Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Music Appreciation
Showing Original Post only (View all)Must-read article on Spotify - The Ghosts in the Machine: Spotify's plot against musicians (Harper's-January 2025 issue) [View all]
(Cross-post from General Discussion: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219837180 )https://harpers.org/archive/2025/01/the-ghosts-in-the-machine-liz-pelly-spotify-musicians/
-snip-
For more than a year, I devoted myself to answering these questions. I spoke with former employees, reviewed internal Spotify records and company Slack messages, and interviewed and corresponded with numerous musicians. What I uncovered was an elaborate internal program. Spotify, I discovered, not only has partnerships with a web of production companies, which, as one former employee put it, provide Spotify with music we benefited from financially, but also a team of employees working to seed these tracks on playlists across the platform. In doing so, they are effectively working to grow the percentage of total streams of music that is cheaper for the platform. The programs name: Perfect Fit Content (PFC). The PFC program raises troubling prospects for working musicians. Some face the possibility of losing out on crucial income by having their tracks passed over for playlist placement or replaced in favor of PFC; others, who record PFC music themselves, must often give up control of certain royalty rights that, if a track becomes popular, could be highly lucrative. But it also raises worrying questions for all of us who listen to music. It puts forth an image of a future in whichas streaming services push music further into the background, and normalize anonymous, low-cost playlist fillerthe relationship between listener and artist might be severed completely.
-snip-
Eventually, it became clear internally that many of the playlist editorswhom Spotify had touted in the press as music lovers with encyclopedic knowledgewere uninterested in participating in the scheme. The company started to bring on editors who seemed less bothered by the PFC model. These new editors looked after mood and activity playlists, and worked on playlists and programs that other editors didnt want to take part in anymore. (Spotify denies that staffers were encouraged to add PFC to playlists, and that playlist editors were discontented with the program.) By 2023, several hundred playlists were being monitored by the team responsible for PFC. Over 150 of these, including Ambient Relaxation, Deep Focus, 100% Lounge, Bossa Nova Dinner, Cocktail Jazz, Deep Sleep, Morning Stretch, and Detox, were nearly entirely made up of PFC.
-snip-
The jazz musician asked me not to identify the name of the company he worked for; he didnt want to risk losing the gig. Throughout our conversation, though, he repeatedly emphasized his reservations about the system, calling it shamefuleven without knowledge of the hard details of the program, he understood that his work was creating value for a company, and a system, with little regard for the well-being of independent artists. In general, the musicians working with PFC companies I spoke with were highly critical of the arrangement. One musician who made electronic compositions for Epidemic Sound told me about how the creative process was more about replicating playlist styles and vibes than looking inward. Another musician, a professional audio engineer who turned out ambient recordings for a different PFC partner, told me that he stopped making this type of stock music because it felt unethical, like some kind of money-laundering scheme.
-snip-
A model in which the imperative is simply to keep listeners around, whether theyre paying attention or not, distorts our very understanding of musics purpose. This treatment of music as nothing but background soundsas interchangeable tracks of generic, vibe-tagged playlist fodderis at the heart of how music has been devalued in the streaming era. It is in the financial interest of streaming services to discourage a critical audio culture among users, to continue eroding connections between artists and listeners, so as to more easily slip discounted stock music through the cracks, improving their profit margins in the process. Its not hard to imagine a future in which the continued fraying of these connections erodes the role of the artist altogether, laying the groundwork for users to accept music made using generative-AI software.
-snip-
For more than a year, I devoted myself to answering these questions. I spoke with former employees, reviewed internal Spotify records and company Slack messages, and interviewed and corresponded with numerous musicians. What I uncovered was an elaborate internal program. Spotify, I discovered, not only has partnerships with a web of production companies, which, as one former employee put it, provide Spotify with music we benefited from financially, but also a team of employees working to seed these tracks on playlists across the platform. In doing so, they are effectively working to grow the percentage of total streams of music that is cheaper for the platform. The programs name: Perfect Fit Content (PFC). The PFC program raises troubling prospects for working musicians. Some face the possibility of losing out on crucial income by having their tracks passed over for playlist placement or replaced in favor of PFC; others, who record PFC music themselves, must often give up control of certain royalty rights that, if a track becomes popular, could be highly lucrative. But it also raises worrying questions for all of us who listen to music. It puts forth an image of a future in whichas streaming services push music further into the background, and normalize anonymous, low-cost playlist fillerthe relationship between listener and artist might be severed completely.
-snip-
Eventually, it became clear internally that many of the playlist editorswhom Spotify had touted in the press as music lovers with encyclopedic knowledgewere uninterested in participating in the scheme. The company started to bring on editors who seemed less bothered by the PFC model. These new editors looked after mood and activity playlists, and worked on playlists and programs that other editors didnt want to take part in anymore. (Spotify denies that staffers were encouraged to add PFC to playlists, and that playlist editors were discontented with the program.) By 2023, several hundred playlists were being monitored by the team responsible for PFC. Over 150 of these, including Ambient Relaxation, Deep Focus, 100% Lounge, Bossa Nova Dinner, Cocktail Jazz, Deep Sleep, Morning Stretch, and Detox, were nearly entirely made up of PFC.
-snip-
The jazz musician asked me not to identify the name of the company he worked for; he didnt want to risk losing the gig. Throughout our conversation, though, he repeatedly emphasized his reservations about the system, calling it shamefuleven without knowledge of the hard details of the program, he understood that his work was creating value for a company, and a system, with little regard for the well-being of independent artists. In general, the musicians working with PFC companies I spoke with were highly critical of the arrangement. One musician who made electronic compositions for Epidemic Sound told me about how the creative process was more about replicating playlist styles and vibes than looking inward. Another musician, a professional audio engineer who turned out ambient recordings for a different PFC partner, told me that he stopped making this type of stock music because it felt unethical, like some kind of money-laundering scheme.
-snip-
A model in which the imperative is simply to keep listeners around, whether theyre paying attention or not, distorts our very understanding of musics purpose. This treatment of music as nothing but background soundsas interchangeable tracks of generic, vibe-tagged playlist fodderis at the heart of how music has been devalued in the streaming era. It is in the financial interest of streaming services to discourage a critical audio culture among users, to continue eroding connections between artists and listeners, so as to more easily slip discounted stock music through the cracks, improving their profit margins in the process. Its not hard to imagine a future in which the continued fraying of these connections erodes the role of the artist altogether, laying the groundwork for users to accept music made using generative-AI software.
-snip-
Much more at the link.
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies