Maybe why you never have heard of that band on Spotify before
July 10, 2017 9:13 AM Subscribe
In August,
Tim Ingham of Music Business Worldwide reported that Spotify is paying musicians to record music using fake aliases on terms financially advantageous for Spotify and placing these songs on featured playlists. These featured playlists are curated by Spotify employees and have become an increasingly influential source for listening to music (previously)
Last week, Vulture wrote about the various strategies used by artists to gain listeners (& revenue) on Spotify through like adapting misspellings, using popular songs' choruses as song titles, leasing the same music under different song titles. Vulture also cited Tim's report on Spotify using its own artists.
Billboard followed up and asked Spotify about the allegations made by Ingham. Spotify responded to Billboard stating "We do not and have never created ‘fake’ artists and put them on Spotify playlists. Categorically untrue, full stop".
Yesterday, Tim names 50 artists, each garnering hundreds of thousands of plays and some are included on prominent Spotify-curated playlists, with no known web presence outside of Spotify, that he believes are the artists who were commissioned by Spotify to produce music on their behalf.
Last week, Vulture wrote about the various strategies used by artists to gain listeners (& revenue) on Spotify through like adapting misspellings, using popular songs' choruses as song titles, leasing the same music under different song titles. Vulture also cited Tim's report on Spotify using its own artists.
Billboard followed up and asked Spotify about the allegations made by Ingham. Spotify responded to Billboard stating "We do not and have never created ‘fake’ artists and put them on Spotify playlists. Categorically untrue, full stop".
Yesterday, Tim names 50 artists, each garnering hundreds of thousands of plays and some are included on prominent Spotify-curated playlists, with no known web presence outside of Spotify, that he believes are the artists who were commissioned by Spotify to produce music on their behalf.
I get why Spotify is (supposedly?) doing this. Paying artists 0.004$ per streamed song must be heavy on the pocket...
posted by bigendian at 9:47 AM on July 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by bigendian at 9:47 AM on July 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
Why I will never, ever sign up for Spotify, exhibits A-Z.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:52 AM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by tobascodagama at 9:52 AM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm failing to see the issue, it seems like they've just developed their own 'store brand'.
posted by FallowKing at 9:54 AM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by FallowKing at 9:54 AM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm failing to see the issue, it seems like they've just developed their own 'store brand'.
One of the complaints is that it crowds out other artists -- when Spotify curates a playlist with 98 popular songs and salts in two "store brand" songs, virtually no listeners are going to complain, but Spotify just cut its payouts by 2% that could have gone to actual artists.
posted by Etrigan at 9:56 AM on July 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
One of the complaints is that it crowds out other artists -- when Spotify curates a playlist with 98 popular songs and salts in two "store brand" songs, virtually no listeners are going to complain, but Spotify just cut its payouts by 2% that could have gone to actual artists.
posted by Etrigan at 9:56 AM on July 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
There's also hundreds of cover instrumental albums recorded by studio hacks, perhaps for karaoke. So maybe they started using those guys to make this sketchy playlist material.
posted by thelonius at 9:57 AM on July 10, 2017
posted by thelonius at 9:57 AM on July 10, 2017
Aren't they still "actual artists" though? Even if they were commissioned by someone, they still had to write and perform the song, it's not fake music. Companies commission freelancers to provide graphics and artwork all the time and nobody ever says that those are fake artists.
posted by Hazelsmrf at 10:19 AM on July 10, 2017 [10 favorites]
posted by Hazelsmrf at 10:19 AM on July 10, 2017 [10 favorites]
The Vulture story is incorrectly linked in the post. This seems to be the one: The Streaming Problem: How Spammers, Superstars, and Tech Giants Gamed the Music Industry.
posted by Mothlight at 10:21 AM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Mothlight at 10:21 AM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
As I've typing this, I'm sampling from the list, more or less at random. It's overwhelmingly mellow piano instrumentals, with some synthy ambient pieces. Most of them do sound the same - I mean the piano sound and production apart from the similarity in composition. There's no reason not to suppose that they might be the same person, who's discovered that there's a sizeable niche audience for relaxing music, perhaps among insomniacs or hypnotherapists or yoga teachers or new age bookshops. Perhaps there are even people who just like this sort of thing.
For what they are, the tracks attributed to the names on the playlist aren't bad. I mean, there's some terrible, terrible stuff on Spotify, as the Vulture article points out, trying to game the system, and these aren't terrible. They don't rock, though.
However, unless the majority of what Spotify delivers is composed of mellow instrumentals, it hardly seems to be worth their while to manufacture it. And if they did, at least the person who made it all is a professional who got paid.
posted by Grangousier at 10:24 AM on July 10, 2017
For what they are, the tracks attributed to the names on the playlist aren't bad. I mean, there's some terrible, terrible stuff on Spotify, as the Vulture article points out, trying to game the system, and these aren't terrible. They don't rock, though.
However, unless the majority of what Spotify delivers is composed of mellow instrumentals, it hardly seems to be worth their while to manufacture it. And if they did, at least the person who made it all is a professional who got paid.
posted by Grangousier at 10:24 AM on July 10, 2017
How does this differ from Netflix having their own original content?
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 10:25 AM on July 10, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 10:25 AM on July 10, 2017 [2 favorites]
Deceptive Music is a big problem over here at everyone's favorite fruit company. We put a lot of effort into make sure that people are not duped into paying money for music that only exists to defraud customers.
Then there is all the instrumental/karaoke versions that aren't fraudulent per se, but that are still "junk" that shouldn't get in the way of the real music people are looking for.
But, to hear that Spotify is actually manufacturing this garbage and putting it in front of customers as a desperate attempt to keep the lights on: LolololololoOLOLololoLOLolOlol
posted by sideshow at 10:29 AM on July 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
Then there is all the instrumental/karaoke versions that aren't fraudulent per se, but that are still "junk" that shouldn't get in the way of the real music people are looking for.
But, to hear that Spotify is actually manufacturing this garbage and putting it in front of customers as a desperate attempt to keep the lights on: LolololololoOLOLololoLOLolOlol
posted by sideshow at 10:29 AM on July 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
Oh, so there's no ambiguity - when I say they sound the same, I mean in the same tightly constrained genre ballpark. They're all different pieces. Actually, more varied and interesting than the current UK top 40, which definitely was shaped by record companies gaming streaming playlists.
posted by Grangousier at 10:30 AM on July 10, 2017
posted by Grangousier at 10:30 AM on July 10, 2017
How does this differ from Netflix having their own original content?
