easily filter out, I’m sure far fewer people would have an issue with it. The issue is the deception, not that they are pushing their own slop on people.
GP asked how it was different from what Walmart or Amazon are doing, but what you describe is precisely the same as what Walmart and Amazon do. I go to my local Kroger and there are a bunch of Kroger brand knock offs of the “name brand” stuff, being promoted heavily. Kroger makes more money off that stuff because they don’t have to split the profits. Nobody’s complaining that this is unfair.
Your point #1 still stands though, and if the slop in question was clearly labeled as “spotify originals” or something and was something you could easily filter out, I’m sure far fewer people would have an issue with it. The issue is the deception, not that they are pushing their own slop on people.
Third: Spotify has been involved again and again in various outright criminal enterprises like money laundering. Organized crime is rising strongly in Sweden, we don't need Spotify to back them.
The consumer is harmed if they are given the impression that playlists contain tracks voted up by other listeners like themselves, when in fact they are voted up by Spotify. Not sure if this is the case but if so, it would be clearly misleading the users.
Literally Amazon marketplace.
You know they are Walmarts brands
They do have different prices, too. And the supermarkets try to nudge people to buy the higher priced variants for greater revenue.
The underlying problem that makes it tempting to promote cheap music is the flat rate.
The underlying problem that makes it tempting to promote cheap music is the flat rate.
Disclosure aside, would you say their own brand doesn't influence the original brand at all? It still hurts them
[deleted]
The TLDR is that Spotify is flooding it's platform and padding playlists with cheap and generic music. They've went full "buffet" strategy, serving lots of fries so you stay away from the meats.
I think calling this payola, as the article insinuates,is wrong.
I was always more interested in finding artists than I was in finding songs. I've noticed Spotify recommendations being worse and worse, and I can happily say I've left the platform half a year ago. Didn't regret it a single bit.
I think calling this payola, as the article insinuates,is wrong.
I was always more interested in finding artists than I was in finding songs. I've noticed Spotify recommendations being worse and worse, and I can happily say I've left the platform half a year ago. Didn't regret it a single bit.
I don't think it says generated, but music made by people (presumably simply paid a fair wage by the hour or so) who don't then get royalties but it can just be played infinitely many times at no cost to Spotify besides bandwidth
I left when they gave Bro Rogaine hundreds of millions of dollars to promote harmful conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.
Between Bandcamp, Tidal and YouTube (latter are more likely to face these same issues), I've never looked back. The odd exception is when a friend wants to share a song but I can usually find it elsewhere.
For anyone considering leaving Spotify for Tidal but fearful of losing their followed artists, playlists, etc., there are a number of (paid) services which will programmatically export and link your data. They're not perfect but I think my success rate was 80%.
Between Bandcamp, Tidal and YouTube (latter are more likely to face these same issues), I've never looked back. The odd exception is when a friend wants to share a song but I can usually find it elsewhere.
For anyone considering leaving Spotify for Tidal but fearful of losing their followed artists, playlists, etc., there are a number of (paid) services which will programmatically export and link your data. They're not perfect but I think my success rate was 80%.
Yes, this totally tracks with what I know about Spotify. I am in touch with numerous employees of Spotify and they all said that the biggest threat to Spotify are the music publishers who have them by the balls. I think they have now realized that the only way to make it into a successful business is to deploy AI generated music or at least music in which they are not paying extremely large royalties.
Doesn't seem any different to me than when Netflix started making original content, or as others have said, Target having their own in-house brands that they stock alongside everything else. It's just good business sense. If the product is bad, people will stop using Spotify, and Spotify will stop doing it.
I'm not sure why discourse around this seems to be coming from the perspective that people have no choice but to use Spotify and that Spotify will secretly replace all the good music with bad music and no one will be able to do anything about it, all musicians will be out of work, all will be lost. Spotify is just one music service, and we don't even need to use a music service to enjoy the music we like. If Spotify destroys itself with slop music, what's the sinister plot, the "ugly truth", really?
If Spotify does this, and a majority of people do not care, do not notice, and keep using Spotify until label-owned music is totally irrelevant, I think it would be more interesting if the musicians who are put out of work by this consider why their high quality music lost out to such mass produced "garbage"...
