Spotify Denies Allegations It's Putting Fake Artists On Popular Playlists To Cut Costs (factmag.com)

Last year, music industry publication Music Business Worldwide (MBW) claimed Spotify was putting fake artists in some of its popular playlists. The publication listed 50 artists it claimed were not real. Why would they do such a thing? To keep royalty costs down. MBW claimed that Spotify "was asking producers to create music to specification and paying them a flat fee to own the track outright," reports FACT Magazine. "These tracks -- which MBW alleged were being used to bulk up numbers on ambient, chillout and piano playlists -- are said to be owned by Spotify so that the company could circumvent royalty payments on playlists that have millions of subscribers." From the report: The claims were brought to wider attention by a feature published by Vulture last week, which picked out acts called Deep Watch and Enno Aare as examples of "fake artists" that had racked up two million and 15 million streams despite having no public profile. In a statement given to Billboard last week, Spotify refuted the allegations made by both MBW and Vulture. "We do not and have never created 'fake' artists and put them on Spotify playlists," the company said. "Categorically untrue, full stop. We pay royalties -- sound and publishing -- for all tracks on Spotify, and for everything we playlist. We do not own rights, we're not a label, all our music is licensed from rightsholders and we pay them -- we don't pay ourselves. We do not own this content -- we license it and pay royalties just like we do on every other track." In a piece published yesterday, MBW challenged Spotify's statement, citing anonymous sources in the music business who claimed that the practice has been going on for a "long time."

Comments

Fake

[fluffernutter]

Aren't most of them fake artists, really?

Re:Fake

[LifesABeach]

Except for the ones that perform using a Banjo.

Re:Fake

[fluffernutter]

Like that kid on Deliverance?? You're freaky!

So?

[blogagog]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Re:So?

[freeze128]

If the listener cannot tell the difference between a track from a well-known artist and a track from a knock-off artist, then it's all good. It sounds like this was being done on playlists where the tracks are all ambient or instrumental anyway. If they tried to copy the vocals of a popular song, I bet they would have a lot more trouble keeping it secret.

Re:So?

[Dracolytch]

Yep... I listen to ambient music when I'm coding (Though Pandora, not Spotify). That said, if it's good enough to code to, why should I care if it's an in-house label? So long as it's not pirated, why should I give a flying **** if the legal agreement behind the scenes is pay-per-play or lump-commission?

Re:So?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I suspect that your sentiment may have something to do with why they are so particularly displeased by the idea:

If Spotify is just doing something dubiously legal; Team RIAA can sue them into a smoking crater and call it a day; it'd hardly be the first time that has happened.

If there are genres where some adequately competent musicians banging together a work for hire are considered by listeners to be an acceptable substitute for "real" artists; and can be used for 95 years for whatever one-time payment got them into the studio; well, really, really, sucks to be an artist in that genre.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you work for some company that pays you for the hours spent writing or arranging the "fake" music.

But WTF is fake music anyways? You still get to hear someone messing with a piano or whatever so what's the problem?

Re:So?

[sound vision]

It's not so much about the pedigree of the music as Spotify misrepresenting it.

Re:So?

[Megol]

The thing is that even if this is true there is no knock-off artist involved. If someone or someones made the music (and it have to be made) they are artists making music even if they aren't well known.

The idea that this would be a problem or that one have to be well known with a single artist/act name to be real is ludicrous and not common even in "mainstream" music production. There are many songwriters that aren't known to the world and sometimes not even credited at all (with the music instead claimed to be written by some other artist). Are they fake? Nope.

This is just childish anti-spotify propaganda.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

But WTF is fake music anyways?

This is definitely fake music:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3

Unfortunately, I don't think that's what they are talking about. We just have to accept that "fake" has taken on a new meaning - "fake music" = non-RIAA music, "fake news" = any news that doesn't agree with Trump.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I just read a wikipedia article on literally nothing?

Re:So?

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Misrepresenting it? It's just an artist name (a lot of which are pseudonyms for "real" artists, anyway) and a track title, and a piece of music that is non-offensive and decent enough for background listening. What's so wrong about that?

