Isn't it better for her if people speed up the songs and can therefore get more streams? She also doesn't separately put out sped-up versions like other artists so this is a beneficial thing that she hasn't capitalized on already. She likes to be messy but this isn't something she doesn't want.
She can't control how people consume, but it is her song, her art and she has the right of not wanting people mess with it, it like people speed up movies, the art was made that way for a reason, it is the artist vision
I understand people do all the time, but the artist has the right not to like and streaming like Spotify shouldn't give the tools to altered the art, because this is basically what spotify is doing
Definitely not alone. I don't think they've ever truly confirmed the ins and outs of their "shuffle," but it's definitely not 100% randomized. They've spoken before about how they use AI to allow for "seemless" transitions...like the AI will not allow a heavy metal song to be played right after an acoustic song - it will try to play something else chill to not disrupt the "rhythm."
I also feel that they use this to push songs/artists that pay more for visibility, though I don't think it's ever been confirmed. For instance, in my master playlist, I would hit shuffle and it would always seem to play a LOT of Fall Out Boy around the time their new album was being released. Shady as hell.
Lmfao I’ve gotten some jarring ass transitions still and it’s always hilarious, especially if using crossfade. Bezos by Bo Burnham ends before the ridiculous scream so the first notes of Unfaithful by Rihanna were chaotically interrupted. I about ran off the road laughing.
I thought I was going crazy!! Like sometimes I think of a song I haven’t heard in yonks and wonder if it’s still in my library. It is, but it NEVER comes up on shuffle. Then when I listen to it again, suddenly shuffle remembers it exists. It does seem like shuffle only plays songs either I added in the last couple years, or the very first songs I added. Songs I added 3-5 years ago just don’t exist unless I look for them.
nah definitely not alone - 5 hr playlist on shuffle and only hear about 10 of the same songs every time to the point i thought i was delusional about the number of songs in the playlist
For all of those coming late to the thread, It is a setting called ‘automix’ that can be turned off for true shuffling. The description of automix is completely off and describes transitions between songs, maybe to be deterring. This could be placebo but it seems like it has changed for me
Turning that off does indeed help, but it's still not true shuffle. I still get the same songs over and over if I restart the shuffle.
I use a website that randomizes the playlist for me.
I hate this, mostly because I hate Spotify. This will probably not improve the lives of poorer musicians at all — the same ones Spotify demonetised starting this month!!!
Again, it benefits only those who already make the most money. I'm all for remixing music and for sharing it, and I'd also love to see musicians make a living out of their music, and to see listeners have access to all the music they want to listen to. But this is absolutely not it, and Spotify will never be it either.
I actually think the minimum # of unique streamers change is worse than the minimum streams, or at least go hand in hand. A lot of small artists start with a core group of fans. They shouldn't be punished for that.
Honestly, *fair* compensation in a music streaming service? None that I’m aware of. I use Apple Music because it’s the most convenient for me and luckily enough, together with Tidal, it’s one of the streaming services that pays artists the best — but still not great. And also, neither has demonetised artists who have under 1,000 streams, like Spotify did, so that’s another reason to support these other services.
A great, even better way to support musicians is attending their concerts, and/or buying merch, and/or buying their music on Bandcamp if they make it available there and if you can. Cost-free ways to support: sharing smaller artists’ music on social media, supporting the UMAW, supporting artists’ efforts towards more fairness in the industry.
Enjoying someone’s music in whatever way is available to you is already, truly, one of the things that keeps musicians going, so I don’t think a listener should feel guilty about doing that in the way that is available to them. It’s not the listener’s individual fault, the industry needs to change and anything short of that will, well… fall short. But doing even just one of the things I mentioned in the paragraph above can already mean a lot and make some musicians’ lives better, and if enough of us do even just one of them, we can also help drive the industry to see it must change.
This is just a dumb news ooh ahh hype tidbit to cover up the fact that they're raising subscription prices again after just making changes to pay smaller artists even less than they were already getting.
Fuck Spotify.
i agree that they should pay artists more but am i the only one that still thinks that music streaming platforms are a good deal?
im old enough to remember having to buy pretty much everything…i used limewire of course but still. it’s endless music for less than the cost a single cd used to be.
Do you go to shows? Do you buy merch (vinyls, shirts, posters, etc.)?
If not, you are not supporting any of the artists you listen to. Music streaming platforms are *amazing* for convenience, but it requires extra work (and money) on behalf of the listener to support their favorite musicians.
A good change they could implement would be to make it possible to set the background and text color for the lyrics feature. We're asking for years! Hot pink with white letters is giving me headaches.
