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

71–80 of 160 posts

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#71

Post by giraffe_lady »

nerdponx wrote: post #13
scantron4 wrote: post #6

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…

Are these artists even "fake"? Are they "bad"? Or are they just mediocre and good enough for background music? 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 thes…

Most people I've run across who say they like jazz do not like music by contemporary musicians who consider themselves to create jazz. Jazz right now is wildly diverse but overall pretty weird, pretty electronic, very sonically influenced by hip hop, metal, and pop. Lotta sampling, drum machines, even autotune.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#72

Post by kelseyfrog »

_Nat_ wrote: post #50
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.

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…

That's a huge number of artists. Take Britney Spears' Grammy winning Toxic for example. The song was written and produced by Bloodshy & Avant, with additional writing from Cathy Dennis and Henrik Jonback[1]. …Baby One More Time, another example of hers contains zero songs written by Spears. Is that the same kind of deception that an unknown artist makes when publishing an original song that makes it way onto a jazz playlist? It's hard to find the utility of such a distinction.

1. https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/britney-spears-tox...

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#73

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

drewzero1 wrote: post #56

A few months ago my toddler was in a "must have music" phase, and when we got tired of switching records or listening to the same local radio ads over and over, we turned to Spotify. The kids' music playlist we stumbled on had one album with bizarre choices of tempo, instrumentation, and effects. It kind of grew on me after a while. I wanted to learn more about the artist but when I tried searching (it was a super ge…

There was a nice video where a bunch of YT musical blogging celebs made some "Advanced" music for kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC8KT07m5aY

https://tupletsfortoddlers.bandcamp.com/album/tuplets-for-to...

Personally, I don't think children need their own special music most of the time, unless it has cool stories and interesting colourful lyrics. Otherwise, there's a bunch of Classical, Jazz, New Age and some Rock music which work great for kids.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#74

Post by ttoinou »

randrews wrote: post #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 li…

  And I hope these guys are making a fortune in royalties for my plays
Where does the money come from exactly ?

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#75

Post by randrews »

ttoinou wrote: post #74
randrews wrote: post #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 li…

And I hope these guys are making a fortune in royalties for my plays Where does the money come from exactly ?

Well, I'm paying YouTube for a subscription for that, so probably out of there. People who aren't buying a subscription see ads, the advertisers pay to place those, so, out of there.

Edit: I don't think the economics of it are the issue. My thing is, if people are fine with more famous artists getting revenue from streaming, why should they have a problem with other artists doing so? I don't care that these random synthwave people are unknowns, I like their music so I listen to it. That's every bit as valid a reason for them to get paid as the other guys have.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#76

Post by cwkoss »

_Nat_ wrote: post #50
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.

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…

How do you differentiate this sort of artists from 90+% of artists on the top 40? Isn't nearly the entirety of pop music built upon semi-fictional characters?

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#77

Post by jacquesm »

hadlock wrote: post #49
Animats wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

I avoid all shopping around Christmas for that reason, it is just too terrible to hear the same crap over and over again in every store.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#78

Post by cwkoss »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #71
nerdponx wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are these artists even "fake"? Are they "bad"? Or are they just mediocre and good enough for background music? 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 thes…

Most people I've run across who say they like jazz do not like music by contemporary musicians who consider themselves to create jazz. Jazz right now is wildly diverse but overall pretty weird, pretty electronic, very sonically influenced by hip hop, metal, and pop. Lotta sampling, drum machines, even autotune.

> Jazz right now is wildly diverse but overall pretty weird, pretty electronic, very sonically influenced by hip hop, metal, and pop. Lotta sampling, drum machines, even autotune.

This sounds interesting, have any artist recommendations?

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#79

Post by cwkoss »

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…

The Grammys are just the music industry establishment patting itself of the back. I think its probably a very poor indicator of quality as music production has become increasingly decentralized.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#80

Post by freetime2 »

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 background music have always been recorded by artists whose name you wouldn't recognize. You won't any recordings by the Berlin Philharmonic on your mom's "Classical Music for Relaxation" CD that she listens to on repeat in the car. But the recordings are good enough that they keep the listener happy, and using "no name" artists helps keep prices down.

Everybody wins - except music elitists out there who don't think your musical tastes are refined enough.

Post reply on HN