This was fascinating and also beautifully written. By the end, despite being reminded of my exhaustion with algorithms and the constant need to play into them or thwart them or whatever, I was reminded that an algorithm brought me here -- to binchtopia, to you, to your music and so to your writing. and this piece was beautiful and felt so real because it is! that line between organic and inorganic connection get so blurry online, but still, we're all here getting to meet each other in the end, I guess. one way or another.
Like you say, no one wants to be tricked by marketing. But there is a bit of a noble goal behind this. The primary hurdle of making art is making sure it finds the right people. Maybe a bot led me to finding au pays du cocaine, but no algorithm controls what happens in my lungs heart and stomach when i listen to that outro.
I feel like that's not true though(not to trash your experience lol). So much of how people come to love songs does have to do with the way you discover it. I know everyone has that song they heard at the club for the first time or that your friend played for you over the summer. Maybe this is different for other people but I love songs because of the emotions I attach to it as I listen to them. Somehow coming across music through like "non-human" or "anti-social" ways like through bots or algorithms just doesn't give the music the same punch.
What is different about you saying you enjoy music because of "emotions I attach to it as I listen to them" and this person saying they feel it in their body when they listen? The source? Is that actually degrading your experience? You're apologizing for shitting on someone's experience with a counterpoint but you haven't offered an encounter which is tangibly any different from this person. I'm not saying I disagree with you that the source matters, but what you offered certainly doesn't give any indication that it does. Because someone who is moved by music is going to go share it with a friend play it at a party etc. if you're two steps away from an algorithmic choice does that make the experience lesser?
I think my point was more that the source of the music is emotional. I am only really thinking of algorithmic music as essentially spotify shuffling recommended music after my playlist ends, of course. SO the idea is, when you listen to music you do form a kind of connection and that connection is defined by the conditions of where you found it or whats happening in your life. And the “where you found it” part of music - FOR ME - has just always proven to define my music tastes in a big way. Maybe better example: I worked abroad last year and was introduced to music from the country i was in by many new friends. so now I feel attached to this music because of the friends it reminds me of. I really enjoy music more when it comes from people and a more intentional connection. But, i am not superrrr sure i am understanding your point.
I want to add to this convo even though I initially didn’t just cause I thought what I said was enough. The point I was trying to make was that I don’t remember how I found Geese and I don’t care either, what matters to me is how their music moves me every time. If I was a different person who got algorithmically fed Geese and it didn’t resonate, then I would just move on. But I am me and this piece of art met me and resonated with me. Whether an algorithm delivered the art to me doesn’t matter. I needed it and it found me and that’s the end of it.
Music taking you back to a certain moment or person is one way of loving a song, but there are many.
My point is that you probably listen to lots of algorithmically determined music whether a friend introduced you to it or not, because your friend, or their friend or someone along the chain of recommendation will have encountered that music through an algorithm. Especially if that artist has listeners in the tens of thousands, which is still to say a small artist. The judgement that algorithmically fed music is lesser seems arbitrary to me. The more resonant thing is the music itself
Great essay! It’s a complex issue I’m sure for the artists themselves, for as long as art has made money the technology of the day has done its best to exploit that.
Also looked at their website yesterday after reading this and saw geese and Cameron winter listed but checked again today to show my friend and the entire narrative section has disappeared and I can’t find them listed anymore which is odd.
It's been a struggle to be an artist for generations. And artists have certainly been exploited for the same amount of time. The paths to discovery and fame and success have evolved over time-radio, print media, tv, blogs, online media, digital, streaming, social media, the methods expressed in this post-PR, marketing make use of all these tools and it's getting more and more sophisticated and somewhat transparent (I thought the Geese/Winter blowup was mostly fan-generated too). The struggle is real. But the ones who weather it, commit to their art, log the miles, play the shows, build an audience however they can in a way that creates and rewards true fans will build something that lasts....sometimes-even if you do all those things a sustainable career or ability to be financially viable isn't guaranteed, just like everything in life. But we all make our choices and have to give everything we have to what we choose to commit ourselves to. So do what you love is the lesson I've learned and do everything you can to make it work.