Re: So?

[easyTree]

It works for NetFlix - I find NetFlix original content to be way more entertaining than non-NOC.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod the parent up! So what if they did this? If Spotify owns the track and the listener enjoys the playlist, no harm done!

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does that really really suck? 95% of the other occupations on the planet work that way. Most programmers don't own the rights to their work. Manual laborers don't. Financial analysts don't.

Re: So?

[easyTree]

There's imaginary damage done to the music cartel.

Re:So?

[coofercat]

Just think of the poor, hand-to-mouth, hard working middle men such as record companies and their industry representatives (RIAA, BPI, etc). How are they gonna afford five-star food and lodgings and to pay off governments unless Spotify burns to the ground in a mountain of debt?

Not helping the entitled is really about the worst thing anyone can do, and $deity knows it. I strongly recommend you start only 'consuming' music from approved providers. Choice is not a virtue.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like every band during the sixties?

Seriously, that movie was a revelation to me about how the music industry has ALWAYS worked. There are literally dozens of bands from that time period that were, in reality, all putting out albums played by the same small crew of session dudes, just sometimes swapping in the lead vocalists from their actual band.

That pretty much holds for anything outside of hard rock to this day. A "distributor" being the ones to hire the session dudes and gals instead of a "label" really isn't that far fetched. Why not get a bigger piece of the pie if the music is that simple to create?

I'm just trying to understand why this is a legal issue. If the music exists, someone created it. Just because some label isn't getting a cut doesn't mean it's illegal. It just means someone found a way around the stranglehold the labels have on the industry. Again.

Re:So?

[rhsanborn]

The labels are in constant contention with Spotify and Pandora over what the per play amount should be. Spotify likely sends them some data on X many users, and Y many plays of label songs, and Z many plays of non-label songs (independents, etc.). If Spotify is justifying their per play amount on the ratio of label vs. non-label plays, and then intentionally inserting owned, $0 songs into popular playlists to get lots of plays, then the labels may feel like something is being pulled over on them. This is fair on the label's part if Spotify is justifying their price based on what price their business model can support. I think it's fair that Spotify can get paid to have music created that people want to listen to, but if they are doing that, they likely need to disclose that to the other people who allow their music to be distributed on Spotify, because those people may decide to pull that music if it's being replaced by Spotify as a direct competitor while Spotify claims they simply can't afford to pay what the labels think their music is worth.

Re:So?

[Cederic]

whatever one-time payment got them into the studio; well, really, really, sucks to be an artist in that genre.

Not really. That's how most of us work. Get paid for the time spent in the studio/office/shop/warehouse, get fuck all afterwards.

The anomaly is the current fucked up copyright situation where people keep getting paid for something they did 70 years before they fucking died. How the fuck that benefits society hasn't been explained.

Re:So?

[DrXym]

No, it's not "all good" any more than ordering crab at a restaurant and getting fish sticks. Or buying a fake Lacoste t-shirt. The consumer is screwed and so is anyone who is competing against these knockoffs.

Re:So?

[swillden]

If there are genres where some adequately competent musicians banging together a work for hire are considered by listeners to be an acceptable substitute for "real" artists; and can be used for 95 years for whatever one-time payment got them into the studio; well, really, really, sucks to be an artist in that genre.

Nonsense.

There's nothing at all "sucky" about working in a field where you can get a decent day's pay for a day's work, and do it steadily. What sucks is the rest of the music industry, where artists have a miniscule chance of becoming ludicrously wealthy and (1 - miniscule) probability of starving for years reaching for a golden ring that they'll never achieve.

It's a poorly-kept secret in the LA music scene that one of the best jobs you can get is as a session musician that is regularly hired by labels to back up their "names", or to sweeten recorded tracks. They don't have five houses with gold-plated toilet seats, but they make a very comfortable living working two to three days per week making music which is heard by millions. Sure, their names are in small print on dustcovers (if at all), but they have great lives doing what they love. I met a few of these guys when I contracted for UMG and they were very happy that they got paid on a strict fee for service basis rather than being at the mercy of royalties and recoupments. Many of them had been asked to join various bands they've backed up, and refused.

