←back to thread

Ghost artists on Spotify

(harpers.org)
556 points greenie_beans | 5 comments | 19 Dec 24 14:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
crazygringo ◴[20 Dec 24 16:31 UTC] No.42472475[source]▶
I see absolutely no problem with this. Look, I love music, listening to an album through, learning about artists, etc.

But sometimes, I want to put something on in the background that doesn't call attention to itself, but just sets a mood. I don't want Brian Eno or Miles Davis because then I'd be paying attention -- I just want "filler".

And I have absolutely no problem with Spotify partnering with companies to produce that music, at a lower cost to Spotify, and seeding that in their own playlists. If the musicians are getting paid by the hour rather than by the stream, that's still a good gig when you consider that they don't have to do 99% of the rest of the work usually involved in producing and marketing an album only to have nobody listen to it.

The article argues that this is "stealing" from "normal" artists, but that's absurd. Artists don't have some kind of right to be featured on Spotify's playlists. This is more like a supermarket featuring their store-brand corn flakes next to Kellogg's Corn Flakes. The supermarket isn't stealing from Kellogg's. Consumers can still choose what they want to listen to. And if they want to listen to some background ambient music that is lower cost for Spotify, that's just the market working.

replies(7): >>42472631 #>>42472729 #>>42472972 #>>42473173 #>>42473242 #>>42473292 #>>42473320 #
dclowd9901 ◴[20 Dec 24 16:50 UTC] No.42472631[source]▶
Is there nothing troubling about the fact that the company who _decides_ what you're listening to decides that you only listen to their music? I didn't sign up for that. I use Spotify to find new artists so I can follow their artistic journey and see them in concert. Perhaps some folks see music as shallow background filler but for people like me who value its contributions to my mental health and a big part of my social interactions, this kind of thing just scoops the soul out of it all. I'll be canceling my subscription.
replies(6): >>42472725 #>>42472831 #>>42472837 #>>42472929 #>>42472957 #>>42472965 #
kylebenzle ◴[20 Dec 24 17:00 UTC] No.42472725[source]▶
Spotify doesn't decide what I listen to at all but I use it almost daily. Listen to albums and audiobooks.

How does Spotify decide what you listen to? Does Amazon _decide_ what you buy on their website too?

replies(1): >>42472788 #
1. arrosenberg ◴[20 Dec 24 17:08 UTC] No.42472788[source]▶
Amazon does sort of decide in a way that works for this analogy. If you search for a basic computer component, like a keyboard, one of the first 2-3 results is usually Amazon Basics brand. We all know that people tend to click on the first few links way more often than bottom of the page or second page. It's 100% anticompetitive to self-serve in that way.

Spotify is a different type of situation given the mode of consumption, but there is absolutely an argument to be made that we shouldn't, as a matter of ideology, allow distributors to also be producers.

replies(1): >>42472889 #
2. aeturnum ◴[20 Dec 24 17:18 UTC] No.42472889[source]▶
I guess, to me, what about the popular counter-example: Trader Joes. A popular mid-cost supermarket that mostly stocks their own store brands. That behavior does not feel anti-competitive or deceptive. People know that Trader Joes sells mostly their own brands, which seem to generally be thought of as good deals and quality-competitive.

I totally agree that Amazon doing this when they claim to be an open market is way scummier, but I am divided on the Spotify example. If they were somehow stopping you from playing non-house-produced music that would be one thing, but it seems fine for them to put together playlists with house-produced music and offer them to users?

replies(1): >>42473200 #
3. arrosenberg ◴[20 Dec 24 17:55 UTC] No.42473200[source]▶
> I guess, to me, what about the popular counter-example: Trader Joes. A popular mid-cost supermarket that mostly stocks their own store brands. That behavior does not feel anti-competitive or deceptive. People know that Trader Joes sells mostly their own brands, which seem to generally be thought of as good deals and quality-competitive.

I agree with that. The big difference to me is market share. Amazon and Spotify are both 800 lb gorillas who want to control the market. Trader Joes has a business model that's intended to compete in the market. Amazon and Spotify should have to play by much more strict rules in order to maintain their market dominance - that's healthy for a capitalist system, it prevents our current dilemma with consolidation and oligarchy.

> If they were somehow stopping you from playing non-house-produced music that would be one thing, but it seems fine for them to put together playlists with house-produced music and offer them to users?

Yeah, I also agree the Spotify example is more nebulous and harder to define. IMO they should not be allowed to produce the music or cut preferential deals to promote one artist over another, but the should be free to package and distribute the music they have the rights to however they see fit. I.E. they can promote <some artist> over <some other artist> they just can't do it because they made a preferential deal with the former.

replies(1): >>42473318 #
4. aeturnum ◴[20 Dec 24 18:10 UTC] No.42473318{3}[source]▶
I think...to me I would object to Spotify pushing their house-made music using their suggestion features (Discover Weekly, the horrid "Smart" Shuffle feature) - but them making playlists with their house music and offering them to users feels fine. I think that is how I would slice it when thinking about the Amazon example (that IS anti-competitive and monopolistic and should be illegal imo).

Edit: I have not looked into market share deeply but others in this thread have said the Spotify market share is ~31%, which does not seem obviously overwhelming to me.

replies(1): >>42473410 #
5. arrosenberg ◴[20 Dec 24 18:22 UTC] No.42473410{4}[source]▶
That's a perfectly reasonable stance. I would point out that historically, 30% is an extremely high market share in any industry, and represents a high degree of consolidation (esp given that Apple probably has similar share, so the two of them control the market).

That is more a result of how insanely the US structures intellectual property rights. The problem is that one company having that much marketshare usually creates a defacto private regulator of the industry, which goes against the whole notion of people being governed based on consent.