I didn’t know this, but it makes sense. One of my biggest complaints about streaming (Pandora is guilty of this, too) is that anyone with a copy of Ableton and a mediocre talent can crank out tracks barely modifying the base toolset. I tend to listen to a lot of variants of electronic music. 95% of the music is absolute crap. 4.5% is tolerable. And 0.5% might end up in my playlist. Less tan 1:100/songs. I have no doubt that “band” or artist names were made up to crank something out, abandoned, and started up under a different name to churn out more boring samesies hoping for a few plays in one of those “made for you” playlists.
So the service doing this for themselves and enabling it for profit isn’t surprising.
This ratio has been true of music forever. We have always depended on filters to get to the good stuff. Used to be access to recording studios (hence labels fucking everyone), then DJ’s setting taste (had its own problems). Pick a period of time there’s always a group or economic filter separating wheat from the chaff (not perfectly but generally successfully?) which makes it hard for independent/lesser knows to break through.
Now everyone can record and publish easily, so it’s about finding shortcuts or tricks to game the system and get ahead. Or, as always, just get lucky 🤷♂️
Completely agree. I had this exact discussion not too long ago about the recording industry 20+ years ago - or at least before the advent of widely available mp3 downloads. The recording industry and DJ/Radio was and still is an awful tyranny that plays kingmaker and squeezes every possible cent out of fan and artist alike while telling the fan what they’re supposed to consume and the star what they’re supposed to sound like.
The upside to that content filter was that some genuinely good music got made and put on albums where both A and B sides were good to great. The downside is that a ton of artists never had a chance at being heard who might be just as good or might have shifted the genre, added to the repertoire, yet the music landscape was more monochromatic.
IMO there was a lot less chaff 30 odd years ago because they got filtered hard. But consumers were also forced to listen to the billboard top whatever all the time.
Now with affordable tools readily available and the ability to easily upload music to various streaming services the production of music has been democratized. This is good in the sense that it lets more people be heard. It’s also not so good because the ability to climb to the top is far far harder, far fewer will make any real money, and for every good single or A side there’s a thousand B side throwaways.
One of my biggest complaints about streaming (Pandora is guilty of this, too) is that anyone with a copy of Ableton and a mediocre talent can crank out tracks barely modifying the base toolset.
People being able to do art isn’t a bad thing, and I’m glad streaming has made publishing so much more accessible.
If you don’t like it you don’t have to listen to it. Every time some algorithm playlist churns out another spoonful of slop you don’t actually have to open wide.
You could just look up the artists you like and what other people like that’s like those artists, or look at collabs they’ve done or who remixes them or been remixed or covered by them and who they’ve been in bands with and what genre they tag to see who else is in that (micro)genre/niche.
I’ve never actually listened to someone else’s playlists, not man-made nor generated, only my own, and I regularly listen to extremely niche folks with 1k-40k Monthly Listeners all of whom are completely legitimate artists with unique great music, many of them electronic actually.
The truth is that 99% of people like copy-paste slop and that’s why they click on the slop and gravitate towards algos or charts for top ten artists.
And a global market for music with a low entry barrier means that it’s easier than ever to get started artistically expressing yourself for fun and for yourself, just as it should be, but still hard to be actually heard if you want to take it commercial, even if it’s fairer system than the gatekeeping of labels.
Art… look, I get the premise of what you’re saying, but just because art is mediocre or just bad doesn’t free it of criticism because “art.” It can be shitty art and be called exactly that. It’s not sacred.
Edit: nice massive edit you did.
And is this argument that “if i don’t like it I don’t have to listen to it”? The WHOLE POINT of Spotify is to listen to it and be exposed to music, and my position was that it’s littered with crap. You’re basically telling me that if I don’t like billboards along the roadside I shouldn’t bother having a car? Lol, whatever man. Shitty art is still shitty art. Not everything belongs in a gallery.
Yeah sure, it’s actually good to think critically about it, but that doesn’t mean it’s existence is a negative, which is how your comment comes off - dismissive.
In the same way the world would be a slightly worse place without the joys of b-movies like The Room or Suburban Sasquatch or Plan 9 FOS, or without outsider musicians like Daniel Johnston etc…
I don’t need to listen to badly made music any more than I need to be exposed to budget hotel room art on the walls of the Louvre. You wanna watch B movies? Great! But nobody’s inserting 30 C and D films between your current netflix series.
“Inserting 30 C and D films” implies forcing someone, you are never forced, Spotify is not a goddamn radio station, you can just click on the track or album or artists you want.
That’s the whole selling point of portable music since the days of the original Walkman, that you listen to what you want, and not what’s on the radio.
Same thing with Netflix, you can click the search bar and type in your film or show of choice, you can even stop using Netflix altogether instead of just consooming like a slop vacuum.
Yeah I guess it’s always been this way. Does anyone remember the Captain Oblivious mp3 “mixtapes” he used to put out regularly, like 20 years ago? Indie and underground music. Rule of thumb, I would listen to only about 1 in 20 songs more than once.
