Read this: How Spotify fills playlists with “Ghost artists” and saves on payouts
Writer Liz Pelly examines how Spotify is getting out of paying for more expensive music and hopes you won't notice.
Photo by Chesnot/Getty Images
Spotify has evolved in its roughly 16-year history. While initially functioning as a free, unlimited iTunes library, the app started creating in-house playlists in 2013, and from there began to invest more into algorithmic programming. But through it all, the company has earned criticism for the paltry sums it pays out to the artists; significantly less than a penny per stream, usually. But Spotify has also gained criticism over the years for filling playlists with its own licensed music, effectively excluding artists from one of the few revenue streams. Now, in an excerpt of her forthcoming book published in Harper’s, author Liz Pelly goes deep on the subject.
In Pelly’s investigation, she found that Spotify had been working with stock-music companies like Epidemic, which offer music that tends to be played in the background rather than music that is wholly focused on. Think jazz, electronic, lo-fi beats to study/relax to. This led to the Perfect Fit Content (PFC) program; since most of Spotify’s revenue was going to paying royalties to major labels like Sony and Warner, there was an incentive for Spotify to find cheaper music for these background playlists.
Pelly also speaks with some musicians hired to create some of this stock music for dinner playlists, who liken the experience to taking a standardized test: there are a few right answers in making this, but far more wrong answers. The goal for these musicians is not to arrive at a pure artistic expression, but to provide unobtrusive musical wallpaper. “This kind of felt like the same category as wedding gigs or corporate gigs. It’s made very explicit on Spotify that these are background playlists, so it didn’t necessarily strike me as any different from that,” one musician said. “You’re just a piece of the furniture.” While the pay for these gigs can be decent, musicians don’t earn residuals or royalties for these tracks, often losing out on money in the long run.
Of course, the Harper’s article goes into far more detail on the subject, and explores why “an artist and the business of background music are increasingly entwined,” in Pelly’s words. You can check out the whole article here.