Live data from Hacker News

The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

tedgioia.substack.com

41–50 of 160 posts

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#44
While I work, I listen to hour-long mixes of synthwave / retrowave / vaporwave music on YouTube. I've never heard of any of the artists, and other than the occasional "hey I recognize this melody from another mixtape" I've never heard of any of the songs... And I hope these guys are making a fortune in royalties for my plays.

They are in no way "fake artists" and I have no problem saying that I'd rather spend time listening to their work than albums that have won Grammys. Maybe some of these albums should win Grammys.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#45
post #31

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…

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." This is a modern version of Seeburg background music. Seeburg was a jukebox company, and as a sideline, they also sold a background music system. This used a special purpose record changer that played a stack of records over…

Interesting, never heard of this service. Its purpose was to compete with Muzak, I assume? The use of nuclear weapons has been authorized.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#46
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music historians note that the creation of the "cannon" of classical music occurred when public orchestral concerts arose around the early 19th century (and often paired with the rise of the middle class). Prior, you'd need an invitation to a private concert put on by a noble. Mostly "old" music was played at these concerts. A public concert had to at least cover its cost from ticket sales, so eliminating commissions…

Shostakovich is not considered "standard orchestral repertoire"?

It was a claim I heard numerous times as a music student, and find it to be a pretty good fence-post. I always understood it to refer to the "usual suspects" that turn up on concert programs, but it would be interesting to work out what today's standard orchestral repertoire actually is by collating and analyzing orchestral concert programs.

I'd say Shostakovitch 5 might be considered to be part of the "standard" repertoire, but that was composed in the '30s. Maybe his later symphonies turn up more frequently on programs today than does Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra - I'm skeptical but don't actually know.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#47

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.

What makes the artists fake is that they are publishing only a couple songs for the specific purpose of providing the streaming platform with royalty free music, and then they disappear. The example pictures in the article show artists that have published 6 minutes and 8 minutes of music. There's also a statistic that 20 people created 500 artists. These artists are shells, facades, illusory, fake. Go looking for them and it's a dead end because apparently all the artist did was publish two songs and dissolve.

The author does criticize the title: "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."

If I were to run with it I'd say the streaming platform is also fake. People buy it expecting a curated playlist of music they want to hear, and instead what they get is a curated playlist of music that sounds similar to what they want to hear.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#48
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" it just means your important jazz doesn't have the value you ascribe to it" that's one hell of a stretch. Failure by a broader audience to understand a genre (or only want to casually consume one part of it passively) doesn't invalidate it's canon. By that measure Kenny G should have usurped John Coltrane as the saxophonist of note, and by any standard except coffee shop and elevator back ground noise he's done no…

John Coltrane is only good on paper and there’s a cult of personality which exists around his work. I can’t really say that I think much of his improvisations and in general, what people believe is “incredible” could be cranked out by an algorithm. Miles Davis is the real deal of jazz for me. Never cared about notes, fame, or much other than being free . That’s jazz.

> John Coltrane is only good on paper

"Cancel yourself with one terrible take" is a thing that only works on Twitter, I think.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#49
post #31

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…

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." This is a modern version of Seeburg background music. Seeburg was a jukebox company, and as a sideline, they also sold a background music system. This used a special purpose record changer that played a stack of records over…

We had a system like this when I worked at a retail store, and later a movie theater. It was a double-sided cassette that had 60 minutes of audio, and would auto switch from A/B side and back again. Most of the year it was just instrumental background music, but Christmas was a really hated time of year, as all those songs have lyrics (that's what makes them Christmas themed) and it was very obvious how long you'd been working your shift when the celebrity version of "Jingle Bells" played for the fifth time that day.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#50

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.

Sounds like they're "fake" in that they're apparently fictional characters who aren't explicitly presented as such. They're just branding-icons, like the mascots who make a brand-name cereal. And then like with cereal, someone else actually makes it.

I guess that this might be concerning for folks who feel like they form spiritual-connections to artists, if they then learn that there wasn't really a singular artist. Though I suspect that most folks probably don't care.

Related:

1. ["Ghost singer", Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_singer ).

2. ["Ghostwriter", Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter ).

Post reply on HN