4 ms·

I don't quite see what is "fake" about the "fake artists". They appear to be real artists. Did I missunderstand something?

jaclaz 5y ago
No, you are right, at the end of the article: >Even the term fake artists doesn’t really do justice to the scope of the situation—because, as we have seen, it’s not the musicians, real or otherwise, who are at the root of the situation, but the dominant players in the industry. and there is another article linked to from that one: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/an-mbw-reader-just-blew-open-the-spotify-fake-artists-story-heres-what-they-have-to-say/ https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/an-mbw-reader-just-bl... where the matter is explained, point #5: >At the end of the day, fake artists are of course real songwriters, instrumentalists and music producers with varying degrees of talent. The "fake artists" is one of those "way off" names the media invented, these people are likely paid peanuts for their work/music/playing, their real names are not publicized and the "record label" gets the most of the streaming royalties. It would be like you paid $10 once to someone on fiverr for - say - an Excel template , get the IP of it, attribute the creation to an invented name (belonging to your "label") then by using some clever SEO or whatever, sell it a few thousand times. They should be called "invented name artists", there is nothing fake in them if not the names, sort of "ghost writers", possibly "ghost artists" would be suitable.
- jalk 5y ago
  But isnt it Spotify who commission the songs and can just stuff the playlist with content (i.e. like Netflix producing their own shows) in order to keep a bigger cut?
  - gerikson 5y ago
    Pretty much. There's a financial incentive for artists to participate in this. It's more or less a steady income stream, there's no touring, and there's no need to present an attractive public image to sell. Just create music at your own time, let Spotify package it, and get paid.
- prova_modena 5y ago
  Record labels have been doing similar things since the 1950s, building musical acts on-demand by combining skilled, anonymous "session musicians" with an attractive, marketable image or performers that fit the current trend. The most famous example from the 1960s is the Monkees, but this dynamic played a huge part in the development of a surprising number of famous pop bands and musical personalities. Massive public backlash against the perceived inauthenticity of this approach caused record labels to be much more cautious from the 1970s onward, but it's never gone away. Spotify's main "sin" here seems to be that they aren't as skilled as the big labels in manufacturing authenticity/buzz around their most promoted artists.
  - iostream24 5y ago
    Or rather that they are actively seeding each genre with content they don’t have the pay royalties on and giving preference to this content unless directed specifically otherwise, and the real sin here is not divulging that you’ve been hearing generic house brand “music” and pretending that it’s all equally valid content. This will become more obvious as algorithmic music takes over background music tasks. Spotify is evil in the sense that any other monopoly with perverse incentives trying to appear mellow and not monopolistic is. Netflix specials are labeled as such, and they put some effort and money into them, they aren’t cynical garbage like the Amazon knockoffs of Amazon listed merchants are, which fraudulently purport to be the same.
nikanj 5y ago
An artist is not real if we can’t follow their life on the tabloits

jaclaz 5y ago

No, you are right, at the end of the article: >Even the term fake artists doesn’t really do justice to the scope of the situation—because, as we have seen, it’s not the musicians, real or otherwise, who are at the root of the situation, but the dominant players in the industry. and there is another article linked to from that one: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/an-mbw-reader-just-blew-open-the-spotify-fake-artists-story-heres-what-they-have-to-say/ https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/an-mbw-reader-just-bl... where the matter is explained, point #5: >At the end of the day, fake artists are of course real songwriters, instrumentalists and music producers with varying degrees of talent. The "fake artists" is one of those "way off" names the media invented, these people are likely paid peanuts for their work/music/playing, their real names are not publicized and the "record label" gets the most of the streaming royalties. It would be like you paid $10 once to someone on fiverr for - say - an Excel template , get the IP of it, attribute the creation to an invented name (belonging to your "label") then by using some clever SEO or whatever, sell it a few thousand times. They should be called "invented name artists", there is nothing fake in them if not the names, sort of "ghost writers", possibly "ghost artists" would be suitable.

jalk 5y ago
But isnt it Spotify who commission the songs and can just stuff the playlist with content (i.e. like Netflix producing their own shows) in order to keep a bigger cut?
- gerikson 5y ago
  Pretty much. There's a financial incentive for artists to participate in this. It's more or less a steady income stream, there's no touring, and there's no need to present an attractive public image to sell. Just create music at your own time, let Spotify package it, and get paid.
prova_modena 5y ago
Record labels have been doing similar things since the 1950s, building musical acts on-demand by combining skilled, anonymous "session musicians" with an attractive, marketable image or performers that fit the current trend. The most famous example from the 1960s is the Monkees, but this dynamic played a huge part in the development of a surprising number of famous pop bands and musical personalities. Massive public backlash against the perceived inauthenticity of this approach caused record labels to be much more cautious from the 1970s onward, but it's never gone away. Spotify's main "sin" here seems to be that they aren't as skilled as the big labels in manufacturing authenticity/buzz around their most promoted artists.
- iostream24 5y ago
  Or rather that they are actively seeding each genre with content they don’t have the pay royalties on and giving preference to this content unless directed specifically otherwise, and the real sin here is not divulging that you’ve been hearing generic house brand “music” and pretending that it’s all equally valid content. This will become more obvious as algorithmic music takes over background music tasks. Spotify is evil in the sense that any other monopoly with perverse incentives trying to appear mellow and not monopolistic is. Netflix specials are labeled as such, and they put some effort and money into them, they aren’t cynical garbage like the Amazon knockoffs of Amazon listed merchants are, which fraudulently purport to be the same.

nikanj 5y ago

An artist is not real if we can’t follow their life on the tabloits