Well. You're right, of course; ol' Spotty is gonna eat itself, much like the greedy, careless AI Kludge Machines will.
Given that this process is inexorable, the task I've been applying myself to is to (hopefully) facilitate the divorce between Spotty and its stats and ppl at the lower end of this business. I believe they know better than to equate Spotty numbers (monthly listeners, etc.) with success in the basic parts of the business (drawing crowds for shows, etc.), but theyre still stuck in the habit of evaluating bands/artists on the surface with Spotty and IG(another terrible indicator). Once the lower half of the business can be convinced to abandon Spotty's sinking ship, then we'll have something.
i didn't like your essay. for starters, bruno mars' singles are very good, and his album with anderson paak is a great collab.
i hate the term enshittification and how it absolves the stupid user. lazy users hear the aforementioned shitty playlists because they're lazy. things get enshittified because users refuse to curate music by themselves, looking through sites such as rym or discog, not because the evil ceo wants more money. his thirst for money is a mousetrap, not a bullet we can't dodge.
"Nobody wants this. Listeners don’t want this. Artists don’t want this. Even the labels don’t want this. Bringing a heap of Slopmusik into the world actively makes the world worse, and yet, for Spotify, it makes perfect financial sense."
clearly, someone wants this. they got metrics, and they wouldn't be wasting their time on the slop playlists if the users weren't so lazy.
i look up albums. i save them. i listen to albums. once they end, the algorithm brings me music; if it's good, i listen, if it's not, i skip, and i've found a couple of gems this way. once i feel i'm listening to the same stuff, i look up new albums. and so on.
however, i don't deny: the spotify ceo is probably a ghoul, just like every other ceo, but the fault isn't solely his! the majority of the people are stupid, and they'll find ways to harm the world regardless if they're nudged towards it or not.
"Spotify’s algorithm actually works exactly in reverse, treating taste as a data profile to be satisfied as efficiently as possible, and in the process, narrowing the listener’s field of experience to what’s already familiar"
This isn't really much different from how commercial radio worked. You got the biggest hits and maybe some up and coming stuff, but it was always what was familiar and divided up by genre format. The algorithm is doing what it was designed to do, which is keep you listening. There are loads of ways to find new music on Spotify, but the listener has to take the steps of searching a bit. Expecting to find a bunch of new things outside your normal listening habits by letting the algo cruise is lazy and not what it was designed for in the first place.
Spotify is for retarded people. Play counts are created by algorithm. Algorithms are adjusted in payola schemes with management companies. It has never been anything other than a destruction of music and musical artistry. This is what happens when people who believe they’re connoisseurs of art are actually degenerates who will listen to anything, so long as they don’t have to pay for it. The choice is to abstain. There will be no correction. The platform exists for the sake of mass manipulation.
Are you already familiar with Ted Gioia? You’re of like mind! “The silver lining is, I suppose, that in chasing profit for profit’s sake, with no concern for the quality of its own product nor respect for the soul of humanity—all while finding creative new ways to pay artists less while pocketing the change—Spotify is beginning to eat itself alive. This, I’d wager, is not a great strategy for long-term survival.”
Well. You're right, of course; ol' Spotty is gonna eat itself, much like the greedy, careless AI Kludge Machines will.
Given that this process is inexorable, the task I've been applying myself to is to (hopefully) facilitate the divorce between Spotty and its stats and ppl at the lower end of this business. I believe they know better than to equate Spotty numbers (monthly listeners, etc.) with success in the basic parts of the business (drawing crowds for shows, etc.), but theyre still stuck in the habit of evaluating bands/artists on the surface with Spotty and IG(another terrible indicator). Once the lower half of the business can be convinced to abandon Spotty's sinking ship, then we'll have something.
i didn't like your essay. for starters, bruno mars' singles are very good, and his album with anderson paak is a great collab.
i hate the term enshittification and how it absolves the stupid user. lazy users hear the aforementioned shitty playlists because they're lazy. things get enshittified because users refuse to curate music by themselves, looking through sites such as rym or discog, not because the evil ceo wants more money. his thirst for money is a mousetrap, not a bullet we can't dodge.
"Nobody wants this. Listeners don’t want this. Artists don’t want this. Even the labels don’t want this. Bringing a heap of Slopmusik into the world actively makes the world worse, and yet, for Spotify, it makes perfect financial sense."
clearly, someone wants this. they got metrics, and they wouldn't be wasting their time on the slop playlists if the users weren't so lazy.
i look up albums. i save them. i listen to albums. once they end, the algorithm brings me music; if it's good, i listen, if it's not, i skip, and i've found a couple of gems this way. once i feel i'm listening to the same stuff, i look up new albums. and so on.
however, i don't deny: the spotify ceo is probably a ghoul, just like every other ceo, but the fault isn't solely his! the majority of the people are stupid, and they'll find ways to harm the world regardless if they're nudged towards it or not.
https://bohemianlayabout.substack.com/p/you-normies-destroyed-social-network
i wrote a piece on that. it pisses me off how this scatologic term has been widely used.
"Spotify’s algorithm actually works exactly in reverse, treating taste as a data profile to be satisfied as efficiently as possible, and in the process, narrowing the listener’s field of experience to what’s already familiar"
This isn't really much different from how commercial radio worked. You got the biggest hits and maybe some up and coming stuff, but it was always what was familiar and divided up by genre format. The algorithm is doing what it was designed to do, which is keep you listening. There are loads of ways to find new music on Spotify, but the listener has to take the steps of searching a bit. Expecting to find a bunch of new things outside your normal listening habits by letting the algo cruise is lazy and not what it was designed for in the first place.
Spotify is for retarded people. Play counts are created by algorithm. Algorithms are adjusted in payola schemes with management companies. It has never been anything other than a destruction of music and musical artistry. This is what happens when people who believe they’re connoisseurs of art are actually degenerates who will listen to anything, so long as they don’t have to pay for it. The choice is to abstain. There will be no correction. The platform exists for the sake of mass manipulation.
Good insight 😃. Can i translate part of this article into Spanish with links to you and a description of your newsletter?
Of course!
Many thanks, Rina.
This is wonderful. I wrote a piece that touches on some of the same issues here… https://gabrielkahane.substack.com/p/the-perfect-playlist
Oh cool! Thanks for sharing!
Are you already familiar with Ted Gioia? You’re of like mind! “The silver lining is, I suppose, that in chasing profit for profit’s sake, with no concern for the quality of its own product nor respect for the soul of humanity—all while finding creative new ways to pay artists less while pocketing the change—Spotify is beginning to eat itself alive. This, I’d wager, is not a great strategy for long-term survival.”
I’ve read some of his work and thoroughly enjoyed it!