I didn’t know this, but it makes sense. One of my biggest complaints about streaming (Pandora is guilty of this, too) is that anyone with a copy of Ableton and a mediocre talent can crank out tracks barely modifying the base toolset. I tend to listen to a lot of variants of electronic music. 95% of the music is absolute crap. 4.5% is tolerable. And 0.5% might end up in my playlist. Less tan 1:100/songs. I have no doubt that “band” or artist names were made up to crank something out, abandoned, and started up under a different name to churn out more boring samesies hoping for a few plays in one of those “made for you” playlists.
So the service doing this for themselves and enabling it for profit isn’t surprising.
This ratio has been true of music forever. We have always depended on filters to get to the good stuff. Used to be access to recording studios (hence labels fucking everyone), then DJ’s setting taste (had its own problems). Pick a period of time there’s always a group or economic filter separating wheat from the chaff (not perfectly but generally successfully?) which makes it hard for independent/lesser knows to break through.
Now everyone can record and publish easily, so it’s about finding shortcuts or tricks to game the system and get ahead. Or, as always, just get lucky 🤷♂️
Completely agree. I had this exact discussion not too long ago about the recording industry 20+ years ago - or at least before the advent of widely available mp3 downloads. The recording industry and DJ/Radio was and still is an awful tyranny that plays kingmaker and squeezes every possible cent out of fan and artist alike while telling the fan what they’re supposed to consume and the star what they’re supposed to sound like.
The upside to that content filter was that some genuinely good music got made and put on albums where both A and B sides were good to great. The downside is that a ton of artists never had a chance at being heard who might be just as good or might have shifted the genre, added to the repertoire, yet the music landscape was more monochromatic.
IMO there was a lot less chaff 30 odd years ago because they got filtered hard. But consumers were also forced to listen to the billboard top whatever all the time.
Now with affordable tools readily available and the ability to easily upload music to various streaming services the production of music has been democratized. This is good in the sense that it lets more people be heard. It’s also not so good because the ability to climb to the top is far far harder, far fewer will make any real money, and for every good single or A side there’s a thousand B side throwaways.
People being able to do art isn’t a bad thing, and I’m glad streaming has made publishing so much more accessible.
If you don’t like it you don’t have to listen to it. Every time some algorithm playlist churns out another spoonful of slop you don’t actually have to open wide.
You could just look up the artists you like and what other people like that’s like those artists, or look at collabs they’ve done or who remixes them or been remixed or covered by them and who they’ve been in bands with and what genre they tag to see who else is in that (micro)genre/niche.
I’ve never actually listened to someone else’s playlists, not man-made nor generated, only my own, and I regularly listen to extremely niche folks with 1k-40k Monthly Listeners all of whom are completely legitimate artists with unique great music, many of them electronic actually.
The truth is that 99% of people like copy-paste slop and that’s why they click on the slop and gravitate towards algos or charts for top ten artists.
And a global market for music with a low entry barrier means that it’s easier than ever to get started artistically expressing yourself for fun and for yourself, just as it should be, but still hard to be actually heard if you want to take it commercial, even if it’s fairer system than the gatekeeping of labels.
🎶 but look I made you some conteeeeeent daddy made you your favorite open wiiiide 🎶
Art… look, I get the premise of what you’re saying, but just because art is mediocre or just bad doesn’t free it of criticism because “art.” It can be shitty art and be called exactly that. It’s not sacred.
Edit: nice massive edit you did.
And is this argument that “if i don’t like it I don’t have to listen to it”? The WHOLE POINT of Spotify is to listen to it and be exposed to music, and my position was that it’s littered with crap. You’re basically telling me that if I don’t like billboards along the roadside I shouldn’t bother having a car? Lol, whatever man. Shitty art is still shitty art. Not everything belongs in a gallery.
Yeah sure, it’s actually good to think critically about it, but that doesn’t mean it’s existence is a negative, which is how your comment comes off - dismissive.
In the same way the world would be a slightly worse place without the joys of b-movies like The Room or Suburban Sasquatch or Plan 9 FOS, or without outsider musicians like Daniel Johnston etc…
I don’t need to listen to badly made music any more than I need to be exposed to budget hotel room art on the walls of the Louvre. You wanna watch B movies? Great! But nobody’s inserting 30 C and D films between your current netflix series.
“badly made music” is a subjective idea.
“Inserting 30 C and D films” implies forcing someone, you are never forced, Spotify is not a goddamn radio station, you can just click on the track or album or artists you want.
That’s the whole selling point of portable music since the days of the original Walkman, that you listen to what you want, and not what’s on the radio.
Same thing with Netflix, you can click the search bar and type in your film or show of choice, you can even stop using Netflix altogether instead of just consooming like a slop vacuum.
Maybe touch non-algorithmically selected non-personalized grass too.
Yeah I guess it’s always been this way. Does anyone remember the Captain Oblivious mp3 “mixtapes” he used to put out regularly, like 20 years ago? Indie and underground music. Rule of thumb, I would listen to only about 1 in 20 songs more than once.