I would assume this is part of Spotify's business model.
If 10% of the music played is from their "preferred" artists, who get say 5% of the commission that Brittney Spears gets, they make more money. Right? That the guy is based in Stockholm is even more evidence this is the case.
They don't need to collude to do this - if Spotify and the guy follow self-interest, you get this outcome.
Maybe, this is what people actually want to listen to and the algorithm is just doing what it's supposed to. I see people listening to these no name artists, the most boring unimaginative generic contemporary music. Maybe this guy just really knows what the average listener likes. In my opinion Spotify's algorithm is the best in knowing what I will like and probably will replay, I don't think it would work this well if they were manually directing us towards artists.
I feel like Spotify'a recommendations want to funnel me into a cohort whose music taste I supposedly share, but I actually don't. Last.fm seemed to both consider my likes more directly and more creatively. 15% or so of duds are fine, it's better than "oh you liked that dark techno track, it's mini-popular right now so have 20 more".
By the way, last.fm radio exists again, though YouTube is the music source these days.
Agree. Actually I’m feed quite feed up with Spotify, and this week decided to get a proper HiRes audio and buy music from places like BandCamp or the CD edition and ripping it.
I miss curating my collection and playlists. It seems that the convenience of having almost all music available in a couple of clicks is making the listening experience less valuable.
I know it's a hipster thing, but if you feel like this, consider getting a record player if you haven't.
I still use Spotify for background music but when I cook or am in another situation where I want to appreciate the music, I put on a record and it feels a lot better. There are a number of psychological effects in play there, like the fact that I am forced to listen to the tracks in the set order, that I've made a commitment by purchasing the record and that it adds atmosphere to the room to have a visibly rotating disc.
He seems to be essentially releasing content PURELY to make the algorithms light up, though, not out of any sort of "honest" artistic intention.
Like all those "$bandname for kids" releases that are just midis played through xylophone, marimba patches, or occasionally strings. Credited to legitimate sounding "artists" like the "Vitamin Quartet".
I am more bothered by the part with having over 650 different artist names that hide their link to each other (unlike Prince/TAFKAP, Kanye/Ye, etc).
I mean: your gripe is basically Spotify's entire raison d'etre. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to hide your true identity to such an extent, except to be able to act as your own competition.
That is, I think this person knows very well that by using different artist names, he will get Spotify revenue the listeners think is going to different artists.
Isn't that basically what many authors do? Many authors are afraid of diluting their brand so when they write books in a different genre or style they create a new pen name to keep the works distinct from their main name. For example Stephen King used to write additional books under the name of Richard Bachman, before that identity was linked to him, and the late Samuel Youd used to write under a half-dozen names, most famously as John Christopher (of Tripods and No Blade of Grass fame).
Sure, but the extent differs greatly. Imagine someone doing this to enter an additional genre unburdened by their well-known works - so not "quit the band, band reformed under new name" stuff. In how many genres can a very prolific and competent artist deliver quality works concurrently? 10? 20?
How many profitable genres are there even on Spotify? 100? 200? Where is the line between "revenue-generating label" and "relegated-to-obscurity-by-your-own-choice label"?
I believe an artist can believably perform decently in several genres, but not in hundreds of genres. Moreover, I can understand being cautious when entering a radically new main genre from your usual fare, but I think there are plenty of adjacent genres where there is no significant taint (eg, sword&sorcery / high fantasy / urban fantasy).
As such, to me, there's a crossover point/zone somewhere beyond "several" and before "hundreds" where you're no longer doing it for separating your output along clearly distinct categories where such separation is expected/needed/warranted, but faking an abundance of choice to increase profit.
To me, 650 pseudonyms falls into the latter category - as another comment put it: SEO'ing Spotify to maximise profits. I dislike that, because it has nothing to do with competing on artistic merit.
They don't need to collude to do this - if Spotify and the guy follow self-interest, you get this outcome.