←back to thread

Ghost artists on Spotify

(harpers.org)
556 points greenie_beans | 1 comments | 19 Dec 24 14:12 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
timoth3y ◴[19 Dec 24 23:01 UTC] No.42466636[source]▶
The entire history of the music business is one of attorneys developing ever more inventive ways of screwing over musicians.

The sad thing (for artists) is that it seems like most Spotify listeners don't care.

Most of our music consumption today seems to be as a kind of background vibe rather than an appreciation of the music itself.

replies(9): >>42466733 #>>42466747 #>>42466782 #>>42466984 #>>42467137 #>>42467214 #>>42467765 #>>42468457 #>>42470219 #
amelius ◴[19 Dec 24 23:15 UTC] No.42466733[source]▶
It's a good demonstration of how the simple and seemingly solid foundations of our free market can still lead to extreme unfairness.
replies(2): >>42466811 #>>42467275 #
equestria ◴[19 Dec 24 23:25 UTC] No.42466811[source]▶
If a customer wants endless elevator music, then I don't think that Spotify is wrong to generate endless elevator music for them. The problem is deception. If you want to listen to human performances, then Spotify should give you choice instead of hoping you don't notice.

Free market means you can vote with your wallet. If you don't, then it says less about markets and more about our stated vs revealed preferences. Maybe we just don't care if real artists go away.

replies(4): >>42466967 #>>42466989 #>>42467354 #>>42471524 #
1. 09thn34v ◴[20 Dec 24 14:50 UTC] No.42471524{3}[source]▶
i agree with you, but i also think that there are some things that are more important, and deserve to be protected outside of the dynamics of the free market. i'd argue that art is one of those things, along with housing, health care, social services, etc.