But I am grateful for independent journalism, which is now my main hope for the future.
Well guess who’s in control of eyeballs on those journalists?
Social media companies, who have clear incentives to deprioritize such content and have repeatedly shown they do.
Let’s reclaim music from the technocrats. They have not proven themselves worthy of our trust.
While I agree with the article, I have issue with this line. These are not technocrats, they are “leaders” willing to make companies and their products objectively worse in the name of short term profits. These aren’t ‘technical experts put in charge,’ they are greedy, spineless pigs.
For ease of reading, the investigation he refers to:
https://harpers.org/archive/2025/01/the-ghosts-in-the-machine-liz-pelly-spotify-musicians/
In short: fake artists with stock music (changing labels and other camouflage applied). Likely goal: to depreciate streaming counts for actual artists and increase profit margins.
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 program’s 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 which—as streaming services push music further into the background, and normalize anonymous, low-cost playlist filler—the relationship between listener and artist might be severed completely.
I’m just amazed they haven’t tried to use AI to write and record their shoddy muzak, cutting out the musician all together.
In some ways it seems worse that they make humans pump out this slop instead of a machine
Bandcamp is the way to go and Tidal if you really need streaming.
Tidal has decided to sunset it’s app, which means it’s basically on maintenance mode now. Somewhat off putting.
Did they? Couldn’t find an announcement on the fly.
They laid off 10% of their workforce last year, and like 20% of the remaining work force late this year with cuts to engineering expected. It is not in a healthy place, seemingly, and they cover a very small slither of the market.
Edit: Couldn’t find the exact article I had read before but this one seems well formatted. https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/12/tidal-bets-future-artists-djs/
It doesn’t help that their parent company makes so little from them compared to a series of crypto ventures, but what can really compare to that.
Boy, that’s a bummer. Thanks for the information, I’ve missed that.
Its app on a specific platform? Or do you mean the entire service? Seems weird that they would sunset their only product.
They’ve been making deeeeeep cuts in order to make the company “more like a startup”, as per Jack Doresey’s comments.
Well that’s fucking dumb.
I jumped ship over to Quboz for this reason. I’ve been really happy with it
I’m concerned with switching to a small alternative which then becomes untenable or shutters within a year and then having to piss around again.
They been around since 2007 though, so not my biggest concern right now
Never heard of them. They seem interesting, will definitely taka a look. Thanks for the hint!
the german tv channel ARD actually published a three-part investigation into Spotify and Eventim middle of 2023 where they spotlighted this issue as well. it’s a great watch if you understand german!
it’s called Dirty Little Secrets
EDIT: here’s episode two, the relevant one where they investigate what they call “ghost musicians”
An obscure Swedish jazz musician got more plays than most of the tracks on Jon Batiste’s We Are—which had just won the Grammy for Album of the Year (not just the best jazz album, but the best album in any genre). How was that even possible?
LOL a couple obvious reasons are that Spotify listeners don’t get to vote for grammy awards - only a few thousand people do - and to be eligible for a grammy an album has to be released in the United States. The awards are more heavily influenced by album sales than subjective judgements of musical quality. Jimi Hendrix never won a grammy. Neither did Bob Marley or Diana Ross. There’s a lot already wrong with the grammys.
The fake musicians and possibly AI-generated songs are more interesting. If the music industry is trying to eliminate musicians it wouldn’t be to avoid paying them - they’ve already figured out lots of ways to do that - it would be to have complete control over the music.
And Lenin said, “the best way to undermine society is through its music” — Bob Duvall
It’s a fake quote from Lenin, but suitably apt.
Weird how we’re supposed to think something is true and wise if it’s attached to somebody famous.
“Bleach cures anything.” – William Shakespeare
The awards are more heavily influenced by album sales than subjective judgements of musical quality.
Do you know who Jon Batiste is?
The album won on quality. The sales spiked after the win.
That’s a good counterexample. Do you know what “more heavily influenced” means? It means “not always universally every time, but more often”.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say. It’s not a counter example. It is literally the example given in the article, which you quoted.
