Spotify’s biggest sin?

[caught gesture]

Spotify’s biggest sin? Its algorithms have pushed artists to make joyless, toothless music | John Harris

Most musicians can only make money on the platform by writing songs inoffensive enough to get on to one of its vapid playlists, says Guardian columnist John Harris

www.theguardian.com

 

[Galliardist]

I don't believe for one moment that anyone who actually cares about music would ever choose to play a Spotify playlist with "chill" in the title.
Those who do get what they deserve.

And for anyone who cares about proper artists getting paid, use another service. ANY other service. (Well, maybe not YouTube based on what some actual musicians have posted here).

Or even buy some new vinyl or digital discs.

 

[caught gesture]

I don't believe for one moment that anyone who actually cares about music would ever choose to play a Spotify playlist with "chill" in the title.

I don’t know. I’ve listened to some sets of chill out music back in the nineties which would have included music by the Aphex Twins, Massive Attack, etc. I would call that proper music and myself someone who cares massively for music (my bandcamp purchase history shows that!). I have no streaming subscriptions though, and avoid them like the plague. I don’t want to rent my music!

 

[whereisbrian]

I don’t know. I’ve listened to some sets of chill out music back in the nineties which would have included music by the Aphex Twins, Massive Attack, etc. I would call that proper music and myself someone who cares massively for music (my bandcamp purchase history shows that!). I have no streaming subscriptions though, and avoid them like the plague. I don’t want to rent my music!

I agree with you.

When you buy LP, CD or FLAC files, you are the (little) owner of the music.
With streaming like Tidal or others, you only rent the music.

 

[nerdstrike]

This is another implementation of the filter bubble. The platform intentionally or unintentionally biases what the audience discovers in the name of increasing usage. As such I think we could level the same criticism against any streaming service. The fact that streaming pays the artists really badly is also common to most/all streaming platforms.

From the artist's side, nobody gains satisfaction from pumping out vacuous crap even if it does pay the bills. Chasing the vacuous dollars is not the way.

 

[Rednaxela]

Have we been through this before?

There is something very, very wrong with today’s music

Found this interesting article: https://globalnews.ca/news/9001083/why-older-music-more-popular-than-new-music/ There is something very, very wrong with today’s music. It just may not be very good. On warm summer nights, the park across the street from my house is filled with people playing...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Galliardist]

I agree with you.

When you buy LP, CD or FLAC files, you are the (little) owner of the music.
With streaming like Tidal or others, you only rent the music.

A reminder - you never own the music.
With a FLAC, you generally have a non-transferable licence to play the music in that file in private and that is all. You can't sell it, pass it on in your will, or even give it away.
With an LP or CD, it comes with a similar licence allowing you to play the music in private (with "backup" according to the jurisdiction you're in). When you pass on the disc to someone else, you also pass on that licence.

Of course in the reai world these things are often oberserved in the breach, as it were. And there are some exceptions to the rule on FLACs, so read the small print when buying.

 

[JSmith]

I don't believe for one moment that anyone who actually cares about music would ever choose to play a Spotify playlist with "chill" in the title.

Not about Spotify, but SBS Chill is quite relaxing at times just to have on in the background.


JSmith

 

[GD Fan]

From the artist's side, nobody gains satisfaction from pumping out vacuous crap even if it does pay the bills. Chasing the vacuous dollars is not the way.

Vacuous crap defines the majority of popular music these days. Not an instrument is played and autotune of vocals is used as an 'instrument' itself.

So there must be some satisfaction from it?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Off topic, but maybe of some interest about music ownership. The Internet Archive has a problem from a program trying to digitize existing 78 rpm recordings. The Great 78 project. It might be found it owes $700 million for trying to do so. The second article from Rolling Stone has more details and is more sensibly arranged article.

Music labels will regret coming for the Internet Archive, sound historian says

Labels push to spike cost of Internet Archive fight over old 78s.

arstechnica.com

Inside the $621 Million Legal Battle for the 'Soul of the Internet'

Major record labels have sued the Internet Archive for $621 million over thousands of old recordings, raising the question: Who owns the past?

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I have gazed into my crystal ball, and the vision is grim.
A shadow looms over this thread, stretching long and deep.
Words will be wielded like daggers, pride will bleed, and voices will fade into the void.
This topic is cursed with power too great, and the egos that clash shall never find peace.

 

[Galliardist]

I don’t know. I’ve listened to some sets of chill out music back in the nineties which would have included music by the Aphex Twins, Massive Attack, etc. I would call that proper music and myself someone who cares massively for music (my bandcamp purchase history shows that!). I have no streaming subscriptions though, and avoid them like the plague. I don’t want to rent my music!

Even if you run into some "proper" music in that particular corner of the world though, it's likely to be surrounded by "lower value" music. Of course, there are gems among the blandest music, but no need to suffer too much while looking for them. (User playlists may also be a different matter).

Background music may also be.a different matter, but it's generally not my thing. And you may well not want background music that suddenly grabs your attention in those circumstances.

The general case though is that you will run into something awful in those playlists sooner rather than later.

 

[Galliardist]

Off topic, but maybe of some interest about music ownership. The Internet Archive has a problem from a program trying to digitize existing 78 rpm recordings. The Great 78 project. It might be found it owes $700 million for trying to do so. The second article from Rolling Stone has more details and is more sensibly arranged article.

