---
title: "Liz Pelly"
status: "Auto-transcribed by reduct.video with minor edits by James Parker"
---

James Parker (00:00:01) - Welcome Liz! Perhaps you could begin by telling us a bit about who you are and what you do?  

Liz Pelly (00:00:23) - Sure. My name is Liz Pelly. Thank you for having me in this program. I am a freelance writer. Um, I write mostly about music and I'm involved in other music and media projects currently and have been involved in different music and media projects over the years. But right now, most of my time is spent writing, um, on a freelance basis doing some teaching, um, more recently working on a newsletter project, um, as a lot of other writers have been recently as well. Um, for the past four or five years, I have been writing about music streaming and the music industry, um, and various issues related to how music streaming impacts music communities, um, uh, different yeah. From different angles.  

James Parker (00:01:23) - Um, great. And how did you end up working in like w w what was it that drew you to music streaming? I mean, am I right in saying that music streaming has been the, kind of the focus of your work or is that just the way it appears from people who read Baffler and so on? 

Liz Pelly (00:01:42) - Yeah. Yeah. The focus of my writing stuff for the past few years has been mostly music streaming. Um, so I've been writing about music since I was a teenager, um, for the local alt weekly in the area where I grew up, um, and just did college radio, random music blog have been involved in various, um, independent music media projects over the years, in addition to freelancing and working, um, on staff, different place bases, and also have been involved in various community art spaces and, um, organizing venues and booking and, um, putting on shows and events and stuff like that. Um, and I, yeah, and I play music also. Um, and yeah, I think he was about, it was in around 2016. I was basically just, you know, reflecting on some things I wanted to write about. Um, it was when I was deeply involved in this arts collective that was taking a lot of my time and balancing that with, um, freelancing and it, you know, just occurred to me that, would it be interesting to do an article about a major label influence on Spotify? 

Liz Pelly (00:03:03) - I think because of being involved in, you know, independent music communities, um, uh, both as a writer and also a participant, um, you know, a lot of the work of being involved in what has historically been called an independent music community, um, is inherently tied to us sort of interrogating the centers of power in music in one way or another, um, or thinking about what it's independent from, or like, you know, alternate, what is it an alternative to? Um, and sometimes, you know, the, those are complicated questions. Sometimes what presents itself as independent and alternative music has not been very much of an independent outlet or alternative at all. Um, anyway, so in 2016, I was kind of thinking about, you know, streaming services as these like new centers of power in the music industry. And you would hear that, uh, what ended up on Spotify playlist was like really influenced by major record labels. 

Liz Pelly (00:04:05) - Um, kind of like major labels had these back doors and to Spotify playlist, I wasn't even really a big Spotify user. I just thought it was interesting. Um, so I was clicking around Spotify one day, looking at like playlists and decided to reach out to some people I knew who, um, either worked in the music industry or like knew people who worked in the music industry and through some, uh, emailing ended up being able to do an interview with someone who worked at a major label anonymously, who basically like explained everything to me about the relationship between major labels and Spotify. I mean, you know, at the time it felt like everything. Now, I know it was only a pretty small, um, uh, perspective, you know, experience, but it was this person's experience and it was very illuminating at the time. So I wrote this article, um,

Liz Pelly (00:04:58) - About major label influence on Spotify playlists. And, uh, you know, it was basically like wrote that story. And then after writing that story had ideas for like five more story ideas. And, uh, the Baffler at some point reached out about doing an article about Spotify. Um, and I sent them these like five story ideas that I had as followups, the previous one I had done. And they said, this is all interesting. What if you wrote an article that incorporated all of this? So, um, then I ended up taking these, like, you know, I don't know if it was like four or five story ideas and kind of combining them and writing this piece, the problem with music, which was the first piece I wrote for the Baffler and yeah, it was just, you know, each piece reveals that they were kind of like more stories to tell and more angles to come at the issue from. Um, and that led to doing a column, which is, uh, been, um, recurring based more like a series, um, uh, that I've been working on since then, that was in 2018. So there's been like five or six installments since does that. I don't know if that answers your question basically. Um, 

James Parker (00:06:21) - I mean, I kind of want to go back to the beginning and ask what you ask you to say a little bit about what you found about the relationship between Spotify and independent, uh, labels, um, labels you mean? Sorry. Yeah. Uh, major labels. Yeah. 

Liz Pelly (00:06:35) - Yeah. Um, yeah, so that a lot of what was covered in that piece, I think is like kind of more common information now, which is that, you know, or at the time, you know, there were already a lot of people who worked in the music industry who knew all of these things. Um, and, uh, that, you know, in order for streaming services to launch, um, they had to have all of the major label material licensed in order to get those licenses from the major labels, they had to sign pretty secretive contracts that involves all sorts of promotional agreements. Um, which accounts for a lot of the reason why major label material is so heavily promoted and like the playlist and the banner ads, like they all have free advertising space essentially. Um, and those contracts are very secretive, so it's not, you know, efficiently known what the terms are. Um, and to date that is something that, you know, artists and artists, advocates, um, uh, you know, are always demanding more transparency on, but that probably won't ever happen. Um, and yeah, that was, uh, you know, it remains, I think, an important part of piece of the conversation and the relationship between the major labels and the streaming services. 

Joel Stern (00:08:02) - I was really amazed in, um, the, um, social, uh, streaming socialism of the recent, um, article from a couple of months ago, how you're talking about the origins of Spotify, kind of, um, drawing music from the personal collections of it, of its employees that had been, you know, downloaded from pirate Bay and other file sharing services at, at the outset. So it kind of just, you know, made me think of them as sort of oligarchs, you know, in the, in the way that at this sort of moment of transition structural kind of change, you know, you know, the, the people who can sort of steal and then, you know, in some ways mobilize that property very quickly into, into a new kind of legitimate structure that they sort of have a, have a massive headstart. Um, I mean, w you know, the, could you say anything more about the sort of origins of Spotify as a sort of illegitimate kind of platform that's, uh, that somehow becomes legitimate at a, at a certain sort of moment for particular reasons? 