I only listen to obscure Swedish jazz musician.
When some employees expressed concerns about this, Spotify managers replied (according to Pelly’s sources) that “listeners wouldn’t know the difference.”
Insulting your users, that always works out so well
Insulting the artists too. Just like when Daniel Ek said that the “content” on Spotify was “basically free” to make.
I’m all aboard Spotify alternatives, but this post is an echo chamber of people that are far more likely to know “the difference”. We aren’t representative of Spotify’s customer base.
Most people listening to music probably wouldn’t be able tell the difference from cutting the quality down by double digit percentages. This is exemplified by the number of people using wireless headphones.
Spotify certainly could offer service on par with Tidal and similar, but being beholden to shareholders that only look at the bottom line and never the quality of the service, that executive might not be right, but they’re not exactly wrong.
I just use ViMusic or RiMusic or one of those types of forks. I believe it uses YouTube and other sources. It is ad-free and has the usual stuff you’d expect like suggestions, playlists, genres etc. Occasionally the source platform will make a change that breaks it, an update comes out fixes it.
That and there are still (probably ancient at this point) desktop clients that scrape your Pandora and download local copies of all the tracks. That’s another good way to never listen to ads.
https://spotube.krtirtho.dev/ is another alternative, but it uses the Spotify api (you can hook up your account) and backends it by playing music from yt.
Thanks, giving this a try.
After comparing the sound quality of Amazon, Spotify, Deezer and Tidal, the dynamic range of Tidal really stood out - even in lowest quality. At that time, I read that Tidal had the highest payout to the artists. I also like that the service is partially owned by several artists.
The recommendations and feeds are really top notch, just the right mix of stuff I know and like and nice surprises. The “Daily Discovery” often explores a certain genre or mood. There are so many cool bands I’ve found - also from genres I don’t usually listen to. I can wholeheartedly recommend the service.
Or Qobuz, which is like Tidal, but better and they never tried to sell users on made-up MQA hi-res.
I heard of Tidal a long time ago but their non-English support is simply missing. It doesn’t even show the original Japanese titles of many songs I listen to.
How about Qobuz?
Edit: Tested Qobuz and the Japanese support was quite bad too. I searched for a Japanese artist, their name showed up but only one song was there. Tried searching for the title of a song instead, no hit. I thought I was region blocked. Then tried romaji and finally more results, mixed in English and Japanese though. In Spotify I can search in Japanese, English, or romaji when I’m too lazy to switch input method. Also in Qobuz lots of Japanese artists’ profiles were incomplete.
Qobuz is refreshingly good.
Thats some pretty bad stuff: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3wLm5nlYrHkbd29ilMRq89?nd=1&dlsi=50e31b2329204ddd
its all the same song as the article states.
not sure if this explains why their stocks are so extremely expensive. every time i look at it it’s worse.
Never had a compliant with Apple Music, has a decent Android client with Auto support too.
Yeah, I’m looking to switch from iPhone to Pixel soon, but I’ll be keeping my AM sub. Had it since the day it launched, and it’s been great.
Part of it too for me is that they’ve given me the student price for 6 years after I left school lmao
From the article:
"…journalist Liz Pelly has conducted an in-depth investigation, and published her findings in Harper’s—they are part of her forthcoming book Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist.
…
"Now she writes:
‘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.’
In other words, Spotify has gone to war against musicians and record labels."
Once they get maket shared they start extracting…
To normal people this is called enshitification
This should theoretically at least be illegal, as they abuse the power of the platform to favor certain tracks unfairly.
Any action would require a government that pretends to care for the pedons.
Spotify is AFAIK Swedish, so there you go.
PS:
I guess you mean peons.
Pedons is apparently types of soil: https://www.britannica.com/science/pedonSpotify is AFAIK Swedish
It was started in Sweden where its operations are still based, but it’s headquartered in Luxembourg and it chose to IPO on the New York Stock Exchange.