Re:So?

[Hognoxious]

Knockoffs implies somebody's selling tracks supposedly by Elton John (or substitute any act that people have heard of) when it's really some pub singer.

I don't think that's the case here. They're selling pub band as pub band.

Re: So?

[cordovaCon83]

Here's another wikipedia about nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:So?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The thing to remember is that most artists don't get paid that long(despite copyright terms indeed being ridiculous); because somebody has to care enough about their work to pay for it.

The rock stars get to coast on their back catalogs; but the people who can be replaced by anonymous filler without audience displeasure probably aren't them;

Re:So?

[sound vision]

If that's all it was, that would be fine. Spotify is going beyond that: claiming these works were developed independently of itself, when in fact they were commissioned. The quality of the music doesn't factor into it. It's people paying for one thing and being served something else.

Re:So?

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Do their self-commissioned music push out other music from the service? This is all elevator music, utterly generic and replaceable.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just childish anti-spotify propaganda.

I almost agree with you: if they're creating content, putting it on play lists, and the listener's don't mind, then there is no issue. The wrinkle is this: spotify categorically denies doing this.

So, no harm in actually doing it, but if they lied about it (for whatever reason) that's wrong. Categorically.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should care because, if all the royalty money goes to Spotify, then real artist, will stop making great music... Instead you will have a few companies making all the music, done in the only way they know how, copying music that has been done before.

Netflix Model

[Luthair]

Produce a bunch of garbage and hope people think its a positive.

Re:Netflix Model

[Anonymous Coward]

You shut your whore mouth! Stranger Things was good!

Re:Netflix Model

[Anonymous Coward]

It was twin peaks for mentally lazy people that like the plot spoon fed to them.

Re:Netflix Model

[Gilgaron]

Yeah if the original content is good then who cares? If it isn't, Block Artist and call it a day.

Re: Netflix Model

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! What fun is a TV show if you don't have to do math?

Re:Netflix Model

[Luthair]

Also known as - Holy crap Winona is expensive, I guess we can only afford the ugly kids

Re:Netflix Model

[LesFerg]

Yeah well I my hand is crawling slowly, day by day, towards the big Cancel button on the Netflix account.
In-house content is great... as long as it is Great!
When it loses flavor and becomes watery drool the customers surely will turn someplace else.

Re:Netflix Model

[markdavis]

>"Produce a bunch of garbage and hope people think its a positive."

Except that is NOT the Netflix Streaming model. They have actually produced a lot of great stuff (and later some mediocre too), and people DO think it is a positive. In fact, their own productions probably account for the majority of attracting and retaining their subscribers. Even their mediocre stuff is better than perhaps 90% of what is on traditional network TV.

What they don't have a lot of is Hollywood movies. For that, you still have to revert back to Netflix DVD. It would be nicer if they offered both, but apparently they can't AND retain the low price.

Re:Netflix Model

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what 80s kids looked like dude.

Re:Netflix Model

[fermion]

Recording music ws a big thing for about two generations. The basis was to convince gullible children that trash such as New Kids on the Block and the Beatles were worth your parents hard earned expendable income. Then build on nostalgia so you bought the same songs again 20 years later.

That a streaming service would decide that it can produce the same quality of garbage that traditional music wants to be paid extraordinary amounts of cash for is not surprising. This in fact happens all the time. I read one story of a film maker wanting an Elvis Presley song but the cost was so high it was cheaper to commission. We see the same thing in Unbreakable Amy Schmidt. Shows of the 90's, like Buffy, are much better off with original music than others who used existing music and then had issues releasing to DVD.

The only problem that Spotify might have is if there was a contractual obligation to play traditional garbage instead of commissioned garbage. No such expectation can exists, however, as the labels have fought the type of compulsory licensing that exists on radio. Streaming services often cannot provide content without explicit permission, and users often cannot select content at all, so there is no expectations. Furthermore, labels can only prevent their own songs from being streamed, not demand that their songs be exclusively played. That again is ancient history, and is an illegal practice called payola. In fact payola was a response by the labels to new competition, just like this is.

