4 ms·
Interesting points raised about discoverability, financial incentives of curators, and treating music as "content", but the "pseudonymous artists" bit seems lik
by xkcd-sucks 5y ago
Interesting points raised about discoverability, financial incentives of curators, and treating music as "content", but the "pseudonymous artists" bit seems like a pointless distraction.
For example Richard D James, more of an "artist" than a "content creator" released music as:
- Aphex Twin
- Phonic Boy on Dope
- Q-Chastic
- Blue Calx
- The Dice Man
- Gak
- Power-Pill
- Bradley Strider
- AFX
- Caustic Window
- The Tuss (comprising both Brian and Karen Tregaskin!)
- user18081971
- zeruch 5y ago"but the "pseudonymous artists" bit seems like a pointless distraction." I think what matters here is motive. RDJ used/s pseudonyms to suit an artistic purpose not unlike what Fernando Pessoa did with his heteronyms in literature a century ago. What's happening here looks less like artistic license and more like marketecture designed to game DSPs for streams.