←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 #
text0404 ◴[19 Dec 24 23:47 UTC] No.42466967{3}[source]▶
"we" care - the businesses that have inserted themselves as middlemen to extract profit have found that it's cheaper to deceive consumers, drag the quality of art down, and eliminate artists from art completely (or at least what a business executive thinks art is). _those_ are the people who don't care if artists go away. we as human beings are worse off for it.
replies(2): >>42467091 #>>42472995 #
equestria ◴[20 Dec 24 00:08 UTC] No.42467091{4}[source]▶
Well, then again: maybe Spotify was hoping you wouldn't notice, but by now, the problem has been exposed publicly a number of times. This article is one of many.

How many of us are canceling their Spotify subscriptions over this? It wouldn't be some huge sacrifice, it's about the least we could do. Most of us won't. The "caring" is just lip service.

replies(1): >>42470496 #
amelius ◴[20 Dec 24 12:21 UTC] No.42470496{5}[source]▶
You cannot blame consumers for the literal failure of the free market. Consumer psychology is what it is, you cannot change it, and actors in the free market will gladly abuse it where they can.
replies(1): >>42473953 #
1. achenet ◴[20 Dec 24 19:14 UTC] No.42473953{6}[source]▶
how is Spotify generating a bunch of of royalty free music in a way that kinda screws over the actual musicians making that music, which, for the musicians, isn't much worse than getting screwed over by record labels and may even be better in some ways [0], in order to meet the market's desire for "Chill Lo-fi Hip-hop background music"/"Music to Relax and Study"/"Gentle Relaxing Yoga Music" a 'literal failure of the free market'?

People want comforting background noise, the market gives it to them. They never asked for ethically sourced, organic, gluten-free comforting background noise, although if they do, I'm sure the market will be more than happy to provide them with that, and we can look forwards to "Chill Study Music Made by Adorable Orphan Children in Kenya Using Only Recycled Materials And Biodegradable Recording Equipment" or whatever :)

[0] https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music