I'm not sure why discourse around this seems to be coming from the perspective that people have no choice but to use Spotify and that Spotify will secretly replace all the good music with bad music and no one will be able to do anything about it, all musicians will be out of work, all will be lost. Spotify is just one music service, and we don't even need to use a music service to enjoy the music we like. If Spotify destroys itself with slop music, what's the sinister plot, the "ugly truth", really?
If Spotify does this, and a majority of people do not care, do not notice, and keep using Spotify until label-owned music is totally irrelevant, I think it would be more interesting if the musicians who are put out of work by this consider why their high quality music lost out to such mass produced "garbage"...
> Doesn't seem any different to me than when Netflix started making original content, or as others have said, Target having their own in-house brands that they stock alongside everything else. It's just good business sense. If the product is bad, people will stop using Spotify, and Spotify will stop doing it.
And yet it is different, because of the production scale involved. Own brands are actually hard work, especially own brand food, which has to be reverse-engineered at some expense. Own brand food provides price discrimination and usually does not particularly impact the sales of the headline brands.
Netflix’s own content, presumably, pays a large number of creative people’s wages and is of a quality. It is often scratching a creative itch that major studios won’t risk.
Music and music tech, on the other hand, is such that if your audience doesn’t care, it’s quite easy to churn out songs —- one person who particularly hated human culture could write half a dozen fully produced songs in a day.
> If Spotify does this, and a majority of people do not care, do not notice, and keep using Spotify until label-owned music is totally irrelevant, I think it would be more interesting if the musicians who are put out of work by this consider why their high quality music lost out to such mass produced "garbage"...
I do wish this particularly nihilistic new form of argument was considered to be toxic itself.
But to answer the point: many outstanding, culturally significant musicians have small fan bases for their personal work. They know they do. That is in the nature of diverse culture. They rely on complex chains of discovery systems —- word of mouth, eclectic radio, old style auteur playlists, live gigs, to find their people, and they often support that by writing songs for major musicians who love their work and who want to do one song they wrote.
It is not their failure at all if the system that is supposed to deliver some of that discovery starts cynically acting against them. While every musician wants a hit and many will dedicate at least some time in their lives to exploring what is necessary to write a hig record, “You should have had more mass market appeal” is not universal creative guidance.
It is not that listeners have no choice in music services. Musicians have no choice but to engage with Spotify. If it is secretly working against all musicians simultaneously at the most basic level —- drowning them out with slop that is deliberately inserted into playlists to water down everyone’s incomes —- then how is it you are more interested in the way musicians are somehow failing, when nothing they do can stop it?
Honestly I am terrified for culture that so many people in the tech world seem to be so aggressively jealous of creativity that they are taking the "anti-anti-slop" stance (to borrow a phrase from politics used for the "yeah well all this criticism validates the choice I am not in any way saying I am making" argument).
And yet it is different, because of the production scale involved. Own brands are actually hard work, especially own brand food, which has to be reverse-engineered at some expense. Own brand food provides price discrimination and usually does not particularly impact the sales of the headline brands.
Netflix’s own content, presumably, pays a large number of creative people’s wages and is of a quality. It is often scratching a creative itch that major studios won’t risk.
Music and music tech, on the other hand, is such that if your audience doesn’t care, it’s quite easy to churn out songs —- one person who particularly hated human culture could write half a dozen fully produced songs in a day.
> If Spotify does this, and a majority of people do not care, do not notice, and keep using Spotify until label-owned music is totally irrelevant, I think it would be more interesting if the musicians who are put out of work by this consider why their high quality music lost out to such mass produced "garbage"...
I do wish this particularly nihilistic new form of argument was considered to be toxic itself.
But to answer the point: many outstanding, culturally significant musicians have small fan bases for their personal work. They know they do. That is in the nature of diverse culture. They rely on complex chains of discovery systems —- word of mouth, eclectic radio, old style auteur playlists, live gigs, to find their people, and they often support that by writing songs for major musicians who love their work and who want to do one song they wrote.