Re: Netflix Model

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I have been nothing but thrilled by netflix's in house stuff. Especially the licensed ip like danger mouse, voltron (that's not old enough to be public domain, right?), Skylanders, etc. Shit's great.

Re: Netflix Model

[LesFerg]

I'm not in the us and I think we only get a fraction of the Netflix content here. We have gone thru most everything of interest.

What it the problem?

[Dishevel]

That they are not paying royalties for songs they own?

Re:What it the problem?

[GrumpySteen]

The music corporations see it as a problem because they want everyone to pay them a fee every time a song is played, heard, recorded or experienced in any other way. If they could scan your brain and catch you remembering a song, they'd want a payment.

Re:What it the problem?

[Dishevel]

So. No problem.

Re:What it the problem?

[AHuxley]

Its like a newspaper buying a photo. The photo get printed and the readers are happy.
The readers buy the newspaper again the next day and more images are found to fill the pages.
Does the reader really care what deal was done per image everyday?
Each and every photographer got paid in some way for their work and understands what the image will be used for.

Re:What it the problem?

[Rockoon]

Now that I've learned that Spotify might be screwing the RIAA, my interest has peaked enough that I am considering actually trying the service now.

I've been using Pandora since forever, and the client I use saves every track its played to my hard drive. Its called Time Shifting and the supreme court has ruled it legal. Go fuck yourself RIAA.

Re: What it the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I can't wait until the day Spotify's AIs write most of the music on the site. Oh, will there be wailing and gnashing of teeth!

Re:What it the problem?

[oldmac31310]

Piqued.

Re:What it the problem?

[Rockoon]

ah yes thank you.

It really didnt look right to me, but I knew peeked was wrong.

33 and a 1/3 still lives

[turkeydance]

record companies did the same thing back in the day. top songs covered by unknown talent and sold as ALL the HITS on one ALBUM.

This isn't news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares about Spotify, I just shove my android phone up my ass and set alarms to vibrate all the time

Re:This isn't news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

I just shove my android phone up my ass

That could bring a new meaning to explosive diarrhea. Which android phone did you use?

Re: This isn't news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

The Samsung galaxy and my ass is ON FIRE

Re: This isn't news for nerds

[LesFerg]

You need to install Spotify on that phone for some cool, soothing, Definitely Not Fake - We Don't Own This ambient music.

MBWho?

[Anonymous Coward]

And we should trust Music Business Worldwide any more than any other fly by night internet website? It's a f'ing 2 year old website started by a self described "media pundit" who quit working for a U.K. pop rag. There, I saved you five minutes of your life for everyone who couldn't be bothered to hit the About page.

And if they did, so what? Are we just proving that "Big Names" are indistinguishable from manufactured labels? Aren't they all marketed by someone to make listeners notice?

Re: MBWho?

[Anonymous Coward]

The investigation is actually quite good. That they're so upset at this is just a bonus.

Typos

[Solandri]

Maybe they're making typos in the artists' names.

Re:Typos

[grimJester]

I'm a big fan of Melattica

Re:Typos

[Rockoon]

That actually sounds like a band I might like.

Re:Typos

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew there was something off when listening to that new Geoff Lynn track.

He said, she said, anonymous said

[Anonymous Coward]

...citing anonymous sources in the music business...

Well, I know who I'm believing.

I've seen it. Really

[PopeRatzo]

I have noticed that occasionally, when I create "radio" stations from my sizable Spotify playists, a song will pop up from what appears to be the musical equivalent of a public domain clip-art site. It's like the old K-Tel records that would have "Top Hits by Original Artists" and it would turn out to be some studio cover band called "Original Artists" and not the record, but a soundalike. It only seems to happen on the autoplaylists and "radio" stations.

I have seen the same phenomenon on Google Play Music. I consume a lot of music and I have subscriptions to both Spotify and Google Play. I would cancel the Google Play subscription, but I like that it comes with a free subscription to YouTube Red, which is YouTube without the commercials. So I've been lazy and have let both subscriptions run.

