←back to thread

556 points greenie_beans | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
legitster ◴[] No.42466978[source]
This article is fascinating. But what's on display here is less of a nefarious plan from Spotify to replace famous Katy Perry with AI - instead we get to see something much more specific: a behind-the-scenes of how those endless chill/lo-fi/ambient playlists get created.

Which is something I've always wondered! How does the Lofi Girl channel on Youtube always have so much new music from artists I have never heard from?

The answer is surprising: real people and real instruments! (At least at the time of writing). Third-party stock music ("muzak") companies hiring underemployed jazz musicians to crank out a few dozen derivative songs every day to hack the algorithm.

> “Honestly, for most of this stuff, I just write out charts while lying on my back on the couch,” he explained. “And then once we have a critical mass, they organize a session and we play them. And it’s usually just like, one take, one take, one take, one take. You knock out like fifteen in an hour or two.” With the jazz musician’s particular group, the session typically includes a pianist, a bassist, and a drummer. An engineer from the studio will be there, and usually someone from the PFC partner company will come along, too—acting as a producer, giving light feedback, at times inching the musicians in a more playlist-friendly direction.”

I think there's an easy and obvious thing we can do - stop listening to playlists! Seek out named jazz artists. Listen to your local jazz station. Go to jazz shows.

replies(14): >>42467115 #>>42467373 #>>42468523 #>>42468534 #>>42468806 #>>42469019 #>>42470366 #>>42471641 #>>42473351 #>>42474647 #>>42477886 #>>42478120 #>>42479458 #>>42480564 #
Gigachad ◴[] No.42467373[source]
I’m not even mad about it. It’s background music and clearly people are enjoying it. Just because they smashed out 15 tracks in a single session doesn’t make it unfit for purpose. That’s just how Jazz music is.
replies(4): >>42468134 #>>42468791 #>>42472073 #>>42477234 #
bee_rider ◴[] No.42468791[source]
Yeah, this rules, why are we supposed to be angry? It is like WFH for music makers.

Although, I’m pretty sure there’s a ton of really complex and difficult jazz out there (IIRC it is one of the most advanced genres, whatever they means; I don’t do music). But that isn’t what we’re looking for on the chill whatever ambient music channels.

replies(5): >>42469894 #>>42470245 #>>42471558 #>>42472041 #>>42473359 #
oreilles ◴[] No.42469894[source]
Did you guys not read the article ? The problem arises because of the way the music is distributed on Spotify and the way it is licensed. Spotify make deals with the companies producing this stock music so that it can fill its popular playlists with while paying close to zero royalties. The consequence is a decline both in music quality on the platform and in artists rights, revenue, and ability to be listened to overall.
replies(3): >>42470129 #>>42472848 #>>42473189 #
afro88 ◴[] No.42470129{3}[source]
Spotify isn't a monopoly, and if they want to fill their platform with stock music and presumably AI slop in the future, good luck to them. They're hollowing themselves out and making way for a new better service.

And in the end, the real money for musicians is syncs, shows and merch anyway. Spotify streaming revenue is tiny in comparison.

replies(2): >>42470212 #>>42470512 #
oreilles ◴[] No.42470212{4}[source]
The discussion is not wether Spotify will benefit from this situation in the long run or not, it's wether the users of the platform (both the listeners and the artists) should be happy with it and the answer to that is, thanks this lengthy article, demonstrably no.
replies(2): >>42474350 #>>42479306 #
1. Wolfenstein98k ◴[] No.42479306{5}[source]
Whether*

A wether is a castrated ram.