Music labels will regret coming for the Internet Archive, sound historian says

Labels push to spike cost of Internet Archive fight over old 78s.

arstechnica.com

Inside the $621 Million Legal Battle for the 'Soul of the Internet'

Major record labels have sued the Internet Archive for $621 million over thousands of old recordings, raising the question: Who owns the past?

www.rollingstone.com

This rings a bell from old books. Google, Microsoft and various other bodies digitised vast amounts of public domain books from important libraries several years ago. Every so often I'm looking for one of those books. They aren't available from the places that did the digitisation.

Why?

Well, some invisible company started selling copies on Amazon. So they get taken down from public domain. Go buy one of those books, and you will see the library's and Google's stamps on the opening pages. So the libraries let the companies scan them to be made public and now you have to buy the very copy that was made for that purpose.

Yet some in-copyright books that accidentally got scanned in those sessions are still available from Google Books et al.

These things are all a matter for the law. The timings when items go into the public domain, in the US, are different in guidelines ("70 years from the recording date", I've seen in various places, but it's not true!). The same applies in other countries, and in some places copyright is for shorter periods.

I followed the lawsuits and issues with the IMSLP, and the hoops they had to jump through for printed music and some recordings. It may be that the 78 archive could learn from that experience, or that IMSLP would be a better home (it has the agreements in place) for such a project.

Ultimately, the copyrignt laws have to be made fairer. There should be strict limits for everything (perhaps exceptions where an item is inextricably linked with a company?) but there is no reason why White Christmas, the example they give, should stay in copyright for ever. Copyrights and patents are themselves really a kind of licence to allow the maker to gain appropriate income. Not their estates in perpetuity, nor corporations who may have gained the rights many years after publication and have no real link to the works.
At the same time, those estates and corporations need certainty over what they actually own and have rights to. I'm not sure that's the case at the moment, either.

 

[BeeKay]

With streaming like Tidal or others, you only rent the music.

True. But you rent more (all) music. So can access more than you ever could buy. Unless you are very well off. If you need all of that is unlikely but I do love having the choice.

 

[Galliardist]

Vacuous crap defines the majority of popular music these days. Not an instrument is played and autotune of vocals is used as an 'instrument' itself.

So there must be some satisfaction from it?

One thing I've learnt from the history of music is that no matter how simple, bland or vacuous a style or an instrument is, someone will become a master or virtuoso and make music that counts for something out of it.

 

[whereisbrian]

A reminder - you never own the music.
With a FLAC, you generally have a non-transferable licence to play the music in that file in private and that is all. You can't sell it, pass it on in your will, or even give it away.
With an LP or CD, it comes with a similar licence allowing you to play the music in private (with "backup" according to the jurisdiction you're in). When you pass on the disc to someone else, you also pass on that licence.

Of course in the reai world these things are often oberserved in the breach, as it were. And there are some exceptions to the rule on FLACs, so read the small print when buying.

That's right. I know.

But streaming is like the wind, a tap with music.
I write : a little owner with CD & LP

 

[Galliardist]

That's right. I know.

But streaming is like the wind, a tap with music.
I write : a little owner with CD & LP

Being old fashioned, I only stream albums or whole classical pieces/suites. But I get what you mean.

I don't want to put people off paying for music on discs at all. Preferably new at least for some, because the artist gets nothing from a second hand purchase.

 

[raif71]

 

[somebodyelse]

Vacuous crap defines the majority of popular music these days.

Vacuous crap has always defined the majority of popular music, just like everything else - see Sturgeon's Law. Over the years most of the crap gets forgotten.

 

[somebodyelse]

A reminder - you never own the music.
With a FLAC, you generally have a non-transferable licence to play the music in that file in private and that is all. You can't sell it, pass it on in your will, or even give it away.
With an LP or CD, it comes with a similar licence allowing you to play the music in private (with "backup" according to the jurisdiction you're in). When you pass on the disc to someone else, you also pass on that licence.

Of course in the reai world these things are often oberserved in the breach, as it were. And there are some exceptions to the rule on FLACs, so read the small print when buying.

Sort of true, but varies a bit between jurisdictions. With physical copies you do own the physical copy, but local copyright law limits what you can do with performances of it. In the USA 'fair use' allows you to format-shift (among other things) so ripping the CD to your media server is legal. In the UK 'fair dealing' is more restrictive, and an attempt to allow format shifting in law was struck down by the courts. In practice I'm not aware of it being enforced. First Sale doctrine allows you to sell or give away your CD (or other physical medium) whether the copyright holder likes it or not - hence second hand record shops, companies selling used Microsoft software and so on. MS tried to stop that and the court rules against them, which is one of the reasons they're trying to push things into the cloud for rental.

With FLAC and other digital downloads it gets murkier. Despite what the small print may say about licensing, the use of the word 'buy' as opposed to 'rent' or 'license' implies a transfer of ownership similar to a physical CD. I'm not aware of anyone having taken this to a court ruling yet, and it could go different ways in different places.

Edit: usual disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer anywhere, and this isn't legal advice. Consult someone appropriate to find out the current state of play in your jurisdiction. Trans-national transactions may make it more interesting if they disagree about whose law applies.