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.
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.
Do people really want low effort things, or are they addicted to them in a loop that businesses are only too happy to reinforce?
I think public tastes are at least partially trained (or "learned"), they are very prone to addictive feedback loops, and they are not entirely shaped by something intrinsic but heavily influenced by what's on offer. And if what's on offer is intentionally cheap garbage...
people settle for "mediocrity" all the time. be it just what you deem "mediocre" (out of cluelessness and/or disrespect), if it's not a "generic idea of a song with lyrics and all" and just some mild electronica, or if it is really just kind of mediocre, which is a good fit in some situations nonetheless, and does actually have wider appeal due to its mediocrity.
"low effort" may overlap, in perception or in how things are actually made, with some simpler, subtler, not overproduced music. it really isn't a bad thing at all, so it's bizarre to see it get shaded so much.
I specifically referred to algorithmically generated elevator music, aka "low effort music". Not chill music or music without lyrics.
My point is that people do not want garbage, but get used to it. So we shouldn't let companies producing this shit off the hook because it's "what people want". That's not the full picture, and is far too generous to businesses and advertising.
Surely you're not objecting to the notion that public tastes can be shaped to some degree?