Liz Pelly (00:09:11) - Yeah, so that particular anecdote, um, was something I learned through reading the book, Spotify tear down, um, which came out a couple of years ago and was authored by a group of academics and researchers based in Sweden. Um, and I think that that book section on the history of Spotify is really, um, illuminating. It also is through reading that book that I learned a bit more about the backgrounds of Daniel and Martin learned, learned sin who were the co-founders with Spotify, and, you know, learned information that like when they patent the name Spotify, like they knew that they wanted to create, um, a platform for distributing media, but it wasn't even really clear what type of media they would be distributed thing. They had backgrounds in advertising, um,

Liz Pelly (00:10:01) - So, uh, I definitely would like refer people to, um, that text for like more information on that. But I think that it isn't, you know, important to keep in mind that like, you know, music is not something that was ever like central to the goals of this company, um, that it's now a, you know, 50 plus billion dollar publicly traded corporation that, uh, has such outsize influence on so many musicians abilities to make a living and so much influence on how people, um, relate to music and how music six circulates. Um, it, yeah, you know, it was coming from, uh, individuals whose background and goals were like in ad tech now, is, is it 

James Parker (00:11:01) - The biggest streaming platform? Um, I mean, my memory is of Spotify. You know, it was sort of a, um, 2010 or so something like that, but the great jukebox in the sky, you know, it's coming, it's here, it's in Europe and it wasn't yet in Australia. And I don't, I don't remember any of the others, you know, and there was all about, we need the venture capital people, you know, this is the way of getting, you know, past piracy and so on. And so on as a Spotify sort of is, was in my memory that kind of early player. But I don't know now whether it's sort of the biggest player or been most influential in pushing because on one level your work is about Spotify, but on the level it's about streaming per se and the am, I suppose, you know, not just music streaming. Yeah. Like the sort of the platform economy, and we can get to that, but, but, you know, w is how do you situate Spotify in relation to this broader kind of, um, network of platforms and both historically and kind of politically, I suppose. 

Liz Pelly (00:12:06) - Yeah. It's, it's interesting. Um, I, Spotify is still the biggest streaming service and, uh, I think that's one of the reasons why, um, for me personally, it feels worth kind of following the thread of covering Spotify as an entity, even though, like you mentioned, like when in the writing that I've done in the stuff that I'm working on, like writing about Spotify, it's like, you're not just writing about Spotify. Like a lot of these issues are really issues of streaming, more broadly issues of the music industry, the issues of how, um, you know, music is valued in society. Um, there issues of labor surveillance, um, you know, these are like, they're like much broader conversations. Um, and yeah, it's interesting. One of the, that you had sent me ahead of this was kind of like about, you know, uh, why, why focus on Spotify? Or like, why do, why, why did I start writing about Spotify? 

Liz Pelly (00:13:11) - And, um, I think for me, the reason why I like started writing about Spotify is a little bit different than the reason why, like now I am continuing to want to write about it. Like, like I outlined before, you know, starting to write about it was just kind of like one story idea leading to another and thinking he was like an interesting thread to follow. And now I, when I think about it, I think of it more as sort of like thinking about my role as a journalist and like what role I can play and like the broader conversation that is kind of like, um, happening regarding music streaming. There are a lot of different types of people who are doing research and writing on these issues like academics and artists and activists and people who are involved in like shaping policy and stuff. And I think that part of what I can contribute as a journalist and someone who writes like relatively accessible, short, relatively short in the grand scheme of things like articles is kind of like trying to connect the dots between those voices and that other work by like bringing in, um, you know, perspectives from academics, interviewing artists, not just popular artists, but like artists set up all scopes and practices. 

Liz Pelly (00:14:20) - Um, you know, uh, being in conversation with, um, activists who are working around both holding streaming services accountable and imagining alternative visions and total, and sort of, um, keeping all of that context and then, um, uh, bringing that all together, like in ways that are, um, accessible to a general readership. And, um, from my perspective, because so many people use Spotify and because it's something that, um, people are sort of like always interested in reading about, I think there's ways to sort of like frame the narrative as, uh, you know, like about Spotify, but like really about a lot of other things too.

James Parker (00:15:05) - If that makes sense. Totally. I mean the most recent piece makes that argument. So explicitly, I mean, I sort of sort of jumping ahead, but you know, you say Spotify, you're making an argument about the socialization of streaming as a kind of Trojan horse for the possibility of socialism, you know, I mean, it's, um, it's, you know, it's, I think, I think that works really, really well. Like if we can't get these platforms, um, in check or, you know, w we, we need, we need to be imagining the whole, the whole beast, uh, not just, uh, not just the technological kind of, yeah. Just not that, not just the technology, but I mean, I don't know if this is a good time to get into the socialized streaming thing. Cause it, it's sort of one of many political kind of angles that you take in your work. 

James Parker (00:15:57) - And I wondered if a nice place to start to get into some of the detail of your writing would be these, these amazing experiments you run, because I think that's partly, you know, you were saying about the accessibility of your work. Um, I mean, I think that's really true. I think you both, your writing is, is fantastically accessible and really, you know, amongst the most sophisticated I'd read on, on Spotify. And one of the things that is really compelling in your writing is these experiments that you've done on yourself and your own listening and, um, kind of the Spotify platform sort of almost feels like you're sort of attempting to work out what's in the black box, um, from the listener's perspective or something. I just wondered if you could, could you tell us about a couple of those experiments and what you found and what, how they made you think differently about Spotify or, um, what politics they revealed, um, or what have you, 

Liz Pelly (00:16:51) - Yeah, for sure. I think, you know, I think that someone who wrote about one of these articles wants to refer to them as micro studies. Um, and that always, like I thought, I always thought that was, um, interesting. And I like to also reiterate that like these, because the Listening experiments that I've done, like are so small scale, like it's just like me with one account, like Listening and, um, do you know, it's not like a very robust research project, like someone could do if they had the backing of, uh, academic team or research assistants or something like that. Um, so they should be kind of like thought of as like, uh, raising, I think, I think they like raise questions more than they provide answers in a sense. Um, but one of them that, uh, was the first kind of like listening experiment I did was in 2018, um, around gender bias on the most popular Spotify playlist. 

Liz Pelly (00:17:50) - And it was pretty simple. Um, basically for a month I had, I started a brand new Spotify account and spent a month just on that account, listening to just the most popular playlist on Spotify. Um, like today's top hits and new music Friday, um, rock this hot country and a couple other ones. And, um, I would, yeah, like, you know, play through those playlists whenever, um, I can't remember it was when they were like updated or if I just played through them like every few days or something like that. Um, and then every week I would, uh, download a spreadsheet of what was on the playlist and I would fact check the gender identity of the artist. And I basically like had, um, this look at the gender breakdown of all these most popular playlist. And then I also looked at, um, every week, my algorithmic recommendations on discover weekly. 