I do hope there is a pendulum swing where people develop new habits where they rely more on word of mouth, friends, live experiences, reading, writing, the more cumbersome methods of discovery that historically seemed to build deeper connection between art/artist and fans. Life isn't frictionless and our discoveries don't have to be either, and they arguably mean more when they aren't. Great essay
Your final point on what the value of a stream really struck me. I was reading Jaron Lanier’s You Are Not A Gadget today, where he talks about all the processes of reduction we must put ourselves through in order to engage with technological services. He describes how, to view a technological form of information as worth interacting with, we have to learn to view that information as valid, lessening the self to make computers and algorithms seem accurate. He uses the example of how, in order to value the concept of a Facebook “friend” you must necessarily reduce what you understand friendship to be. I think the same definitely applies to how we are forced to understand the incomprehensible value of even one single other listening to a song one has written. We have to learn to think it terms of streams to deem them valuable at all, reducing the innate humanity of what they (inaccurately) represent.
this is wild timing because i was just talking to a friend who works at a label today about how much we dislike chaotic good. jesse and andrew also founded mutual friends (a management/label venture) which has signed a lot of artists i admire including kevin. it seems to me that they just care about the money that can be made and not the art itself - even before they started chaotic good they’ve been on my radar for years and i’ve always gotten a bad vibe from them. perhaps that is just me distrusting men in the music industry but the way they do things are so greedy and unnatural and i could talk for hours about this. but i strongly agree with everything you’ve said and ive only just started working in the industry and i’m scared for what’s to come in the next few years
Of all of the dystopian, bot-world slop you write about, for some reason this piece impacted me the most. Pretty much the only thing I feel real autonomy over is my taste, and it is unsettling to know the extent of how much our naiveté to the internet is abused over and over again by corporations with skeevy, Gen Z-sounding names. I'm stuck in a loop thinking about how it is Gen Z-run bot armies influencing other Gen Z to invest in (most likely) Gen Z artists. Is our generation going to be forever known for a culture co-created with, and in-service of, bots??
I'm old. I remember feeling powerless as an indie artist against the music industry machine, how it all seemed like a game of social merits and coolness leverage skills that I just wasn't particularly built for. I played shows, toured in a van and sold stuff at a table and hoped the sheer attrition would pay off. It didn't. Then the internet came along and we were told it's right there for anyone to take. Just look at ____ or _____, they're totally self made internet sensations. And again, I couldn't make the game work, my feeble attempts just met mostly dead air. Some fans, some really devoted ones but mostly poor "numbers" and the creeping sensation that just like before, this was a game I wasn't very well built for. It doesn't surprise me that the anything goes myth of internet music success is really the same sort of transaction. It's really no different than it's always been. You have to play the game or get people to play on your behalf. You have to be willing to belly up for that and be relentlessly, unapologetically willing. A good deal of what's "popular" is simply manufactured social proof and repetition until we submit. That has been true since the beginning of the music industry. The tools, context and scope are different. The end result is the same.
I loved this! I'm fascinated by this topic because (bit tangential but relevant) being an artist, to me, is inherently at odds with being a content creator and yet now, artists are expected to do both. Two jobs. I wrote about this recently so I'm repeating a lot of the ideas but...art requires applause-less quiet for long stretches of time. Content demands repetition, consistency, constant output. Art is usually aiming for a kind of timelessness, even if its timely. Content is ephemeral (unless there is a Turner Classic Content in our future). It's difficult to get the tone of the content to match the tone of the art in a lot of ways because the language of promotion is separate from anything you're making. Chaotic Good is kind of genius for this reason as it skips the line on having to be a great content creator for the art to be seen. Even if it feels ethically questionable. So much of what people like today is dictated by what liking this thing says about them. I feel so uncomfortable with all of it!! Anyway, this is brilliant and this is real.
really great read. it's not quite the same, but reminded me of when Blackpink played Coachella for the first time in 2019—every single social media post about Coachella was totally saturated with people gushing about Blackpink. so i was like "oh we gotta get to this set early, it's gonna be mobbed." got there 10 minutes before the set started and it was not crowded whatsoever. the perception of social media hype IS something that can be manipulated, and everyone's more susceptible than they think, even me (famously un-bamboozlable) (just kidding)
Hi. I thought this was a really good read, and I'm fascinated by it and also worried and also object to one underlying thing within it. I believe (as a musician trying to navigate all of these things myself) that now, more than ever, it's really important to be steadfast in idealism about how we create and distribute our art. Wavering on these issues is too weak; you have to pick a side and embrace it. For me this has been an almost entire disengagement with social media. I refuse to even toy with the idea of making short form content for my band. It seems a disservice to the art; to yourself as an artist; so on and so forth. I think this whole Chaotic Good thing is really disgusting and them feigning it as the 'good' side of some war is funny; war is still war; and they are feeding directly into it. It's like Lockheed Martin saying "Yeah we make ammunition but only for the good guys".