Luxembourg screams “tax efficiency” to me, so their list of pre-IPO investors must be quite the thing.
@Buffalox@lemmy.world
Hmm
All western regimes sold out us out, mate
Exploiting us is the MO as workers and customers
I disagree, I live in Scandinavia in one of the best democracies in the world.
EU is mostly OK IMO. Democracy can never be perfect, because it’s about compromises. But without the compromises you’ll have a real dystopia.
But here is just about as good as it gets at our current level of development.
So get real why don’t you?Well put. Cheers, gallons of glogg and a Merry Christmas to you.
Sweden has regressing with the rest of the west.
Sure they have it better than most of oecd but the corporate take over is underway, they botched the immigration policy which resulted with serious crime rates…
A tiny foil wearing person would think that this was done on purpose to undo Swedish strong socio economic policy
Time will tell but the trend for Sweden is not looking good same way as other countries…
Indeed. Regulation is deeply unpopular these days. At least with the oligarchs.
We got enough of their bootlickers in this thread lol
Can someone explain why this is bad? It seems like normal behaviour of corporations.
Or has spotify previously committed to being a fair market?
This is like a soup joint that’s trying to see how much they can piss in the broth before customers notice.
That would be a health hazard, so it’s not really comparable.
It seems more like a soup joint using cheaper ingredients in their dishes, which is just… normal? I don’t get what the big deal is.
It’s normal if you accept it. You do not have to accept it. There’s also a good chance that it’s illegal in Spotify’s case, if not in the US then likely in Europe.
Under what law?
Likely antitrust.
That said if you’ve gone down the path of reasoning that says things that aren’t illegal are okay, then I don’t know what to tell you.
I suppose you could argue that Spotify can abuse its position in the same way that Walmart bullies its suppliers and Microsoft freezes out competition, but it doesn’t sound like that’s what’s happening here. Like I said, it sounds like they’re just preferring cheaper sources.
This is behavior is anti competitive under both US and EU and member states’ law.
Issue is the regulatory capture along with strong corporate lobbying on these issues.
If you are with it, that’s cool. But behavior has historical precedent and it requires the state to set boundaries on the extraction practices
This is a completely disingenuous comparison.
yeah, it’s more like they piss directly into peoples mouthes, but it turns out a few people are into that and can’t get enough of it
According to the RIAA, Spotify is a leading contributer to music revenue going up over the past decade plus https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2022-Year-End-Music-Industry-Revenue-Report.pdf
Prior to spotify, people bought songs or albums, and were locked into their favorites or pirated music, which obviously contributed nothing to artist’s pockets.
Spotify is not the evil entity here, in my opinion. Record labels are.
Edit: Unsure how reliable of a source this is, but steaming reduced piracy levels by ~20% https://www.alliotts.com/articles/streaming-has-a-consumer-and-a-piracy-problem-the-answer-lies-in-the-music-industry/
I do think that we have become far removed from the old days, because music piracy was extremely prevelant before these services came out.
A couple of years ago we reached the tipping point where artist are paying more for Spotify to promote their music than Spotify is paying the artists. Spotify is more evil than even the record companies at this point.
Streaming only reduced piracy because it presented a more convenient option. This formula has already changed with their predatory behavior.
The reason artist create has little to do with money. It was never about that and those that think it make shitty music and are owned by corporations.
Technology has set us free from corporate control, but we have to shun commercial platforms. We will never be free running to the wide open arms of business ready to fleece us and lock up our culture behind their pay walls.
Enshitification is here for every corporate platform. There is no escape. The days are 0% interest aka free money are now long gone.
There are literally musicians with Only fans accounts because Spotify makes then such a pathetic amount of money. Every single artist I’ve ever seen comment on Spotify who hasn’t been amongst the most popular bands in their genre for decades have always said that Spotify is absolutely awful for artists.
Albums/singles traditionally weren’t money makers, merch and concerts were. Nobody is saying record labels weren’t and aren’t shitty, but believe it or not it’s possible for both of them to be shitty at the same time.
