Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Yes, this totally tracks with what I know about Spotify. I am in touch with numerous employees of Spotify and they all said that the biggest threat to Spotify are the music publishers who have them by the balls. I think they have now realized that the only way to make it into a successful business is to deploy AI generated music or at least music in which they are not paying extremely large royalties.
Doesn't seem any different to me than when Netflix started making original content, or as others have said, Target having their own in-house brands that they stock alongside everything else. It's just good business sense. If the product is bad, people will stop using Spotify, and Spotify will stop doing it.

I'm not sure why discourse around this seems to be coming from the perspective that people have no choice but to use Spotify and that Spotify will secretly replace all the good music with bad music and no one will be able to do anything about it, all musicians will be out of work, all will be lost. Spotify is just one music service, and we don't even need to use a music service to enjoy the music we like. If Spotify destroys itself with slop music, what's the sinister plot, the "ugly truth", really?

If Spotify does this, and a majority of people do not care, do not notice, and keep using Spotify until label-owned music is totally irrelevant, I think it would be more interesting if the musicians who are put out of work by this consider why their high quality music lost out to such mass produced "garbage"...

> Doesn't seem any different to me than when Netflix started making original content, or as others have said, Target having their own in-house brands that they stock alongside everything else. It's just good business sense. If the product is bad, people will stop using Spotify, and Spotify will stop doing it.

And yet it is different, because of the production scale involved. Own brands are actually hard work, especially own brand food, which has to be reverse-engineered at some expense. Own brand food provides price discrimination and usually does not particularly impact the sales of the headline brands.

Netflix’s own content, presumably, pays a large number of creative people’s wages and is of a quality. It is often scratching a creative itch that major studios won’t risk.

Music and music tech, on the other hand, is such that if your audience doesn’t care, it’s quite easy to churn out songs —- one person who particularly hated human culture could write half a dozen fully produced songs in a day.

> If Spotify does this, and a majority of people do not care, do not notice, and keep using Spotify until label-owned music is totally irrelevant, I think it would be more interesting if the musicians who are put out of work by this consider why their high quality music lost out to such mass produced "garbage"...

I do wish this particularly nihilistic new form of argument was considered to be toxic itself.

But to answer the point: many outstanding, culturally significant musicians have small fan bases for their personal work. They know they do. That is in the nature of diverse culture. They rely on complex chains of discovery systems —- word of mouth, eclectic radio, old style auteur playlists, live gigs, to find their people, and they often support that by writing songs for major musicians who love their work and who want to do one song they wrote.

It is not their failure at all if the system that is supposed to deliver some of that discovery starts cynically acting against them. While every musician wants a hit and many will dedicate at least some time in their lives to exploring what is necessary to write a hig record, “You should have had more mass market appeal” is not universal creative guidance.

It is not that listeners have no choice in music services. Musicians have no choice but to engage with Spotify. If it is secretly working against all musicians simultaneously at the most basic level —- drowning them out with slop that is deliberately inserted into playlists to water down everyone’s incomes —- then how is it you are more interested in the way musicians are somehow failing, when nothing they do can stop it?

Honestly I am terrified for culture that so many people in the tech world seem to be so aggressively jealous of creativity that they are taking the "anti-anti-slop" stance (to borrow a phrase from politics used for the "yeah well all this criticism validates the choice I am not in any way saying I am making" argument).

Also the argument that people don’t deserve good quality music because they ‘don’t care’ is breathtakingly cynical.

Why shouldn’t people be exposed to good music? Maybe they’ll get into it.

Does that slop mentality extend to other things? Food, clothes, consumer goods? Do people deserve rubbish just because it’s not something they’re particularly interested in?

{"deleted":true,"id":42478943,"parent":42478678,"time":1734779212,"type":"comment"}
This argument makes no sense to me. Musicians with small niche audience that rely on word of mourh and such are harmed in which way when Spotify adds slop to slop playlists?

Nobody is forced to listen to slop playlists. I never did, I only listen to albums and playlists that I either curated myself, of that were shared to me by people with similar tastes.

I don't think that people that are fine with slop are the kind of people that niche musicians would appeal to.

If your argument was against the egregious and exploitative way Spotify demonetizes tracks with less than 1k streams, then yes. This is abusive and should be considered illegal. But this mostly benefits large musicians and is detrimental to a long tail of niche ones.

loading story #42478941
It's not clear to me how successful they were with podcasts. They certainly attracted lots of podcasters but no idea how much profit that's generated