Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

tedgioia.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 160 posts

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#131

Post by dylan604 »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #113
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember listening — really listening — to a Debbie Gibson song, in the early nineties. She was never an artist I cared about. I just assumed she was a “teenybopper queen.” The song clearly had one -maybe two- musicians in the background, playing a sampler, while she sang. Maybe she played the sampler. I realized it probably cost almost nothing to record that song. She didn’t have a regular band, and probably threw…

There are musicians for hire to play in studio and on the road. Very common practice.

Similarly is the Beach Boys where one brother never left the studio and wrote all of the music while the other guys learned to perform the tunes to take on the road.

Not quite the same, but in that world though

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#132

Post by bagels »

brundolf wrote: post #16

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.

It should have opened with their definition of fake.

But, apparently, it's music that the streaming services are commissioning at cut rates and using their platform to promote, as to reduce their costs?

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#133

Post by dylan604 »

jkubicek wrote: post #86
Clubber wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're just branding-icons Honestly that seems like a lot of music since the 2000s. Grab a pretty face with a good body and an autotune.

Honestly, this seems like a lot of music since the 1950s. Grab a pretty face with a good body and a nice suit.

If you're going back to the fifties it was worse. It was common to have a model on the cover that is white when the artists are not just to sell albums to racists.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#134

Post by iostream24 »

yesitisfake wrote: post #64
brundolf wrote: post #16

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.

> 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. Then you missed the point, which was that Spotify diverts listening-minutes to these fake artists to lower the total amount of royalties they have to pay, thus increasing their bottom line. If the algorithm and business model are predi…

That’s the point we all smell here: some very fishy bandwagonning going on here defending Spotify by trying to water down the allegations.

I allege Spotify agents here doing paid work.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#135

Post by Rastonbury »

locusofself wrote: post #130

My wife is a (professional) musician. She has achieved some organic popularity and her music has been in TV/movies, but having some songs featured on curated Spotify playlists has been one of the most profitable things for her career. Musicians rightfully complain that spotify pays fractions of a penny per play, but if your music ends up on a front-page playlist for months/years you can at least make many thousands o…

The argument here is that Spotify is adding to their curated playlists songs/artists that they do not need to pay royalties to. So they end up paying out less royalties to musicians like your wife

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#136

Post by iostream24 »

tonguez wrote: post #36

“Can you really reach a larger audience by getting on a background jazz playlist than taking home the most coveted Grammy? I hate to share the bad news, my friends, but the world has changed.” wow what an amazing insight. some dead awards show for geriatrics where disney child actors always win musician of the year or whatever. it’s truly shocking that nobody cares about that

Missing the point: when the playlist features in-house brands pushed to prominence they don’t actually have to fuel higher profits for Spotify in lieu of paying royalties to independent artists or labels that needs to be labeled. “Amazon knock off of Amazon independent merchants product” Which is precisely shady behavior.

“Hey you asked for jazz, here’s the top ten” with no mention that it’s stocked full of generic house brands commissioned specifically to bang out cheap non innovative copies.

Had you searched for “generic jazz Muzak” you might expect such dreck and even welcome it. But as it stands you have the worlds largest streaming service undercutting it’s own clients.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#137

Post by [deleted] »

plorkyeran wrote: post #59
iostream24 wrote: post #23

It’s shameful to read all the folks claiming that actually known famous historical jazz greats are somehow being legitimately usurped by generic nothing music even in the context of background music. What the article discusses is clearly dishonest, whatever your take on the word “fake” Grammy awards are indicative of some popularity and reknown, so not seeing Grammy winners on Spotify genre pages is suspect. There ar…

I don't see anything remotely dishonest about this. "Spotify genre pages don’t reflect these but push generic in-house brands as top tier products on the world stage" is AFAICT not based on reality. Spotify's playlists for the hottest hits in the genre or decade of your choice have exactly what you would expect them to have. The generic background music only shows up when you ask for generic background music.

[deleted]

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#138

Post by iostream24 »

prova_modena wrote: post #40
jaclaz wrote: post #3

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…

Record labels have been doing similar things since the 1950s, building musical acts on-demand by combining skilled, anonymous "session musicians" with an attractive, marketable image or performers that fit the current trend. The most famous example from the 1960s is the Monkees, but this dynamic played a huge part in the development of a surprising number of famous pop bands and musical personalities. Massive public…

Or rather that they are actively seeding each genre with content they don’t have the pay royalties on and giving preference to this content unless directed specifically otherwise, and the real sin here is not divulging that you’ve been hearing generic house brand “music” and pretending that it’s all equally valid content. This will become more obvious as algorithmic music takes over background music tasks.

Spotify is evil in the sense that any other monopoly with perverse incentives trying to appear mellow and not monopolistic is.

Netflix specials are labeled as such, and they put some effort and money into them, they aren’t cynical garbage like the Amazon knockoffs of Amazon listed merchants are, which fraudulently purport to be the same.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#139

Post by iostream24 »

freetime2 wrote: post #80

It's interesting to know that this is happening. It makes perfect sense given the shift in peoples' listening habits and the economic incentives for the streaming companies - but it's just not something I had ever considered before. But I don't necessarily see it as a "problem", and especially not anything new in the world of music (although maybe the scale on which it is happening now is new). Collections of backgro…

And artists… like all of them, but they should go away in your model, and be replaced by competent clone monkeys who are poorly paid but don’t pander to musical elitism.

I resent your world view.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#140

Post by iostream24 »

FerociousTimes wrote: post #69
Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did not, he says "Hara Noda seems to be a real person, working as a producer and drummer in Sweden" ... and then jumps to making claims about Sweden being some hotspot of off-brand cheap instant jazz. The article is easily misunderstand-able and quite insulting towards this one artist in particular as it can create the impression he is somehow involved in some scam.

then why did he insinuate that the artist is fictitious by casting doubts on the presumably inflated number of playbacks in the playlist? I want my 5 mins back.

Perverse incentives, in house generic products promoted as name brands, etc, my typing finger hurts repeating myself, if you are genuinely baffled read the comments here and grok the actual complaint which is sufficiently defined here.
Post reply on HN