General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Ghosts in the Machine: Spotify's plot against musicians
https://harpers.org/archive/2025/01/the-ghosts-in-the-machine-liz-pelly-spotify-musicians/No paywall link
https://archive.li/hIWG0
I first heard about ghost artists in the summer of 2017. At the time, I was new to the music-streaming beat. I had been researching the influence of major labels on Spotify playlists since the previous year, and my first report had just been published. Within a few days, the owner of an independent record label in New York dropped me a line to let me know about a mysterious phenomenon that was in the air and of growing concern to those in the indie music scene: Spotify, the rumor had it, was filling its most popular playlists with stock music attributed to pseudonymous musiciansvariously called ghost or fake artistspresumably in an effort to reduce its royalty payouts. Some even speculated that Spotify might be making the tracks itself. At a time when playlists created by the company were becoming crucial sources of revenue for independent artists and labels, this was a troubling allegation.
At first, it sounded to me like a conspiracy theory. Surely, I thought, these artists were just DIY hustlers trying to game the system. But the tips kept coming. Over the next few months, I received more notes from readers, musicians, and label owners about the so-called fake-artist issue than about anything else. One digital strategist at an independent record label worried that the problem could soon grow more insidious. So far its happening within a genre that mostly affects artists at labels like the one I work for, or Kranky, or Constellation, the strategist said, referring to two long-running indie labels.
By July, the story had burst into public view, after a Vulture article resurfaced a year-old item from the trade press claiming that Spotify was filling some of its popular and relaxing mood playlistssuch as those for jazz, chill, and peaceful piano musicwith cheap fake-artist offerings created by the company. A Spotify spokesperson, in turn, told the music press that these reports were categorically untrue, full stop: the company was not creating its own fake-artist tracks. But while Spotify may not have created them, it stopped short of denying that it had added them to its playlists. The spokespersons rebuttal only stoked the interest of the media, and by the end of the summer, articles on the matter appeared from NPR and the Guardian, among other outlets. Journalists scrutinized the music of some of the artists they suspected to be fake and speculated about how they had become so popular on Spotify. Before the year was out, the music writer David Turner had used analytics data to illustrate how Spotifys Ambient Chill playlist had largely been wiped of well-known artists like Brian Eno, Bibio, and Jon Hopkins, whose music was replaced by tracks from Epidemic Sound, a Swedish company that offers a subscription-based library of production musicthe kind of stock material often used in the background of advertisements, TV programs, and assorted video content.
For years, I referred to the names that would pop up on these playlists simply as mystery viral artists. Such artists often had millions of streams on Spotify and pride of place on the companys own mood-themed playlists, which were compiled by a team of in-house curators. And they often had Spotifys verified-artist badge. But they were clearly fake. Their labels were frequently listed as stock-music companies like Epidemic, and their profiles included generic, possibly AI-generated imagery, often with no artist biographies or links to websites. Google searches came up empty.
*snip*
AZJonnie
(90 posts)I admit I listen to a lot of Spotify (premium subscription), and overall, I love it. I don't love how little they pay to artists, let me be clear on that, but I consider Spotify to be an amazing deal for what you get, and myself, I'd be willing to pay more every month IIF the majority of the cost rise was going to the artists. That said, when you choose to listen to a 'Spotify-curated' playlist like 'Ambient Chill' or whatnot, you are listening to a 'Spotify product'. From where I sit, that means they are free to put whatever the heck they want on it. Don't like it? Listen to something else they offer
I know for positive you can search for any of these names: "Brian Eno, Bibio, and Jon Hopkins" and you will see a ton of their music available. For me the most useful function of Spotify is that I can listen pick an album I'm in the mood for in the morning, and when that album ends, Spotify will pick tracks for me that are along the same lines as that artist, all day long. Start the morning with a Chris Stapleton album, all day it will play stuff like Zach Bryan, Tyler Childers, Morgan Wallen, Kacey Musgrave, Sturgill Simpson, etc. In other words, not a bunch of no-name fake artists. IF they start messing with that process and filling it with fake stuff, I admit I'll be annoyed, but I'd still consider it 'fair'. They're doing the work of picking the songs for me. All I have to do is raise a finger to choose for myself, and just about anything I want to hear is there. Ultimately, that's what I'm actually paying for IMHO.
As I say though, I'm a paying customer, and I listen on the PC 98% of time, not a phone app. IIRC on the phone app, with the free version, you have a lot less freedom to pick what you want to hear. It's possible that's a large % of their business, and if they're steering those 'subscribers' to a lot more 'fake' music, that does kinda stink, both for the listener, and the artists that are excluded from the algorithm, just so they don't make money. Booo on that!