It is not their failure at all if the system that is supposed to deliver some of that discovery starts cynically acting against them. While every musician wants a hit and many will dedicate at least some time in their lives to exploring what is necessary to write a hig record, “You should have had more mass market appeal” is not universal creative guidance.
It is not that listeners have no choice in music services. Musicians have no choice but to engage with Spotify. If it is secretly working against all musicians simultaneously at the most basic level —- drowning them out with slop that is deliberately inserted into playlists to water down everyone’s incomes —- then how is it you are more interested in the way musicians are somehow failing, when nothing they do can stop it?
Honestly I am terrified for culture that so many people in the tech world seem to be so aggressively jealous of creativity that they are taking the "anti-anti-slop" stance (to borrow a phrase from politics used for the "yeah well all this criticism validates the choice I am not in any way saying I am making" argument).
Also the argument that people don’t deserve good quality music because they ‘don’t care’ is breathtakingly cynical.
Why shouldn’t people be exposed to good music? Maybe they’ll get into it.
Does that slop mentality extend to other things? Food, clothes, consumer goods? Do people deserve rubbish just because it’s not something they’re particularly interested in?
Why shouldn’t people be exposed to good music? Maybe they’ll get into it.
Does that slop mentality extend to other things? Food, clothes, consumer goods? Do people deserve rubbish just because it’s not something they’re particularly interested in?
[deleted]
This argument makes no sense to me. Musicians with small niche audience that rely on word of mourh and such are harmed in which way when Spotify adds slop to slop playlists?
Nobody is forced to listen to slop playlists. I never did, I only listen to albums and playlists that I either curated myself, of that were shared to me by people with similar tastes.
I don't think that people that are fine with slop are the kind of people that niche musicians would appeal to.
If your argument was against the egregious and exploitative way Spotify demonetizes tracks with less than 1k streams, then yes. This is abusive and should be considered illegal. But this mostly benefits large musicians and is detrimental to a long tail of niche ones.
Nobody is forced to listen to slop playlists. I never did, I only listen to albums and playlists that I either curated myself, of that were shared to me by people with similar tastes.
I don't think that people that are fine with slop are the kind of people that niche musicians would appeal to.
If your argument was against the egregious and exploitative way Spotify demonetizes tracks with less than 1k streams, then yes. This is abusive and should be considered illegal. But this mostly benefits large musicians and is detrimental to a long tail of niche ones.
> This argument makes no sense to me. Musicians with small niche audience that rely on word of mourh and such are harmed in which way when Spotify adds slop to slop playlists?
They are harmed because part of the intrinsic deal with Spotify is that you put your music on there so that their discovery systems make it possible for people to hear it who might not otherwise.
If Spotify is deliberately diluting that mechanism it is bad enough. But they are doing it IN SECRET which they would not do if they didn't think artists, industry people, musicians unions etc., would construe that as harm.
They are harmed because part of the intrinsic deal with Spotify is that you put your music on there so that their discovery systems make it possible for people to hear it who might not otherwise.
If Spotify is deliberately diluting that mechanism it is bad enough. But they are doing it IN SECRET which they would not do if they didn't think artists, industry people, musicians unions etc., would construe that as harm.
This is a problem only if the actual users are unhappy with the music they are being served.
If the music they are listening to satisfy their musical tastes for the monent, again, what is the issue?
If generic slop Spotify created to increase their own profits satisfies the listener the same way a song created with labor and love by an actual artist, well, this is saying something. I am not sure either of us will like the message.
If the music they are listening to satisfy their musical tastes for the monent, again, what is the issue?
If generic slop Spotify created to increase their own profits satisfies the listener the same way a song created with labor and love by an actual artist, well, this is saying something. I am not sure either of us will like the message.
1) It's clearly a problem to artists who have contracts with Spotify and are being defrauded at scale by a secret process to dilute the value of the platform they believe they are being distributed on.
2) > If generic slop Spotify created to increase their own profits satisfies the listener the same way a song created with labor and love by an actual artist, well, this is saying something. I am not sure either of us will like the message.
Again: users do not know they are being fed this stuff.