Anyway. It's late here and I don't mean to come off as abrasive; I am interested in this subject deeply and appreciate the article. Would be keen to talk about it all at some point.
curious how you are promoting your music if you don't post on social media? or are you saying you DO use social media, but draw the line at "short form content"? if that's the case, are you being steadfast or dogmatic really? there's a difference between giving up your artistic autonomy for quick fame and utilizing marketing tactics so that your art can be heard. i think.
You should look up interviews John Lydon & Keith Levene did about Public Image Ltd — not to be glib but I’m surprised anyone would be surprised re “alternative” music since 70s at least
Incredible writing! And such a thought provoking topic, I’m not sure where my boundaries lie with it. Part of me is glad I’m presented with music I like because online there’s just so much general noise it can be hard to find, on the other hand, there’s something to be said for smaller artists and making sure music doesn’t get homogenised into whatever works on TikTok. Last year I did notice loads of TikTok’s/reels aimed at me were women basically saying “idk who geese is but all the men I meet who like them seem happy/cool/nice” I noted it at the time bc it felt like a really odd type of commentary to make a video on? Now I’ve read about geese using this agency it all clicked for me, of course those videos probably weren’t organic. I wonder if there’s any potential gaps that need to be filled in social media ad regulations around this ?
Super insight into how professionalised “organic, spontaneous” opinions actually are. Even as a professional music writer I used to catch myself thinking “wait, everyone else loved/hated this, am I going to be mocked for enjoying stupid bad music/missing the point of this amazing band” but then I realised it’s entirely possible that some agency is just “posting 100 times”. That there is no genuine zeitgeisty conclusion to be drawn by skimming off the 100 strongest opinions you see posted on social media
This was fascinating and also beautifully written. By the end, despite being reminded of my exhaustion with algorithms and the constant need to play into them or thwart them or whatever, I was reminded that an algorithm brought me here -- to binchtopia, to you, to your music and so to your writing. and this piece was beautiful and felt so real because it is! that line between organic and inorganic connection get so blurry online, but still, we're all here getting to meet each other in the end, I guess. one way or another.
Like you say, no one wants to be tricked by marketing. But there is a bit of a noble goal behind this. The primary hurdle of making art is making sure it finds the right people. Maybe a bot led me to finding au pays du cocaine, but no algorithm controls what happens in my lungs heart and stomach when i listen to that outro.
I feel like that's not true though(not to trash your experience lol). So much of how people come to love songs does have to do with the way you discover it. I know everyone has that song they heard at the club for the first time or that your friend played for you over the summer. Maybe this is different for other people but I love songs because of the emotions I attach to it as I listen to them. Somehow coming across music through like "non-human" or "anti-social" ways like through bots or algorithms just doesn't give the music the same punch.
What is different about you saying you enjoy music because of "emotions I attach to it as I listen to them" and this person saying they feel it in their body when they listen? The source? Is that actually degrading your experience? You're apologizing for shitting on someone's experience with a counterpoint but you haven't offered an encounter which is tangibly any different from this person. I'm not saying I disagree with you that the source matters, but what you offered certainly doesn't give any indication that it does. Because someone who is moved by music is going to go share it with a friend play it at a party etc. if you're two steps away from an algorithmic choice does that make the experience lesser?
I think my point was more that the source of the music is emotional. I am only really thinking of algorithmic music as essentially spotify shuffling recommended music after my playlist ends, of course. SO the idea is, when you listen to music you do form a kind of connection and that connection is defined by the conditions of where you found it or whats happening in your life. And the “where you found it” part of music - FOR ME - has just always proven to define my music tastes in a big way. Maybe better example: I worked abroad last year and was introduced to music from the country i was in by many new friends. so now I feel attached to this music because of the friends it reminds me of. I really enjoy music more when it comes from people and a more intentional connection. But, i am not superrrr sure i am understanding your point.
I want to add to this convo even though I initially didn’t just cause I thought what I said was enough. The point I was trying to make was that I don’t remember how I found Geese and I don’t care either, what matters to me is how their music moves me every time. If I was a different person who got algorithmically fed Geese and it didn’t resonate, then I would just move on. But I am me and this piece of art met me and resonated with me. Whether an algorithm delivered the art to me doesn’t matter. I needed it and it found me and that’s the end of it.