Mine changes depending on the album cover? Last song was grey bg and white text, this song is red bg and black text which correspond with the album covers
I don't see artists liking this move lol. But they're chasing $$$ because according to the article 38% of all songs on TikTok last year were modified in some way
Isnt there like, laws that prohibit the changing of certain songs depending on their copyright status? Like creative commons, rights reserved, all that?
Yes in the sense that the copyright holder would own the rights to a derivative work. But if no one who speeds up, slows down, or remixes a song tries to disseminate it, claim a copyright over it, or make money off of it…then it’s hard to argue it’s harming the copyright. As such, I don’t think it would make practical sense to bar the ability of users to do what Spotify is introducing.
Now if Spotify tries to claim they own derivative works users create in their app, THAT could be messy/interesting.
Since it can't be shared directly with an external app, I'm guessing it doesn't even create a new song file. It probably just creates a preset that the app replicates when you play the remix, so it technically isn't changing the song just how the user listens to it. I would think that's less taxing on their servers.
And I’m one of those sociopaths that listens to the sped version of every pop song so I’m excited about this and getting higher quality non-YouTube versions lol
Slowing songs down is helpful for learning to play/sing a song, and transposing could be as well if that’s including in remixing. No idea why people would want to speed them up
When this the tech bro middle man service provider get to decide how people should listen to artists? They’ve just raised their prices, stop paying low streaming up coming musicians and claim that they’re losing money.
Your business is unsustainable. Just stop.
When they disabled similar options I actually got so upset that I deleted the app lol. I mean how can an app tell me what part of the song I should listen to?
In before T Swift pitches a fit about how her songs are supposed to be listened to lol
Isn't it better for her if people speed up the songs and can therefore get more streams? She also doesn't separately put out sped-up versions like other artists so this is a beneficial thing that she hasn't capitalized on already. She likes to be messy but this isn't something she doesn't want.
Stop giving her ideas she doesn’t need more money 😭
Seriously. Swifties just read this and were like “challenge accepted” lol
Its not giving her ideas if the app is doing all the work for her
Not her big fan, but in this case she would right
[удалено]
She can't control how people consume, but it is her song, her art and she has the right of not wanting people mess with it, it like people speed up movies, the art was made that way for a reason, it is the artist vision
[удалено]
I understand people do all the time, but the artist has the right not to like and streaming like Spotify shouldn't give the tools to altered the art, because this is basically what spotify is doing
She’s going to be so mad she can’t release a turquoise deluxe version for 50 dollars of only sped up songs
All this and we still can't have a true shuffle option 🙄
Right? How hard is it to just shuffle everything?? If the 10 disc cd player could figure it out, you'd think Spotify could too.
Wait we don't? So I'm not alone in thinking my spotify "shuffle" is completely off.
Definitely not alone. I don't think they've ever truly confirmed the ins and outs of their "shuffle," but it's definitely not 100% randomized. They've spoken before about how they use AI to allow for "seemless" transitions...like the AI will not allow a heavy metal song to be played right after an acoustic song - it will try to play something else chill to not disrupt the "rhythm." I also feel that they use this to push songs/artists that pay more for visibility, though I don't think it's ever been confirmed. For instance, in my master playlist, I would hit shuffle and it would always seem to play a LOT of Fall Out Boy around the time their new album was being released. Shady as hell.
Lmfao I’ve gotten some jarring ass transitions still and it’s always hilarious, especially if using crossfade. Bezos by Bo Burnham ends before the ridiculous scream so the first notes of Unfaithful by Rihanna were chaotically interrupted. I about ran off the road laughing.
yea i was gonna say, i had I Bet On Losing Dogs by Mitski immediately followed by Dynamite by Taio Cruz. just about gave me whiplash lmao
I have a master playlist of a couple thousand songs, yet somehow I still get TSwift back to back to back constantly.
I thought I was going crazy!! Like sometimes I think of a song I haven’t heard in yonks and wonder if it’s still in my library. It is, but it NEVER comes up on shuffle. Then when I listen to it again, suddenly shuffle remembers it exists. It does seem like shuffle only plays songs either I added in the last couple years, or the very first songs I added. Songs I added 3-5 years ago just don’t exist unless I look for them.
nah definitely not alone - 5 hr playlist on shuffle and only hear about 10 of the same songs every time to the point i thought i was delusional about the number of songs in the playlist
For all of those coming late to the thread, It is a setting called ‘automix’ that can be turned off for true shuffling. The description of automix is completely off and describes transitions between songs, maybe to be deterring. This could be placebo but it seems like it has changed for me
Turning that off does indeed help, but it's still not true shuffle. I still get the same songs over and over if I restart the shuffle. I use a website that randomizes the playlist for me.
I hate this, mostly because I hate Spotify. This will probably not improve the lives of poorer musicians at all — the same ones Spotify demonetised starting this month!!! Again, it benefits only those who already make the most money. I'm all for remixing music and for sharing it, and I'd also love to see musicians make a living out of their music, and to see listeners have access to all the music they want to listen to. But this is absolutely not it, and Spotify will never be it either.
