91–100 of 160 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
A random sampling - Thundercat, Louis Cole / Knower, MonoNeon, Nate Smith, Vulfpeck, GoGo Penguin, Snarky Puppy Interested in other recommendations too!
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 the complaint boils down to ”people on the playlists are not celebrities”. Which I see as a positive thing.
Spotify has provided a platform for artists to release music on, and implicitly promised that they will curate that music in playlists etc to promote the artists. But then they pull the rug out from under them and just push in house stuff instead, denying royalties to the artists that probably only joined the platform because Spotify /weren't/ doing stuff like this.
People saying OP is just upset that "non famous artists" are being recommended or that these artists aren't really "fake" are missing the point - these are artists created /by Spotify/ being promoted /instead of/ artists that Spotify would actually have to pay royalties to. There's clearly some perverse incentives here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A random sampling - Thundercat, Louis Cole / Knower, MonoNeon, Nate Smith, Vulfpeck, GoGo Penguin, Snarky Puppy Interested in other recommendations too!
Robert Glasper, Esperanza Spalding, Shubh Saran, Tigran Hamasyan fit in that crowd too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Are shows that Netflix comes up with the concept and produces fake? Is it only real entertainment if the platform buys it from someone else? Let's imagine these "artists" are all actually created by a team of software engineers at Spotify tweaking a GPT-3-like model for songs. If the songs get listens and users like them, so what? It's not like you think you're listening to Taylor Swift but instead get a fake. You're…
I don't think anyone has a problem if users listen to or like machine-generated music. Some people, including some paying customers, would have a problem with this music being presented to them opaquely as if it has gone through the same creative process as human-generated music.
To your other point, re: Backstreet Boys, they're not any more authentic, at least not in my perspective. But the fact that I may find Backstreet Boys completely "soulless" or not a "genuine form of artistic expression" or "lacking in musical talent" is all my problem/opinion, and it's all orthogonal to the point, which is that the promotion of Backstreet Boys, by way of a record label allocating marketing spend to pay a radio station to play their music on repeat, ought to be transparent. There are even "payola" laws about this in the US, complete with a known and abused loophole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola#Third-party_loophole
> ...You're clicking a playlist...
The question becomes, "How did the user find the playlist?" I don't know how organic the process is for getting these playlists in front of a user's face. If Spotify does any kind of algorithmic fuckery to present that playlist more prominently to a user -- while, on the backend, accounting for the fact that the playlist will benefit them financially because the royalties are lower because the artists are "fake" -- then that should be disclosed to the user in some form. I'm not actually suggesting a law or regulation here. But if I were still a Spotify customer, I'd prefer to know if they generated and presented content to me because it benefit them financially rather than because they think I'd enjoy listening to it.
I skipped spotify alltogether, my digial collection is vast enough to last me for months, including December. Regarding streaming, I did love last.fm's radio, it helped me to discover a LOT of music, artists and styles. The 3 Euro (Pound?) fee was well-spent. Or was it 5? When that went down the drain I did some footwork myself by scrolling through bandcamp and these day I just turn on BBC 6 music. Sure, every DJ mig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> ...someone else actually makes it. ...which sort of applies to a lot of Hot 100 artists as well. A good songwriter writes it, a talented producer makes it sound good, and a well-known personality sings it (with varying accuracy) and has their name put on it as the "artist". It's a spectrum. At one end you've got The Velvet Underground playing around a single mic hooked directly to a reel-to-reel, and at the other e…
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 one together, when she toured.
I suspect that many artists do the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey you seem to think that being in a cult of consensus is a good thing , but perhaps it isn’t?
I just can't figure out what it would even mean for a jazz saxophonist to be "good on paper". What does it mean? Did he hit 100 RBIs? A take such as "I don't care for Coltrane's improvisational style" would be beyond debate.
These people are also somehow ignorant and independent of Bach, Beethoven, Handel, and of all famous literary authors and poets who have done the same before.
Which isn’t to say you shouldn’t like The Rolling Stones or John Coltrane but they’re just something you like. Thats it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 p…