Okay, what is it with Swedes min-maxing their way to the top of pop music? How do they do it? Even Pewdiepie is like another case of chasing algorithmic success.
It's a few formulas not different ones.
Swedish composer becomes Spotify's most-famous musician you've never heard of
81–90 of 90 posts
Re: Swedish composer becomes Spotify's most-famous musician you've never heard of
#82Okay, what is it with Swedes min-maxing their way to the top of pop music? How do they do it? Even Pewdiepie is like another case of chasing algorithmic success.
In this case it's not pop music, it's instrumental ambient music and childrens tunes.. Very particular set of playlists, Spotify-owned, that if you get into them you're essentially guaranteed millions of streams (as those playlists have tens of millions of followers that I'm sure just have them on repeat often - guilty here as well..) Aside from the sketchy issue with faking 750 artist names, apparently the music is…
Pen names aren't sketchy.
If it's focusing on SEO, they could be spreading their platform risk to not be across one or a few accounts.
Although if people feel pop music is authentic they might feel betrayed
Re: Swedish composer becomes Spotify's most-famous musician you've never heard of
#83Whether you think music streaming in its current form is a net good or bad for humanity, consider not supporting Spotify the company. From the very start, they're nothing but grifters. Daniel Ek has his background in ads, SEO and related stuff –basically every possible way to make a buck using this newfangled internet thing – including selling virtual clothes for virtual dolls to kids age 9-17. The teaming up with Ma…
It's funny that you mention AI, because your comment reads like generative AI to me - longwinded and with lot of vague claims.
Spotify allows me to listen to music. Why would I care that the CEO previously worked with ads?
And obviously a company like this will try to create deals which are cheap to them, so that they can make more money.. they run a business, so...yes?
Re: Swedish composer becomes Spotify's most-famous musician you've never heard of
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am more bothered by the part with having over 650 different artist names that hide their link to each other (unlike Prince/TAFKAP, Kanye/Ye, etc). I mean: your gripe is basically Spotify's entire raison d'etre . On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to hide your true identity to such an extent, except to be able to act as your own competition. That is, I think this person knows very well that by using di…
Isn't that basically what many authors do? Many authors are afraid of diluting their brand so when they write books in a different genre or style they create a new pen name to keep the works distinct from their main name. For example Stephen King used to write additional books under the name of Richard Bachman, before that identity was linked to him, and the late Samuel Youd used to write under a half-dozen names, mo…
Sure, but the extent differs greatly. Imagine someone doing this to enter an additional genre unburdened by their well-known works - so not "quit the band, band reformed under new name" stuff. In how many genres can a very prolific and competent artist deliver quality works concurrently? 10? 20?
How many profitable genres are there even on Spotify? 100? 200? Where is the line between "revenue-generating label" and "relegated-to-obscurity-by-your-own-choice label"?
I believe an artist can believably perform decently in several genres, but not in hundreds of genres. Moreover, I can understand being cautious when entering a radically new main genre from your usual fare, but I think there are plenty of adjacent genres where there is no significant taint (eg, sword&sorcery / high fantasy / urban fantasy).
As such, to me, there's a crossover point/zone somewhere beyond "several" and before "hundreds" where you're no longer doing it for separating your output along clearly distinct categories where such separation is expected/needed/warranted, but faking an abundance of choice to increase profit.
To me, 650 pseudonyms falls into the latter category - as another comment put it: SEO'ing Spotify to maximise profits. I dislike that, because it has nothing to do with competing on artistic merit.
Re: Swedish composer becomes Spotify's most-famous musician you've never heard of
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
" faking 750 artist names" Why would this be problematic? Artist commonly work under one or more pseudonyms. 750 is quite a lot for sure, but is there material difference between that and just a few?
Because it floods any related recommendations with same artist ultimately
I thought the intent was to maximize diversification, not to saturate a single channel? Not sure what actually takes place and I may be mistaken.
Re: Swedish composer becomes Spotify's most-famous musician you've never heard of
#86> How much Röhr, who has worked as a conductor on pop stars’ tours and on TV, has earned from his agreement with Spotify is not known. However, his private company reportedly made 32.7mn kronor (£2.4m) in 2022, when it had a record year. Doesn't look much
Those 32 mSEK is the turnover, not profits. The profits are a mere 27 mSEK.[1] And he runs two more companies[2][3] that made another 21 mSEK. [1]: https://www.allabolag.se/5569664575/j-pipe-productions-ab [2]: https://www.allabolag.se/5566338496/j-pipe-music-ab [3]: https://www.allabolag.se/5593406852/j-pipe-holding-ab
Sounds pretty good, especially when you consider that they only have one employee.
Re: Swedish composer becomes Spotify's most-famous musician you've never heard of
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing that's sketchy is Spotify directing everyone to the same content, making stuff that appeals to the audience isn't against the rules.
Agree. Actually I’m feed quite feed up with Spotify, and this week decided to get a proper HiRes audio and buy music from places like BandCamp or the CD edition and ripping it. I miss curating my collection and playlists. It seems that the convenience of having almost all music available in a couple of clicks is making the listening experience less valuable.
This is what I do. I have a solid vinyl and cassette collection and huge digital collection all from cd rips or flac (mostly from Bandcamp)
I also have navidrome set up so I can easily stream it from anywhere (my server is internal + WireGuard to access it remotely)
Re: Swedish composer becomes Spotify's most-famous musician you've never heard of
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing that's sketchy is Spotify directing everyone to the same content, making stuff that appeals to the audience isn't against the rules.
Maybe, this is what people actually want to listen to and the algorithm is just doing what it's supposed to. I see people listening to these no name artists, the most boring unimaginative generic contemporary music. Maybe this guy just really knows what the average listener likes. In my opinion Spotify's algorithm is the best in knowing what I will like and probably will replay, I don't think it would work this well…
I feel like Spotify'a recommendations want to funnel me into a cohort whose music taste I supposedly share, but I actually don't. Last.fm seemed to both consider my likes more directly and more creatively. 15% or so of duds are fine, it's better than "oh you liked that dark techno track, it's mini-popular right now so have 20 more".
By the way, last.fm radio exists again, though YouTube is the music source these days.
Re: Swedish composer becomes Spotify's most-famous musician you've never heard of
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that actually sketchy though? - Each artist has different royalties, some are more expensive than others. - appearantly people do listen to ”cheaper” artists, in right circumstances - consumers prefer that cost of subscription would be lower - I assume scenario in the article saves money for spotify, and in turn allows to remain profitable without increasing subscription prices. Seems it aligns well with interest…
Some transparency around it would be nice, without the need for investigative journalism.
Can’t argue on that. More transparency is always good for end user.
Re: Swedish composer becomes Spotify's most-famous musician you've never heard of
#90Yeah, nothing fishy here at all. Why pay tribute to other artists if you can make a deal with one and promote him on all the playlist to pocket back your money. Just give him the machinery and funding to create all of it and voila!
How is Spotify “pocketing back the money”?
To answer your question, they pocket it back by paying it to themselves. The artist is only formally an external ”artist”, but in this case he’s essentially one of their own. They curate him, let him on all the most promoted playlists and keep an appearance as if they’re paying it to some artist just like they do to anyone else. That artist gets all this firepower by agreeing to keep less of the cut while paying more of it back to Spotify in some other ways and it is all kept under the radar. That’s what I suppose.