Johan Röhr is Swedish, as is Spotify, and his success getting onto so many Spotify playlists is largely Spotify generated, not user generated, playlists. Spotify then uses Röhr's pseudonyms as data and marketing citing HUNDREDS of successful indie artists on the service who are, actually, one. …
Johan Röhr is Swedish, as is Spotify, and his success getting onto so many Spotify playlists is largely Spotify generated, not user generated, playlists. Spotify then uses Röhr's pseudonyms as data and marketing citing HUNDREDS of successful indie artists on the service who are, actually, one. Röhr becomes a millionaire, Spotify gets to cut its compensation of other working artists worldwide:
Is this not fraud? Like I wouldn't know the law, Swedish or otherwise, but inventing Potemkin users to funnel pooled revenues back to the company rather than distributing them as royalties seems like a fairly common sense notion of fraud. If anything it should prove that the algorithm is not just cranking decisions based on total uploads and users' attention to them but specifically selecting winners.
Furthermore is Johan Röhr a real person? Does he personally know Daniel Eks?
This is possible but in my opinion it’s more likely a coincidence. There are ways to game the algorithm to maximize plays and given he has 600+ pseudonyms he probably just figured it out through trial and error. I’m sure a tiny handful of those 600 are generating all of the revenue while he rest nothing. Plus there are probably other elements of his business model he utilizes to get onto playlists etc…. There are tons of people doing this on YouTube too.
Streaming exists *because* of fraudulent deal making behind closed doors (with the major record labels). While I have no reason to believe or disbelieve your hypothesis, the whole ground of streaming is squishy. There are no good guys here.
I agree with the points you make. There are maniacally greedy and avaricious and crafty exploitative people out there. We can’t wish them away. There are altruistic people out there too. One has to navigate the best one can through minefields of deceit and chicanery. Some prevail and some subsume into the abyss of this chicanery. I believe that the artists who have survived being preyed upon have become “street-smart” and without losing their creative motivation have sought out sound advice and good solutions and have eked out their careers anyway.
Since life can be treacherous, one must learn its odious ways and still remain altruistic and temperate. That is a formidable test of greatness.
I would hesitate to call that greatness, though I understand your meaning. While learning to be street-smart, it would be great if we could also work on making life (and the music industry) LESS treacherous.
Okay, so, here's the other thing about this:
Johan Röhr is Swedish, as is Spotify, and his success getting onto so many Spotify playlists is largely Spotify generated, not user generated, playlists. Spotify then uses Röhr's pseudonyms as data and marketing citing HUNDREDS of successful indie artists on the service who are, actually, one. Röhr becomes a millionaire, Spotify gets to cut its compensation of other working artists worldwide:
Is this not fraud? Like I wouldn't know the law, Swedish or otherwise, but inventing Potemkin users to funnel pooled revenues back to the company rather than distributing them as royalties seems like a fairly common sense notion of fraud. If anything it should prove that the algorithm is not just cranking decisions based on total uploads and users' attention to them but specifically selecting winners.
Furthermore is Johan Röhr a real person? Does he personally know Daniel Eks?
Not only is this a fairly common sense notion of fraud... It actually looks like a money laundering scheme.
It's already established that Swedish criminal networks are using Spotify to launder money:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/05/swedish-criminal-gangs-using-fake-spotify-streams-to-launder-money
>> Potemkin users
My next “band name” 🤣
This is possible but in my opinion it’s more likely a coincidence. There are ways to game the algorithm to maximize plays and given he has 600+ pseudonyms he probably just figured it out through trial and error. I’m sure a tiny handful of those 600 are generating all of the revenue while he rest nothing. Plus there are probably other elements of his business model he utilizes to get onto playlists etc…. There are tons of people doing this on YouTube too.
Streaming exists *because* of fraudulent deal making behind closed doors (with the major record labels). While I have no reason to believe or disbelieve your hypothesis, the whole ground of streaming is squishy. There are no good guys here.
soundcloud (formerly myspace) is where the real music, (and its community) lives
I agree with the points you make. There are maniacally greedy and avaricious and crafty exploitative people out there. We can’t wish them away. There are altruistic people out there too. One has to navigate the best one can through minefields of deceit and chicanery. Some prevail and some subsume into the abyss of this chicanery. I believe that the artists who have survived being preyed upon have become “street-smart” and without losing their creative motivation have sought out sound advice and good solutions and have eked out their careers anyway.
Since life can be treacherous, one must learn its odious ways and still remain altruistic and temperate. That is a formidable test of greatness.
I would hesitate to call that greatness, though I understand your meaning. While learning to be street-smart, it would be great if we could also work on making life (and the music industry) LESS treacherous.