Liz Pelly (00:19:06) - And I also listened to those algorithms or recommendations to, um, the details of the micro study of sorts or, um, more, uh, specifically articulated in this article, which was called discover weekly, but it was like week with like w E K. Um, so at the end of the study, basically I found that the playlists were extremely male dominated, like the, basically as male dominated as the mainstream music industry. Um, and that also the percentage like the average percentage of, um, women artists on the editorial curated playlist that I listened to was like almost exactly the same as the, um, gender breakdown of the algorithmic recommendations. So I believe it was, um, um, the editorial playlist.

Liz Pelly (00:20:05) - I estimated there was an average of 13.8% women artists. And then on the algorithmic recommendations, it was about 12%. Um, so that was interesting. And I think for me, that was kind of like, you know, I wanted to basically provide an example of something that I think now is pretty obvious, which is that algorithmic recommendation reinforces bias. Um, um, or that it, you know, algorithmic recommendation, uphold social norms, um, and creates echo chambers and reproduces the same types of bias. Um, so that was, uh, yeah, that was in 2018. And then the other listening experiment that I did was in 2019, I think, and it was, um, I was looking into Spotify, um, like mood playlists, and I was looking at, um, sort of like mood data surveillance and how it affected the types of, um, advertisements that are shown and the types of playlists that were recommended. Um, and also sort of tying that to some investigation, into some deals that Spotify had made with some advertising and marketing companies about like selling people's mood data. Um, so that was in, uh, yeah, that was a couple of years ago too. 

James Parker (00:21:53) - Could you say a little bit more about the experiment though? Cause I mean, uh, this whole mood thing is so it's so fascinating. So Spotify sort of pioneered the kind of, uh, naming playlist by mood specifically in order to have a new, uh, category by which to market themselves, to advertisers as far as I understand it. So we, Spotify, we have this thing called mood data, which is basically you clicked on a playlist titled get up and go or like sad boy or something. And now we know something about you, which is a very weird thing to sort of claim to know, like, what does it mean to click on a playlist called sad boy, I don't know what that's meant to me, but they think it's incredibly valuable and this is the point of distinction. And then all of the other streaming platforms sort of followed suit, but they've got this supposedly incredibly rich database of moods, which are really just the huge deciding to click on the names of playlists they've made up. And then you did this experiment. What, what was the experiment and what did you find? Yeah, 

Liz Pelly (00:23:05) - I do always like to kind of like, um, provide that like, disclaimer, when talking about this article and this experiment in particular, because I think that a lot, you know, a lot of their claims about like what they are capable of doing with your mood data or like, um, completely blown out of proportion in order to like sell their advertising space essentially. Um, so, um, I think it's like, yeah, important to keep that, that in mind is that like a lot of it is kind of like, uh, just over-hyping their capabilities, but I was interested because so much of the, um, so much of the language that they use in their leg, advertising materials, um, their Spotify for brands, materials, like the stuff that is like, um, Spotify going to brands, trying to sell ad space. Um, they talked about Spotify is like a space of, uh, sort of like mood boosts. 

Liz Pelly (00:24:05) - They talk about it as a mood enhancing space and how it's like this app that people go to when they're happy. And they talk about, um, like, uh, how people think of it as, uh, a place for, um, yeah, like feeling good, essentially, which you know, that is kind of in line with like the interests of advertisers, I guess. Um, so I was looking at like, um, I also happen to be doing this research for, um, a conference where the theme was music and death. Um, so I was looking, I was mostly listening to the coping with loss playlist and then kind of like looking at, um, what was recommended to me, like after I listened to the coping with loss playlist. And in my experience, I, I noticed that like a lot of the playlists that I was, um, uh, recommended after listening to that playlist were like more upbeat. Um, they were like, I think, I think it was something like warm, fuzzy feelings or like, uh,

Liz Pelly (00:25:08) - I think also I was recommended like mother's day and father's day playlist. Um, and yeah, so I thought that that was just like, I thought that was very interesting at the time. And I remember the emotional tenor of the advertisements that I was getting, being like, there ain't a psychologic, but again, like I mentioned like that, that experiment in particular, I think was like one that kind of like opened questions more than it necessarily answered them and would be something that would require a lot more, um, research to one, you know, see if the, um, idea like amounted to anything, but also, um, I think that, yeah, further exploring that could also like shine light on the extent to which their claim of, um, being a mood boosting spaces, like, you know, just them hyping themselves up in order to sell advertising space. 

James Parker (00:26:10) - It's really interesting, the different ways in which they're working in, in the two examples you've given because in the gender one, the argument, presumably if they bother to make it is we're simply reflecting back your preferences world. Um, you have your preferences that they are biased. Well, we do our best because we've invented this new genre called women's music and you can click on that playlist to, you know, uh, um, you know, so that's there kind of, you make that point about the gender becoming a kind of a genre and that, that, that doesn't really that that's not exactly progressive. Um, so it's, um, that's in that model, the algorithm is merely reflective, but in the mood one, you know, it's about the production of a certain kind of Headspace and, you know, the, I mean, you could just have a cynical reading of it, but they'll say exactly what they want in order to serve their best interests. But I mean, it's a totally different model of understanding what the algorithm is meant to be doing. One is reflected from one's kind of productive or more kind of, uh, and, um, yeah. About engineering Listening as opposed to reflecting, listening back on you. 

Liz Pelly (00:27:21) - Yeah. And I guess like, you know, just to, um, respond to the idea of it, like, you know, just being reflective, like I think that it's important to remember that like the, nothing about discovery on these playlists, these platforms is like neutral in any way. Like even the idea that like, you know, algorithmic recommendation is just reflect what you're listening to. Like, um, it was reflecting back what a user, you know, what a user would get in algorithmic recommendations if that user was listening to the most popular playlist on Spotify, which are also like the ones that are serviced to you when you open the app and you don't have much of a Listening history, like, and they have like of not only major label content, but, um, also like, um, uh, playlist friendly music, um, there's like all different types of, uh, values embedded into like the type of music that ends up on the, um, most popular playlist. 