If this was an official, named Spotify product, and users preferred it, then your anti-anti-slop argument might have some weight.
Spotify are doing this in secret because they know it is fraud on likely a contract level but certainly on a cultural level. They'd be rolling it out with press releases if they didn't know it was underhanded.
That is the issue. But then again HN is a place where people really don't mind if companies break laws on an epic scale, destroy worker protections, and deliver worse products like AI chatbots replacing human support, if customers don't really notice.
So maybe I shouldn't be too surprised by (veiled as much as full-throated) endorsement of secret padding prole-feed.
2) > If generic slop Spotify created to increase their own profits satisfies the listener the same way a song created with labor and love by an actual artist, well, this is saying something. I am not sure either of us will like the message.
Again: users do not know they are being fed this stuff.
If this was an official, named Spotify product, and users preferred it, then your anti-anti-slop argument might have some weight.
Spotify are doing this in secret because they know it is fraud on likely a contract level but certainly on a cultural level. They'd be rolling it out with press releases if they didn't know it was underhanded.
That is the issue. But then again HN is a place where people really don't mind if companies break laws on an epic scale, destroy worker protections, and deliver worse products like AI chatbots replacing human support, if customers don't really notice.
So maybe I shouldn't be too surprised by (veiled as much as full-throated) endorsement of secret padding prole-feed.
> It's clearly a problem to artists who have contracts with Spotify and are being defrauded at scale by a secret process to dilute the product they believe they are using.
Does the contract say anywhere that Spotify would never provide their own generated music to users of their platform?
If the contract between artists and platform provides no such limitations, I fail to see how anyone is being defrauded of anything.
> Again: users do not know they are being fed this stuff.
Users are actively listening to those slop playlists. It does not seem to bother them (otherwise they would stop listening). If they are satisfied with the offering, what exactly is the issue?
> Spotify are doing this in secret because they know it is fraud on likely a contract level but certainly on a cultural level. They'd be rolling it out with press releases if they didn't know it was underhanded.
This is plain bullshit. The claim is that people are listening to those songs when they are added to Spotify generated playlists. It wouldn't matter if the song had, say, a tag indicating that it was published by Spotify themselves. Most likely people are not even looking at the names of songs and artists when the slop playlist they are listening to is playing as background noise.
> That is the issue. But then again HN is a place where people really don't mind if companies break laws on an epic scale, destroy worker protections, and deliver worse products like AI chatbots replacing human support, if customers don't really notice.
If you saw my comment history, you would be surprised.
The problem here is that users are actively listening to slop, but they don't seem to mind it. They are fine with slop. They keep listening to slop. For those users, it really does not matter. There is no abuse taking place.
I am a Spotify user. I think their app is bloated, but it works alright? I can find albums I like, I can create my own playlists, and I can completely ignore whatever Spotify generates I always did. How exactly are they abusive in their relationship with me as a customer?
What you are really angry with is that Spotify found a way to give users that are fine with slop their own cheap slop.
Does the contract say anywhere that Spotify would never provide their own generated music to users of their platform?
If the contract between artists and platform provides no such limitations, I fail to see how anyone is being defrauded of anything.
> Again: users do not know they are being fed this stuff.
Users are actively listening to those slop playlists. It does not seem to bother them (otherwise they would stop listening). If they are satisfied with the offering, what exactly is the issue?
> Spotify are doing this in secret because they know it is fraud on likely a contract level but certainly on a cultural level. They'd be rolling it out with press releases if they didn't know it was underhanded.
This is plain bullshit. The claim is that people are listening to those songs when they are added to Spotify generated playlists. It wouldn't matter if the song had, say, a tag indicating that it was published by Spotify themselves. Most likely people are not even looking at the names of songs and artists when the slop playlist they are listening to is playing as background noise.
> That is the issue. But then again HN is a place where people really don't mind if companies break laws on an epic scale, destroy worker protections, and deliver worse products like AI chatbots replacing human support, if customers don't really notice.
If you saw my comment history, you would be surprised.
The problem here is that users are actively listening to slop, but they don't seem to mind it. They are fine with slop. They keep listening to slop. For those users, it really does not matter. There is no abuse taking place.
