Spotify removes R. Kelly from playlists over “hateful conduct”

The BBC reports today:

(R Kelly removed from Spotify playlists)

Considering strictly the implications for Spotify users (and not the allegations against Kelly or whether Spotify have the right to do this) - is this kind of action a good thing or a bad thing for streaming music services? I can see arguments either way.

 

I have no time for R. Kelly's music. And the number of allegations against hi m are troubling.

But they are just allegations at this stage, right?

If they start removing from their playlists all artists who are alleged to have engaged in hateful conduct, that would include a number of artists who are very popular on this forum.

Still, not that R.Kelly needs the £4.27 per billion streams that Spotify used to pay him!

 

They might as well just remove his music!

 

Troubling.

I have no idea what his music is like. What I find troubling is that a big corporate entity, which has cut out a large part of the listening public, has used that power to deny people the music they want. It reminds me of Wal-Mart banning certain covers. It's not a good sign. What's the point of Net Neutrality, if people like Spotify are going to curate what we get?

 

Interesting. So they haven't removed Gary Glitter's music, but now they've taking down R Kelly?

I think that if you're going to start banning artists based on behavior--and you're being consistent and honest about it--a LOT of music is going to disappear.

 

My understanding is that as a Spotify user you can "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" the music that's presented to you in a playlist. The power is already in the hands of the user, in other words, to screen out "hateful" or any other kind of music they want to marginalize. I think Spotify will regret this. They're taking it upon themselves to be referees on the quality of the character of artists who make music. That's kind of insane to think you're going to be able to stay on top of that and also be consistent in applying standards. I don't think they've thought this through. But it doesn't surprise me, as these days corporations really really want to be seen in the act of "doing good", often doing so to their own detriment.

 

Yep, allegations...sure . Wasn't he in jail for this 20 years ago?

Good, I've never understood how he continued to get away with his behaviour and yet no-one blinked, no one called him out. Well done to the #MeToo movement for finally making sure gets his karma. Vile human being.

....and before you jump in, don't come at me with the 'well, if you really dug deep with all our favourite artists you'd do the same to them'. This guy was doing all this on a epic public scale with nary anybody stopping him.

 

Jimmy Page's next..

 

There is no due process happening here, nor should it be expected.

Spotify has the right to maintain it's own image, and it totally has the right to take special privileges like playlist inclusion away from anyone for any reason they like.

They did not remove him from the platform, so this is not censorship. It's simply the removal of recommendation.

Like with all these things, R. Kelly will likely see a sales spike.

 

who is r kelly?> never heard of him

 

You're joking, but why not? Anybody that indulged in the groupie scene seems ripe for the guillotine. And what about Phil Spector? Isn't murder, like, the worst thing ever?

 

Don't think he has ever been in jail, but I note that he has made a few out of court settlements. Not proof of guilt but.... hmmm.

And if even a fraction of the allegations against him are proven then yes, he should be put away for a loooong time.

It will be interesting to see what the breadth of Spotify's 'hateful conduct' criteria turns out to be in practice.

Actually it is. Phil Spector may have been a musical genius, but he was convicted of doing a really terrible thing.

 

Right. So it would be weird to step up on a platform to moralize to your customer base "our brand won't tolerate hate!", while not also suppressing everything Spector had a hand in bringing out into the world.

I just don't get it. How hard is it to say, "Look, we just provide a platform for the music. Here's how you can screen the music you don't want." And stay out of it. I mean, was there anyone demanding they do this kind of thing in the first place?

 

Also, it was funny how he got away with marrying Aaliyah when she was underage, no?

'Age Ain't Nothing But A Number?' Sorry R, but in a court of law it's a bit more than that.

 

I know what you mean.

If there is one thing I have learned about how the 'real world' works, it's that decisions aren't often made by any objective standard of justice, but by how much pressure the deciders are coming under from those affected by the decisions (I wish I knew a more elegant way to put that and I hope I am making sense here!)

If anyone, or any institution ever appears to be operating a double standard at any time, its probably down to lobbying from a group on one side of the argument. A group that is able to use leverage.

So, there is no real lobby for Phil Spector's music to be flushed down the memory hole, so his music stays available.

Meanwhile, there would be an outcry if the music of, say, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris or Ian Watkins were still on sale anywhere. And each of these men, like Spector, have been convicted of very serious crimes.

Or, to use a real world example a particular group of workers may get paid more than workers in comparatively skilled jobs in another company, because their union was able to strike a better deal. Or because they were in a position to cause more disruption to their business by going on strike. Leverage, in other words.

In the case of R Kelly, it seems that he is only feeling the heat now thanks to pressure from #timesup.

I wonder what would happen if people decided to start lobbying for Michael Jackson's music to be removed. Like R Kelly, no allegations against him were ever proven. But if a lobby decided to find him objectionable all of a sudden... who knows.

For the record, I don't think any of the specific allegations I heard against Jackson were credible. Those who took him to court had no real evidence, and were later demonstrated to be serial shakedown artists.

 

I don't know what he's accused of exactly, I really don't care, but I do know that some of our greatest artists would fail the litmus test if there were a witch hunt.

 

Bad thing in my opinion, although it would be worse if his music were simply not available on the service.

But the only values I want streaming services to bother with are musical values. Leave the political etc. crap elsewhere. Music is a refuge from that stuff for me.

 

and this goes back to the thread about streaming replacing cd's.
i am not an r kelly fan, but if i am, i should be able to get his/her music. at the moment his/her music is accessible but will that continue?

if everything ends up on steaming services, and solid media is removed (as people keep saying, no matter how hard that is to believe) with downloads about to bite the big one ... where does that leave music lovers in regards to accessibility?

do queen and elton john get cut off streaming lists because of homosexuality (and thousands of others)?
do black sabbath and led zeppelin get cut off streaming lists due to alleged satanic content?
does michael jackson get cut off streaming content because of the allegations directed towards him?

do we end up in a situation where all that is available is how much is that doggy in the window (as long as P.E.T.A. don't think that it encourages cruelty)?
do we end up in a situation where the only music available is instrumental, because there are no lyrics to offend?
does instrumental music get cut back if it is deemed to be too arousing?

keep music media solid, and keep control of our libraries.
no matter how alluring the idea of streaming may be for those that want empty shelves, there is a serious danger of access being cut by issues (such as this) that have nothing to do with the music. not to mention the fact that once streaming companies realise they have a monopoly music will become radically more expensive and inaccessible ...

if you think that all seems far fetched, you may not have been paying attention for the last twenty years.

 

D.D.

 

What's a Google? Never heard of him.

 

To be fair, Spotify say they haven’t removed access to the music. But they won’t include it in their branded playlists.

Which I translate as, “we want to be seen to be joining in the condemnation of R. Kelly without taking any stronger stance which might lose us customers”.

 

They didn't drop him off spotify. They removed him from their playlists.

 

ya at first I was kinda iffy about it but it is a little unclear especially for those like myself who don't use Spotify.

he is still on Spotify just they don't promote him. seems a fair compromise.

 

Free speech does not mean that content providers or retailers cannot determine what they wish to play or carry.

 

This is not a free speech issue.

Kudos to Spotify for lowering his profile.