Accountability in Music • Page 199

It's a socially irresponsible business, a business that markets social causes with one hand, distracting observers from how it acts with the other hand.

And "muting" or blocking R. Kelly or artists like him is just what he and his agents would want people who would criticize his behavior to do, because it reduces the liklihood that those people will do more than privately criticize him among like-minded people. It's not at all like deplatforming or removing him from preferential treatment, it actively reinforces the platform he already has, and makes it easier for artists with similar issues to follow in kind.

It's also not like the only other option is to say "no ethical consumption under capitalism," it ought to be possible for pressure to be put on businesses to not give him the treatment he (and they) otherwise would think he's earned, but it won't come without a lot of reaction from his fans and those businesses that I think most of us don't want to hear.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this completely.

I personally just don't want certain artists showing up when I use playlists. I was playing a random metalcore playlist on Spotify last week and a song came on that I thought sounded good... when I looked at my phone it turned out to be As I Lay Dying. I personally don't want to listen to their music, but there wasn't a block option then so I just skipped the song and carried on with what I was doing. I honestly prefer empowering users to block artists over deplatforming movements for Spotify. I'd rather people discuss who other people should block and why (and share that with other music lovers!) than have Spotify just remove artists silently (not that these are the only two options).

 

If you as an individual don't want to listen to a particular artist, I have no problem with that. In itself, by itself, as an individual choice it doesn't have any social impact at all. It's when masses of people choose to do that instead of taking other action that it can have a negative but indirect social impact.

If instead of blocking certain artists you were to use the plays of (and your choice each time to skip) artists like AILD who you might have ethical problems with as motivation to do something about them, and if it troubled you too much to do so to instead put together your own playlist with MP3s or curated playlists that didn't include them, you'd have to make more effort but you'd maybe be making more of a social difference with little or no impact on your musical experience with streaming services.

It's hard to not see that Spotify is adding this "feature" in the wake of their "decision" and immediate reversal to take artists like R. Kelly, XXX, etc out of special playlist promotion. This is like an inverse of what they supposedly were going to do with artists like that who clearly were associated with physically / sexually abusive behavior. This at least makes it easier for them to continue marketing similar artists as they have, and it may make it easier for them to market even more edgy playlists that will give similar artists more promotion.

It's also worth noting that it's an odd thing to think music lovers should focus a lot of attention on who they'd want to not listen to -- I'd think that love is about engaging as much with people (or music) who one disagrees with or even has an antipathy towards as it is engaging with people or music one feels an affinity towards. Spotify offering users who might be inclined to take action like "Mute R Kelly" the option instead to easily help them -- literally -- choosing to block may help them just choose to ignore what promotion they're giving artists like R. Kelly. Spotify may be giving that mass of listeners a choice to not have to care so much, or only to care enough to take some action so they no longer need pay attention to those problematic artists.

Yes, and choose socially responsible artists who rarely if ever call out irresponsible artists and businesses they are assocated with! That all has an odd, dysfunctional, codependent, addictive, opioid quality to it.

Oh, and if anyone is thinking of ripping me off in the next "Trainspotting" sequel I'm copyrighting every word I am posting here.

 

@Martina What would you like Spotify to do?

 

I think it's far more complicated than either of the solutions Spotify has come up with. But I have to argue against the point that using an ignore feature is a choice to not care as much. I can still keep up with problems in this scene and not have to worry about accidentally giving a shitty band streaming revenue if I let my artist radio go or whatever. It's what I've been consciously trying to do for years now, and the feature just makes it easier.

 

Meek and 2 Chainz should know better sigh

 

Man

 

Justin fucking Bieber is in Chris Brown's corner now? Fuck that guy.

 

Saw this as well
It’s so messed up and triggering involving threats so don’t read if you cant!

 

Burn the whole fucking industry down

 

I can only say give users greater control over what they want to listen to and more transparent policies about algorithms and corporate social responsibility, to what extent they want to claim they have any.

I know less about their algorithms than I thought I did, I just tried to confirm if skipping a song in a Spotify-curated playlist makes it less likely to hear that song again and it appears it may not make that less likely. Skips are tracked carefully by Spotify, however. I haven't found any references to what difference it makes on future plays for the user who skips a song, so if someone knows and can enlighten me (preferably with a link or two) I'd appreciate it.

I think that giving users the option to skip songs and make that skip "sticky" so that that song isn't heard again (maybe tap a different option than simply skip) would be a way to give users the kind of control some want in not hearing particular songs, if not particular artists. There could also be an option in settings to remove the block from particular songs, or unblock a list of songs from particular artist, if the user made a mistake or changed their mind. But that's not what Spotify has offered, it seems, they're offering a global block for all songs by a particular artist, probably in part because of the #MuteRKelly campaign (Spotify will soon let you mute and block artists).