Liz Pelly (00:28:25) - And also there have been like, you know, a lot of conversations about the big, most popular playlist on streaming services. Um, over time becoming sort of, uh, filled with music made by what some people call fake artists, but, um, you know, music that comes not from, um, musicians out in the world, involved in artists, communities are trying to make livings as, um, artists in society. But like, um, people who work at these companies that make music for TV and advertising, and then those companies are kind of like seeing if they can like milk some extra money out of these tracks by like throwing them up on streaming services. But they're really just kind of like background tracks, um, that were made by advertising and film licensing companies, um, music licensing companies. Uh, so the fact that like that type of music ends up being on these really popular playlist and major label music is on these types of playlists and keep artists that work with the, you know, have the right, um, are employing the right artists services companies who have the right connections with the right person and have the streaming service to like get their music on these playlists. 

Liz Pelly (00:29:46) - Um, yeah. Like even when those things all contribute to music that ends up on algorithmic playlists anyway, because so much of that, like what, and how music ends up on these, um, discovery tools has to do with.

Liz Pelly (00:30:07) - Um, you know, how many user generated playlists they're on and how many streams they have to begin with, um, and different ways in which they're like circulating through the platform and the chances of songs being on. Um, a lot of user generated playlists are being streamed a lot to begin with, like is greater if they're on those curated Really popular playlist. So, um, 

Liz Pelly (00:30:36) - Yeah, I think that, that also, like, you know, one of the, sort of like driving influences and like continuing to write about shrinks or write about Spotify for me also has been kind of like debunking a lot of the  ...  of streaming services and Spotify in particular. Cause I think, I think one, um, narrative that they have like continued to double down on over the years is the idea that, um, streaming services are like these like neutral spaces and the music that is popular as popular because a lot of people listen to it. Um, and that, you know, is something that they've been saying for years. But even as recently as like last week, there was this really big, um, uh, very big like global day of action organized by the union of musicians and allied workers. Um, with all of these like demands of Spotify in particular, it was a day of action around their justice at Spotify campaigns, just as big musicians union, um, that launched this campaign asking for like more transparency and higher pay and end of payola, um, you know, bunch of, uh, uh, they're also asking for like proper crediting on tracks and Spotify responded with like a few days later with this website that they made kind of, um, sort of breaking down the economics of streaming and explaining how payments work, but it included like no information that wasn't already known beforehand. 

Liz Pelly (00:32:04) - Um, and in his string of tweets about this, like Daniel continued sort of like hammering home this narrative, I think it was like, you know, he laid all this out and then his last tweet was like, but fans ultimately decide what thrives in the streaming era. And I think that is the, that was certainly like the statement that caught my eye because I almost like can't believe this is still something that these companies are like trying to, um, 

Liz Pelly (00:32:35) - That point that So making when it's like become so clear, um, to artists and music listeners and people in music communities, like how untrue that is. Um, especially, you know, in, in recent months they have also, um, rolled out like new forms of payola, essentially. Like there's this thing that is of particular interest to, um, I think the Machine Listening project, there's something on Spotify now called discovery mode where record labels can, um, agree to lower royalty rate in exchange for being boosted algorithmically, um, on the platform, um, which is essentially, it's like a new form of payola. Um, and there's yeah, like other, 

James Parker (00:33:20) - A little bit about what payola is for people who don't already know. 

Liz Pelly (00:33:24) - Yeah. So, you know, historically pale was like the practice of major record labels, paying cash to like have a song played on mainstream radio. Um, and it, uh, there has been like government intervention in the United States around payola. Um, I imagine probably in other countries too, but, um, uh, it's, it's not legal, but, um, the same laws that have been created are in payola on the radio, like don't apply to, um, streaming services or digital platforms. Um, so even though like in their terms of service, they like, you know, say that it's illegal to, or not. I'm sorry. They say that it's against their terms and conditions to like pay for placements, um, on certain playlists. Um, it is okay though, like when labels are essentially compensating Spotify for it, 

James Parker (00:34:25) - I mean, it's doubly crazy because even if you debunk the idea that, you know, the algorithms are neutrally, reflecting back what people already prefer, which is weird because how did they listen? How do they know what they prefer? Well, it's because they listened to the music which was fed to them. So it's clear. Cause it's like in that cycle, it's like, it doesn't really work anyway. Uh, and you know, obviously there's this new discovery algorithm you talked about and so on and so on, but, but it's also a very specific way of thinking about the value of music to say that the more streams that you get, the more money you make, that's not that there are many different ways of saying fans decide.

James Parker (00:35:07) - And, and I think that that kind of argument, you know, covers over the fact that, that on some level that kind of the biggest move was to make payment dependent on clicks, um, or, or streams. I mean, and, and that it's, I mean, I'd be interested to know, like, um, what, what potential you see for kind of moving away from that model, because on some level, like, as long as you're in that kind of in that, if all of the argument takes place within that channel or down that road, you've already lost a very significant part of the battle, especially for experimental musicians who, you know, as everybody knows that, you know, you might listen to rarely, um, but not because you value it any less, uh, or you know, difficult music, you know, that, um, you know, I, I basically, when I use streaming platforms, I use it to listen to music to work, to, to be honest. And that's, that's, that's not because I value it more if anything is because I've helped you at less than a certain way. So, so yeah, that we've already lost the battle if we play it in the territory of, um, paper stream. 

Liz Pelly (00:36:24) - Yeah, totally. I mean, this is something that, um, uh, Holly Herndon has articulated really well, and 

James Parker (00:36:32) - I should acknowledge that. That's what I was thinking. Yeah. 

Liz Pelly (00:36:36) - I mean, I just remember like talking to her about it on her podcast and the way she articulated it, like it's, you know, it was just really powerful, um, this idea that yeah. You know, just because something is a piece of music is something that you'll want to listen to on repeat, does not mean that it inherently has more values than something that you might want to listen to you once, or, you know, the idea of per stream valuation, like, uh, will never work for artists that, for example, like release 20 minute, ambient tracks are like, you know, released very long soundscapes, um, the way it will for artists that make like a two minute and 32nd pop song. Um, so that in and of itself is another, I think reason why it's really important to be conceptualizing of, uh, new ways of distributing and compensating, digital music outside of streaming services. Um, 

James Parker (00:37:42) - Is the union making any demands along those lines? 

