5 ms·

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 denyin

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.

throw646577 2y ago
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.
surgical_fire 2y ago
That only works if people, actual users, actively choose to listen to filler. If they do, what is the issue?
- _yb2s 2y ago
  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.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    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.
- rocqua 2y ago
  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.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    > 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.
    - rocqua 2y ago
      > 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.

throw646577 2y ago

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.

surgical_fire 2y ago

That only works if people, actual users, actively choose to listen to filler. If they do, what is the issue?

_yb2s 2y ago
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.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  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.
rocqua 2y ago
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.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  > 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.
  - rocqua 2y ago
    > 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.