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 arti

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.