Liz Pelly (00:37:46) - So I think that, um, well, when I think about like change in the music industry and change and music streaming and, um, what would be really useful for a healthier music culture? Um, I think it really is like a combination of sort of like both holding the services accountable while also, um, you know, imagining alternatives. And, um, I think that the stuff that the, um, Uma campaign and like other groups like music workers Alliance and those based here in New York, and I know that there are other, um, international unions that have like an org musician organizing efforts over the past few years, um, that have popped up. Like, I think that all of that work to hold, um, services accountable and improve the way things work now is an important piece of the puzzle. But I think it's kind of like separate from the work of like imagining bigger picture alternatives, um, which is kind of like, you know, stuff that I was writing about in the article about, um, socializing streaming and talking about, um, the American music library project and like ideas around a, um, you know, uh, government funded, taxpayer funded, um, streaming service alternative. 

Liz Pelly (00:39:06) - Um, I think it's like both are important. 

Joel Stern (00:39:12) - Yeah, I really enjoyed that article is just reading it over the last couple of days. And it actually, um, it may made me think of the way the national film and sound archive in Australia used to work in the, in the seventies and eighties and spoken to a lot of, um, experimental filmmaker, friends who, who have told me that they, they would, they would make a film on, on, on 16 millimeter, you know, Sally Lloyd, and then, um, the archive would pay them, um, the equivalent of striking of the cost of striking two prints. And one print would go into the archive and one print would go into the filmmaker's co-op where, where it could be continually hired by a film societies. And the one in the archive would then circulate for educational purposes. But you know, that, um, system of, of the national archive purchasing the equivalent value of two 16 millimeter prints was what, um, allowed the filmmakers to have the confidence to, you know, keep making films, knowing.

Joel Stern (00:40:13) - That the, that the value of them was sort of, um, understood and that there was, uh, a kind of, um, sustainable economic model for it. And, and that's why in the seventies and eighties, the experimental film scene in Australia was a really vibrant, you know, amazingly productive and prolific one, you know, but then, um, when the model switched, when film, the filmmakers sort of moved into video, um, and Sally Lloyd was sort of phased out by sort of video art in a certain sense, and the modes of streaming and digitization and things like that changed that that model collapsed. Um, and it sort of returned to a much more precarious and sort of IX, not exploitative, but a model where it was much harder to establish the value of the work, um, or to have a sustainable kind of economic system to, to, to keep it going. 

Joel Stern (00:41:11) - Um, so yeah, uh, it's um, sometimes when reading your work, it's sort of hard not to feel misstep nostalgic, um, for, you know, that period and also for the music scene that, um, I grew up in which, you know, revolved around record stores and, um, you know, really great locally produced magazines and, uh, kind of, um, community that, that sort of valued music and sort of really specific, um, and, and important ways. Yeah, it's just, it's sort of, so getting to see music itself, um, be kind of hollowed out and, um, you know, elite leveraged, um, for this sort of data brokering kind of project. 

Liz Pelly (00:42:07) - Yeah. I think it is very sad also, and that is part of why I think it's so important to imagine alternatives and not just imagine them, but also do the work of trying to figure out how we make them happen. Um, but what you said about the, um, archive is so interesting because I feel like in the socialized streaming article, I was looking at the idea of, you know, government funded, um, taxpayer funded streaming system, and also this, um, these smaller projects that have popped up across the United States and Canada, where public library is, are, um, creating these small local library run stream programs where they'll purchase a five-year license for local musicians, music to have on this, uh, sharing platform. And what you just outlined kind of, to me, it's like, Oh, what if the idea like this library idea was, you know, something that was being done by like the library of Congress or something like that, where they're like paying a flat fee for, um, the ability to like license artists, music for X amount of years to have in their own archive. 

Liz Pelly (00:43:16) - Um, I think that that also would be really interesting because kind of what we were just talking about, like, especially for artists whose work doesn't lend itself to any kind of like per stream payment, like even the idea of a government funded streaming service that still relies on a per stream royalty, um, would only go so far. So if you like, could tie something like that to also some sort of archive where, um, uh, a flat licensing fee could be, um, you know, use to compensate artists for having their work in like an archive or library for educational purposes. Like that would be such an incredible piece of the puzzle, um, in thinking about yeah. Public funding, um, and music, I do wonder too though, like these ideas, like if they're more likely to, um, be tried out in other countries other than the United States first, 

James Parker (00:44:12) - It's funny though, that Spotify is a Swedish company, when you think originally anyway, when you think of the, you know, the way in which Scandinavian countries are kind of always kind of held up as a kind of Paragon on that front. But I mean, I just wanted to, 

Liz Pelly (00:44:27) - I tear down also the book like starts with like a pretty interesting chapter, um, examining like Spotify as a Swedish country and like, you know, um, trying to like put it into that context. I'm looking at more of like the political context of it is really interesting. 

James Parker (00:44:45) - Just wanted to drill down a little bit on the kind of, let's say we're imagining socialized streaming. So one of the benefits is on the labor end of things. Right? So that it's a diff we can imagine artists getting paid for their work and not being paid necessarily per click for, you know, go the licensing model or something like this. But it's also really important to notice that a socialized streaming platform could decouple streaming from surveillance.

James Parker (00:45:13) - I mean, that's a really important point that you make in the piece that there's no, there's w you know, we, we have been sort of bred into a system where streaming, you know, whether it's Netflix or wherever just is synonymous with Savannah, of course the data is, is captured. And, okay, well, sometimes we might not want advertisers to do this or that, or maybe I'll agree to the cookies here or there, or, you know, whatever, but, but it is entirely possible to imagine the great jukebox in the sky with none of that, that doesn't try to hack my mood, that doesn't try to say that I should, um, you know, just chin up sort of feel better after, you know, somebody I know has died or something, um, because like the platform for a positive music listening experience or whatever the hell that monetize your ear holes. 

James Parker (00:46:08) - Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so I dunno, I dunno if I've just already made the argument pretty, but I just wanted to, like, you know, it's not just about, I mean, labor is a really important, um, and the things, and then also the, yeah, the kind of the capture of listening itself. I mean, and that's also related to this broadly, you know, Spotify is border moving to podcasting because if you go on my, on, on Spotify now, it's not obvious what it is that you're listening to, but everything like Spotify has sort of trying to, you know, commodify all of listening and, and maybe this goes back to that roots, as you're saying, they're effectively an advertising platform and that they're just an audio advertising platform as opposed to any other form. 