I am a Spotify user. I think their app is bloated, but it works alright? I can find albums I like, I can create my own playlists, and I can completely ignore whatever Spotify generates I always did. How exactly are they abusive in their relationship with me as a customer?
What you are really angry with is that Spotify found a way to give users that are fine with slop their own cheap slop.
> Does the contract say anywhere that Spotify would never provide their own generated music to users of their platform?
> If the contract between artists and platform provides no such limitations, I fail to see how anyone is being defrauded of anything.
Then why does Spotify refuse to talk about it? It's clearly outside of the spirit of the deal they are striking with artists generally.
Ultimately, they will get away with it because of just the same quasi-justification you're offering: Oh we're not screwing any of them individually, we are screwing them all at once.
Congratulations I guess, your argument is on the winning side!
But certainly Congress, the UK parliament, EU parliament, Swedish parliament etc. should be looking at this through the lens of regulation and competition law. And for once I hope the record labels -- big and small, because so many of them are small -- sue.
> If the contract between artists and platform provides no such limitations, I fail to see how anyone is being defrauded of anything.
Then why does Spotify refuse to talk about it? It's clearly outside of the spirit of the deal they are striking with artists generally.
Ultimately, they will get away with it because of just the same quasi-justification you're offering: Oh we're not screwing any of them individually, we are screwing them all at once.
Congratulations I guess, your argument is on the winning side!
But certainly Congress, the UK parliament, EU parliament, Swedish parliament etc. should be looking at this through the lens of regulation and competition law. And for once I hope the record labels -- big and small, because so many of them are small -- sue.
I see you toned down the "defrauded" rhetoric to a much more ambiguous "yeah, it was against the spirit of the deal".
I am always in favor of proper regulation. If the EU sees this as abusive and detrimental to competition, they should definitely put restrictions on platforms offering their own content. I wonder if this would extend to, say, supermarkets offering products under their own brands. It is important that regulations don't harm the consumers.
As for record labels suing... Well, they will have this problem which is proving that any fraud took place. Unless the numbers were rigged (and no users actually streamed the slop, and it was actually fraud), I fail to see how they would win anything. What would be the allegation? That users are listening to bad music?
I am always in favor of proper regulation. If the EU sees this as abusive and detrimental to competition, they should definitely put restrictions on platforms offering their own content. I wonder if this would extend to, say, supermarkets offering products under their own brands. It is important that regulations don't harm the consumers.
As for record labels suing... Well, they will have this problem which is proving that any fraud took place. Unless the numbers were rigged (and no users actually streamed the slop, and it was actually fraud), I fail to see how they would win anything. What would be the allegation? That users are listening to bad music?
> I see you toned down the "defrauded" rhetoric to a much more ambiguous "yeah, it was against the spirit of the deal".
I didn't, particularly. It's just another angle on it.
I do think "defrauded" has both legal and moral dimensions, don't you? This is obviously abject shitty treatment or they wouldn't have been secretive about it.
I'm not convinced this isn't both dimensions, though -- not clear who is being defrauded but both the labels and the musicians unions should do their best to establish whether it could be them.
Spotify have crossed a pretty obvious line here. Weird that you appear to think it's, like, no harm no foul if the customers don't notice. Fast food service logic.
There is already quite extensive legal precedent and practice about supermarket own-brand stuff; fifty years of it, with supermarkets retaining teams of lawyers, operating proper clean-room reverse-engineering processes, etc. It's well-trodden legal territory. Supermarkets work right up to the line. But it's no secret that they do, and brands sometimes push back against own-brand deceptions. Mostly supermarkets threaten each other over their own, own-brand stuff. Caterpillar cakes, vodkas etc.
If Spotify were honest that they were adding "own brand" music into the mix, then this would be a different discussion.
(Amazon are required in the UK and EU to identify which are their own brands, and they mostly comply)
I didn't, particularly. It's just another angle on it.
I do think "defrauded" has both legal and moral dimensions, don't you? This is obviously abject shitty treatment or they wouldn't have been secretive about it.
