The fake artists problem on streaming platforms
41–50 of 160 posts
Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms
#42Basically 'store brand' of music platforms. Where is the problem?
Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms
#43I read the whole piece and I couldn't find any evidence to support this assertion.
Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms
#44They 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
#45If 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…
Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms
#46Earlier 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"?
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
#47What 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.
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
#48Earlier 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.
"Cancel yourself with one terrible take" is a thing that only works on Twitter, I think.
Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms
#49If 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…
Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms
#50What 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 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 ).