This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I think it was revealed several times already in the past. Few examples out my hat:
When it was revealed how little they pay artists
When they tried to corner the podcast market
When they gave Joe fucking Rogan two hundred and fifty fucking million dollars for an exclusive deal
I just recently discovered a band on Soundcloud that has amazing tracks but they all have the familiar feeling of good songs being listened to decades ago, with the voice of the singers similar to that of famous singers of all genres. This is the band in question. [(https://soundcloud.com/flowerpunkhobo)]
I think it's AI generated music from previous songs from the past.
I don't know, do you people let Spotify decide that much about what you hear? I normally never let the music run through so that automatic recommendations play, but I choose explicitly what's added next in the queue. So the problem mentioned in the article is not relevant to me at all.
not relevant to me at all
Do you think everyone is like you?
I usually only listen to one album at a time, front to back. But I think most people don't do that.
I don't think this is earth shattering news. These companies identify when the audience is barely paying attention (to content and ads) and spits out the cheap stuff. I watch fly fishing and fly tying videos on YouTube and often fall asleep with it on. Then I wake up to the third hour of a professional bass fishing tournament. It happens a lot
But I am grateful for independent journalism, which is now my main hope for the future.
Well guess who's in control of eyeballs on those journalists?
Social media companies, who have clear incentives to deprioritize such content and have repeatedly shown they do.
Let’s reclaim music from the technocrats. They have not proven themselves worthy of our trust.
While I agree with the article, I have issue with this line. These are not technocrats, they are "leaders" willing to make companies and their products objectively worse in the name of short term profits. These aren't 'technical experts put in charge,' they are greedy, spineless pigs.
I didn't know this, but it makes sense. One of my biggest complaints about streaming (Pandora is guilty of this, too) is that anyone with a copy of Ableton and a mediocre talent can crank out tracks barely modifying the base toolset. I tend to listen to a lot of variants of electronic music. 95% of the music is absolute crap. 4.5% is tolerable. And 0.5% might end up in my playlist. Less tan 1:100/songs. I have no doubt that “band” or artist names were made up to crank something out, abandoned, and started up under a different name to churn out more boring samesies hoping for a few plays in one of those “made for you” playlists.
So the service doing this for themselves and enabling it for profit isn’t surprising.
This ratio has been true of music forever. We have always depended on filters to get to the good stuff. Used to be access to recording studios (hence labels fucking everyone), then DJ’s setting taste (had its own problems). Pick a period of time there’s always a group or economic filter separating wheat from the chaff (not perfectly but generally successfully?) which makes it hard for independent/lesser knows to break through.
Now everyone can record and publish easily, so it’s about finding shortcuts or tricks to game the system and get ahead. Or, as always, just get lucky 🤷♂️
Completely agree. I had this exact discussion not too long ago about the recording industry 20+ years ago - or at least before the advent of widely available mp3 downloads. The recording industry and DJ/Radio was and still is an awful tyranny that plays kingmaker and squeezes every possible cent out of fan and artist alike while telling the fan what they’re supposed to consume and the star what they’re supposed to sound like.
The upside to that content filter was that some genuinely good music got made and put on albums where both A and B sides were good to great. The downside is that a ton of artists never had a chance at being heard who might be just as good or might have shifted the genre, added to the repertoire, yet the music landscape was more monochromatic.
IMO there was a lot less chaff 30 odd years ago because they got filtered hard. But consumers were also forced to listen to the billboard top whatever all the time.
Now with affordable tools readily available and the ability to easily upload music to various streaming services the production of music has been democratized. This is good in the sense that it lets more people be heard. It’s also not so good because the ability to climb to the top is far far harder, far fewer will make any real money, and for every good single or A side there’s a thousand B side throwaways.
Yeah I guess it's always been this way. Does anyone remember the Captain Oblivious mp3 "mixtapes" he used to put out regularly, like 20 years ago? Indie and underground music. Rule of thumb, I would listen to only about 1 in 20 songs more than once.
One of my biggest complaints about streaming (Pandora is guilty of this, too) is that anyone with a copy of Ableton and a mediocre talent can crank out tracks barely modifying the base toolset.
People being able to do art isn't a bad thing, and I'm glad streaming has made publishing so much more accessible.
If you don't like it you don't have to listen to it. Every time some algorithm playlist churns out another spoonful of slop you don't actually have to open wide.
You could just look up the artists you like and what other people like that's like those artists, or look at collabs they've done or who remixes them or been remixed or covered by them and who they've been in bands with and what genre they tag to see who else is in that (micro)genre/niche.
I've never actually listened to someone else's playlists, not man-made nor generated, only my own, and I regularly listen to extremely niche folks with 1k-40k Monthly Listeners all of whom are completely legitimate artists with unique great music, many of them electronic actually.
The truth is that 99% of people like copy-paste slop and that's why they click on the slop and gravitate towards algos or charts for top ten artists.
And a global market for music with a low entry barrier means that it's easier than ever to get started artistically expressing yourself for fun and for yourself, just as it should be, but still hard to be actually heard if you want to take it commercial, even if it's fairer system than the gatekeeping of labels.
🎶 but look I made you some conteeeeeent daddy made you your favorite open wiiiide 🎶
Art… look, I get the premise of what you’re saying, but just because art is mediocre or just bad doesn’t free it of criticism because “art.” It can be shitty art and be called exactly that. It’s not sacred.
Edit: nice massive edit you did.
And is this argument that “if i don’t like it I don’t have to listen to it”? The WHOLE POINT of Spotify is to listen to it and be exposed to music, and my position was that it’s littered with crap. You’re basically telling me that if I don’t like billboards along the roadside I shouldn’t bother having a car? Lol, whatever man. Shitty art is still shitty art. Not everything belongs in a gallery.