I'm not convinced this isn't both dimensions, though -- not clear who is being defrauded but both the labels and the musicians unions should do their best to establish whether it could be them.
Spotify have crossed a pretty obvious line here. Weird that you appear to think it's, like, no harm no foul if the customers don't notice. Fast food service logic.
There is already quite extensive legal precedent and practice about supermarket own-brand stuff; fifty years of it, with supermarkets retaining teams of lawyers, operating proper clean-room reverse-engineering processes, etc. It's well-trodden legal territory. Supermarkets work right up to the line. But it's no secret that they do, and brands sometimes push back against own-brand deceptions. Mostly supermarkets threaten each other over their own, own-brand stuff. Caterpillar cakes, vodkas etc.
If Spotify were honest that they were adding "own brand" music into the mix, then this would be a different discussion.
(Amazon are required in the UK and EU to identify which are their own brands, and they mostly comply)
I would be okay if Spotify were forced to add a clear tag to every song that was published by themselves.
I would bet that it would make zero difference in the amount of plays those tracks got.
I would bet that it would make zero difference in the amount of plays those tracks got.
It's not clear to me how successful they were with podcasts. They certainly attracted lots of podcasters but no idea how much profit that's generated
The questions is really are the other platforms doing the exact same thing? You have to use playlists generated by other users. Any playlists or radio generated by the platform is obviously going to direct you to the music the platform wants you to listen to.
i agree that we need a cooperative streaming platform. well, it already exists: https://resonate.coop/. please give it some love.
in addition, its original stream2own model allows you to automatically spend more on the artists you listen to more and even own (= stop paying for) and download the tracks you listened to at least 9 times. i think that it is a much fairer revenue-distribution model than “the big money pot” model used by spotify (and almost all other music streaming platforms out there) where people listening to the highest amount of tracks decide where other people’s money goes.
in addition, its original stream2own model allows you to automatically spend more on the artists you listen to more and even own (= stop paying for) and download the tracks you listened to at least 9 times. i think that it is a much fairer revenue-distribution model than “the big money pot” model used by spotify (and almost all other music streaming platforms out there) where people listening to the highest amount of tracks decide where other people’s money goes.
People are complaining cause pandora is being paid to put in frank sinatra songs in their smooth jazz playlist.. .anyone who outsources what they listen to to spotify has already lost.. oh spotify gets paid by barry white to put his song in... dum dum dum... listen to music you want to listen to. "duh, i thought spotify was going to only promote music that matched my profile without recieving any comopensation."
It was inevitable that if most of your user base is just listening to AI generated playlists that Spotify would look to cheaper versions of songs to save costs.
The next obvious step is AI generated songs. Music will get much cheaper when we can completely avoid cost centers like record labels, recording studios, and bands.
When models are capable of generating music better than humans can, Spotify might be disintermediated entirely.
The next logical step after AI-slop music from Spotify would be for device manufacturers to cut out one more middleman, and provide their own locally-generated on-device AI-slop music as a feature of their devices.
Why would slop be the only outcome?
Even if the AI produces a pearl, it is going to drown it in shit. Because it is an automated operation.
No new AI content generation advance has so far escaped being used for the equivalent of SEO spamming, long-tail flooding the market to mislead consumers and lazy “passive income” bullshit.
No AI content generation advance ever will; it’s not like industry is going to hold back and say: not this one, guys. It’s too good. We’re going to let it have three years in a custom built home studio to make its magnum opus.
No new AI content generation advance has so far escaped being used for the equivalent of SEO spamming, long-tail flooding the market to mislead consumers and lazy “passive income” bullshit.
No AI content generation advance ever will; it’s not like industry is going to hold back and say: not this one, guys. It’s too good. We’re going to let it have three years in a custom built home studio to make its magnum opus.
I think you are conflating how models are used by services like Spotify with what they can do. I run some models locally. These are going to become more powerful.
Your confident prediction of the future limitations of models sounds like what the chess and go masters said.
Your confident prediction of the future limitations of models sounds like what the chess and go masters said.
I'm not conflating anything. I am just answering the question of why slop can be the only outcome.