Re: I've seen it. Really

[Anonymous Coward]

You "consume a lot of music"? I bet you also consumed a lot of swirlies and should consume more, NERD

Re: I've seen it. Really

[Anonymous Coward]

the shovelware artists are "real".

not spotify owned.

I wonder if they think s3rl is real?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder which artists they think are fake. Probably anyone who doesn't have a label, which covers most of the things I listen to on YouTube.

Re:I wonder if they think s3rl is real?

[sound vision]

They are all actually aliases of Aphex Twin.
The tracks were put on flash drives left in the parking lot of the Spotify offices.

Re:I wonder if they think s3rl is real?

[Samurai Nigel]

I wish I had mod points for you, sir. Bravo.

Enno Aare

[jgotts]

Enno Aare seems like a real person to me.

Has anybody attempted to look him up on Youtube? Enno has three videos and he actively responds in the comments. He posted a link to the sheet music he created for Water Ripples.

After about a 20 minute search I've established that Enno Aare is a man of Estonian descent. I was unable to get a listing for the man in Estonia, so he could either be unlisted or lives abroad.

Re: Enno Aare

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I definitely got the vibe from reading the linked articles, that MBW and Vulture have a bone to pick with Spotify. Maybe they're RIAA shills who want to tarnish Spotify's reputation, due to the ongoing licensing negotiations.

Some of the mentioned artists are definitely real enough, but MBW/Vulture seems to think no internet presence to speak of = fake made-up artist.

Re: Enno Aare

[Anonymous Coward]

What the ever loving fuck are you on about? Maybe you should get a life and play sport instead of being a weird internet stalker

That's an entirely appropriate response for somebody who just had their autism triggered really badly. Try getting a fidget spinner or something.

Re: Enno Aare

[Anonymous Coward]

Estonia? Sounds like Elbonia. Either way, it's not Murica, UK or even Canada. Ergo, it's probably full of commies trying to hack our democracy. To be avoided.

Re: Enno Aare

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey now, everyone knows that "artists" that aren't signed to RIAA labels, and don't join ASCAP aren't real artists.

Re: Enno Aare

[pr0fessor]

A quick google search and I was listening to and reading the sheet music. They are rather simple piano pieces, common left hand chord pasterns and progressions with a simple melody. The phrases in the melody reminded me of Scarborough Fair.

Re: Enno Aare

[pr0fessor]

Enno Aare looks like they may be an indie artist that's just starting out and this article may have just gave them a lot more attention than they would have normally received.

From the comment on their youtube page they stated they were working on making their music available for purchase.

Easy enough to prove, if true.

[wvmarle]

Fake artists in playlists? Well, where are the screen shots? Or doesn't Spotify show clearly what is playing when?

I skimmed the first link in TFA which supposedly was an earlier article about the same issue, and it didn't show any screen shots or any other form of evidence other than some vague allegations. For now I have to put this in the "fake news" corner.

Re:Easy enough to prove, if true.

[dknj]

Definitely found a fake song while looking for the real one.

In one of my playlists I have a song called JK Pharrell which is an obvious cover of the Move That Dope single by Pharell and Pusha T. Except its not Pusha T nor Pharell on the track. I fully believe the article and hope I don't come across any other bad clones.

-dk

Re:Easy enough to prove, if true.

[Kjella]

Definitely found a fake song while looking for the real one. In one of my playlists I have a song called JK Pharrell which is an obvious cover of the Move That Dope single by Pharell and Pusha T. Except its not Pusha T nor Pharell on the track. I fully believe the article and hope I don't come across any other bad clones.

If your definition of "fake" is "cover", I got a pretty long list of fake songs from artists like:

The Beatles
David Bowie
Johnny Cash
Eric Clapton
Guns N' Roses
Jimi Hendrix
Elvis Presley
Bruce Springsteen
Stevie Wonder
Neil Young

They should just ban obvious hacks like that from Spotify. ;)

Re:Easy enough to prove, if true.