This is more like Netflix making their shitty "Competitions of Royal Chairs" series bubble up on the search results when you try to search for that TV show about Westeros with the dragons and Jon Snow.
posted by sideshow at 10:31 AM on July 10, 2017 [16 favorites]
This is more like Netflix making their shitty "Competitions of Royal Chairs" series bubble up on the search results when you try to search for that TV show about Westeros with the dragons and Jon Snow.
posted by sideshow at 10:31 AM on July 10, 2017 [16 favorites]
> How does this differ from Netflix having their own original content?
The obvious deception involved in titling tracks with keyword spam, for starters. Netflix isn't, to my knowledge, putting out shows like "Modem Family" or "Game of Thongs."
*dang it* should have previewed
posted by tonycpsu at 10:32 AM on July 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
The obvious deception involved in titling tracks with keyword spam, for starters. Netflix isn't, to my knowledge, putting out shows like "Modem Family" or "Game of Thongs."
*dang it* should have previewed
posted by tonycpsu at 10:32 AM on July 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
It's overwhelmingly mellow piano instrumentals, with some synthy ambient pieces.
When I looked at the list, I noticed that it was all sleep and relaxation type playlists - I myself listen to Sleep and Ambient Chill type playlists in the evening when I'm winding down. (Soft music and soothing podcasts do help me sleep!) My esthetician puts on these type of playlists when she's giving people facials and so on.
I don't think that music as scented candle is a bad thing at all. As I said, it helps me sleep! But these are the kind of playlists that nobody's really going to pay attention to who the artists are, so it's easier to game them than, say, 80's playlists or Beethoven playlists or hip-hop for exercising playlists.
(And really, "Amity Cadet?" That even sounds like a spammy name.)
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 10:36 AM on July 10, 2017
When I looked at the list, I noticed that it was all sleep and relaxation type playlists - I myself listen to Sleep and Ambient Chill type playlists in the evening when I'm winding down. (Soft music and soothing podcasts do help me sleep!) My esthetician puts on these type of playlists when she's giving people facials and so on.
I don't think that music as scented candle is a bad thing at all. As I said, it helps me sleep! But these are the kind of playlists that nobody's really going to pay attention to who the artists are, so it's easier to game them than, say, 80's playlists or Beethoven playlists or hip-hop for exercising playlists.
(And really, "Amity Cadet?" That even sounds like a spammy name.)
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 10:36 AM on July 10, 2017
I'm not sure what the problem is. Spotify is a business with the right to stock whatever it wants on its shelves.
My local CVS mega drugstore doesn't carry Purell; instead, it stocks CVS-brand hand sanitizer, reducing shelf space that could be devoted to non-CVS products in this category. My response is to go to Office Depot or Giant or the little Korean-run market to get my Purell.
So, why the outrage here? Spotify isn't the Library of Congress or some public foundation dedicated to nonprofit curation of the world's music. If you don't find the music you want there, go somewhere else, but it's not like Spotify is fleecing people by having soundalike bands perform Radiohead and Beatles albums without due notification.
It's Spotify's prerogative to provide the product it wants to provide. If these "fake" bands make crap music, consumers will avoid the artists, then the playlists, and, if it comes to it, the service. I don't yell at Whole Foods' store managers because their 365 brand is taking shelf space away from my favorite brand (a situation that has come up more than once).
posted by the sobsister at 10:40 AM on July 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
My local CVS mega drugstore doesn't carry Purell; instead, it stocks CVS-brand hand sanitizer, reducing shelf space that could be devoted to non-CVS products in this category. My response is to go to Office Depot or Giant or the little Korean-run market to get my Purell.
So, why the outrage here? Spotify isn't the Library of Congress or some public foundation dedicated to nonprofit curation of the world's music. If you don't find the music you want there, go somewhere else, but it's not like Spotify is fleecing people by having soundalike bands perform Radiohead and Beatles albums without due notification.
It's Spotify's prerogative to provide the product it wants to provide. If these "fake" bands make crap music, consumers will avoid the artists, then the playlists, and, if it comes to it, the service. I don't yell at Whole Foods' store managers because their 365 brand is taking shelf space away from my favorite brand (a situation that has come up more than once).
posted by the sobsister at 10:40 AM on July 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
(And really, "Amity Cadet?" That even sounds like a spammy name.)
Yes, but the news was recently dominated by someone called Reality Winner. Parents are weird.
As there is a demand for this music (and I'm actually quite enjoying it, myself), is meeting that demand really gaming the system? Given that, unlike most genres, anonymity isn't a problem and may be a benefit, is there an advantage for someone who produces a lot of it to release small numbers of tracks as a lot of different people?
Don't get me wrong, the music industry is fantastically corrupt, and broken on nearly every level. In this particular case, or set of cases, I think the journalist is barking up the wrong tree. However much it might benefit Spotify to do what he's accusing them of, doing it with these particular tracks makes no sense.
posted by Grangousier at 10:44 AM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yes, but the news was recently dominated by someone called Reality Winner. Parents are weird.
As there is a demand for this music (and I'm actually quite enjoying it, myself), is meeting that demand really gaming the system? Given that, unlike most genres, anonymity isn't a problem and may be a benefit, is there an advantage for someone who produces a lot of it to release small numbers of tracks as a lot of different people?
Don't get me wrong, the music industry is fantastically corrupt, and broken on nearly every level. In this particular case, or set of cases, I think the journalist is barking up the wrong tree. However much it might benefit Spotify to do what he's accusing them of, doing it with these particular tracks makes no sense.
posted by Grangousier at 10:44 AM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Part of the issue is the lack of transparency. Sure, Spotify can stock its house brand on the music shelves if it wants to, but not only are they not labelled as such, they are actively denying this is what they are doing.
And while I'm not weeping for the large record labels, small labels and independent bands sometimes have their music on Spotify too. And for them, the magic of getting on a Spotify-curated playlist can be life-changing. So Spotify taking up some of those spots for music they commissioned, and for which they likely pay even less than their normal paltry rates, does matter.