Liz Pelly (00:46:54) - Yeah, totally. I mean, I think that it's in the article. I think I raised the point that it's important to think about like the various types of compromises that we make as listeners on streaming services or that people make when they're, you know, listening on streaming services and the idea, you know, regardless of whether they're advertising aspiration. I think part of the reason why talking about advertising is tricky is because of the extent to which, I mean, I don't, I don't know if this has changed, but I've heard that, like, they're not very good at advertising and that, you know, uh, there's been some interesting conversations about like digital advertising as this bubble that's about to burst and stuff like there's this really interesting book that came out, uh, last year by, um, Tim Wong called subprime attention crisis. So it was about like, you know, questioning whether or not advertising as, um, the sort of economic engine of the internet, like is something that is about to just like, um, burst. 

Liz Pelly (00:48:00) - So I, it gave me an interesting, other perspective on like, um, talking about Spotify as advertising platforms, but like, regardless of the complications with whether or not they're like successful at, um, advertising targeting, it's still something that they're driven by and it's still like, um, the, uh, incentive that they're chasing or that they're, um, sort of like communicating, uh, as a crucial part of their business. Um, and also like, you know, even if advertising is completely taken out of the equation, um, there still are ways in which these, you know, Machine Listening is happening and the way that like, you know, Spotify is tracking everything you listened to in order to service you better recommendations to strengthen its product. Um, so like even if the only product Spotify is advertising is Spotify, like it's still affects your experience as a listener. And I think that that actually is starting to happen, like the, um, sort of like audience segmentation and like streaming intelligence that like, you know, they claim to be really useful to advertisers. Like I think they're actually starting to, um, build playlists like around that data, um, and re recommend playlists around that data anyway. Um, yeah, I think it's just really interesting to remember how you people, how you listen differently. Like if you're not being watched by a corporate advertising streaming platform, 

James Parker (00:49:36) - This is a really banal point, but I find that my listening is really different as a function of having to type into a search bar rather than looking through a shelf. And I know that's like incredibly banal, but like, I forget what music exists, you know? And, and Spotify wants you to forget because it wants you, it wants you to click on a like box that says a word, or has a picture that you like. And then I go onto my record collection and leaf through it. And just, you know, again, like that's a, that's an extremely banal point, but.

James Parker (00:50:12) - I felt like yes, a lot of the tension gets. Yeah. If you sort of, if you think about the interface, as well as the algorithm and you think of, you know, what it means to listen via phone, whether it's going through your sound system, it's just a, it's a totally different experience. I mean, the other, um, experience that is sort of in some ways, technically similar to Spotify, but politically completely different is like listening to community radio streams. Like, like I, when I, I usually, if I put on Spotify after, after a little while I kind of check myself and turn it off and put on WFM U or NTFS or an Australian community radio station. And you can kind of remember what it's like to have, um, a person hosting a radio show who is passionate about music, who's playing, playing new things and kind of kit cares whether you like it or not, and is, um, you know, and it's a, it's a completely different logic, which, which isn't sort of extractive. Um, and yeah. And, and unless you contrast the two listening experiences, it's sort of easy to forget what the difference is. 

Liz Pelly (00:51:29) - Yeah. Couldn't be more polar opposite experiences, but I, I definitely agree that in some ways, like, you know, listening to a, uh, community radio station, like you just said, I think can like, uh, really illuminated for people like how different of experience it is listening to radio versus yeah. Just like a playlist or algorithmic playlist. Um, yeah, that, that was actually my new year's resolution this year is listening to community radio more. Um, and it has been, uh, going really well. I love the radio. 

James Parker (00:52:13) - Um, did you, did you see that, um, that pattern, that Spotify pattern that hit the news, um, a few weeks back, um, I think they originally filed it in 2018, but it only, um, sort of, um, uh, I actually can't remember what the language is for when, um, when a patent is granted, I suppose it's, I think it was the, yeah, the moment it was granted or what have you, but, um, that the, not just that, that, that sort of takes the personalization logic one step further that doesn't just, that wouldn't be the idea is that it wouldn't just sort of, um, uh, follow your listening habits in the app, whether you click this mood or that mood, or whether you, um, uh, you know, prefer to listen to riot go or, you know, um, ambient music for work or what have you. Um, but that also listen, literally lessons through the smart speaker or through your phone to your environment and so on. 

James Parker (00:53:18) - So, you know, they, they, again, like this is like the intensification of the mood point. So that, that supposedly it would, um, uh, in, in the, uh, listens for, um, metadata that indicates an emotional state of a speaker, um, the gender of the speaker, the age of the speaker, the accent of the speaker, the physical environment in which the audio signal is input. So like whether you're in an indoor space or an outdoor space. And so, um, you know, this is an example, thinking of Machine Listening, where they kind of, the real kind of intensification of the surveillance, um, seems to, I mean, that seems to be on Spotify as horizon. And there was a bit of uproar when that, that pattern sort of got a public profile, but sort of, I feel like it's also quickly normalized and that it might just slip in. People might not even really notice or care and, you know, the terms of service will be updated. And, you know, did you follow that or, um, have any views on it at all? 

Liz Pelly (00:54:22) - I'm clicking. I clicked on the link. I, you know, 

James Parker (00:54:29) - It's not, it's not big news in your, in your thing. 

Liz Pelly (00:54:34) - No, it is. I, I just, uh, I think it maybe is, I'm sorry, I'm just looking at it. Or maybe like something that I thought was known already. 

James Parker (00:54:55) - I mean, that's the, that's the thing. I mean, every time this kind of thing hits the press, you know, it's like, did we not already know that? And whether a Spotify was doing it, other places are definitely doing it. I mean, you know, the, the, the Apple, um, home pod.

