18 ms·

Spotify's biggest sin? Its algos pushed artists to make joyless, toothless music

10 points by nickcotter 2y ago

milesrout 2y ago
It sounds like that is what people are listening to, and Spotify is capable of recognising that demand and creating an efficient enough market that the market can respond to that demand. The old way was that consumer demand was filtered through the suits at the big music labels: if they didn't want to push musicians to make a particular kind of music, it wouldn't get made and published in a way accessible to the people that desired it, no matter how much they did. This gets painted as a bad thing but maybe it isn't? It isn't like there is no good music. There is just more of it, and much of it is pretty boring. If a large contingent of people want boring music, it seems like they've got what they want. And I can keep listening to good music. Win win? The author also confuses what the market encourages producers to create with what artists actually create: >The fact that no money is paid out if a song is listened to for less than 30 seconds has come close to killing the idea of a slow-burning intro (if they were modern creations, there would be no hope for such songs as David Bowie’s Sound and Vision, or the Temptations’ Papa Was a Rollin’ Stone). I don't think David Bowie would have not made his music if it has been bad for the "format". This is like saying that Pink Floyd wouldn't have made 20-minute-long tracks in the 70s because they couldn't have sold them as singles. Except they did! Artists create what they want to create not just what market forces encourage them to create. That is part of what makes art art.
- easyThrowaway 2y ago
  If an album is released on Spotify and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Point is, artists are regular human beings that need to eat, and they're following the money. Spotify has changed its role from simply being a mere streaming service to an active influencing force to what is recorded and released. I wouldn't be surprised if this was their objective from the start.
  - milesrout 2y ago
    If you make music that nobody wants to listen to then uh... good job I guess? Spotify doesn't actively influence anything, that is the whole point of this article. It passively influences, in a "the medium is the message" sense. But I am saying I disagree with characterising this as forcing anyone to do anything. In theory you might be able to optimise your music for "the algorithm" but there is nothing stopping you from creating the same music you'd have made otherwise. I used an analogy: the format of radio singles encouraged a certain format of music (length, and other factors - much has been written about how radios changed pop music) but plenty of non radio friendly music continued to be produced. It would be bizarre to claim that RCA forced artists to make radio-friendly singles. >Point is, artists are regular human beings that need to eat, Art has never been a way to make money. You do it because you have money already or because you're supported by someone that does.

10 points by nickcotter 2y ago

It sounds like that is what people are listening to, and Spotify is capable of recognising that demand and creating an efficient enough market that the market can respond to that demand. The old way was that consumer demand was filtered through the suits at the big music labels: if they didn't want to push musicians to make a particular kind of music, it wouldn't get made and published in a way accessible to the people that desired it, no matter how much they did. This gets painted as a bad thing but maybe it isn't? It isn't like there is no good music. There is just more of it, and much of it is pretty boring. If a large contingent of people want boring music, it seems like they've got what they want. And I can keep listening to good music. Win win? The author also confuses what the market encourages producers to create with what artists actually create: >The fact that no money is paid out if a song is listened to for less than 30 seconds has come close to killing the idea of a slow-burning intro (if they were modern creations, there would be no hope for such songs as David Bowie’s Sound and Vision, or the Temptations’ Papa Was a Rollin’ Stone). I don't think David Bowie would have not made his music if it has been bad for the "format". This is like saying that Pink Floyd wouldn't have made 20-minute-long tracks in the 70s because they couldn't have sold them as singles. Except they did! Artists create what they want to create not just what market forces encourage them to create. That is part of what makes art art.

easyThrowaway 2y ago
If an album is released on Spotify and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Point is, artists are regular human beings that need to eat, and they're following the money. Spotify has changed its role from simply being a mere streaming service to an active influencing force to what is recorded and released. I wouldn't be surprised if this was their objective from the start.
- milesrout 2y ago
  If you make music that nobody wants to listen to then uh... good job I guess? Spotify doesn't actively influence anything, that is the whole point of this article. It passively influences, in a "the medium is the message" sense. But I am saying I disagree with characterising this as forcing anyone to do anything. In theory you might be able to optimise your music for "the algorithm" but there is nothing stopping you from creating the same music you'd have made otherwise. I used an analogy: the format of radio singles encouraged a certain format of music (length, and other factors - much has been written about how radios changed pop music) but plenty of non radio friendly music continued to be produced. It would be bizarre to claim that RCA forced artists to make radio-friendly singles. >Point is, artists are regular human beings that need to eat, Art has never been a way to make money. You do it because you have money already or because you're supported by someone that does.