I also think it might be better to block individual songs as I think there are more people who grow tired of a hit song played in heavy rotation but don't want to block the artist completely, while people who more want to block the artist entirely would find that if they can permanently block a handful of popular songs by a particular artist they've effectively blocked their artist from appearing in their playlist.

Sounds like Kayla would be using Spotify and a block artist feature in a way that didn't affect how she personally was engaged in changing the music scene, but I think everyone would agree she's exceptional, most people don't follow details on artists in trouble or who are accused of abuse, etc anywhere near as close as she does. It's the majority of users who might use a block as a way to simply ignore an artist that I was more concerned about, especially if this is marketed or reported as a socially responsible thing to do, like Spotify is doing something significant while continuing to give special attention to R. Kelly, etc.

For me, as close as I follow these stories it's difficult for me to know who all I'd want to block, if I wanted to do that. Public lists similar to "shitty media men" Google spreadsheets are usually snapshots of someone's point of view that aren't added to after a short period of interest on the part of people who were involved in setting them up. I think most people sympathetic to these issues don't have much better than that plus infrequently skimming a thread like this or a subreddit.

To give one example of an artist who it could be helpful to know if they start showing up in Spotify playlists, look at an artist most people reading this would not want to hear from again -- Front Porch Step. He's certainly not gone, he's still releasing songs though I don't personally know of any that have shown up in any Spotify playlists since 2015. I think if one were to show up in a favorited pop punk / weepy acoustic dudebro playlist I'd want to know so I could take action, call him out on his Facebook page, whatever (I'd rather support protests targeting venues, promoters, and booking agents, but that seems unlikely).

FPS a good example of a really troubling artist who we might wish would go away but hasn't and probably won't go completely away, an artist for whom I'd really want to take the most appropriate action to minimize exposure and indirect support while keeping informed and getting engaged when (not if) he tries to grow his base.

Someone like Kayla may have another way to follow news on FPS or -- for example -- read tweets from Autumn Lavis and know that way if FPS is trying to release a new song or get more Spotify plays, but (1) I don't follow FPS or Autumn's social media close at all, like most people, I'm sure, so that's not going to be a consistent source of information for me and (2) it's really best that I not expect people who have been taken advantage of to indefinatly use their social media to keep us updated on a past abuser, someone whose memory may only traumatize them more if they feel they have to write about them indefinately.

If I don't block FPS from my pop punk playlist and I don't hear any plays because he's just not in the playlist, that's not going to be taken as a preference that I want to hear FPS. If I haven't blocked him but instead some future tearful ballad comes up I'll want to skip the song, tell Spotify (if I could) to block that song permanently or I'll go back to bittorrent, but I still wouldn't want to block the very small chance I might hear another song from him in the future. I think it's better for me and the vast majority of others who care about this stuff to know if artists like FPS are trying to expand their fanbase and use that as an opportunity to do more to educate others, while exercising if possible an option to not listen to that song again.

 

This is really fucking stupid.

 

How often should someone who doesn't want to be reminded about the sick shit JL did to people be forced to see or hear BN?

I don't not want to hear a new BN song. I want to not hear any BN songs. But hey, guess what? I don't listen to BN and I still found out about that leaked demo from last month and I still want to make sure that people know he's a shit stain. Its almost like forcing people to relive stuff that makes them super uncomfortable isn't the only way to stay informed.

 

Like FPS could get dropped from his label and have his entire fanbase turn on him and he would still show up on spotify because it literally costs $20 to have music on the service. If spotify isn't gonna take a hardline against abusers( they aren't) giving people the option of not supporting him ever is the next best thing.

 

remember that time milo yiannopoulos got banned on multiple platforms and now he's broke and no one cares about him anymore?

 

Yeah I just wanna go for a jog and discover some new music without having to get exposed to upsetting/triggering content I am not prepared for.

 

I don't want this. I often skip songs I love because I am not in the mood to hear them at the moment. I want more control over my listening experience (i.e. a feature like "block artist" or "block song") instead of a hidden algorithm that I have to train.

 

That's fine, you can have a feature to block an artist completely, as well as everyone else who might want to say they want to do that. The issue isn't that any one or any number of individuals who would want to block an artist is going to be doing something socially irresponsible. One of my original points was that Spotify offering that particular feature as something apparently new and coming along at the same time of the recent Surviving R Kelly series and awareness campaign is maybe going to get a large number of people -- for example -- Mute R Kelly and less motivated to take further action beyond that. There's probably going to be a difference between how this feature is used and affects motivated, intellegent, activist-minded users and a larger mass of "Mute Problematic Artist X" users who may find that if they can just mute the artist they might not feel the need to be as activist or engaged.