Your point feels like a false cause or an appeal to emotion fallacy.
It’s not Spotify’s responsibility that some artists choose to leverage their platform to promote OnlyFans or other side ventures. Artists have the autonomy to seek alternative income streams or even pursue entirely different careers if they find Spotify’s payouts insufficient. Blaming Spotify for these decisions ignores the broader context of the music industry and the role record labels play in revenue distribution.
Additionally, streaming platforms have helped reduce piracy and provided exposure to artists who might not have had it otherwise. The issue is much more nuanced than streaming services bad.
Being an artist doesn’t inherently entitle someone to make a lot of money. Success and income in any field depend on demand, skill, and market conditions. For example, writers often face similar challenges—many authors spend years creating books that may never generate significant income, and only a small percentage achieve financial success. Like musicians, they must often supplement their income through other means, such as teaching, freelancing, or speaking engagements.
Just as no one expects every writer to become a bestseller, it’s unrealistic to assume every musician will earn a substantial income solely from their art.
That said, given my views, I also do not want to be on platforms like Spotify. The music industry as a whole needs to make meaningful changes—finding a way to pay artists fairly, provide a robust recommendation engine, and maintain affordability for consumers. Until these systemic issues are addressed, the current model will continue to leave many artists struggling.
Sure, Spotify could raise their rates 100% and increase their payouts, but that wouldnt stop the record labels from taking their 80+%, as part of the contract the artist signed, and the consumer would end up falling back to piracy.
Better check the TOS doesn’t include acceptance of various concentrations of piss…
The normal behavior of corporations IS bad. By definition.
IANAL but it seems akin to the antitrust case against Microsoft for bundling their own web browser in with Windows or movie studios also owning theaters and giving preferential treatment to their own films.
You seem to be saying that something normal and legal cannot be bad.
Just because it’s normal doesn’t me it isn’t bad.
I’m just surprised that anyone didn’t assume this was happening. If most people are using playlists generated by Spotify, how are they not expecting Spotify to choose songs that are also in their interest? Furthermore, how would this be different from the practices of a radio station? Seems like manufactured outrage to me.
Unfair competition.
Published in January 2025, seeing the URL, huh.
The article is an excerpt from the full report, which comes out next month.
So basically Payola 2.0
I mean they paid Joe Rogan $100 million dollars so they have already wrecked their reputation.
Ngl, I canceled them and haven’t gone back since. Don’t really miss it much, I try to use the same cost as my subscription to buy music every month on CD when I can.
I cancelled it the second I found out how easy it was to get it for free.
I still buy FLAC releases individually from artists I like, I just use Shittify for discovery. Fuck 'em.
I have recently discovered Qobuz (French company). You can purchase digital music. They aren’t cheap, but they have selection and hi-res music (sometimes 24 bit).
But good on you for the CDs, too!
I heard they pay artists a lot more. Need to double check.
Try bandcamp too. Almost all goes to the artist and you get FLACs.
I’ve used them plenty but…
They recently got acquired by a turd company and if I remember correctly, already issued a round of layoffs.
Don’t recall the details. Check.
I just want to remind people that you may still have a used CD store in your city, also 2nd hand stores for CDs. They tend to be quite cheap these days.
Yeah, I switched to deezer then, haven’t had any trouble with it.
There’s a reason why artists have to sell 50$ t-shirts at shows. Back in the days, the label would leech you dry, and now it’s Spotify, on top of your label
Yes and…
Lily Allen and Kate Nash are on OnlyFans and make more money there…
Yeah, but that’s probably partially due to their existing fame.
Well, yeah.
They make more money from OF than from Spotify… and they are not doing porn.
The last and only truth I needed to know about Spotify was it’s 250 million dollar deal with Joe Rogan, who is antivax incel cancer, and that was it for me. No need to learn or know any more about them.
Normies love some Rogan he shills Russian propaganda to them!
Just like Fuckface 45 is the normal man’s idea of a rich man, Rogan is the normal man’s idea of a smart man.
And wrong on both accounts.