On a Spotify-level scale, web-level scale, slop can be the only outcome.
On a Spotify-level scale, web-level scale, slop can be the only outcome.
The question I asked was specifically about locally generated content.
But it's in the context of an alternative to a Spotify product, right? With millions of users.
Exactly where the slop is generated, or by whom, is essentially irrelevant: at scale, slop is the only outcome from these tools. It always will be.
And presumably in a resource-limited environment, slop quality is even more likely.
Exactly where the slop is generated, or by whom, is essentially irrelevant: at scale, slop is the only outcome from these tools. It always will be.
And presumably in a resource-limited environment, slop quality is even more likely.
Billions of users, with increasingly powerfully hardware, locally executing models that better understand the world and human psychology.
The alarming thing in this little sub thread is that I am not wholly certain that none of you are joking. That is where we are now.
As the guy who started this subthread, I was joking — but I expect it will come true anyway. The whole industry seems bent on removing humans from the production of all goods and services, so someone somewhere will try to optimize humans out of music and the humanities in general. Whether they succeed is an open question.
Isn’t every industry trying to eliminate human labor? Nothing will prevent humans from making music. Being paid for making recordings was already a dying business model due to digital reproduction making copyright toothless.
The music industry is at least 10 or 20 times older than the concept of copyright. The traditional business model was always about live performance and patronage, and even today that’s where most musicians’ income comes from. The recordings and radio/streaming play could make money, but it was mostly advertisement for the shows and merch. So functionally, the advertising machine is shifting towards making culture a mere commodity, which is a new thing.
The other thing here is that while it is a continuation of industrialization of artisan work like furniture and textiles, we are finally going into the area of commoditizing the work of the artists. Admittedly the split between artisans and artists only happened recently in the Renaissance, but it’s still a different threshold, where culture itself is mechanized. And instead of asking if it is a good idea to take the humanities out of the hands of humans, the only real consideration will be short-term shareholder value.
The other thing here is that while it is a continuation of industrialization of artisan work like furniture and textiles, we are finally going into the area of commoditizing the work of the artists. Admittedly the split between artisans and artists only happened recently in the Renaissance, but it’s still a different threshold, where culture itself is mechanized. And instead of asking if it is a good idea to take the humanities out of the hands of humans, the only real consideration will be short-term shareholder value.
I am, of course, well aware that musicians and the music industry existed before copyright. I am questioning the possibility that humans might be successfully optimized out of music or even entirely out of the music industry. Even when models are better than humans, humans will be free to make music, just as chess players are still free to play chess now that humans are no longer the best at chess.
The point about algorithms driving culture is more interesting.
The point about algorithms driving culture is more interesting.
I am not joking. I am also uncomfortable accepting that humans will eventually not be the best creators of art enjoyed by humans.
Then don’t accept it. Because it is fundamentally untrue.
Why do you think it is anything other than inevitable? You think that models cannot learn how to make music that humans will enjoy?
You are watering down “the best” here, IMO. This definition leads towards “the most efficient production”, not “the highest art”.
But sure, if you don’t care that a human isn’t involved in doing it. Personally it’s not negotiable to me and I think more people believe this than you might expect.
But sure, if you don’t care that a human isn’t involved in doing it. Personally it’s not negotiable to me and I think more people believe this than you might expect.
I do see it as inevitable that models will create the best of everything. I completely understand that some humans will choose to reject anything not created by a human.
Based on what evidence? AI models haven’t created the best of anything yet.
Actually AI hasn’t even made anything I’d call very good thus far in my personal experience.
Actually AI hasn’t even made anything I’d call very good thus far in my personal experience.
I agree that current models are not as good as humans. They will continue to improve. They will eventually be superhuman, just as they are at chess and go.
It had become increasingly clear that "You are not the customer, you are the product" extends to all public companies.
I don't get why so many people fell for Spotify. To me, from the moment it launched there were so many red flags, like dark patterns everywhere and terrible UX-design decisions. Clearly a business that does not care at all about quality or their contributors/customers.
All I know about Spotify is their embedded player, that gets added to music articles, has been designed to nag you.