James Parker (00:55:12) - One of it's like Mark it's features when it marketed itself, was it, it listen to your room and not just the site, it sort of listened to the size and shape of the room. And in order to better kind of broadcast the sound into the space, but you know, sort of the disperse or the sound, but then it also like could work out where the listeners were in the room as well, um, from listening to voices and movement and so on. And so, you know, that was like explicitly, you know, that was, that was the big point of difference. Why you should pay more for the home pod rather than the dinky little Google, whatever it's called. Um, so, you know, it's not like these things haven't been happening for a long time, but for some reason, this one, this one seemed to get a better price. Maybe it's just because, 

Liz Pelly (00:55:59) - Yeah. And does the fact that it is something that is known or something that's been happening for a long time doesn't mean that we shouldn't still also be paying attention to this and demanding that these companies don't surveil users, um, and you know, shouldn't be reminding listeners of what is happening. Um, I, yeah, I, it's interesting. Um, I think that, I think it's important to, it's an important thing to bring up because I think a lot of people associate, you know, smart speakers with in-home surveillance, but I don't know the extent to which, um, it has become, um, you know, a part of people's general digital media literacy that like their Spotify app itself might be listening to their home environment. So I think that that's like pretty, pretty dangerous and something that, you know, should be, uh, I think, you know, I think it's worth the coverage that it got that I missed, or don't remember where I, Oh, wait, what's this, this was from 2018 though. 

James Parker (00:57:18) - Um, the, the patent was filed in 2018, but it just got granted, I think a couple of weeks, but in any case, and there was, I mean, there was just some, and there was some publicity rate recently when it was when it was granted. I mean, and I, and I suppose just sort of, um, yes, Spotify is sort of wanting access permission to your phone's microphone. It's sort of, um, in, in some ways it's just, it's just so revealing of what, what, what their kind of actual business model is. I mean, cause obviously with smart speakers and voice user interfaces, it's an essential technical part of the operation of the device. Um, but with Spotify it's sort of hard, it's hard to understand how it would really improve the service, um, or do anything than, um, just sort of massively expand the data set and also just, um, open the possibility for, for, you know, collusion between Spotify and you know, other agencies with regards to the surveillance of everyone's audio environments. 

James Parker (00:58:32) - I mean, I think it should be gone. Sorry. I shouldn't have interrupted. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I was just going to say, I think we should be clear a little bit about like what the problem is. And I don't think the problem is necessarily, you know, that the microphone can be hacked or whatever the is hacked like that that's a thing, like we know that from the Sloan and that's not, so Spotify is not specifically part of that problem in this case. Um, but I think the problem is partly like the fantasy, but you know, this is what you, the point that you were making before that they could know anything worthwhile from this data, because that's what they're selling. It's a fantasy that they're selling to other companies. Like what could you possibly do with the information that my voice is supposedly gender male, according to your, um, what were you going to do with that? 

James Parker (00:59:30) - They don't say race. Um, it's not listed in the pattern, but like, what are you going to do with your, your weird, like vocal determination of my race? Like you're, you're, you'll get your, you're going to sell it. You're going to sell the fact that you can do something. But I can't imagine it's the same as with the mood things. Like what could you possibly actually know about me that would service me any better? I don't, I just don't buy it. I'm sorry. Part of me is like, this is creepy, but actually the creepiness is not the problem. The creepiness is just the kind of project. Yeah. The product, because I think what the problem is is Spotify.

James Parker (01:00:08) - Selling snake oil basically to accumulate market share and, um, you know, to cement power as against, you know, artists. And this is just part of the bullshit that helps it do it. 

Liz Pelly (01:00:23) - Yeah, totally. It's like new talking points for when Daniel goes on like TV shows where he talks to wall street people and like tries to get investors, to like, you know, keep throwing venture capital and investment into Spotify stock. 

James Parker (01:00:39) - Yeah. I mean, emotion recognition in voice. W w we we've done a little bit of research on it is it's just so mad. It's so mad. We came across, we had a great chat with genic Jessica Feldman, and she talks about one app, but like literally tried to tie emotion to pitch. So that like speaking in, in the letter C I mean, th th the musical notes C is supposedly like consistent with, you know, particular emotional state I'm in, it's complete and utter nonsense. So it's nonsense. It's really marketable at the moment. And I, I sort of, I'd be tempted to say that the bubble will burst except that all the other bubbles don't seem to be past it. Um, so, you know, self perpetuating. 

Liz Pelly (01:01:27) - Yeah. I mean, it's, I feel like it's like, it's tricky because it's, it's all true. Like, knowing the extent to which like to continue, like, are the best race to sort of like contextualize the critique within that, like, acknowledging that, like it's bullshit, but it's also, um, you know, such a big part of their narrative and like trying to offer a, um, meaningful critique, but also by critiquing the thing that is kind of bullshit it's like, you kind of run the risk of like enforcing it almost. Um, so that's like a tricky thing to, um, balance in having these conversations. I think 

James Parker (01:02:12) - I'm conscious that, um, we've been going on for awhile. I mean, I do have one last question, which you can choose to answer or not answer. Um, but I just noticed that you've been working a little bit on this, uh, other app or platform called so far, um, which on one level is not directly connected to Spotify, but on another level, I mean, you, you should say a little bit about what it is if you, if you feel like it, but it's, you know, it's kind of like, I think it understands itself seems to understand itself as in the position that Spotify was in 10 or 12 years ago. And so it's interesting to sort of watch it, you know, to think about how the critique of Spotify might relate to the critique of so far. And yeah, I just wondered if you want, if you had any thing to any dots worth joining there, if you could say a little bit about so far, because obviously during the pandemic this, well, you should say a bit about what it is, but I think it becomes newly salient. Um, artists have been totally decimated around the world anyway, so, so yeah. Could you say a little bit about so far maybe, and try and join some dots? 

Liz Pelly (01:03:28) - Yeah. So it's this app? Um, well, okay. So, so far songs is this company you can go on to the so far town's website or the so far sounds app and say you're in New York. Um, there'll be like advertisements for shows that are coming up. And it'll say something like, uh, you know, um, show in park slope Friday at 7:00 PM or, um, Midtown Saturday, 2:00 PM. And there's not a lot of information about it. It's just sort of like a neighborhood and a time sometimes there'll be like a general vibe. Like it might be like hip hop night, um, in Midtown like 7:00 PM, Thursday, or, you know, like, uh, something very vague, um, or, you know, singer songwriter, uh, women's singer songwriter night or something. Um, and you buy tickets, there's no information about who's playing. It's just like the neighborhood and the day and the time, um, you, you apply to be able to buy a ticket. 