[sad_]

That doesn't mean Spotify is behind this. Some time ago there was this news item about a guy who made a lot of money from Spotify, but he wasn't a famous or even a good artist. He simply put music on with names sounding like big hits or that had typo's in them (comparable to those URL's that send you to some bs site when you make a typo). The music from this guy was nothing like the original, to avoid any legal problems. Anyway, he had enough plays using this method that he raked in money to make a living.
Not saying this is any good, Spotify needs to do something about this or soon you won't be able to find the real song you want to listen to between all the fakes.

Re: Easy enough to prove, if true.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's different. That's spam. No one is accusing Spotify of that, the "fake artists" make genuine music, although in styles somewhat forgiving of low quality since it's often used as background music.

Spotify actually does a lot to fight spam, any company with exploitable algorithms has to.

If the worst accusations are true, Spotify may promote "store brand" music not clearly labelled as such. That's not so terrible for us listeners, but may be very aggravating to artists who feel jilted.

Good business, just like netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a good business model. Seems pretty similar to Netflix producing their own shows? No one complains about that!

Re:I've seen it. Really

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen that from Google Play's curated playlists/stations, but it does happen if you create an automagic station from a song. I don't think they're doing that intentionally, it's just picking things their algorithm figures are close to what you've selected as the seed. Some songs give me really good auto playlists but some are just inane.

Genius idea

[NaCh0]

Especially since all techno sounds the same anyway.

And if they bring in new, upcoming artists, that benefits everyone except the entrenched record labels. (boo-hoo)

Re:Genius idea

[Anonymous Coward]

But just think of the poor listeners who listen to something that doesn't make the RIAA money, without even realizing it! They don't even know enough to complain that they aren't listening to genuine, 100% authentic music and not that cheap, nasty, synthetic music without us telling them how important that they only listen to authentic music produced by authentic bands signed to authentic labels.

Sounds a bit like De Beers.

Oh no! They're providing content.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone stop them!!

Re: Oh no! They're providing content.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps RIAA could just provide me with a list of approved music. Possibly a government watchdog is needed here as well. Surely there are some RIAA execs who need a second job protecting Americans from dangerous unbranded music.

Re:I've seen it. Really

[PopeRatzo]

I don't think they're doing that intentionally, it's just picking things their algorithm figures are close to what you've selected as the seed.

I think you're right about that. Google and Spotify just hoover up all the recorded music they can and some of that is bound to be lame covers and public domain background music.

Some songs give me really good auto playlists but some are just inane

I've been working on getting Spotify and Google to improve their multi-genre playlists. That's where their algorithms seem to break down a bit. Pandora, on the other hand, does a great job with their "stations". If I add artists across genres, it doesn't miss a beat, and if I tell it that I don't like a particular record (like maybe a live version of a song I want that was recorded 30 years after the original), it manages to pick up on my preferences.

Fake drums

[Anonymous Coward]

One more time. We're gonna celebrate. Oh yeah, all right. Don't stop the dancing.

Repeat 21 times.

Until music stops entirely sucking shit, how the hell can anyone tell that it's fake?

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

This shit is all I listen to, and all I need. Fuck the RIAA.

I fail to see the problem

[Opportunist]

Did the music deliver what people want? If so, good. If not, they'll switch to something else. Who gives a fuck who made it? Do I care what carpenter made my table? What I care is whether the legs are equal in length and the surface is flat but not for the name of its maker.

Re:I fail to see the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Who made your phone? Or maybe your trousers?

Re:I fail to see the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the music deliver what people want? If so, good. If not, they'll switch to something else. Who gives a fuck who made it? Do I care what carpenter made my table? What I care is whether the legs are equal in length and the surface is flat but not for the name of its maker.

From TFS:

"...so that the company could circumvent royalty payments on playlists that have millions of subscribers"

"Opportunist" fails to see how screwing around with the numbers tends to fuck over those trying to use Spotify as an opportunity to earn a living. Oh, the fucking irony...

Re:I fail to see the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, as long as the artist got paid what they contracted for, I see no issue here.

