The enshittification of Spotify continues.
You signed up to pay $10 a month to hear your favourite artists.
After taking your money, they began slowly substituting real artists with muzak.
@ajsadauskas why do I suddenly feel the strongest urge to break things.
@ajsadauskas@social.vivaldi.net
And let me express a futile wish that the major record labels will find a spine. They need to create an alternative—even if it requires an antitrust exemption from Congress (much like major league sports).hahaha no
@aliceif @ajsadauskas maybe a network of Funkwhale instances? Or something like that. I don't know how monetization would "happen" on something like that, and that's important for labels and artists.
@ajsadauskas I was aware that artists could be asked to be paid less to be shown on discovery playlists.
As usual i guess the only profitable move is to not pay
@ajsadauskas Something weird happened over there. One of my tracks received nearly 1000 streams in one day. Across all tracks I had 600 streams all year. Next day, 0 streams for that track. Did they bury it to block a payout? Was there a bot that used the track as camouflage? Did they assume that I used a bot or paid for streams? (I do not.) I had supposed they’d have incentive to keep me below payment ($3) threshold. Was I right?
@ajsadauskas Spotify isn't even an "adversary" (as the article calls it) to labels: it's, by design, a parasite on the industry.
Very interesting article but my biggest issue with it is this phrase:
...Congress should investigate ethical violations at music streaming businesses
Really? Look at the Congress we have now*. They won't do a damn thing because I'm sure the CEO of Spotify is kneeling to the Orange Orangutan just as much as any other CEO. The only real solution is to stop using it.
There are a boat load of free Internet radio stations or still places to get CDs/vinyls. For example, go check our your local library! And remember, doing this won't cause any cdparanoia and is not lame.
* Article was written 12/12/24, so author would know about the administration about to take over.
@sprivicans @ajsadauskas my problem with this, and it was something that rankled when I read it was: which Congress/ the Congress of whom?
America? But it's a Swedish company. Would the Americans accept if it were roles reversed? Is this a Team America kind of thing? Do they have any say over this kind of thing in Sweden? L
If we abrupt accept that there's a moral falling here (which I can't imagine anybody is against) why would we leave this to the Americans (of all people) to tackle, and why would we accept their ruling?
@mate @sprivicans Really great insight. And you're right.
Even if the Democrats managed to gain control of both houses of Congress, any legislation they pass is likely to get vetoed over the next four years.
So that really leaves either the Swedish or EH Parliaments as the only viable sources of legislation for Spotify.
(The failure of Australia's recent attempts at social media regulation illustrates why regulation from other countries is unlikely to work.)
@sprivicans My interest in the article is more around the enshittification of music rather than the solutions to it suggested by the author.
In fairness to the author, there's a huge gulf between what the US congress should be doing, and what's realistic with the current Congress. I read that statement as advocating for the former.
Electing public officials who are not beholden to wealthy donors and are willing to take on corporate interests at this point is probably more of a medium- to long-term project in the US.
I do like the idea of creating a music platform (or platforms) as co-ops owned by musicians.
Personally, I've recently gone back to CDs, digital downloads, and uploading them to a personal music server. But I recognise that's not for everyone and probably won't scale well...
(Also, I see what you did there
@ajsadauskas yeahhhhh I mean I kind of get it. if people are happy with their home brand music, so be it.
personally I use Spotify to play specific artists, so this wouldn't work. but yeah if you're chucking on background piano lofi, does it matter it's an in house musician rather than not? if you want Joe schmoe then all you have to do is type his name is and press play...
@jedsetter It does matter to the artists.
It does matter to people who could've otherwise made a living doing what they love, if not for corporate greed...
@ajsadauskas I'm not sure your average Spotify listener would have gone out and bought an ambient background piano CD in days gone by, but maybe they would have. I'm not saying I like this timeline, I just don't think this is particular egregious. It reminds me of woolies selling their home brand shit on discount and slowly weening consumers off the OG labels.