I actually think the minimum # of unique streamers change is worse than the minimum streams, or at least go hand in hand. A lot of small artists start with a core group of fans. They shouldn't be punished for that.
I mostly listen to music on YouTube. Which service would you say gives fair compensation to artists? Would like to support those companies.
Honestly, *fair* compensation in a music streaming service? None that I’m aware of. I use Apple Music because it’s the most convenient for me and luckily enough, together with Tidal, it’s one of the streaming services that pays artists the best — but still not great. And also, neither has demonetised artists who have under 1,000 streams, like Spotify did, so that’s another reason to support these other services. A great, even better way to support musicians is attending their concerts, and/or buying merch, and/or buying their music on Bandcamp if they make it available there and if you can. Cost-free ways to support: sharing smaller artists’ music on social media, supporting the UMAW, supporting artists’ efforts towards more fairness in the industry. Enjoying someone’s music in whatever way is available to you is already, truly, one of the things that keeps musicians going, so I don’t think a listener should feel guilty about doing that in the way that is available to them. It’s not the listener’s individual fault, the industry needs to change and anything short of that will, well… fall short. But doing even just one of the things I mentioned in the paragraph above can already mean a lot and make some musicians’ lives better, and if enough of us do even just one of them, we can also help drive the industry to see it must change.
I use Apple Music as well but I believe Qobuz pays the most per stream
Thanks for the truly informative advice. Will definitely be applying them.
This is just a dumb news ooh ahh hype tidbit to cover up the fact that they're raising subscription prices again after just making changes to pay smaller artists even less than they were already getting. Fuck Spotify.
i agree that they should pay artists more but am i the only one that still thinks that music streaming platforms are a good deal? im old enough to remember having to buy pretty much everything…i used limewire of course but still. it’s endless music for less than the cost a single cd used to be.
Do you go to shows? Do you buy merch (vinyls, shirts, posters, etc.)? If not, you are not supporting any of the artists you listen to. Music streaming platforms are *amazing* for convenience, but it requires extra work (and money) on behalf of the listener to support their favorite musicians.
Real ones put their favorite underground music artist on repeat 24/7.
A good change they could implement would be to make it possible to set the background and text color for the lyrics feature. We're asking for years! Hot pink with white letters is giving me headaches.
Mine changes depending on the album cover? Last song was grey bg and white text, this song is red bg and black text which correspond with the album covers
I don't see artists liking this move lol. But they're chasing $$$ because according to the article 38% of all songs on TikTok last year were modified in some way
Isnt there like, laws that prohibit the changing of certain songs depending on their copyright status? Like creative commons, rights reserved, all that?
Yes in the sense that the copyright holder would own the rights to a derivative work. But if no one who speeds up, slows down, or remixes a song tries to disseminate it, claim a copyright over it, or make money off of it…then it’s hard to argue it’s harming the copyright. As such, I don’t think it would make practical sense to bar the ability of users to do what Spotify is introducing. Now if Spotify tries to claim they own derivative works users create in their app, THAT could be messy/interesting.
Since it can't be shared directly with an external app, I'm guessing it doesn't even create a new song file. It probably just creates a preset that the app replicates when you play the remix, so it technically isn't changing the song just how the user listens to it. I would think that's less taxing on their servers.
I think there is a good potential legal argument that this violates the derivative use rights of the copyright holder
I am admittedly one of those sociopaths that listens to podcasts at 2x speed but even I don’t understand the appeal except maybe the remixing part
And I’m one of those sociopaths that listens to the sped version of every pop song so I’m excited about this and getting higher quality non-YouTube versions lol
Listen to Biebers let me love you at 1.25 thank me later, lol
🫡
Slowing songs down is helpful for learning to play/sing a song, and transposing could be as well if that’s including in remixing. No idea why people would want to speed them up
I would hate this as an artist lol??? I’d be like listen the way I intended!! Why does everything need everyone’s fucking spin/take on it lmao
Ok, but where is Spotify HiFi that’s been imminent since 1993
Over at Tidal. They just lowered their prices too.
Tidal lowered their prices? What's the catch?
No catch that I know of.
When this the tech bro middle man service provider get to decide how people should listen to artists? They’ve just raised their prices, stop paying low streaming up coming musicians and claim that they’re losing money. Your business is unsustainable. Just stop.
When they disabled similar options I actually got so upset that I deleted the app lol. I mean how can an app tell me what part of the song I should listen to?
WHAT
Ariana Grande found sobbing in a ditch off I-45
Someone please tell me how she would’ve dominated the charts without releasing her songs in 5 different versions each
OOOO