Spotify controversy continues, Joe B weighs in

I must need my head examined then. Because I want to be exposed to things complexly out of my regular or habitual listening experiences. When I heard something new that I like it is often because it does not sound like something else I like.

But I would admit that my tastes are far more eclectic and varied than you or your average listener. Like if i’m playing Zappa, Return to Forever, and Herbie Hancock for a spell, I don’t want a new fusion group being promoted by any algorithm or corporation or AI. At that point I am ready for Dolly Pardon, and an old track by Gram Parsons, and Buck Owens. And I don’t like Country later than 1978, but pre ‘74 is preferred. Each genre I like is from specific periods in the genre and once I have had my fix I’m ready for some Latin Jazz that I never heard - so I would welcome what you just said is unlikely to be pitched at me because I never played it through their system before.

I’m too far into and too deeply along for their pitches. But I’m not too far along to grab some cool playlists and curated collections I might come across or to check out new things I looked up and found.

My ideal profile would say this about me, likes Bootlegs, Audiophile Recordings, genres outside of previous listening, hard or impossible to find on CD titles.

Are they really ready for me? And do I need to keep that appointment with the therapist next Thursday?

 

I am an expert and authority (most genres) you mean to say you haven’t yet noticed?

 

Honestly I listen to a number of different radio stations online like W.U.M.B. , 88.5 FM SoCal, jazz 88fm in Twin Cities,
W.M.S.E and belive they out-spotify Spotifys 'algorithm' (I have some suspicions about their 'programming') and provide an abundance of new music. I should really doa month long comparions betwen what I listen to online and then spend a month with Spots and compare. But I think if you really want to hear and stream new music you don't need spotify and I'd rather support those community stations

 

I have a different view of it. I’ve been buying hard media for ~50 years, and I have no intention to stop. However, Spotify enables me to hear lots of new music that I would never otherwise have heard, and my sons and I text each other with new Spotifinds (I just made that word up) on a daily basis. It fulfills a need that FM radio used to handle, but no longer does (at least not for me). The financial model of the music industry may well be broken, but that doesn’t make Spotify pure evil.

 

I love this concept of a “genre collector”. You and CDV are part of the artificial intelligentsia, for sure.

 

“It fulfills a need that FM radio used to handle but no longer does”.

My experience as well

 

I believe the algorithm is much more complex than you give it credit for, and no one is forcing you to listen to their suggestions anyway. I say keep the appointment. ;0)

EDIT: I should add that it’s not the daily recommendations that I find particularly interesting, I get most of my new ideas from the ‘album radio’ function.

 

I generally don't use "recommended for you" playlists, and this is the reason why.

Not that I have eclectic tastes per se, only it's very chaotic in nature and can change from day to day.

 

The answer is obvious - poor representation. If they had better lawyers, they’d have better contracts and they would consequently be better compensated for the fruits of their labors. Of course, I don’t believe anyone needs to start a charitable foundation to help support Joe Bonamassa or any other highly popular musician, and the guys who aren’t popular yet need Spotify or its ilk to get their music heard.

“Send lawyers, guns and money - they’ll get me out of this!” - WZ

 

Spotify scam hacked site’s pay-out system to make millions | Daily Mail Online

How To Get On A Spotify Playlist (And How Not To)

Did a playlist-maker scam nearly $1 million from Spotify? - NME

 

There are more bands and solo music acts now than ever before, and it's largely because of social media and streaming that they are able to cultivate an audience and fanbase at all. Without those things they would be NOBODY.

Musicians not making as much money as they should is nothing new either. 1% "make it" and are paid very well with some degree of fame/recognition, while the other 99% are underpaid, under the radar, work hard for their modest return-on-investment and, typically, do other work to support themselves, or rely on ancillary income from their music besides direct sales of recorded music (licensing, live performance, merch, etc.).

For listeners, streaming has democratized everything, so we are exposed to a lot more music and are able to curate and decide for ourselves what is of value instead of the top-down, and often payola, radio system or MTV that would dictate what 100 songs everyone should be listening to. Also a big win for music!

 

Bingo. Perfectly stated.

Big picture, there is too much music. Streaming services bring a quick death to performers that will never make it. They're doing a public service.

 

Well..not to diverge too much

But your comment makes me wonder if you've ever spent time in an actual hellscape.

