Mood Machine

1. Spotify's Rise Was Fueled by Piracy and Ad-Tech, Not a Love for Music

Every time I hear the story of Spotify, it’s this dressed up version. And the record labels want to have that dressed up version, too, because they are storytellers more than anything else. If you start looking at Spotify as an advertising company rather than a culture company, a lot of things make more sense.

Origins in Swedish Piracy. Spotify emerged from the Swedish file-sharing scene of the early 2000s, a period marked by widespread digital piracy. The company's founders, Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon, were advertising industry men who saw an opportunity to capitalize on the music industry's weakened state due to piracy, rather than a genuine desire to "save" music.

Ad-Tech Roots. Spotify's initial business model was heavily reliant on advertising revenue, with music serving as a traffic source for its advertising product. The founders' expertise in search engine optimization, metadata, and selling ads played a crucial role in the company's early success. This focus on advertising, rather than a deep appreciation for music, shaped Spotify's approach to the industry.

Exploiting a Weakened Industry. The major labels, desperate for a solution to declining CD sales and rampant piracy, were initially reluctant to license their music to Spotify. However, the company's well-connected consultants, bottomless funding, and the industry's eagerness for a "solution" to piracy ultimately paved the way for Spotify's licensing deals. This opportunistic approach, rather than a genuine love for music, fueled Spotify's rise to dominance.

2. Spotify "Saved" the Music Industry for Major Labels, Not Musicians

This is all to say, the very concept of music streaming was designed for the benefit of extremely popular, major label music. But independent musicians have also been expected to conform to its one-size-fits-all model.

Designed for Major Labels. The very concept of music streaming, including Spotify's business model, was designed to benefit major labels. These labels secured equity, advances, free advertising, and influence over the platform's evolution in their initial deals with Spotify. This put independent musicians at a disadvantage from the start.

Indie Music's Historical Independence. Independent music has historically maintained its own economies, with its own retail outlets, promotional ecosystems, and dedicated fanbases willing to pay for records and downloads. However, independent musicians have been expected to conform to streaming's one-size-fits-all model, which flattens the playing field between pop stars and working artists.

Merlin's Role. Independent labels were largely brought into the streaming ecosystem through the Merlin Network, an organization that negotiated licensing deals on their behalf. While Merlin secured equity for its members, some independent labels struggled to muster the same excitement, as they were still feeling the hit from piracy and were looking for whatever life raft they could find. This highlights the complex and often contradictory position of independent music within the streaming landscape.

3. Lean-Back Listening and Mood-Based Playlists Devalued Music

The goal is to hook us as users, of course, but also to divert overall streamshare toward discounted offerings—works that have been licensed to Spotify at a lower price point, both through its ghost artists program and its algorithmic payola-like practices.

Strategic Shift to Passivity. Spotify realized that a significant portion of its users engaged in "lean-back listening," using music as a background experience rather than actively seeking out specific artists or albums. This led to a strategic shift towards optimizing for this less engaged user, making music consumption even more seamless.

"Music for Every Moment." Spotify rebranded itself with the slogan "Music for every moment," organizing playlists by context and mood. This transformed music into a utility, a commodity to be consumed passively rather than an art form to be appreciated actively. This shift devalued music and contributed to the expectation that it should be available for a low price.

The Rise of Functional Music. The focus on lean-back listening led to the rise of "functional music," such as sleep playlists and study beats. These playlists, often filled with generic tracks, further devalued music by reducing it to background noise. This created a situation where the most successful music was often the most inoffensive, designed to fill the air rather than engage the listener.

4. The Conquest of Chill: How Spotify Normalized Passivity and Sameness

You’re boxing people into a context and saying, we’re only going to let you know this much, so you want this, based on what we’re allowing you to know. If we gave people more context and awareness, then what they want would change.

Emotional Streambait. Organizing music by mood is a way to transform it into a new type of media product, selling users not just on moods, but on the promise of mood stabilization. This tactic lures users to double click and start streaming, creating "streambait" to keep the data-generating wheels turning.

Edison's "Mood Music." The idea of using music to manipulate emotions is not new. In 1921, Thomas Edison's company published "Mood Music," a guide that prescribed specific records for different moods. This demonstrates a long history of commercial interests attempting to control listeners' emotions through music.

The Ambiguity of "Chill." The term "chill" has become ubiquitous in streaming, but its meaning is often ambiguous. It can refer to easy listening, ambient soundscapes, or lighter takes on various genres. This ambiguity allows for the commodification of a wide range of music under a single, marketable label.

5. Ghost Artists and Perfect Fit Content Cheapened Music and Deceived Listeners

There were a lot of tears over this project internally at Spotify.