I realize this is happening on those sort of background noise/fall asleep playlists but it still feels icky to me.
posted by misskaz at 10:46 AM on July 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
And while I'm not weeping for the large record labels, small labels and independent bands sometimes have their music on Spotify too. And for them, the magic of getting on a Spotify-curated playlist can be life-changing. So Spotify taking up some of those spots for music they commissioned, and for which they likely pay even less than their normal paltry rates, does matter.
I realize this is happening on those sort of background noise/fall asleep playlists but it still feels icky to me.
posted by misskaz at 10:46 AM on July 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
This is interesting & it's also interesting to think about who is harmed & who benefits. I'm not sure the articles get it right. The Vulture article insists that the biggest loser is "the listener," but that's nonsense. As a Spotify listener, if what I want to listen to is a bunch of anodyne easy listening acoustic piano tracks, and that kind of music is provided for me, I have in no way been tricked into listening to "fake" music. I've listened to some music that's been created under one payment model and some music that's created under a different one.
If the second one seems particularly exploitative to artists, then I can object to it & choose not to listen to it for that reason. However, it doesn't seem to me that the article has made this case at all. We have no data about any of the payment structures here. On the one hand, maybe I'm an acoustic pianist making absolutely forgettable music signed with a major label, and my music gets played an ordinary tiny amount of times, and I get the usual royalties on Spotify under the terms of a contract over which I have very little control. On the other, Spotify hires me to write a song that meets certain specifications under a pseudonym, and I get a lump sum payment but no royalties. Whether this is exploitative or not hinges entirely on the amounts involved, not the structure of the payment. The people who definitely lose, obviously, are the major labels, who are being cut out of the process.
Ultimately, this is part of an ongoing a war between the labels and Spotify, the old model and the new, with artists & listeners caught somewhere in middle...but framing it as a 'scandal' that has any kind of ethical valence, or that we're somehow being "tricked" by this, seems like pure hype and music industry spin.
posted by pretentious illiterate at 10:49 AM on July 10, 2017 [13 favorites]
If the second one seems particularly exploitative to artists, then I can object to it & choose not to listen to it for that reason. However, it doesn't seem to me that the article has made this case at all. We have no data about any of the payment structures here. On the one hand, maybe I'm an acoustic pianist making absolutely forgettable music signed with a major label, and my music gets played an ordinary tiny amount of times, and I get the usual royalties on Spotify under the terms of a contract over which I have very little control. On the other, Spotify hires me to write a song that meets certain specifications under a pseudonym, and I get a lump sum payment but no royalties. Whether this is exploitative or not hinges entirely on the amounts involved, not the structure of the payment. The people who definitely lose, obviously, are the major labels, who are being cut out of the process.
Ultimately, this is part of an ongoing a war between the labels and Spotify, the old model and the new, with artists & listeners caught somewhere in middle...but framing it as a 'scandal' that has any kind of ethical valence, or that we're somehow being "tricked" by this, seems like pure hype and music industry spin.
posted by pretentious illiterate at 10:49 AM on July 10, 2017 [13 favorites]
I mean, Spotify brands itself as a music discovery service, both to the consumer and the artists. That's how they sell (to the non-major label artist especially) putting your music on there - it's not so much about the money you'll make (for most it won't be much) but about the potential for being discovered by future fans. That's also what's so great about it as a consumer - here's where you will find the next band or artist you fall in love with. Creating fake artists seems contrary to that on both sides.
If the commissioning of music wasn't at least a bad PR/image sitch, they wouldn't be creating fake artist names and such to go along with the tracks, and denying so adamantly that they are doing it. They'd call them Spotify House Band or whatever and there'd be less controversy.
I can understand the fact that it's ambient music makes it feel kinda ok, but if it started getting into other genres would people be more upset?
posted by misskaz at 10:53 AM on July 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
If the commissioning of music wasn't at least a bad PR/image sitch, they wouldn't be creating fake artist names and such to go along with the tracks, and denying so adamantly that they are doing it. They'd call them Spotify House Band or whatever and there'd be less controversy.
I can understand the fact that it's ambient music makes it feel kinda ok, but if it started getting into other genres would people be more upset?
posted by misskaz at 10:53 AM on July 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
Seems to me there's another layer to this which has to do with the continuing commodification of music and people's inherent laziness. I've always tended to avoid the Spotify-curated playlists, the artwork and playlist titles always struck me as a bit forced, cheesy and of dubious quality, but I guess that's me. I would much rather a.) make my own playlist or b.) do a little bit of searching to find one that someone else has made. I do admit that I'm not the average music listener, however.
posted by jeremias at 11:00 AM on July 10, 2017
posted by jeremias at 11:00 AM on July 10, 2017
Spotify label-izing itself as publisher (or even work-for-hire patron) is pretty much the only way out from under the jackboot of Big-4 royalties. Essentially, it's what Netflix is doing with their original content.
Now, the execution may be problematic, but I think the goal is necessary for their survival. If in fact this is what's going on.
posted by rhizome at 11:01 AM on July 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
Now, the execution may be problematic, but I think the goal is necessary for their survival. If in fact this is what's going on.
posted by rhizome at 11:01 AM on July 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
"Isn't it a bit unethical to sell rat-meat hotdogs?"
"I don't see the issue with consumers freely choosing to purchase our hotdogs; we aren't a monopoly and they can choose to go elsewhere."
"Well could you more prominently label that they're made of rat? The packages have pictures of cows on the front."
"Oh no, consumers have an irrational aversion to eating rat."
posted by Pyry at 11:01 AM on July 10, 2017 [9 favorites]
"I don't see the issue with consumers freely choosing to purchase our hotdogs; we aren't a monopoly and they can choose to go elsewhere."
"Well could you more prominently label that they're made of rat? The packages have pictures of cows on the front."
"Oh no, consumers have an irrational aversion to eating rat."
posted by Pyry at 11:01 AM on July 10, 2017 [9 favorites]
That seems unfair to Spotify. They're pretty upfront that you're listening to Ratt, and you only have yourself to blame for not pressing skip.
posted by explosion at 11:06 AM on July 10, 2017 [10 favorites]
posted by explosion at 11:06 AM on July 10, 2017 [10 favorites]
Someone in the comments on the original article suggested that it might be a production music library, which would make a lot of sense.
posted by Grangousier at 11:10 AM on July 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Grangousier at 11:10 AM on July 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
"Well could you more prominently label that they're made of rat? The packages have pictures of cows on the front."