Music taking you back to a certain moment or person is one way of loving a song, but there are many.
My point is that you probably listen to lots of algorithmically determined music whether a friend introduced you to it or not, because your friend, or their friend or someone along the chain of recommendation will have encountered that music through an algorithm. Especially if that artist has listeners in the tens of thousands, which is still to say a small artist. The judgement that algorithmically fed music is lesser seems arbitrary to me. The more resonant thing is the music itself
Great essay! It’s a complex issue I’m sure for the artists themselves, for as long as art has made money the technology of the day has done its best to exploit that.
Also looked at their website yesterday after reading this and saw geese and Cameron winter listed but checked again today to show my friend and the entire narrative section has disappeared and I can’t find them listed anymore which is odd.
Omg this is crazy
It's been a struggle to be an artist for generations. And artists have certainly been exploited for the same amount of time. The paths to discovery and fame and success have evolved over time-radio, print media, tv, blogs, online media, digital, streaming, social media, the methods expressed in this post-PR, marketing make use of all these tools and it's getting more and more sophisticated and somewhat transparent (I thought the Geese/Winter blowup was mostly fan-generated too). The struggle is real. But the ones who weather it, commit to their art, log the miles, play the shows, build an audience however they can in a way that creates and rewards true fans will build something that lasts....sometimes-even if you do all those things a sustainable career or ability to be financially viable isn't guaranteed, just like everything in life. But we all make our choices and have to give everything we have to what we choose to commit ourselves to. So do what you love is the lesson I've learned and do everything you can to make it work.
I do hope there is a pendulum swing where people develop new habits where they rely more on word of mouth, friends, live experiences, reading, writing, the more cumbersome methods of discovery that historically seemed to build deeper connection between art/artist and fans. Life isn't frictionless and our discoveries don't have to be either, and they arguably mean more when they aren't. Great essay
Your final point on what the value of a stream really struck me. I was reading Jaron Lanier’s You Are Not A Gadget today, where he talks about all the processes of reduction we must put ourselves through in order to engage with technological services. He describes how, to view a technological form of information as worth interacting with, we have to learn to view that information as valid, lessening the self to make computers and algorithms seem accurate. He uses the example of how, in order to value the concept of a Facebook “friend” you must necessarily reduce what you understand friendship to be. I think the same definitely applies to how we are forced to understand the incomprehensible value of even one single other listening to a song one has written. We have to learn to think it terms of streams to deem them valuable at all, reducing the innate humanity of what they (inaccurately) represent.
this is wild timing because i was just talking to a friend who works at a label today about how much we dislike chaotic good. jesse and andrew also founded mutual friends (a management/label venture) which has signed a lot of artists i admire including kevin. it seems to me that they just care about the money that can be made and not the art itself - even before they started chaotic good they’ve been on my radar for years and i’ve always gotten a bad vibe from them. perhaps that is just me distrusting men in the music industry but the way they do things are so greedy and unnatural and i could talk for hours about this. but i strongly agree with everything you’ve said and ive only just started working in the industry and i’m scared for what’s to come in the next few years
Of all of the dystopian, bot-world slop you write about, for some reason this piece impacted me the most. Pretty much the only thing I feel real autonomy over is my taste, and it is unsettling to know the extent of how much our naiveté to the internet is abused over and over again by corporations with skeevy, Gen Z-sounding names. I'm stuck in a loop thinking about how it is Gen Z-run bot armies influencing other Gen Z to invest in (most likely) Gen Z artists. Is our generation going to be forever known for a culture co-created with, and in-service of, bots??
I'm old. I remember feeling powerless as an indie artist against the music industry machine, how it all seemed like a game of social merits and coolness leverage skills that I just wasn't particularly built for. I played shows, toured in a van and sold stuff at a table and hoped the sheer attrition would pay off. It didn't. Then the internet came along and we were told it's right there for anyone to take. Just look at ____ or _____, they're totally self made internet sensations. And again, I couldn't make the game work, my feeble attempts just met mostly dead air. Some fans, some really devoted ones but mostly poor "numbers" and the creeping sensation that just like before, this was a game I wasn't very well built for. It doesn't surprise me that the anything goes myth of internet music success is really the same sort of transaction. It's really no different than it's always been. You have to play the game or get people to play on your behalf. You have to be willing to belly up for that and be relentlessly, unapologetically willing. A good deal of what's "popular" is simply manufactured social proof and repetition until we submit. That has been true since the beginning of the music industry. The tools, context and scope are different. The end result is the same.
