Read on Twitter
Ok. So Ek spoke with @stuartdredge and gave some sincere comments on criticisms that have been levelled at Spotify from working musicians. It is useful because it confirms his ideological position https://musically.com/2020/07/30/spotify-ceo-talks-covid-19-artist-incomes-and-podcasting-interview/
Tbf this is true. More ppl knowing about more artists, and more artists having more *hypothetical* (see later) access to ppl is a feature of streaming. "Algorithmic populism" is a term i've used before, a populist idea of accessibility that brings with it hidden costs and fallout
Accessibility lore is the backbone upon which Spotify's most potentially profitable business model will kick in. They will charge everyone continuously to pursue a pipe dream in a two sided marketplace. Label & press USP's will wither over time if they continue to play ball.
This accessibility argument is based upon *hypothetical* access to more fans. Anyone now can *hypothetically* find an audience, however unless Spotify itself or one of their few big playlist curators selects you, or you pay to play the lottery, good luck!
This populist accessibility argument, coupled with independence folklore, is the fairytale told to cover impositions that will eventually displace institutions that care about the future of the musical craft, and the musicians dedicated to it, in favor of "audio and engagement".
When asked about streaming returns, here he falls back on the accessibility argument again. Why are we only focussing on a limited set of artists when more and more can partake in the pie? Zero qualitative dimension here, just quantity, and those audio engagement numbers
Why are you constantly bringing up moaning artists whose cultural archives and practices built the foundations of this service that made me a billionaire? We mined that stuff ages ago and soon it will no longer be of any use to us! Philistine. Exit. Can he be any clearer?
People privately tell Daniel Ek that they are happy with streaming pay. Almost no-one you know, mind you. But someone out there, maybe a playlist pianist or major label 'sure thing', or perhaps more likely someone trying to gain favor with Daniel Ek.
Here is where it gets interesting. First that Ek repeatedly does not seem to grok that his decisions might in fact have a role in shaping the "future landscape". Second that the album as we know it is dismissed as a relic of the past. n.b @merlinnetwork members!
or basically anyone whose musical practice involves working on something over a longer period of time, and does not flatter "continuous dialogue" with fans. This is pure ideology. This attitude is *deeply* antagonistic to label structures, the press, and the craft. Philistine!
2022 conversation: He's the Miles Davis of continuous engagement with fans! She's the Joni Mitchell of follower pledges! Philistines. It does not have to be this way.
The logical end point of his ideology, the future of music is about you and your fans, conveniently mediated by a platform like Spotify or Facebook/Insta. Two sided market !coming soon! where you will be able to pay Spotify to access more fans. His future is pipe dream payments.
the CEO of the "future landscape" of music has always had very little to say about music. "Continuous dialogue" is many things, but it is not music by most definitions. Audio, which he likes, is simply one raw material for "continuous dialogue" and valuable platform engagement
Again @merlinnetwork. What's the role for your storied members in facilitating "continuous dialogue" between artists + fans in this "future landscape"? I don't see it either. Restore dignity. Pull catalogues while your USP (alternative life paths through music) is still intact.
FWIW I think that Spotify is a fairly clever system for the future of commercial music/radio. Let random people duke it out to be the sound of hotel lobbies in 2021. Couldn't care less. For those who dedicate their lives to music of place and purpose, EXIT. We are not wanted.
Lexicon - USP : Unique Selling Point, or the thing that makes you special compared to other things.
Also I'm not going to reply to anyone causally dragging this discussion off topic. Don't want to lose my day to a thread.
Also I'm not going to reply to anyone causally dragging this discussion off topic. Don't want to lose my day to a thread.
Common things I normally have to repeat. A one size fits all solution is absurd. Not against on demand music. I believe an interdependent music industry built on different ideology will be a profitable alt equivalent to the original indies. I am pro tech, just not this.
Also more fuel to suggest that while user centric streaming is a valid proposal, particularly on the legal foundations it may establish as @MrTomGray articulates well here, this is fundamentally an ideological deadlock. https://interdependence.fm/episodes/interdependence-10-tom-gray-prs