I don't expect to get a royalty on the code I write. This is explicitly a work for hire job. I don't see why instrumentals should be that different.

labels & co

[Anonymous Coward]

they are greedier than a kid on a sugarrush in a candy store.

What's an "artist"?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the benefit of people like me who prefer proper music, which has "composers" and "performers", and sometimes "arrangers", "conductors" and "directors", could someone explain what the hell an "artist" is in this context?

Re:What's an "artist"?

[Barefoot Monkey]

The word "artist" in the broader sense of this context refers to the one (or ones) who directly created the work of art in question. A piece of music is regarded as a work of art for this purpose, and in the specific context of a piece of music "the artist" usually refers to the performers, often by band name. But not every piece is a recording of a performance, so the word "artist" is used in place of a more awkward title, such as "performer or whatever term applies"

RIAA shills

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I get a very strong feeling that MBW and Vulture are either voluntary shills or paid off by RIAA and the big labels, to tarnish Spotify's reputation. There are licensing negotations ongoing with the major labels, and they obviously want to put Spotify in as bad a light as possible, so they can steamroll over them with demands.

As mentioned in other comments, a bunch of those "fake artists" are absolutely real people.

Seems reasonable

[easyTree]

Also, fake artist sounds concerning as fake faux leather in today's climate, post the death of talent.

What's wrong with commissioning works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems perfectly legit.

Race to the bottom

[cordovaCon83]

Musicians have to fight tooth and nail to make a dollar off their music and then someone comes along and makes it even tougher to get a dollar out of the fat cats. If people on Slashdot don't see the correlation to American programmers being replaced by H1B visa workers then they really aren't paying attention.

Re: Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

well they are really fighting in the wrong place then. but i guess they cant see or dare to see that labels are eating their money. not content providers and spoooky internet pirates that would never buy your crap song anyway

Re:Race to the bottom

[BlueStrat]

Musicians have to fight tooth and nail to make a dollar off their music and then someone comes along and makes it even tougher to get a dollar out of the fat cats. If people on Slashdot don't see the correlation to American programmers being replaced by H1B visa workers then they really aren't paying attention.

As a life-long musician, I call BS.

Technology and civilization have moved on, and so now selling recordings of music is simply no longer a valid business model, just like making buggy-whips after the rise of the automobile. If you're a musician and want to make a buck, play a live gig and sell merch and quick-burned discs of that show. Go on tour. Play casinos and cruise ships.

Performing live shows is where the money is at for musicians these days. Unless you're already so popular you're a household name, the labels and "music industry" organizations are nothing but a millstone around artist's necks bleeding them dry like bad loan-sharks.

Sorry labels/RIAA/etc etc. You had a good run but it's over now, the world and technology have moved on. Please have the grace to go quietly into that good night. It's not like you've got a lot of choice. You're done, regardless.

Strat

Re:Race to the bottom

[cordovaCon83]

Streaming is a legitimate means of advertising one's material to a larger audience thereby earning more gigs. I'm sure that as a life-long musician with an illustrious career that you understand the need to use many different avenues for advertising your work to new markets. So no of course the royalties from streaming is worth next to nothing but the marketing you get from having people actually hear your music is. If the charts are ate up by a bunch of filler, there's no room for yooouuuuu

Re:Race to the bottom

[BlueStrat]

If the charts are ate up by a bunch of filler, there's no room for yooouuuuu

And the labels/RIAA/etc etc are to blame for putting streaming services in the position that they feel pressured to use filler to reduce costs so they can remain in operation and pay their people.

Besides, since I already do occasional session work, I may be able to get well-paying session gigs to produce their "filler".

Strat

Re:Race to the bottom

[cordovaCon83]

Spotify reported $3 billion in revenue last year, so I imagine that they're doing okay. I'm sure that they'd say that they were on a shoe-string budget if you asked them though. I do commend you for pulling in solid cash doing session work. It does speak to your skill. Charging a flat fee (at what I'm sure is a premium price) is smart too. Then you don't have to worry about whether the act is getting screwed over by his label or whatever. Don't get me wrong, good music is good music, "filler" or not. And you're absolutely right - it's up to an artist to demand the value of their work. What I see is that Spotify is doing really well off a royalty system and feels the need to push the royalty rates even lower by contriving competition by commissioning music. It's whatever. Gotta play to win, right?