A popover will randomly cover the controls with a signup banner so that you can’t play the next song without saying no.
It’s a subtle tell but when you see even a small dark pattern you know the company behind it has no moral compass.
Have nothing to do with them.
A popover will randomly cover the controls with a signup banner so that you can’t play the next song without saying no.
It’s a subtle tell but when you see even a small dark pattern you know the company behind it has no moral compass.
Have nothing to do with them.
> the company behind it has no moral compass.
The people behind it. Companies have no sense of morality, everything you see was conceived and implemented by individual people.
The people behind it. Companies have no sense of morality, everything you see was conceived and implemented by individual people.
> nobody in the history of music has made more money than the CEO of Spotify
This seems vaguely important?! Yet this story got utterly nuked off HN (can't find it on the first 10 pages). Meanwhile this still lingers on page 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42461530
Yeah I know discussing votes and flags and rankings and all that stuff is very boring. However we're dealing with people who throw money around to manipulate what people see and hear so they can make more money, so.
This seems vaguely important?! Yet this story got utterly nuked off HN (can't find it on the first 10 pages). Meanwhile this still lingers on page 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42461530
Yeah I know discussing votes and flags and rankings and all that stuff is very boring. However we're dealing with people who throw money around to manipulate what people see and hear so they can make more money, so.
The only way for the music industry to fight back is to ensure diversity in streaming platform, and fighting for easy way for users to port their data between them. This for one will both benefit users and the industry.
There’s another way, which HN’ers won’t like and that’s to borrow a page from the video streaming playbook and have the labels start their own individual services.
Which of course will also eventually push Muzak on the bgm playlist/channels
Which of course will also eventually push Muzak on the bgm playlist/channels
Oh god please no. I'm already needing like seven video subscription services on a rotating basis to see the various nice things people talk about, music is such a good counterexample of where it just works to aggregate everything on several platforms and people can choose which service works best
Of all the options, how did you decide on the most user hostile one?
I just asked myself “What would EMI do?”
Sure, if they agree on a common interface (API) and open it to everyone. This way they would turn streaming services into commodity.
I don't see that happening though.
I don't see that happening though.
There are so many “so what?” responses to this that I can’t help wondering what an analogous situation would be for programmers?
Maybe something like “I don’t see the problem with this app being buggy and almost unusable - I just like having nice icons on my HomeScreen. I don’t see anything unethical about this [MEGA-CORP] fixing the market with their own cheap and poor quality programmers - most people don’t care if their apps work anyway”.
Maybe something like “I don’t see the problem with this app being buggy and almost unusable - I just like having nice icons on my HomeScreen. I don’t see anything unethical about this [MEGA-CORP] fixing the market with their own cheap and poor quality programmers - most people don’t care if their apps work anyway”.
if true, beyond the pale. actively making music worse for everyone.
That research is linked in this article
Just leave Spotify 1-star reviews with excerpts of this article in it.
I mean, the actual problem is that people listen to playlists and recommendations from Spotify itself. They voluntarily eat turds, then complain that what they just ate tastes like shit.
The solution is simple - curate your own playlists, or find people with tastes similar to yours that shared theirs.
Don't give a company power to pick music for you, then complain that they have such power.
The solution is simple - curate your own playlists, or find people with tastes similar to yours that shared theirs.
Don't give a company power to pick music for you, then complain that they have such power.
> The solution is simple ...
Another worthwhile solution is to listen to independent radio -- locally or online. You'll find more new interesting artists and music in an hour of listening to (quality, non-Clear Channel/i-heart) radio than you'll ever find using Spotify or any other service's suggestion algorithms.
Another worthwhile solution is to listen to independent radio -- locally or online. You'll find more new interesting artists and music in an hour of listening to (quality, non-Clear Channel/i-heart) radio than you'll ever find using Spotify or any other service's suggestion algorithms.
This sounds like a sensible advice too. I never tried it myself though.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm not sure there is a problem if a proportion of the listeners don't recognize they are listening to slop. I do, however, think its a problem if Spotify is giving preferential treatment to slop, as is claimed in this post. I also would prefer a system that better supported musicians, while having the ease of use of Spotify.