The Perfect Fit Content (PFC) Program. To lower royalty costs, Spotify developed a scheme to populate mood playlists with low-budget filler tracks, licensed under special, cheaper deal terms. These tracks were often made by anonymous session musicians, creating a "ghost artist" ecosystem.

Replacing Real Artists. The PFC program involved replacing tracks by established artists with these cheaper, generic alternatives. This not only reduced royalty payments but also devalued the work of legitimate musicians.

Lack of Transparency. Spotify went to great lengths to hide the PFC program, creating fake artist bios and downplaying its relationships with production music companies. This lack of transparency deceived listeners and further eroded trust in the platform.

6. Spotify's Data-Driven System Prioritizes Engagement Over Artistry

We call ourselves, on the curation team, the elected officials of the Spotify user base.

Data-Driven Curation. Spotify's playlist curation strategy is heavily influenced by data, such as plays, skips, saves, and demographic information. This creates a system where songs live or die based on their ability to generate streams, rather than their artistic merit.

The "Syndicate" Model. Spotify's playlist strategy is based on a broadcast model called the "Syndicate," which includes flagship playlists and smaller "feeder" playlists. This system tests new songs on smaller playlists and "graduates" them up based on data, creating a data-driven ladder climb.

The Illusion of Democracy. Spotify claims that its data-driven system is democratic, reflecting the will of the people. However, success is also influenced by contracts, connections, and streaming-friendly music. This creates a system where the biggest labels and most commercially viable artists are disproportionately rewarded.

7. Streaming as Surveillance: Spotify's Data Collection and its Ethical Implications

Our only competitor is silence.

Extensive Data Collection. Spotify collects an outrageous amount of data on its users, tracking every click, search, and listening habit. This data is used to power its recommendation algorithms and targeted advertisements.

Emotion Profiling and Pseudoscience. Spotify has explored emotion detection technology, aiming to analyze users' voices and facial expressions to better understand their moods. This raises serious ethical concerns about privacy, profiling, and the potential for manipulation.

Data Sharing with Third Parties. Spotify shares user data with data brokers and advertising partners, creating detailed profiles that can be used for various purposes, including job selection, background checks, and political micro-targeting. This raises concerns about the potential for discrimination and abuse.

8. The Illusion of Choice: How Spotify Controls the Listening Experience

We are not gatekeepers.

Shaping User Behavior. Spotify's goal is to shape user behavior on the platform, influencing listening habits to benefit the company's financial goals. This involves diverting streamshare towards discounted offerings and works licensed at a lower price point.

Algorithmic Homogenization. Spotify's algorithms can lead to algorithmic homogenization, discouraging adventurous listening and watering down musical relationships. This creates a self-fulfilling cycle where users are primarily exposed to music that is already popular or commercially viable.

The Devaluation of Music. By relegating music to a background accent for everyday activities, Spotify contributes to a cultural devaluation of music. This makes it easier to believe that music deserves little financial remuneration.

9. The New Music Labor Movement: Artists Organizing for Fair Pay and Transparency

It’s just so fucking soulless.

The United Musicians and Allied Workers (UMAW). UMAW is a grassroots organization fighting for fair pay and transparency in the music industry. The group has launched campaigns targeting Spotify and other streaming services, demanding better royalty rates and more equitable treatment for artists.

The Living Wage for Musicians Act. UMAW has worked with lawmakers to draft the Living Wage for Musicians Act, which aims to create a new royalty stream that would bypass existing contracts and go directly to artists. This legislation represents a significant step towards addressing the systemic issues plaguing the streaming economy.

The Importance of Collective Action. UMAW's efforts highlight the importance of collective action in the music industry. By organizing and advocating for their rights, musicians can challenge the power of streaming services and create a more sustainable future for themselves.

10. The Path Forward: Building a More Equitable and Sustainable Music Ecosystem

We never claimed to have the definite solution…. But we also tried to turn it around and say that strict enforcement of copyright law also does not solve the problem.

Beyond Technological Solutions. The problems facing musicians are not solely technological; they are problems of power and labor. Therefore, solutions must address the underlying economic and political structures that perpetuate inequality.

Supporting Independent Music. Buying music directly from artists and independent record labels is a crucial step towards creating a more sustainable music ecosystem. This supports artists and helps to preserve diverse musical traditions.

Public Funding and Alternative Models. Public funding for the arts, cooperatives, and unions are all essential components of a more equitable music landscape. These models prioritize community ownership, democratic governance, and artistic expression over corporate profits.

Last updated: March 27, 2025