5 ms·
The only thing that's sketchy is Spotify directing everyone to the same content, making stuff that appeals to the audience isn't against the rules.
by hobs 3y ago
The only thing that's sketchy is Spotify directing everyone to the same content, making stuff that appeals to the audience isn't against the rules.
- TylerE 3y agoHe seems to be essentially releasing content PURELY to make the algorithms light up, though, not out of any sort of "honest" artistic intention. Like all those "$bandname for kids" releases that are just midis played through xylophone, marimba patches, or occasionally strings. Credited to legitimate sounding "artists" like the "Vitamin Quartet".
- markles 3y agoHe's just playing within the system given. People should stop subscribing to services like these and then people like him won't exist.
- andsoitis 3y ago> He seems to be essentially releasing content PURELY to make the algorithms light up That’s art.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y agoWait, isnt that sort of the exact opposite?
- falserum 3y agoI think what parent meant was, all poplar art tries to sarisfy some “algorithm”. (Algorithm of what will masses listen to) 20 years ago that was trying to pick good ratios of bass, haircut, and marketing to get into mtv top ten.
- card_zero 3y agoI'm reminded of The Manual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manual
- pests 3y agoMaybe if it's intentional. Making a statement by hitting the algo buttons. And I'm not saying he's not. But do we call it art if it's fraud? Isn't a lot of HN readers against AI generated spam and SEO spun content? I don't call those art, and I'm not sure yet what to call thos composer.
- juitpykyk 3y agoWhat's the fraud if people like it? You are entering into the hundreds year old "what is art" debate.
- falserum 3y agoDoes art need to “make a statement”? I think: - It is subjective. - if you enjoy it, then it is art. Doing music for profit is not a new concept, just look at pop music (and especially “boy bands”) But if end result sounds good to a lot of people, how is that not an art?
- edu 3y agoBut that’s basically the same that the big music companies do with mainstream music.
- edu 3y agoAgree. Actually I’m feed quite feed up with Spotify, and this week decided to get a proper HiRes audio and buy music from places like BandCamp or the CD edition and ripping it. I miss curating my collection and playlists. It seems that the convenience of having almost all music available in a couple of clicks is making the listening experience less valuable.
- iamacyborg 3y agoI did this 6 months ago. I’m now using a service called Roon to stream my local library, any other track I don’t own gets streamed from Tidal via Roon.
- kristiandupont 3y agoI know it's a hipster thing, but if you feel like this, consider getting a record player if you haven't. I still use Spotify for background music but when I cook or am in another situation where I want to appreciate the music, I put on a record and it feels a lot better. There are a number of psychological effects in play there, like the fact that I am forced to listen to the tracks in the set order, that I've made a commitment by purchasing the record and that it adds atmosphere to the room to have a visibly rotating disc.
- edu 3y agoYes, I own one already and I’m building my record collection slowly. Also the large artworks are wonderful.
- tekla 3y agoYou can just listen to albums and not be a diva about it.
- l72 3y agoThis is what I do. I have a solid vinyl and cassette collection and huge digital collection all from cd rips or flac (mostly from Bandcamp) I also have navidrome set up so I can easily stream it from anywhere (my server is internal + WireGuard to access it remotely)
- jamesblonde 3y agoI would assume this is part of Spotify's business model. If 10% of the music played is from their "preferred" artists, who get say 5% of the commission that Brittney Spears gets, they make more money. Right? That the guy is based in Stockholm is even more evidence this is the case. They don't need to collude to do this - if Spotify and the guy follow self-interest, you get this outcome.
- Beldin 3y agoI am more bothered by the part with having over 650 different artist names that hide their link to each other (unlike Prince/TAFKAP, Kanye/Ye, etc). I mean: your gripe is basically Spotify's entire raison d'etre. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to hide your true identity to such an extent, except to be able to act as your own competition. That is, I think this person knows very well that by using different artist names, he will get Spotify revenue the listeners think is going to different artists.
- jhbadger 3y agoIsn't that basically what many authors do? Many authors are afraid of diluting their brand so when they write books in a different genre or style they create a new pen name to keep the works distinct from their main name. For example Stephen King used to write additional books under the name of Richard Bachman, before that identity was linked to him, and the late Samuel Youd used to write under a half-dozen names, most famously as John Christopher (of Tripods and No Blade of Grass fame). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bachman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bachman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christopher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christopher
- Beldin 3y agoSure, but the extent differs greatly. Imagine someone doing this to enter an additional genre unburdened by their well-known works - so not "quit the band, band reformed under new name" stuff. In how many genres can a very prolific and competent artist deliver quality works concurrently? 10? 20? How many profitable genres are there even on Spotify? 100? 200? Where is the line between "revenue-generating label" and "relegated-to-obscurity-by-your-own-choice label"? I believe an artist can believably perform decently in several genres, but not in hundreds of genres. Moreover, I can understand being cautious when entering a radically new main genre from your usual fare, but I think there are plenty of adjacent genres where there is no significant taint (eg, sword&sorcery / high fantasy / urban fantasy). As such, to me, there's a crossover point/zone somewhere beyond "several" and before "hundreds" where you're no longer doing it for separating your output along clearly distinct categories where such separation is expected/needed/warranted, but faking an abundance of choice to increase profit. To me, 650 pseudonyms falls into the latter category - as another comment put it: SEO'ing Spotify to maximise profits. I dislike that, because it has nothing to do with competing on artistic merit.
- falserum 3y agoIs that actually sketchy though? - Each artist has different royalties, some are more expensive than others. - appearantly people do listen to ”cheaper” artists, in right circumstances - consumers prefer that cost of subscription would be lower - I assume scenario in the article saves money for spotify, and in turn allows to remain profitable without increasing subscription prices. Seems it aligns well with interest of consumers in the long run.
- mihalycsaba 3y agoMaybe, this is what people actually want to listen to and the algorithm is just doing what it's supposed to. I see people listening to these no name artists, the most boring unimaginative generic contemporary music. Maybe this guy just really knows what the average listener likes. In my opinion Spotify's algorithm is the best in knowing what I will like and probably will replay, I don't think it would work this well if they were manually directing us towards artists.
- ahartmetz 3y agoI feel like Spotify'a recommendations want to funnel me into a cohort whose music taste I supposedly share, but I actually don't. Last.fm seemed to both consider my likes more directly and more creatively. 15% or so of duds are fine, it's better than "oh you liked that dark techno track, it's mini-popular right now so have 20 more". By the way, last.fm radio exists again, though YouTube is the music source these days.