7 ms·

I noticed this and the ghost artists in my recommendations after playing some ambient. I'm done with Spotify. I've had the service since it was beta in the Nor

I noticed this and the ghost artists in my recommendations after playing some ambient. I'm done with Spotify. I've had the service since it was beta in the Nordics, maybe 2008? It was amazing to be able to stream almost every piece of music there is. I love music, I'm an amateur musician and I respect artists. This treats music as a fungible commodity. That's not what music is to me, so I choose not to support that. I also understand the predicament they are in. I had friends who worked at Rdio, and I briefly worked at a startup doing music recommendation until the big 3 quoted us how much royalties they wanted in advance to stream their catalogue one time to learn from. The record labels are the root cancer on the industry, but the alternative for Spotify might be to become a better label, not become another bad actor.

echelon 2y ago
> This treats music as a fungible commodity. This is only going to accelerate. Until the labels die, the universe will find every way to route around them. Hopefully concert venues are next.
- nine_k 2y ago
  How are musicians are going to perform live before large audiences?
  - echelon 2y ago
    I'm referring to the Ticketmaster / Live Nation monopoly. If you're not familiar, the company has a corner on the market for concert venues and all associated services (booking, ticket resale, food and liquor vendors, point of sale, etc.) They use this to inflate ticket prices.
    - CyberDildonics 2y ago
      How is shoveling AI generated songs going to take down ticket master?
mvdtnz 2y ago
Sorry but music in the genre "generic background track designed to go unnoticed" is in fact fungible and interchangeable.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lmpdev 2y ago
  Double sorry but Brian Eno’s Music for Airports or Aphex Twin’s Selected Ambient Works II is not interchangable with AI drivel
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    You'd consider those generic?
    - johan914 2y ago
      He wasn't the one calling ambient music generic unnoticed music.
      - Brian_K_White 2y ago
        Parent comment said generic, he offered these as counters, so he called them generic.
        johan914 2y ago
        "I like ambient music" "Elevator generic background music is trash. Good riddance. " "No, X and Y in the genre are good bands" "So you agree it is generic elevator music?"
        hombre_fatal 2y ago
        Hmm, I wouldn't summarize it that way on first read, but I can understand and perhaps agree with the interpretation. How I read it, the second comment is saying that AI music competes with machine-replicable human music, a subset of human music, but not all. Frankly, while Brian Eno's Music for Airports was monumental in the history of ambient music, in 2024 people unfamiliar with it aren't going to be able to tell it apart from select AI clips (as much as that will hurt to admit). That's less about it being generic and more about how good AIgen can mimic humans. Just like how humans couldn't tell apart human from AIgen in impressionist art: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-art-turing https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-ar... -- we wouldn't use that example to say that human art is just generic slop. On re-read, I do think the thread started off on the wrong foot by using the word generic. Ambient music is simply some of the easiest music to machine generate being minimalist with heavy use of synthesizers, and much of it was machine generated in the first place in a DAW.
bogdan 2y ago
Over the past year I’ve become a big fan of Japanese music. I started with Yoasobi and then Spotify led me to Vocaloid (I knew of Hatsune Miku but I'm not into that). Nowadays I mostly listen to Vocaloid because it’s so expressive and different. This is why I'm excited about ai music - it’s a powerful and accessible tool that can help talented people explore new forms of music. That’s what music is all about for me.
- jsheard 2y ago
  Vocaloids are specialized synthesizers in the traditional sense, the producer has a huge amount of control over the sound. They're not even remotely comparable to typing a prompt into Suno and letting it barf out whatever.
  - bogdan 2y ago
    I understand that and how Vocaloid works. The point I am trying to make is that AI will allow people without technical musical knowledge create music. If that means writing a prompt to create a banger then so be it.
    - jsheard 2y ago
      In that case yes, things like Suno make it easy to create music in the same sense that ChatGPT makes it easy to write a novel.
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        Eh, a novel has to hold coherence over many hours, while a song only runs for a few minutes. It was possible to do a credible job composing algorithmic music in many genres before the current AI frenzy. Before long, you won't be able to tell the difference between human-composed and machine-composed music in any genre. It will be quite a while before that happens with novels and screenplays. Wouldn't bet against it in the long run, though.
    - vunderba 2y ago
dbtc 2y ago
How will you get your music instead, or what alternatives are you considering?
- threeseed 2y ago
  Apple Music has algorithmic playlists like Spotify. Doesn't promote AI songs, has high-res, lossless sound quality and pays artists more.
  - area51org 2y ago
    As an Apple Music customer, I am heartened to hear that they do not promote AI songs and that they pay artists more.
    - benhurmarcel 2y ago
      There is no source saying they don’t promote cheaper music just like Spotify does. Also they pay to the rights-holders exactly the same as Spotify, which is 70% of your subscription. It just happens that Spotify has on average a lower revenue per stream, but for your particular use they both pay the same thing.
- cageface 2y ago
  Bandcamp seems to have survived changing ownership and is still a good service. More specialized e-tailers like boomkat and bleep are also good for some genres.
- emmelaich 2y ago
  music.youtube.com is fantastic. My playlists are 80% classics from the 60s to 2000, so the source actually probably doesn't matter. I'm not interested in most styles of new music anyway I suppose! The algorithm still suggests some forgotten classics. On YT music I can find entire albums of somewhat more obscure yet excellent artists that are completely missing from Spotify. I pay for Youtube with a family sub. Good value for me.
  - 2y ago
whimsicalism 2y ago
Fundamentally, there is just way too much supply of music for it to be a well-compensated endeavor for most. I don't think any economic arrangement will make it well paying when there are so many people who are happy with doing it for free for recognition.
- jsheard 2y ago
  Maybe so, but Spotify is especially bad at paying artists a fair share even amongst their peers. If Apple and Amazon can afford to pay artists twice as much per stream, and Tidal can afford to pay three times as much per stream, then the problem with Spotify is... Spotify.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    i frankly do not understand how Apple pays as much as it does - both Spotify and AM pay 70% of revenue to artists, so it might just be that there are far fewer streams on Apple. (plus Apple is a premium only service) On an AM family plan, if they are really paying out 0.01 per stream... then anyone streaming more than 19 songs/day is a money loser for apple.
    - jsheard 2y ago
      It probably helps that Apple isn't carving out $250 million of their subscription revenue just for Joe Rogan.
    - sodality2 2y ago
      Spotify has cheaper family and student plans. To my knowledge there’s no way to make AM cheaper. In addition there’s no ad free version of AM that’s being supported by paying subscribers like there is for Spotify - though I haven’t heard the numbers on P&L on these free users.
      - rsanek 2y ago
        paying Spotify subscribers don't support the plays from free subscribers. it's two separate pots of money. they explain this in their section for artists
sun_harmonics 2y ago
I'm scared artists will give up because audiences won't have enough trust to pay enough attention to distinguish them from AI spam. But I wonder how that equation changes when artists can authenticate that something came from them. (This goes for other kinds of art too.)
- omikun 2y ago
  Artists create because they have an innate drive to create and express something. They need enough pay to get by so they can keep creating. AI will eat into their pay but their drives will keep driving. Yes they would love to be paid more but the only people driven by money are the corporations. Artists understand life is more than money, and that there is something else to live for besides more money. Unfortunately, that is also why they get taken advantage of by the money folks.