Re:Race to the bottom

[BlueStrat]

Spotify reported $3 billion in revenue last year, so I imagine that they're doing okay. I'm sure that they'd say that they were on a shoe-string budget if you asked them though.

Large gross receipts do not equal large (or even any) profits. Hosting, data rates, licensing, royalties, compliance costs, lawyers...none of that is cheap, especially at the amounts, sizes, and amount of pure red tape involved. Much of that income is also from streaming non-US/RIAA artists and content as well.

Ultimately, the labels and RIAA-type organizations are doomed. The very nature of how people acquire and listen to music has totally changed and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

I do commend you for pulling in solid cash doing session work. It does speak to your skill. Charging a flat fee (at what I'm sure is a premium price) is smart too. Then you don't have to worry about whether the act is getting screwed over by his label or whatever.

I'm in a band that I perform live shows with. The session work is a nice side-income and networking resource. It allows more flexibility in choosing when & where we perform when the pressure to make money is lessened. It allows us to do things like play more benefits for homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and other similar charities & causes. I can so I do because if I don't, who will?

Strat

Re:Race to the bottom

[cordovaCon83]

Large gross receipts do not equal large (or even any) profits. Hosting, data rates, licensing, royalties, compliance costs, lawyers...none of that is cheap, especially at the amounts, sizes, and amount of pure red tape involved. Much of that income is also from streaming non-US/RIAA artists and content as well.

Ultimately, the labels and RIAA-type organizations are doomed. The very nature of how people acquire and listen to music has totally changed and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

I still see it as a race to the bottom. My issue isn't whether this affects the labels' bottom line. I write my own music, I perform my own music, I'm interested in copyrighting my own music, I want to use Spotify to provide another avenue for listeners to hear my music. If I get lucky enough to get featured on a playlist, I'd like to think people would actually hear my work, not maybe hear it after listening to fifty fluffer tracks that Spotify put in there. I know better than to expect to become rich from the streaming, but you know what if I put out a hit that I spent my own time/money on equipment, mixing, mastering, copyrighting, all that jazz, I don't want someone reneging on the rate that we agreed to. I just don't understand how you don't see this practice as unethical of Spotify. If it were ethical, I am certain that they would have no problem being forthcoming about the practice.

Re:Race to the bottom

[BlueStrat]

I just don't understand how you don't see this practice as unethical of Spotify.

It would only be unethical if Spotify were misrepresenting the works. As long as they're not misrepresenting the works as created by another artist or an artist that does not exist, I see no problem. I'm sure they paid the people that made the tracks in question. Session and studio musicians gotta eat and keep the lights on, too. Heck, I'd consider laying down some tracks for Spotify to use as filler if the pay is decent. Why not? Just another paying contract gig. Bend like the reed when it meets the wind, Grasshopper. Adapt and use it as a new opportunity and resource.

Strat

Commissioning music isn't new or inventive...

[rickb928]

And it's sometimes profitable for the composer/artist.

But this exposes not the profit motive of Spotify (and whatever other service is currently 'getting away' with it), but the marketing foundation of the music industry. Some music genres are so focused on marketing the same formula to the same audience that they are no longer creative, but industrial. Apologies to the industrial music genre.

But I still buy (I know, outmoded but I love owning the music I want) electrionica, dance, bass, and classic rock which is another industrial phenomenon. Yard sales yield treasures for pennies, and my library is recovering from the last (2001) devastation.

And no, I do not need vinyl any more than I need Dolby B cassettes or 15ips reels.

clever!

[Anonymous Coward]

of course this wont't stop the music industry complaining and whining - in the end whining and complaining is their new business-model (an obviously not innovation as they should)

So what?

[slashmydots]

So basically they did what every video game that has music has done ever and honestly most films as well. So what? You want royalties, ask for them. You want contracted composition work, then do that. Whatever the artist wants is fine honestly.