I loved this! I'm fascinated by this topic because (bit tangential but relevant) being an artist, to me, is inherently at odds with being a content creator and yet now, artists are expected to do both. Two jobs. I wrote about this recently so I'm repeating a lot of the ideas but...art requires applause-less quiet for long stretches of time. Content demands repetition, consistency, constant output. Art is usually aiming for a kind of timelessness, even if its timely. Content is ephemeral (unless there is a Turner Classic Content in our future). It's difficult to get the tone of the content to match the tone of the art in a lot of ways because the language of promotion is separate from anything you're making. Chaotic Good is kind of genius for this reason as it skips the line on having to be a great content creator for the art to be seen. Even if it feels ethically questionable. So much of what people like today is dictated by what liking this thing says about them. I feel so uncomfortable with all of it!! Anyway, this is brilliant and this is real.
Right on, again, Lisa!
really great read. it's not quite the same, but reminded me of when Blackpink played Coachella for the first time in 2019—every single social media post about Coachella was totally saturated with people gushing about Blackpink. so i was like "oh we gotta get to this set early, it's gonna be mobbed." got there 10 minutes before the set started and it was not crowded whatsoever. the perception of social media hype IS something that can be manipulated, and everyone's more susceptible than they think, even me (famously un-bamboozlable) (just kidding)
this is the best essay ive read all year!!! You meshed journalistic research and personal reflections so beautifully. thank you for sharing
Hi. I thought this was a really good read, and I'm fascinated by it and also worried and also object to one underlying thing within it. I believe (as a musician trying to navigate all of these things myself) that now, more than ever, it's really important to be steadfast in idealism about how we create and distribute our art. Wavering on these issues is too weak; you have to pick a side and embrace it. For me this has been an almost entire disengagement with social media. I refuse to even toy with the idea of making short form content for my band. It seems a disservice to the art; to yourself as an artist; so on and so forth. I think this whole Chaotic Good thing is really disgusting and them feigning it as the 'good' side of some war is funny; war is still war; and they are feeding directly into it. It's like Lockheed Martin saying "Yeah we make ammunition but only for the good guys".
Anyway. It's late here and I don't mean to come off as abrasive; I am interested in this subject deeply and appreciate the article. Would be keen to talk about it all at some point.
curious how you are promoting your music if you don't post on social media? or are you saying you DO use social media, but draw the line at "short form content"? if that's the case, are you being steadfast or dogmatic really? there's a difference between giving up your artistic autonomy for quick fame and utilizing marketing tactics so that your art can be heard. i think.
Hi! I am the interviewer from Billboard. Thanks Eliza for your thoughtful engagement with the interview. Forgive the self-plug, but if would like to check out the convo, it's part of my music biz podcast Billboard On the Record: https://linktr.ee/billboardontherecord?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAadnHuXfEEFk1XZHK08yB2Dszh9oXNUyPwbfBfIQkbRkY380ZYJlsrCOXhxYWg_aem_is352278YwHEO6hUFEi4_A
God dammit i fell for the oklou tiny desk ugc campaign
You should look up interviews John Lydon & Keith Levene did about Public Image Ltd — not to be glib but I’m surprised anyone would be surprised re “alternative” music since 70s at least
Incredible writing! And such a thought provoking topic, I’m not sure where my boundaries lie with it. Part of me is glad I’m presented with music I like because online there’s just so much general noise it can be hard to find, on the other hand, there’s something to be said for smaller artists and making sure music doesn’t get homogenised into whatever works on TikTok. Last year I did notice loads of TikTok’s/reels aimed at me were women basically saying “idk who geese is but all the men I meet who like them seem happy/cool/nice” I noted it at the time bc it felt like a really odd type of commentary to make a video on? Now I’ve read about geese using this agency it all clicked for me, of course those videos probably weren’t organic. I wonder if there’s any potential gaps that need to be filled in social media ad regulations around this ?
Super insight into how professionalised “organic, spontaneous” opinions actually are. Even as a professional music writer I used to catch myself thinking “wait, everyone else loved/hated this, am I going to be mocked for enjoying stupid bad music/missing the point of this amazing band” but then I realised it’s entirely possible that some agency is just “posting 100 times”. That there is no genuine zeitgeisty conclusion to be drawn by skimming off the 100 strongest opinions you see posted on social media