You can agree or disagree with that take on a block artist feature's impact, either way I'm not saying that you or anyone shouldn't be able to block an artist. I did though try to give examples of how it would be better to block individual songs, and as you said, you'd want a feature like that -- and the ability to unblock them, as I described as well. I suggested one way might be something like a "sticky skip" but that's not the only way and maybe for you not the best way. I did find, by the way, a way to delete songs from public playlists that involves copying the public list to a private list that one can edit (Solved: How to delete songs from a playlist - The Spotify Community) but that's not a global block on particular songs or artists.

The Verge article mentioned earlier ties this in with the recent concerns about R. Kelly (Spotify will soon let you mute and block artists):

• "Recently, Spotify has come under increased pressure to offer a block feature after a documentary surfaced details of 25 years of accusations of sexual violence and abuse by singer R. Kelly. A #MuteRKelly protest has helped bring attention to the accusations, and RCA Records has reportedly dropped R. Kelly from its label. Spotify previously removed R. Kelly from its own curated playlists, but this did very little as the singers music was still available to stream on its service.
• Spotify is clearly now leaving it up to users of its service to mute individual artists instead. We’ve reached out to Spotify to see when this block feature will be available more broadly, and we’ll update you accordingly."

It appears Spotify may hope some Mute R. Kelly supporters will be appeased with this. It won't make the movement go away -- it's about a lot more than Spotify -- but it helps Spotify look like they are doing something about listener concerns about R Kelly, XXXtentacion, etc being promoted at all when all they are doing is better accomdating listener preferences.

That ought to be something that concerns more people, which is why I tried to make the points I made above. It's unusual for technology news sites to make reference to feminist / harassment issues like this and I'm glad that they are helping bring attention to this. I wish more people were concerned about how algorithms and features like these impacts society and not so much about how it affects their personal preferences for music playlists.

As far as "hidden algorithms" go though, they are already affecting what you listen to and still will be there. These features would likely change some of how those algorithms works. I'd want it to be as transparent, customizable, easy to use -- and socially reponsible -- as possible. Those can be conflicting goals though and I'd be most concerned that the social responsibility part wouldn't be high of Spotify's list of concerns, and maybe more hyped and misreported than appropriately addressed. It's worth thinking about, there's probably more than one way to do a better job of addressing all those concerns.

 

To Whom It May Concern:

It's with a heavy heart that we announce that Jonny Craig has been removed from the band Slaves.

We all have struggles in our daily life, but for some, those struggles are personally and physically dangerous. It is no secret that Jonny has battled with addiction in his personal life, sometimes those battles are won, and most recently lost. It's also unfair for a band to rely on someone who just can't rely on themselves. Addiction is a disease, and we hope Jonny gets the help that he needs. Unfortunately, Jonny chose his addiction over the band and left them high & dry while checking in for their international flight while he boarded a plane back home.

As a band we've worked too hard to stop now. Fans that have been touched by our music, everyone that has enjoyed our songs, to anyone that has met us as a band we will continue on with Slaves.

Unfortunately, due to this, we are forced to cancel our Bristol, UK show tonight. Never fear, thankfully, our good friend Matt McAndrew (who you’d recognize from The Voice) will be filling in on all remaining England & European dates to help us in this trying time. We also have some exciting news on the future of Slaves (we think you will be excited) coming soon.

To everyone, thank you for your continued support.
-Slaves

 

Can you imagine if Kevin Devine wrote something like that defending JL?

Popular music just depresses the shit out of me sometimes...

 

Fuck Jonny Craig and anybody who works with him tbh. He is scum and we all knew it over ten years ago; these guys knew who he was when they made this band with him. They all suck.

 

A band of white people named Slaves shouldn't have existed in the first place. Fuck em.

 

Had no idea that trash band was still even operating. Anyone still associating with Jonny Craig deserves nothing but scorn.

 

And also fuck the band of the same name from the UK, while we're on the subject.

 

While I agree that it’s depressing and disappointing, there are nuances to this situation regarding the black community that I mentioned above (or maybe a page back). I don’t think KD/JL is a fair one-to-one comparison.

Edited to add: when white men defend each other like that, it’s just a disgusting attempt at saving their boys club and protecting their own. When black men do it, they think they are defending against racist and oppressive attacks, that are well documented throughout history. There’s a difference.