[doctorpangloss]

Yeah. But it is meritocratic? You have to know somebody to get a review in a thing people actually read. My POV is that artists choose the collaborative filtering system because “knowing someone” suits them poorly, and the average musician knows no one, so the average musician is poorly served by nearly all reviewers in blogs.

[Vegenoid]

I think that “meritocracy” is not such a useful concept in the realm of art, where there are not good objective measures of what makes something have “meritocracy”.

I think you’re on to something with “consolidation/centralization is bad”, and that’s what this article is about: the centralization of music discovery into Spotify resulting in a situation where they choose what people get to discover, in an unnatural way. Unless I’m misunderstanding, the article is about Spotify putting their thumb on the collaborative filtering scales, to the benefit of themselves and their business partners.

[doctorpangloss]

This article is saying that a bunch of nobodies found an audience via collaborative filtering on Spotify. “Organically.” But then, to save money, and because these nobodies have no power, Spotify authored similar music. On its route to organic charts, real musicians who were nonetheless nobodies were displaced by these fake ones.

Spotify put its thumb on the scales by changing the contents of named playlists, which are more like radio stations. They are Spotify creations and curations, and they are choosing to curate more explicitly.

The alternative is that the New Yorker authors a playlist of its daily new tracks you should listen to. 100% of those tracks that belong to nobodies / bonafide new artists, those artists would have to know someone at the New Yorker to appear on such a playlist. In radio, this took the form of pay to play.