Except that isn't what Spotify is doing. It's presenting, for example, ambient music in an ambient playlist. It's not labeling a playlist "Bedtime Mellow" and sneaking death metal in as track three.
posted by the sobsister at 11:11 AM on July 10, 2017 [9 favorites]
Except that isn't what Spotify is doing. It's presenting, for example, ambient music in an ambient playlist. It's not labeling a playlist "Bedtime Mellow" and sneaking death metal in as track three.
posted by the sobsister at 11:11 AM on July 10, 2017 [9 favorites]
MBW understands that the Swedish streamer continues to pay a revenue share of around 55% to labels (not including publishing money).
Jesus tapdancing Christ. Thanks for reminding me to go to Bandcamp and purchase those records I've been streaming on YouTube at work. So much rentseeking, but at least at Bandcamp I can direct more of that revenue to the artists/labels doing the work.
posted by Existential Dread at 11:11 AM on July 10, 2017
Jesus tapdancing Christ. Thanks for reminding me to go to Bandcamp and purchase those records I've been streaming on YouTube at work. So much rentseeking, but at least at Bandcamp I can direct more of that revenue to the artists/labels doing the work.
posted by Existential Dread at 11:11 AM on July 10, 2017
I find the fake names fascinating. It's a great mix of generic WASP names (including several that are just Common Anglo First Name/English Noun Last Name), incredibly meaningless band names, and a generous sprinkling of You are a Worldly Sophisticate Listening to Musicians From All Corners of the Globe (Most of the Corners Are Still Europe, However).
posted by Copronymus at 11:20 AM on July 10, 2017
posted by Copronymus at 11:20 AM on July 10, 2017
I'm disappointed that the MBW list of 50 doesn't include some of the biggest fake artists on Spotify, like the Ohio Express, the Archies, Tony Orlando and Dawn and, the Monkees.
posted by layceepee at 11:41 AM on July 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by layceepee at 11:41 AM on July 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
The main takeaway I got from the Vulture article is that there are many covers of the Gilligan’s Island theme on Spotify. Many of them are karaoke versions or library tracks, but there are also versions by Bowling for Soup and Israel Kamakawiwo'ole, and this jazzy version.
I'm not going to regularly dial up hundreds of covers of the Gilligan’s Island theme (who am I kidding? I am totally going to do just that thing), but I like living in a world where I know that I can do that at any moment.
posted by zachlipton at 11:44 AM on July 10, 2017 [2 favorites]
I'm not going to regularly dial up hundreds of covers of the Gilligan’s Island theme (who am I kidding? I am totally going to do just that thing), but I like living in a world where I know that I can do that at any moment.
posted by zachlipton at 11:44 AM on July 10, 2017 [2 favorites]
Yep - at least some of the artists are licensed to Firefly Entertainment, which is a London-based company that, according to its website, "has an extensive music catalogue of proprietary and public domain recordings across all genres and has released over 4,000 albums through its music digital partner The Orchard." The latter may well be a company that does things like bulk-uploading to Spotify. A number of others are collected together in playlists branded as "Keen". I wonder if they might be not unrelated to one Gene Keen of Las Vegas, who is apparently a hardworking jobbing keyboard player / musical director. Though it's more likely to be Keen Music in Toronto, who "are what folks in the advertising industry call a music house".
Now, it's entirely possible that Spotify commissioned all this music, paying even less than the modest amounts that would be outlaid on royalties anyway. On the other hand, it's much more likely that these companies saw a gap in the market and moved to fill it.
posted by Grangousier at 12:08 PM on July 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
Now, it's entirely possible that Spotify commissioned all this music, paying even less than the modest amounts that would be outlaid on royalties anyway. On the other hand, it's much more likely that these companies saw a gap in the market and moved to fill it.
posted by Grangousier at 12:08 PM on July 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
Breaking News: Major Tech Company Does Something Legal That Nonetheless Violates Users' Trust. Details at 11.
posted by kevinbelt at 12:13 PM on July 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 12:13 PM on July 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
(That should probably say that Firefly Entertainment has the same name as a London-based company, as I can't prove the direct connection.)
posted by Grangousier at 12:16 PM on July 10, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Grangousier at 12:16 PM on July 10, 2017 [2 favorites]
here's where you will find the next band or artist song you fall in love with.
(Sorry, is this where I complain that Spotify is great at finding songs I like and terrible at finding bands I like?)
posted by LizBoBiz at 12:30 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
(Sorry, is this where I complain that Spotify is great at finding songs I like and terrible at finding bands I like?)
posted by LizBoBiz at 12:30 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Multiple cast-iron sourcesWhat is that supposed to mean? Anonymous source is still anonymous and should be viewed with a healthy skepticism for not going on the record, doubly so when there is no reason given for their reluctance to put a name behind there statement. Are they Spotify employees, producers, industry insiders, 'fake musicians', what are they risking and what's their stake in this if it gets back to Spotify they leaked confidential information? Throwing a heavy-handed adjective ironically gives me more pause then the assurance it want meant to convey. It also means these sources are less likely to dispute the reporters framing of their statement.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 1:02 PM on July 10, 2017
I think the loophole (for lack of a better term) Spotify is exploiting here is that even if they replaced, say, 40% of those ambient/sleep playlists with "house-brand artists," the vast majority of the audience for those playlists wouldn't notice or care. Hell, a bunch of them SLEEP THROUGH THE DAMNED THINGS.
If you get to a point where Spotify has begun replacing pop artists with their own farm teams, that becomes trickier. But even assuming a Spotify-made pop star would look the same as these under-the-radar ambient artists (i.e. no other presence besides Spotify playlists), the Spotify-made pop star would presumably have the option to abandon ship and sign a contract with a different label once they got popular, unless their original contract was total bullshit. Even then, it's not like normal labels haven't gotten artists to sign total bullshit in the past. People in general seem a lot savvier about that stuff, and making or selling music is no longer so expensive or exclusive that you'd need to take Spotify's shitty offer because that's the only path to stardom you have.