 

Outstanding. I am stealing that.

 

Just make sure I get my royalty check whenever you use it....

;0)

 

There has always been too much music. In the past, the public had the benefit of a filtering process. Visionary music producers, managers, DJs and talent scouts sought out musicians on the rise needing a break-out moment. Record companies would sign aspiring musicians to contract and with the right management in place & a bit of luck nurture their development. Promising musicians would be given time to develope their writing skills to build a bigger audience.

Yeah, there was corruption, payola scandals, gimmicks, etc., but the cream rose to the top in spite of rather than because of it. Grooming produced merit based, public supported success. From my perspective, this was a much better system. Radio stations with popular DJ’s helped shape the public taste and catapult the next hit maker to stardom may not have been a panacea, but the system kept music alive and thriving.

Spotty Fi and streaming generally are democratic to a fault ...and there are plenty. Subscription streaming suffers from all the abuses of a corrupt system where it’s more about money than music. And yet, hard working artists are still underpaid and anyone who defends them or remains an adherent of traditional media distribution is pilloried by streamaphrodites.

The winners in this new streamified world order don’t need to produce hits to be profitable as long as they can game the system to maximize the appearance of enthusiasm. Too much music, yes; too many grifters seeking a quick buck, definitely! The death of performers who’ll never make it, more likely now than ever. Unfortunately, the good may be vanquished with the bad which would be less of a public service than the way the system filtered music before.

Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss.


Cat

 

I've been around a long time and the cream didn't always rise to the top. Not when I was a kid, and not today.

There's always been favoritism, shady deals and miscounting of units sold I suspect. The difference between then and now is that I can actually 1) sample music via tools that I could only dream about back then and 2) a distribution system for purchasing that music that, again, I could have never imagined back then.

I've actually purchased music today, heard first back then, that I could never even find until the age of the Internet / Amazon / eBay / streaming. I was relegated to that tape I made from the radio and in some cases that's all I had for decades.

 

Physical media isn’t interfering with your quest. What streaming services have yet to do is figure a way to pay artists fairly while ferreting out scammers who game the system and waste consumer’s time. If they can’t figure out how to do these things soon the color graph on Chris DeVoe’s flow chart will change again (perhaps orange will be the new green once more).


Cat

 

This makes sense to me. Back when FM radio (or even AM radio) playing new music was an actual thing, there were a whole lot of people who simply relied on the radio to hear music and who rarely bought any albums or singles in record stores. Those are the types of people I can see Spotify and other streaming services being made to serve, and ideally so.

What I will never be able to comprehend is people who actually did purchase a lot of music and who loved doing so and playing it on their home stereo systems now saying that renting it from streaming services is the better way to go.

 

It's highly questionable to me whether this trend has been a good thing for music or with respect to anything else in our society. I tend to view this functioning of the internet as having degraded our culture rather than improving it. Experts have less influence over the masses when everything is "democratized"; thus, things are reduced to the lowest common denominator instead of rewarding excellence, science, facts, etc.

 

I guess to know that I'd have to have the term defined, as my usage was clearly symbolic. I suppose the fields of Verdun in 1917 would fit the bill.

 

Once you own a bunch of LPs or CDs and you have that to enjoy, space consideration comes into play. I like my media, but I'm about all out of space. It's only the better way to go now that I have all those fancy box sets and vintage originals, etc. If I did not have this stuff, I would first want my own collection with the great art work.

 

Never said it did. Streaming, and by extension tools leveraging that cloud system like Shazam, has helped drain my wallet for many years now. And fill up my shelves. They compliment each other in regards to that goal.

Probably so. But there have always been scammers and shady deals. It's human nature to try and game the system.

 

I definitely get the space consideration. When I designed my home theatre remodel, I had them install massive cabinets in which to store my CDs and box sets. That wasn't cheap. However, digital downloads don't take up space and offer better sound quality than streaming services, with the additional benefit of you owning the music and being able to assign the correct artwork and other metadata to it within your digital music library rather than renting a copy (of unknown provenance, mastering, etc.) from a streaming service.

 

Agree completely. And as follow-up, this mixed metaphor...

Those who put all their eggs in one shaky hand-basket are in for a helluva ride, ...and the yolks on them.


Cat