Spotify. The Mask of Innovation or Deception

Since 2006, Spotify has become synonymous with music streaming and has revolutionized how we consume sound today. Undeniably, the platform has been successful in this regard, establishing itself as the first, primary, and global player. It has changed the paradigm of music playback. Since then, no one could afford (and still cannot) to not be on Spotify. It is not Spotify that seeks out artists; rather, artists strive to be on Spotify and accept the terms it offers.

Beyond modern technology, there is a significant flow of money. However, the direction of this flow may be surprising: instead of primarily going to creators, the majority of the funds go to Spotify’s owners.

Does the brilliance of technology and the promise of democratizing access to music conceal a less admirable reality? Liz Pelly answers this question in her article The Ghosts in the Machine: Spotify’s Plot Against Musicians, published in Harper’s Magazine (January 2025). Pelly exposes Spotify’s practices, demonstrating how the platform not only dehumanizes music but also endangers the future of artists by exploiting their work for corporate profit.

For years, I have felt similarly, which is why I find it easy to align with Liz Pelly’s criticism. I have written about this on multiple occasions, analyzing the global rise in paid Spotify subscriptions (2023), discussing fair revenue distribution in streaming (2024), and raising an open question: What Lies Behind Algorithmic Music Discovery? (2024).

For years, my main assertion has been that without artists who upload their music, Spotify is bankrupt. I provocatively argue that it is not artists who need Spotify, but Spotify that needs artists—without them, the platform would earn nothing or be left with AI-generated music (for free, of course!).

The “Ghost Artists” Phenomenon

Liz Pelly highlights the phenomenon of so-called ghost artists. Spotify systematically fills its popular playlists with music created by pseudo-artists who are actually linked to stock production companies such as Epidemic Sound and Firefly Entertainment. These productions are often anonymous, and their creators sign contracts that strip them of copyright and the ability to earn royalties on popular tracks. Is this price worth paying just to exist on the musical horizon when no one will ever know that the work is yours?

For years, my main assertion has been that without artists who upload their music, Spotify is bankrupt. I provocatively argue that it is not artists who need Spotify, but Spotify that needs artists—without them, the platform would earn nothing or be left with AI-generated music (for free, of course!).

What does Spotify gain from this? The platform drastically reduces royalty payments to real artists, allowing a significant portion of the money to remain with Spotify.

These tracks do not represent artistic creation; rather, they are commissioned fillers for popular playlists. One can imagine how artificial intelligence will further facilitate such actions by Spotify. We will lose the ability to distinguish real artistic work from AI-generated content. And once again, genuine artists will be deprived of royalties for their work.

Moreover, music from ghost artists is largely generated based on predefined templates. It is simple, lacks variety, and is deliberately devoid of artistic depth. It serves as mere background music, mass-produced sound. Spotify produces musical French fries! Anonymous tracks replace real artists’ work on popular playlists such as Lo-Fi Beats, Deep Focus, and Chill Instrumental. As a result, independent, real musicians are deliberately marginalized by Spotify, losing access to one of their key revenue sources—Spotify playlists, which generate millions of daily streams.

Clearly, under the guise of technological innovation and democratizing access to music, Spotify is systematically destroying the musical ecosystem. This is not just an ethical issue but a matter of the entire music industry’s future, as creativity and talent are being replaced by profit generation.

Music from ghost artists is largely generated based on predefined templates. It is simple, lacks variety, and is deliberately devoid of artistic depth. It serves as mere background music, mass-produced sound. Spotify produces musical French fries!

Algorithmic Manipulation and Loss of Authenticity

Spotify’s strategy is simple: promoting cheap, mass-produced music while marginalizing independent artists. The platform’s algorithms serve this goal. They do not support cultural or artistic diversity but instead push content that maximizes profits. Once again, money is the top priority!

Spotify’s algorithms are designed to personalize listener experiences. In practice, however, the same technology is used to manipulate user preferences in ways that benefit the company financially, rather than supporting artists or listeners.

Although Spotify claims its algorithms are neutral and based on user preferences, the reality is quite different. Liz Pelly exposes this narrative as false. In reality, the company actively modifies its recommendation systems to promote content with lower licensing costs. From a business perspective, I can understand Spotify’s drive to maximize profits and increase margins. However, it does so in an unethical and non-transparent manner. The company’s external communication does not align with what it actually does. Its recommendations serve to maximize the number of plays for tracks that either cost nothing or significantly less than what would be paid to real artists.

Spotify’s algorithms are designed to personalize listener experiences. In practice, however, the same technology is used to manipulate user preferences in ways that benefit the company financially, rather than supporting artists or listeners.

A prime example of this corporate approach is the Discovery Mode program, in which artists can agree to lower royalties in exchange for greater visibility in algorithmic recommendations. This resembles a pay-to-play system, where independent artists must pay (through lower rates) for a chance to reach listeners. Instead of supporting creators, this system exacerbates inequality—benefiting major labels and those who can afford to negotiate favorable deals.

Erosion of the Artist-Listener Relationship

Liz Pelly touches on a critical issue: the artist-listener and artist-fan relationship. Spotify has turned music into mere background noise. Listeners no longer care about the artist they are hearing. This not only dehumanizes art but also threatens the future of creators, who are reduced to mere tools in mass music production. Is this what we want? I certainly do not!

In the past, the artist-listener relationship was based on mutual understanding and respect: listeners could discover the stories behind songs, be inspired by artists’ biographies, and understand their emotional intentions. Today, such deep connections are disappearing, leading to the dehumanization of art. Artists are becoming mere content producers, and their works—mass-generated substitutes from stock music companies. Soon, artificial intelligence will take center stage in this quasi-musical concert.

The Future of Music in Question

Instead of fulfilling its promise of a musical meritocracy, Spotify engages in practices that undermine the integrity of the music industry. As a music lover and platform user, I cannot ignore how effectively Spotify transforms individual talent into anonymous playlists. This is a form of deception—both towards listeners, who are sold an illusion of authenticity, and towards artists, whose hard work is devalued.

The future of music demands change. Spotify must take greater responsibility for its actions and treat artists as co-creators rather than cheap resources. Listeners should be aware of the practices behind their favorite playlists and support real creators who deserve fair compensation for their art. Artists must redefine their priorities: fans first—Spotify second.

One alternative approach, gaining traction among artists, is temporary availability on Spotify—releasing new albums for a limited time, such as three months. After this period, dedicated fans who genuinely enjoy the music can be directed to platforms where they can fairly compensate artists for their work. Thus, we move from the digital Spotify system to a more tangible one, where we buy CDs, vinyl records, or digital files—formats that create a direct and unbreakable bond between the artist and the listener. This is real; it is not just furniture in the background.

The future of music demands change. Spotify must take greater responsibility for its actions and treat artists as co-creators rather than cheap resources. Listeners should be aware of the practices behind their favorite playlists and support real creators who deserve fair compensation for their art. Artists must redefine their priorities: fans first—Spotify second.

Spotify already has its place in the music world. But for that place to be honorable and ethical, the platform must confront criticism and reform its practices. Spotify must stop manipulating and fairly compensate artists for their work. Music should not be reduced to anonymous sounds manipulated by algorithms that dictate what we should listen to—killing the discovery of new talents and musical creativity.

This article is based on: Liz Pelly, “The Ghosts in the Machine: Spotify’s Plot Against Musicians,” Harper’s Magazine, January 2025: 25-32.