• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I didn’t know this, but it makes sense. One of my biggest complaints about streaming (Pandora is guilty of this, too) is that anyone with a copy of Ableton and a mediocre talent can crank out tracks barely modifying the base toolset. I tend to listen to a lot of variants of electronic music. 95% of the music is absolute crap. 4.5% is tolerable. And 0.5% might end up in my playlist. Less tan 1:100/songs. I have no doubt that “band” or artist names were made up to crank something out, abandoned, and started up under a different name to churn out more boring samesies hoping for a few plays in one of those “made for you” playlists.

    So the service doing this for themselves and enabling it for profit isn’t surprising.

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      This ratio has been true of music forever. We have always depended on filters to get to the good stuff. Used to be access to recording studios (hence labels fucking everyone), then DJ’s setting taste (had its own problems). Pick a period of time there’s always a group or economic filter separating wheat from the chaff (not perfectly but generally successfully?) which makes it hard for independent/lesser knows to break through.

      Now everyone can record and publish easily, so it’s about finding shortcuts or tricks to game the system and get ahead. Or, as always, just get lucky 🤷‍♂️

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      One of my biggest complaints about streaming (Pandora is guilty of this, too) is that anyone with a copy of Ableton and a mediocre talent can crank out tracks barely modifying the base toolset.

      People being able to do art isn’t a bad thing, and I’m glad streaming has made publishing so much more accessible.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        Art… look, I get the premise of what you’re saying, but just because art is mediocre or just bad doesn’t free it of criticism because “art.” It can be shitty art and be called exactly that. It’s not sacred.

        • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yeah sure, it’s actually good to think critically about it, but that doesn’t mean it’s existence is a negative, which is how your comment comes off - dismissive.

          In the same way the world would be a slightly worse place without the joys of b-movies like The Room or Suburban Sasquatch or Plan 9 FOS, or without outsider musicians like Daniel Johnston etc…

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            I don’t need to listen to badly made music any more than I need to be exposed to budget hotel room art on the walls of the Louvre. You wanna watch B movies? Great! But nobody’s inserting 30 C and D films between your current netflix series.

            • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              “badly made music” is a subjective idea.

              “Inserting 30 C and D films” implies forcing someone, you are never forced, Spotify is not a goddamn radio station, you can just click on the track or album or artists you want.

              Same thing with Netflix, you can click the search bar and type in your film or show of choice, you can even stop using Netflix altogether instead of just consooming like a slop vacuum.

              Maybe touch non-algorithmically selected non-personalized grass too.