This is definitely a weird and potentially not-good development in the music industry, but but I don't think it's as obviously horrible as the initial article suggested.
posted by chrominance at 1:38 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
If you get to a point where Spotify has begun replacing pop artists with their own farm teams, that becomes trickier. But even assuming a Spotify-made pop star would look the same as these under-the-radar ambient artists (i.e. no other presence besides Spotify playlists), the Spotify-made pop star would presumably have the option to abandon ship and sign a contract with a different label once they got popular, unless their original contract was total bullshit. Even then, it's not like normal labels haven't gotten artists to sign total bullshit in the past. People in general seem a lot savvier about that stuff, and making or selling music is no longer so expensive or exclusive that you'd need to take Spotify's shitty offer because that's the only path to stardom you have.
This is definitely a weird and potentially not-good development in the music industry, but but I don't think it's as obviously horrible as the initial article suggested.
posted by chrominance at 1:38 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
How does this differ from Netflix having their own original content?
Netflix brags about its original content -- Spotify seem to be denying it
I'm failing to see the issue, it seems like they've just developed their own 'store brand'.
art is different than processed cheese. It just is.
posted by philip-random at 1:42 PM on July 10, 2017
Netflix brags about its original content -- Spotify seem to be denying it
I'm failing to see the issue, it seems like they've just developed their own 'store brand'.
art is different than processed cheese. It just is.
posted by philip-random at 1:42 PM on July 10, 2017
Hey, I like this Human Music!
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 1:45 PM on July 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 1:45 PM on July 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
I'm sure Spotify is working on an AI that can produce the filler so they can eventually not pay humans at all to create music. How hard could it be? The patterns aren't that complex, and they must have a staggering amount of user data they can exploit to train it.
Now if they could just make it self-listening we could all go outside and play.
posted by under_petticoat_rule at 2:17 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Now if they could just make it self-listening we could all go outside and play.
posted by under_petticoat_rule at 2:17 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
It's overwhelmingly mellow piano instrumentals, with some synthy ambient pieces.
I was expecting more tropical/chillwave/vaporwave/synthgaze/*; music with hazy synths and chilled house beats and yacht-rock staccato guitar and vocals fed through a dubby tape delay and those filtered synth pizzicatos that are everywhere now, with the cover artwork being comprised of pastel gradients and overlapping triangles.
posted by acb at 2:18 PM on July 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
I was expecting more tropical/chillwave/vaporwave/synthgaze/*; music with hazy synths and chilled house beats and yacht-rock staccato guitar and vocals fed through a dubby tape delay and those filtered synth pizzicatos that are everywhere now, with the cover artwork being comprised of pastel gradients and overlapping triangles.
posted by acb at 2:18 PM on July 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
If you get to a point where Spotify has begun replacing pop artists with their own farm teams, that becomes trickier. But even assuming a Spotify-made pop star would look the same as these under-the-radar ambient artists (i.e. no other presence besides Spotify playlists), the Spotify-made pop star would presumably have the option to abandon ship and sign a contract with a different label once they got popular, unless their original contract was total bullshit.
Depends what the nature of the artist was. If the contract stated that, say, “Gabriel Parker” is not the name of a person but of a music project owned and managed by Spotify or some subsidiary thereof, and that the producers and session musicians hired (or subcontracted) to create content under this name were working for hire, with authorship residing in the corporate owner, would the producer or the session singer laying down a vocal track have a legal claim to the name?
At most, I can see it turning out like “The Real Milli Vanilli”, the project of the underpaid session musicians hired to perform the actual tracks that the two faces in the video mimed to. They released it after a dispute and, other than a few souls buying it out of curiosity, it flopped.
posted by acb at 2:28 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Depends what the nature of the artist was. If the contract stated that, say, “Gabriel Parker” is not the name of a person but of a music project owned and managed by Spotify or some subsidiary thereof, and that the producers and session musicians hired (or subcontracted) to create content under this name were working for hire, with authorship residing in the corporate owner, would the producer or the session singer laying down a vocal track have a legal claim to the name?
At most, I can see it turning out like “The Real Milli Vanilli”, the project of the underpaid session musicians hired to perform the actual tracks that the two faces in the video mimed to. They released it after a dispute and, other than a few souls buying it out of curiosity, it flopped.
posted by acb at 2:28 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
I was expecting more tropical/chillwave/vaporwave/synthgaze/*; music with hazy synths and chilled house beats and yacht-rock staccato guitar and vocals fed through a dubby tape delay and those filtered synth pizzicatos that are everywhere now, with the cover artwork being comprised of pastel gradients and overlapping triangles.
I'd listen to this (and already do).
posted by defenestration at 2:33 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'd listen to this (and already do).
posted by defenestration at 2:33 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'd listen to this (and already do).
I'm one programming environment capable of loading and operating VST/AudioUnit plugins and a stretch of free time away from attempting to write something that generates this on tap.
posted by acb at 2:36 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm one programming environment capable of loading and operating VST/AudioUnit plugins and a stretch of free time away from attempting to write something that generates this on tap.
posted by acb at 2:36 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm failing to see the issue, it seems like they've just developed their own 'store brand'.
art is different than processed cheese. It just is.
Well, that's some shaky ground you've staked out. As it would seem to require exquisite aesthetic discernment to reliably distinguish base commercial product from Art.
Is the ambient music cranked out by some anonymous guy doing what amounts to piecework for a buyer essentially different from the ambient music cranked out by a guy on a label with the end of getting laid/buying drugs/paying for a new car?
If so, what distinguishes the latter from the former?
posted by the sobsister at 2:39 PM on July 10, 2017
art is different than processed cheese. It just is.
Well, that's some shaky ground you've staked out. As it would seem to require exquisite aesthetic discernment to reliably distinguish base commercial product from Art.
Is the ambient music cranked out by some anonymous guy doing what amounts to piecework for a buyer essentially different from the ambient music cranked out by a guy on a label with the end of getting laid/buying drugs/paying for a new car?
If so, what distinguishes the latter from the former?
posted by the sobsister at 2:39 PM on July 10, 2017
I'm one programming environment capable of loading and operating VST/AudioUnit plugins and a stretch of free time away from attempting to write something that generates this on tap.