Many of my friends use it. I'm old school and just keep a collection of mp3s on multiple devices for backup.
It's all but impossible to purchase an mp3 anymore. Anywhere you can theoretically buy music does everything it can to lock you in to their ecosystem and prevent you from accessing your music outside of it.
I've bought a ton of music off bandcamp and qobuz. Definitely not mp3 tho, not when lossless versions are also available
I believe that Bandcamp is doing a pretty good job with it. But you can always sail the seas
I have no issue sailing the seas, if I can't buy it an own it, then I don't see the problem in downloading it.
My mother hates Spotify and just wants to own her music and listen to like the 100 or so songs she likes, but absolutely cannot figure out how to buy them. She's not really technical and wouldn't pirate if she were.
Your mother is absolutely right and this old school way is not so old school, it's not mainstream but not really old school. But yeah piracy is a bit hard to accommodate, so in this way there are two options, teach her how to use it OR download her music.
If you support your favorite creators by going to their show or buying stuff I don't see the ethical problem of piracy. I've more than 1600 songs from a dozens of groups and I just love it, got the best quality (at least 16 bit 48Khz), can listen to the songs offline on my PC or with my iem (best kind of earbuds in my opinion).
The only downside is the size of the files, I have about 25gigs in my library, my phone and my pc have enough storage but if I'd like I could reduce this to around 5-6gigs by using "normal mp3 audio"
What IEM setup do you use?
really little but it's a good start in my opinion, maybe one day I'll invest in some more quality stuff. Currently I use the DAC of my phone with a pair of Tangzu Wan'er S.G.
Do you use iem yourself? If yes, what's your setup?
Oh yeah I do... depends on which ones I grab. High end (in perception not so much quality) I have a couple sets of Triple driver Westones. The MMCX connector version arey favorite of the Westones . My other pair came with a garbage "dental floss" cable and TT bax connectors, when I complained I was told the metal inside was contamination free or some bullshit. I did not bother pointing out listening to digital music and mp3s reduces the audio quality enough that none of their marketing bullshit is relevant.
On the other side, KZ have been my go to, because I'm much less upset if I mess up 40.00 IEMs vs 400.00 Westones. I have the AS12 which claim to have 6 drivers in each ear, could be and probably is BS but they sound amazing.
I've also got a bunch of Sennheiser and Shure in ears. Shure is basically like oldstyle Westones but stiffer with the Sennheisers being the smallest and having the smallest visual footprint.
I use the last two for TV broadcast and the Sennheisers are 100% the way to go visually.
Lastly I use a set of DCMEKA dual drivers with a FiiO Bluetooth adapter, they too out punch their price point.
Or I'm old and deaf.
Ohh you have great IEMs 🤯 And there is me with my 20 dollars pair 😂 But I love them!
I've seen many controversies about the KZ about selling iem with fake drivers, etc...
Yeah, going from "Google Play Music" to "YouTube Music" was such a downgrade. Shit like Bluetooth had more issues with YTM, and they completely eliminated the ability to purchase music. It sucks and there are still no good alternatives on Android :-(
No idea why you would think it's hard to buy MP3s. I've never had a problem buying any, just go to the big name FAANG companies' music store webpages or Bandcamp for FLACs. No DRM on any that I bought.
Used CDs (or local library). Ripping software. Super easy. Or just buy from Amazon and download your files to local.
One of the best thing to do is to pirate almost all of your music and then reward the creators by going to their shows, buying them shirts or even CDs (you can also rip physical copy if piracy is not a thing)
Or buy off Bandcamp on Friday's. But also support local and developmental acts
why Fridays?
Bandcamp usually gives all the proceeds of sales directly to the band on Fridays
The chart showing how much money the CEO has made off selling the stock.. wouldn't he run out of shares? It appears executives have sold over a billion dollars in 2024.
Makes you wonder if they heard these investigations were ongoing and figured they'd sell shares before lawsuits came and any potential dips in the company worth.
If so.. insider trading charges would be nice
CEOs are often compensated with stock, AFAIK.
Insider trading is almost a joke now, and about to become way more of one under the next few years of the SEC.
For ease of reading, the investigation he refers to:
https://harpers.org/archive/2025/01/the-ghosts-in-the-machine-liz-pelly-spotify-musicians/
In short: fake artists with stock music (changing labels and other camouflage applied). Likely goal: to depreciate streaming counts for actual artists and increase profit margins.
What I uncovered was an elaborate internal program. Spotify, I discovered, not only has partnerships with a web of production companies, which, as one former employee put it, provide Spotify with “music we benefited from financially,” but also a team of employees working to seed these tracks on playlists across the platform. In doing so, they are effectively working to grow the percentage of total streams of music that is cheaper for the platform. The program’s name: Perfect Fit Content (PFC). The PFC program raises troubling prospects for working musicians. Some face the possibility of losing out on crucial income by having their tracks passed over for playlist placement or replaced in favor of PFC; others, who record PFC music themselves, must often give up control of certain royalty rights that, if a track becomes popular, could be highly lucrative. But it also raises worrying questions for all of us who listen to music. It puts forth an image of a future in which—as streaming services push music further into the background, and normalize anonymous, low-cost playlist filler—the relationship between listener and artist might be severed completely.
the german tv channel ARD actually published a three-part investigation into Spotify and Eventim middle of 2023 where they spotlighted this issue as well. it's a great watch if you understand german!
it's called Dirty Little Secrets
EDIT: here's episode two, the relevant one where they investigate what they call "ghost musicians"
