11–20 of 160 posts
The solution to me is simple: build service with more relevant and neutral results.
That is if people actually need it. I, for example, just subscribed to Endel (AI generated ambient music) which looks even worse from the standpoint of the author.
I don't quite see what is "fake" about the "fake artists". They appear to be real artists. Did I missunderstand something?
No, you are right, at the end of the article: >Even the term fake artists doesn’t really do justice to the scope of the situation—because, as we have seen, it’s not the musicians, real or otherwise, who are at the root of the situation, but the dominant players in the industry. and there is another article linked to from that one: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/an-mbw-reader-just-bl... where the matter is exp…
If generic jazz can easily substitute "important" jazz it just means your important jazz doesn't have the value you ascribe to it, especially not in the context of "things for background music." I don't think this is saying anything about more active music consumption where people are actually listening to it. I personally get annoyed if more than 20% of a mix is songs I haven't already upvoted so there isn't a lot o…
I guess the complaint is that jazz is still kind of a niche genre, compared to "background music that generally resembles jazz". But maybe real jazz is actually less good as background music compared to not-quite-jazz. Otherwise, why aren't actual jazz labels putting effort into playlist placements like these so-called fake artists are?
Or is the assertion that Spotify themselves is populating their platform with no-name artists, to avoid paying record label royalties? Maybe you can take issue with vertical integration, but that doesn't make the artists involved "fake".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you are right, at the end of the article: >Even the term fake artists doesn’t really do justice to the scope of the situation—because, as we have seen, it’s not the musicians, real or otherwise, who are at the root of the situation, but the dominant players in the industry. and there is another article linked to from that one: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/an-mbw-reader-just-bl... where the matter is exp…
But isnt it Spotify who commission the songs and can just stuff the playlist with content (i.e. like Netflix producing their own shows) in order to keep a bigger cut?
There's a financial incentive for artists to participate in this. It's more or less a steady income stream, there's no touring, and there's no need to present an attractive public image to sell. Just create music at your own time, let Spotify package it, and get paid.
SEO-optimized music is not "fake music". It's an interesting phenomenon, and maybe even a bad one, but framing it this way is disingenuous and alarmist.
What makes them "fake"? I kept waiting for the author to explain how people are taking others' music and re-packaging it as their own to collect royalties, but it doesn't sound like that's what's happening. SEO-optimized music is not "fake music". It's an interesting phenomenon, and maybe even a bad one, but framing it this way is disingenuous and alarmist.