Pure Data? MaxMSP? If you do, lemme know, I'd like to check it out.
posted by defenestration at 2:39 PM on July 10, 2017
Pure Data? MaxMSP? If you do, lemme know, I'd like to check it out.
posted by defenestration at 2:39 PM on July 10, 2017
MBW understands that the Swedish streamer continues to pay a revenue share of around 55% to labels (not including publishing money).
Jesus tapdancing Christ. Thanks for reminding me to go to Bandcamp and purchase those records I've been streaming on YouTube at work. So much rentseeking, but at least at Bandcamp I can direct more of that revenue to the artists/labels doing the work.
Just to be sure -- label costs are not publishing/performance costs. In addition to paying the labels, they need to pay the PROs/publishers/SoundExchange.
posted by odin53 at 2:57 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Jesus tapdancing Christ. Thanks for reminding me to go to Bandcamp and purchase those records I've been streaming on YouTube at work. So much rentseeking, but at least at Bandcamp I can direct more of that revenue to the artists/labels doing the work.
Just to be sure -- label costs are not publishing/performance costs. In addition to paying the labels, they need to pay the PROs/publishers/SoundExchange.
posted by odin53 at 2:57 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
If we're going to compare Spotify to Netflix, we should remember that Netflix is absolutely full of shitty knockoff movies like "Jupiter Rising" or "Transmorphers" or whatever. They're often the first titles that show up when you search for a popular movie. They're not produced by Netflix, but it sounds like this music isn't produced by Spotify, either. I'm sure Spotify is posting this stuff for the same reason that Netflix does: because the streaming rights are super cheap and it fills up airtime (or whatever the streaming equivalent of airtime is). I'm not saying it's great for consumers or artists, but I don't think this is as shocking or unprecedented as it's made out to be.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 3:19 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 3:19 PM on July 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Music is still music, it was written by someone, it's not as if they were just randomly hitting keys on a keyboard and posting the nonsense that came out. It seems pretty elitist to say "this artist is not famous enough to be on my playlists" doesn't it? Especially on a "discover" one. I don't think this is at all comparable to store brand foods. This is art, and a lot of people just want to listen and they don't really care who the artist is as long as it's good. Think of industries like photography stock, nobody really cares who took the picture of the flamingo. They just want it to be high quality and useful.
posted by Hazelsmrf at 4:48 PM on July 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Hazelsmrf at 4:48 PM on July 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
Yeah, and I agree with Grangousier that this seems like it's probably library music, which doesn't bother me in the least (those names sound like library music composers). I used to collect library music, and I wanted to be a library music composer for years (until I discovered that I can't compose for shit). A lot of people who produce library music say like doing it because they don't have to worry about a public image, and they get a lot of freedom and flexibility that they might not otherwise have.
I do think there's an issue if there are songs intentionally titled to resemble hits. That's kind of shady. But in general yeah, I really don't have a problem with obscure people releasing stuff that gets added to a playlist because it sounds nice and it's cheap to stream. And people like hearing it! Some of the most iconic music has been library music, and everyone heard it because it was so cheap to use in movies and TV.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 5:19 PM on July 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
I do think there's an issue if there are songs intentionally titled to resemble hits. That's kind of shady. But in general yeah, I really don't have a problem with obscure people releasing stuff that gets added to a playlist because it sounds nice and it's cheap to stream. And people like hearing it! Some of the most iconic music has been library music, and everyone heard it because it was so cheap to use in movies and TV.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 5:19 PM on July 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
I strongly agree misskaz, my primary concern is of transparency: Netflix clearly labels the material that they are producing and financing. That Spotify does not label it as such and denies it is misleading; on Netflix, I'm able to track down the other creator or director's work since I know their name.
(shapes, I thought of library music as well as I was composing this post.
posted by fizzix at 6:12 PM on July 10, 2017
Right, it maybe be misleading (though I'm not sure that's a material problem), but the end result is that it reduces the amount of royalties they have to pay. Royalties are why Spotify, Pandora, and other "legal" sites will be put out of business. Royalties are also why Soundcloud, Mixcloud and othe audio hosting sites cannot find a workable business model. Follow the money.
posted by rhizome at 10:35 PM on July 10, 2017
posted by rhizome at 10:35 PM on July 10, 2017
It still has yet to be proven that Spotify are the ones creating the music. That there are Swedish musicians who live in Stockholm and put their music on the Internet is not really any sort of revelation.
In terms of transparency, Spotify is not claiming that a given track was created by someone that it was not - the tracks are attached to artists or band names which, while generic, aren't (wholly) misrepresentations. You can still click and get the rest of Piotr Miteska's works under that name on Spotify if you really want to, just like you could find the rest of Mark Atkins III's work if Battle of Los Angles (not to be confused with the much-bigger budget work with Jonathan Liebesman called Battle: Los Angeles) is your cup of tea. Mark Atkin III has created many other such movies whos titles might seem familiar enough to you; Transmorphers: Fall of Man, The Terminators, and 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea. In the list of supposed Spotify-sponsored artists that has come out, it's not like there's a "Justin Beber", or "Katie Perry", though "spam" tracks that try to take advantage of that sort of thing exist on Spotify, as the Vulture article points out.
Ultimately, it depends on the same question you have to ask yourself about Netflix. Was Netflix forced to make the leap to their own content because networks wouldn't give them a fair deal or are the TV network and movie companies greedy and wanted a bigger piece of a pie than Netflix could afford? (Hint: Soundcloud just laid off half their staff, and given how many online music streaming services littered the early 2000's, online music streaming isn't an easy home run to making money.) Do you, as a consumer care, about any of the behinds-the-scene business dealing, or, as long as the next season of Orange is the New Black is as riveting as the last, does Netflix get your $10/month?