echelon 2y ago

> This treats music as a fungible commodity. This is only going to accelerate. Until the labels die, the universe will find every way to route around them. Hopefully concert venues are next.

nine_k 2y ago
How are musicians are going to perform live before large audiences?
- echelon 2y ago
  I'm referring to the Ticketmaster / Live Nation monopoly. If you're not familiar, the company has a corner on the market for concert venues and all associated services (booking, ticket resale, food and liquor vendors, point of sale, etc.) They use this to inflate ticket prices.
  - CyberDildonics 2y ago
    How is shoveling AI generated songs going to take down ticket master?

mvdtnz 2y ago

Sorry but music in the genre "generic background track designed to go unnoticed" is in fact fungible and interchangeable.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lmpdev 2y ago
Double sorry but Brian Eno’s Music for Airports or Aphex Twin’s Selected Ambient Works II is not interchangable with AI drivel
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  You'd consider those generic?
  - johan914 2y ago
    He wasn't the one calling ambient music generic unnoticed music.
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      Parent comment said generic, he offered these as counters, so he called them generic.
      - johan914 2y ago
        "I like ambient music" "Elevator generic background music is trash. Good riddance. " "No, X and Y in the genre are good bands" "So you agree it is generic elevator music?"
        hombre_fatal 2y ago
        Hmm, I wouldn't summarize it that way on first read, but I can understand and perhaps agree with the interpretation. How I read it, the second comment is saying that AI music competes with machine-replicable human music, a subset of human music, but not all. Frankly, while Brian Eno's Music for Airports was monumental in the history of ambient music, in 2024 people unfamiliar with it aren't going to be able to tell it apart from select AI clips (as much as that will hurt to admit). That's less about it being generic and more about how good AIgen can mimic humans. Just like how humans couldn't tell apart human from AIgen in impressionist art: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-art-turing https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-ar... -- we wouldn't use that example to say that human art is just generic slop. On re-read, I do think the thread started off on the wrong foot by using the word generic. Ambient music is simply some of the easiest music to machine generate being minimalist with heavy use of synthesizers, and much of it was machine generated in the first place in a DAW.