Sadly, there's no real winner here. The record industry is full of horrible people (some of the artists themselves are objectionable, eg Chris Brown, but also the "industry people" as well - there's a whole article about Kesha v. Dr. Luke. Apple would just as soon put Spotify out of business, with the exclusive launch shit that they pull; record companies will keep Apple and Spotify fighting as long as they can until they manage to buy some momentum for Tidal.
posted by fragmede at 11:08 PM on July 10, 2017
In terms of transparency, Spotify is not claiming that a given track was created by someone that it was not - the tracks are attached to artists or band names which, while generic, aren't (wholly) misrepresentations. You can still click and get the rest of Piotr Miteska's works under that name on Spotify if you really want to, just like you could find the rest of Mark Atkins III's work if Battle of Los Angles (not to be confused with the much-bigger budget work with Jonathan Liebesman called Battle: Los Angeles) is your cup of tea. Mark Atkin III has created many other such movies whos titles might seem familiar enough to you; Transmorphers: Fall of Man, The Terminators, and 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea. In the list of supposed Spotify-sponsored artists that has come out, it's not like there's a "Justin Beber", or "Katie Perry", though "spam" tracks that try to take advantage of that sort of thing exist on Spotify, as the Vulture article points out.
Ultimately, it depends on the same question you have to ask yourself about Netflix. Was Netflix forced to make the leap to their own content because networks wouldn't give them a fair deal or are the TV network and movie companies greedy and wanted a bigger piece of a pie than Netflix could afford? (Hint: Soundcloud just laid off half their staff, and given how many online music streaming services littered the early 2000's, online music streaming isn't an easy home run to making money.) Do you, as a consumer care, about any of the behinds-the-scene business dealing, or, as long as the next season of Orange is the New Black is as riveting as the last, does Netflix get your $10/month?
Sadly, there's no real winner here. The record industry is full of horrible people (some of the artists themselves are objectionable, eg Chris Brown, but also the "industry people" as well - there's a whole article about Kesha v. Dr. Luke. Apple would just as soon put Spotify out of business, with the exclusive launch shit that they pull; record companies will keep Apple and Spotify fighting as long as they can until they manage to buy some momentum for Tidal.
posted by fragmede at 11:08 PM on July 10, 2017
It doesn't matter who the artist actually is. There are over 150 artists publishing as "Mike" on Discogs, and then you have people with a zillion aliases, like Marc Acardipane. All that matters is whether Spotify can figure out a way to survive, because they can't they way they're going. If that means they pivot to a 100% in-house model (Muzak), then people can stop subscribing. Which they will, but they'll also probably survive, at least for a while.
But there's also a label aspect. They could start out with 1950s Columbia-level coverage. Have they been hiring A&R lately?
posted by rhizome at 12:27 AM on July 11, 2017
But there's also a label aspect. They could start out with 1950s Columbia-level coverage. Have they been hiring A&R lately?
posted by rhizome at 12:27 AM on July 11, 2017
Was Netflix forced to make the leap to their own content because networks wouldn't give them a fair deal or are the TV network and movie companies greedy and wanted a bigger piece of a pie than Netflix could afford?
The writing was on the wall when Starz took their shows away, and Netflix was smart to conclude that they weren't interested in being jerked around like a webserver with kneepads. Turns out they caught a fire.
posted by rhizome at 12:31 AM on July 11, 2017
The writing was on the wall when Starz took their shows away, and Netflix was smart to conclude that they weren't interested in being jerked around like a webserver with kneepads. Turns out they caught a fire.
posted by rhizome at 12:31 AM on July 11, 2017
I doubt artists are being exploited here. I'm sure they're spending like an hour or two on those songs at most and are happy to get any money for it at all.
posted by empath at 6:10 AM on July 11, 2017
posted by empath at 6:10 AM on July 11, 2017
Aw man, and I was looking for "I'm Convinced I Can Swim" by Art Smelly, too.
posted by scruss at 8:16 AM on July 11, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by scruss at 8:16 AM on July 11, 2017 [1 favorite]
Spotify should definitely own this, and their carefully-worded response is the worst kind of corporate speak. But from the stories, the "fake artists" stuff is only relevant for Spotify's own curated playlists. And inside of those playlists, it's only relevant for themes/genres that are by their nature not traditional pop or rock music. You can't make a "top-40" playlist with fake bands. You can't make a "one hit wonders of the '80s" playlist with fake bands. You can't make a "greatest prog rock hits" playlist with fake bands. Spotify isn't pretending to serve you up a song you know and like but swapping it out with a cheap doppelganger. Instead, they pad playlists of background music or mellow piano. The fact that the fake songs get millions of streams is pretty good evidence that they are good enough to hold a spot on the list, right?
I think the bigger problem for them is the third parties who do their best to truly game the search box. We have a family subscription to Spotify because I can reliably find and listen to a giant catalog of legit songs. When enough searches turn up poor imitations or a deluge of quickly-recorded cover songs, we'll give up and find the next best thing.
posted by AgentRocket at 8:34 AM on July 11, 2017 [1 favorite]
I think the bigger problem for them is the third parties who do their best to truly game the search box. We have a family subscription to Spotify because I can reliably find and listen to a giant catalog of legit songs. When enough searches turn up poor imitations or a deluge of quickly-recorded cover songs, we'll give up and find the next best thing.
posted by AgentRocket at 8:34 AM on July 11, 2017 [1 favorite]
Spotify should definitely own this
Sorry, I keep diving in to the thread, but it's maddening... there's nothing to own. This chap has spun a grand conspiracy theory out of nothing other than people's natural desire to snark at Spotify, and the idiosyncrasies of a popular but anonymous genre. The closest he's got to evidence of collusion is that one of the studios responsible for a couple of tracks on his list is Swedish like Spotify itself. Being Swedish is not in itself suspicious behaviour.
Except possibly in Finland.
posted by Grangousier at 10:13 AM on July 11, 2017 [2 favorites]
Sorry, I keep diving in to the thread, but it's maddening... there's nothing to own. This chap has spun a grand conspiracy theory out of nothing other than people's natural desire to snark at Spotify, and the idiosyncrasies of a popular but anonymous genre. The closest he's got to evidence of collusion is that one of the studios responsible for a couple of tracks on his list is Swedish like Spotify itself. Being Swedish is not in itself suspicious behaviour.
Except possibly in Finland.
posted by Grangousier at 10:13 AM on July 11, 2017 [2 favorites]
The closest he's got to evidence of collusion is that one of the studios responsible for a couple of tracks on his list is Swedish like Spotify itself. Being Swedish is not in itself suspicious behaviour.
Especially given that Sweden is the world's third biggest exporter of recorded music.
posted by acb at 12:45 PM on July 11, 2017
Especially given that Sweden is the world's third biggest exporter of recorded music.
posted by acb at 12:45 PM on July 11, 2017
Spotify should definitely own this, and their carefully-worded response is the worst kind of corporate speak.
I think they're in a spot where they can't piss off the labels and appear to be trying to undercut them.
posted by rhizome at 4:59 PM on July 11, 2017
I think they're in a spot where they can't piss off the labels and appear to be trying to undercut them.
posted by rhizome at 4:59 PM on July 11, 2017
I don't have any particular ethical problem with Spotify making its own generic smooth jazz recordings and playing those. Assuming they are original generic mood music recordings or covers of songs that are out of copyright, who cares? The musicians who made the tracks must have got paid, even if it was work for hire.
But I am, at this precise moment listening to a cover of Maren Morris's My Church by an artist who has no other songs on Spotify. The song is listed as "Can I Get a Hallelujah?" which is the power moment in the chorus of the song, but not the title of the original. The artist is named Cher Renae, and doesn't appear to have a bandcamp profile or soundcloud or youtube or website or anything else on the internet.
It was inserted into my Discover Weekly playlist by Spotify, and it is a sufficiently close match to the original that when I heard it from across the room, I was like 'why would Spotify put a song that's already in several of my self-constructed playlists in Discover Weekly?'
Did Spotify create this note-for-note cover to screw Maren Morris out of royalties? Did someone else create this note-for-note cover and sneak it onto Spotify through one of the shittier distributors to earn royalties from people who search for Morris's song using the wrong title?
The former would be unethical as fuck on the part of Spotify. The latter would be unethical as fuck on the part of the cover artist and the distributor, and only possibly unethical on the part of Spotify. But definitely lazy if they aren't working to combat this sort of thing.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:11 PM on July 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
But I am, at this precise moment listening to a cover of Maren Morris's My Church by an artist who has no other songs on Spotify. The song is listed as "Can I Get a Hallelujah?" which is the power moment in the chorus of the song, but not the title of the original. The artist is named Cher Renae, and doesn't appear to have a bandcamp profile or soundcloud or youtube or website or anything else on the internet.
It was inserted into my Discover Weekly playlist by Spotify, and it is a sufficiently close match to the original that when I heard it from across the room, I was like 'why would Spotify put a song that's already in several of my self-constructed playlists in Discover Weekly?'
Did Spotify create this note-for-note cover to screw Maren Morris out of royalties? Did someone else create this note-for-note cover and sneak it onto Spotify through one of the shittier distributors to earn royalties from people who search for Morris's song using the wrong title?
The former would be unethical as fuck on the part of Spotify. The latter would be unethical as fuck on the part of the cover artist and the distributor, and only possibly unethical on the part of Spotify. But definitely lazy if they aren't working to combat this sort of thing.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:11 PM on July 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
For some reason I seem to be turning into some kind of...
I have a lot of necessary activity to displace with this nonsense, obviously.
Anyway, a quick internet search turns up that same track on Apple Music and Google Play, as well as a long-abandoned Twitter account for a woman called Cher Maendel, calling herself Chaer Renae, who describes herself as (among other things and at least in 2014) a singer/songwriter. And other links to LinkedIn and Facebook and YouTube that I didn't follow.
Is it possible that Spotify's AI identified that you liked music that sounds like that, and have served up a track that sounds just like that, for a very obvious reason that's not in the Spotify AI's ambit to judge?
The same chap who wrote the original article discovered that Spotify have hired someone who specialises in AIs that analyse music. On the one hand he was using it (presumably for publicity and as a proof of concept) to make amusing computer generated music, but on the other (and I would suggest more relevantly to Spotify and infinitely more likely, tbh) it could be trained to recognise similarities between tracks, which can be combined with other data for auto-recommendations (like Discover Weekly or the other personalised playlists). But obviously to Music Business Worldwide it means that Spotify is aiming to replace all our music with computer generated tracks.
!!!!!111
They'll be after our precious bodily fluids next.
Unless I need a really deep dive displacement activity, I'm not going to go through his list and see how many appear on the other streaming services.
posted by Grangousier at 4:09 AM on July 13, 2017 [1 favorite]
I have a lot of necessary activity to displace with this nonsense, obviously.
Anyway, a quick internet search turns up that same track on Apple Music and Google Play, as well as a long-abandoned Twitter account for a woman called Cher Maendel, calling herself Chaer Renae, who describes herself as (among other things and at least in 2014) a singer/songwriter. And other links to LinkedIn and Facebook and YouTube that I didn't follow.
Is it possible that Spotify's AI identified that you liked music that sounds like that, and have served up a track that sounds just like that, for a very obvious reason that's not in the Spotify AI's ambit to judge?
The same chap who wrote the original article discovered that Spotify have hired someone who specialises in AIs that analyse music. On the one hand he was using it (presumably for publicity and as a proof of concept) to make amusing computer generated music, but on the other (and I would suggest more relevantly to Spotify and infinitely more likely, tbh) it could be trained to recognise similarities between tracks, which can be combined with other data for auto-recommendations (like Discover Weekly or the other personalised playlists). But obviously to Music Business Worldwide it means that Spotify is aiming to replace all our music with computer generated tracks.
!!!!!111
They'll be after our precious bodily fluids next.
Unless I need a really deep dive displacement activity, I'm not going to go through his list and see how many appear on the other streaming services.
posted by Grangousier at 4:09 AM on July 13, 2017 [1 favorite]
Ah, someone on The Verge actually did the journalism thing, and interviewed some of these artists. A combination of music libraries and pseudonymous composers. Spotify occasionally asks them to add music to fill out the playlists, but there's no suggestion that there's any different royalty structure, and they definitely don't hold rights in any of the tracks.
Music Business Worldwide got a bunch of juicy page views out of it, though.
posted by Grangousier at 4:54 PM on July 13, 2017 [2 favorites]
Music Business Worldwide got a bunch of juicy page views out of it, though.
posted by Grangousier at 4:54 PM on July 13, 2017 [2 favorites]
Sounds like it's work for hire, then, which is gravy for Spotify, rightswise.
posted by rhizome at 5:42 PM on July 13, 2017
posted by rhizome at 5:42 PM on July 13, 2017
« Older History Meets Technology in Shipwreck Alley | Surviving the Great Filter Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:34 AM on July 10, 2017 [4 favorites]