bogdan 2y ago

Over the past year I’ve become a big fan of Japanese music. I started with Yoasobi and then Spotify led me to Vocaloid (I knew of Hatsune Miku but I'm not into that). Nowadays I mostly listen to Vocaloid because it’s so expressive and different. This is why I'm excited about ai music - it’s a powerful and accessible tool that can help talented people explore new forms of music. That’s what music is all about for me.

jsheard 2y ago
Vocaloids are specialized synthesizers in the traditional sense, the producer has a huge amount of control over the sound. They're not even remotely comparable to typing a prompt into Suno and letting it barf out whatever.
- bogdan 2y ago
  I understand that and how Vocaloid works. The point I am trying to make is that AI will allow people without technical musical knowledge create music. If that means writing a prompt to create a banger then so be it.
  - jsheard 2y ago
    In that case yes, things like Suno make it easy to create music in the same sense that ChatGPT makes it easy to write a novel.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      Eh, a novel has to hold coherence over many hours, while a song only runs for a few minutes. It was possible to do a credible job composing algorithmic music in many genres before the current AI frenzy. Before long, you won't be able to tell the difference between human-composed and machine-composed music in any genre. It will be quite a while before that happens with novels and screenplays. Wouldn't bet against it in the long run, though.
  - vunderba 2y ago

dbtc 2y ago

How will you get your music instead, or what alternatives are you considering?

threeseed 2y ago
Apple Music has algorithmic playlists like Spotify. Doesn't promote AI songs, has high-res, lossless sound quality and pays artists more.
- area51org 2y ago
  As an Apple Music customer, I am heartened to hear that they do not promote AI songs and that they pay artists more.
  - benhurmarcel 2y ago
    There is no source saying they don’t promote cheaper music just like Spotify does. Also they pay to the rights-holders exactly the same as Spotify, which is 70% of your subscription. It just happens that Spotify has on average a lower revenue per stream, but for your particular use they both pay the same thing.
cageface 2y ago
Bandcamp seems to have survived changing ownership and is still a good service. More specialized e-tailers like boomkat and bleep are also good for some genres.
emmelaich 2y ago
music.youtube.com is fantastic. My playlists are 80% classics from the 60s to 2000, so the source actually probably doesn't matter. I'm not interested in most styles of new music anyway I suppose! The algorithm still suggests some forgotten classics. On YT music I can find entire albums of somewhat more obscure yet excellent artists that are completely missing from Spotify. I pay for Youtube with a family sub. Good value for me.
- 2y ago

whimsicalism 2y ago

Fundamentally, there is just way too much supply of music for it to be a well-compensated endeavor for most. I don't think any economic arrangement will make it well paying when there are so many people who are happy with doing it for free for recognition.

jsheard 2y ago
Maybe so, but Spotify is especially bad at paying artists a fair share even amongst their peers. If Apple and Amazon can afford to pay artists twice as much per stream, and Tidal can afford to pay three times as much per stream, then the problem with Spotify is... Spotify.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  i frankly do not understand how Apple pays as much as it does - both Spotify and AM pay 70% of revenue to artists, so it might just be that there are far fewer streams on Apple. (plus Apple is a premium only service) On an AM family plan, if they are really paying out 0.01 per stream... then anyone streaming more than 19 songs/day is a money loser for apple.
  - jsheard 2y ago
    It probably helps that Apple isn't carving out $250 million of their subscription revenue just for Joe Rogan.
  - sodality2 2y ago
    Spotify has cheaper family and student plans. To my knowledge there’s no way to make AM cheaper. In addition there’s no ad free version of AM that’s being supported by paying subscribers like there is for Spotify - though I haven’t heard the numbers on P&L on these free users.
    - rsanek 2y ago
      paying Spotify subscribers don't support the plays from free subscribers. it's two separate pots of money. they explain this in their section for artists

sun_harmonics 2y ago

I'm scared artists will give up because audiences won't have enough trust to pay enough attention to distinguish them from AI spam. But I wonder how that equation changes when artists can authenticate that something came from them. (This goes for other kinds of art too.)

omikun 2y ago
Artists create because they have an innate drive to create and express something. They need enough pay to get by so they can keep creating. AI will eat into their pay but their drives will keep driving. Yes they would love to be paid more but the only people driven by money are the corporations. Artists understand life is more than money, and that there is something else to live for besides more money. Unfortunately, that is also why they get taken advantage of by the money folks.