Liz Pelly (01:04:30) - They email you letting you know whether or not you're able to buy a ticket and you buy a ticket for usually like 20 ish dollars. Um, and then the day before the show, they email you the location and then they the exact address. And then you like kind of like show up to the show, um, not knowing who's playing until you get there and you're watching the show. And, um, uh, they sometimes are like in people's houses or sometimes they're in like clothing stores, or sometimes they're in like a luxury condo buildings, or maybe it's in a bar. Like the location is a mystery as well, but they kind of like hype up, like.

Liz Pelly (01:05:07) - Weird intimate, quirky places or whatever. Um, but, and then if you have a space and you want to do a show, also, you can like sign up to be a show space. Um, so, uh, artists get paid a hundred dollars to play one of the shows and you just play like two or three songs and it's like very stripped down. Um, but over time it's kind of like revealed itself to sort of be like an Uber of health shows in a sense. Um, because it's like this app that is sort of like pairing the musicians and the, uh, location and the concert goer. Um, and the whole thing is basically like when you go to one of them, it's usually there's like around 50, like people that are like young professionals and it's BYOB. And there's usually like a string of Christmas lights behind the person playing and like a little sign that says so far towns. And when you go in and they'll give you like a slip of paper with like the social media handles of the, um, people who are performing, it's usually like singer songwriter music, or like sometimes it's like spoken word. Like it's usually like very like mellow music kind of like coffee shop for music. Um, and yeah, it's uh, yeah, so, um, it's venture capital backed company. Um, so connections with Spotify. I don't know. I hope I did a good job characterizing it. 

James Parker (01:06:42) - I mean, my instinct is, it sounds like, you know, the app notification of the gig, if Spotify wants to amplify, you know, listening itself well, you know, you could easily see it expand it, buying up so far and expanding out into the world of small gigs and things. I mean, it's so weird the sort of the way in which the gig economy sort of cycles back on itself. And like now it's like literal gigs, but a part of the gig economy. 

Liz Pelly (01:07:11) - Absolutely. I mean, I wrote this article comparing Spotify and Uber a few years ago, talking about how like the sharing economy is sort of like, um, and I drew on this interview that I did with Asher Taylor in this piece, um, a few years ago where we talked about how like, um, the gig economy kind of like commodified and capitalized on the idea of the artist and order to sell the idea of like being a free agent who works like an artist. Um, and it has like independence. And then now you have apps like Spotify and so forth. Sounds kind of like taking the gig economy logic and like selling it back to musicians, um, uh, through the lens of like VC funded apps. Um, but so, so far sounds I like happened upon because I, I accidentally kind of like ended up at one once and then I realized it was this thing. And the more I like talked to people about it, I that a lot of musicians that I knew actually had like played one once or twice. And I ended up going to, I have like, for this article I wrote, I like went to a bunch of them over the course of the year and, um, did some research on the founder and it turns out the guy who started it, um, is a former like Coca-Cola executive executive. And he used to work at the Walt Disney company. Also, this guy brought profit offer. 

James Parker (01:08:31) - Well, that sounds a lot like the house shows that I've been to before. I always think Coca-Cola and Disney. 

Liz Pelly (01:08:39) - Yeah. And really interesting. He did like, um, I think he did like experiential marketing there. So it really does like, um, make sense that this would be something that he would get into because I did some research on like what that even means. And it's like he was doing marketing and advertisement and very tied to like physical spaces. And it makes sense that like, you know, um, people who are trying to attract venture capital investment and advertising money with like, I don't know, like try to do something like this that involves like getting people in a room and a physical space and then figuring out how to market to them. Cause there are like examples of these shows that are like branded and corporate sponsored and stuff like that. Um, but you asked if there's a connection between so far sounds and Spotify. So the original founder is not a CEO anymore. The current O um, is someone who used to work at Spotify who, um, uh, he used to work at Spotify and he was one of the co founders of this company called the echo nest, which is the company that Spotify purchased. Um, I think it was like 2013 or 14. I'm not exactly sure on the year that Spotify purchased echo nest, but like they power the algorithm of recommendations on Spotify essentially. Like they, um, were really involved in like bringing playlist and recommendation to, um, Spotify, uh,

Liz Pelly (01:10:06) - So to me, it was also very interesting that like there were, was that connection between, um, you know, data-driven recommendation and sort of, um, the shifts towards recommendation being by like mute and activity on Spotify and like, uh, this, this company that, that connection was there, I thought was really interesting. 

James Parker (01:10:33) - Well, it brings us both full circle really to the, you know, the way you got into working on Spotify in the beginning, you know, the relationship between, you know, what, what space is there for independent labels, independent musicians, not wanting to work outside of the, the major label space or the kind of the, um, the corporate corporatization of music. I mean, it just seems to me like, so anathema, like, like really hilarious almost to the, like, like to the point of like, how could this possibly work. Um, but that the experience with Spotify, you know, makes it clear that no, no, no. I mean, labels that formerly understood themselves as independent, you know, now on Spotify and they've sort of been forced onto Spotify and there are, there are a lot of artists to have all the politics of independence and nevertheless find themselves on Spotify or not on Spotify, something similar and, you know, the relationship between band camp, whatever. 

James Parker (01:11:34) - It just seems, it just seems so crazy to me, but that the, the house show is something that could be, could be run by a former Coca Cola exec. Um, yeah, I just, yeah, I mean, but it's a, it's a sort of a wild experiment to sort of say to what extent that is even possible. I mean, because it's the, you know, the, the independent grassroots music subcultures have they produce so much of value in it, you know, there's so there's the social relations produced in those cultures are so, um, meaningful. And I mean, at least in my, in my personal experience that you can sort of say how these companies just, just, that is just something to it's infinitely sort of extractable. I mean, there's so much sort of capital in those social relationships that exist in the independent music scene. Um, but I mean, yeah, it, it it's, it will, I suppose, um, be on artists and, and sort of, and listeners in those music sort of subcultures to try to also find ways to resist the, the kind of type of total capture and commodification commodification of the scenes it's like with, um, it's like with the pandemic, you know, shock economy sort of thing that the argument that Naomi Klein made about, like the way in which, um, tech is, you know, using pandemic to sort of get into schools and so on, like the timing is excellent for something like so far. 

James Parker (01:13:28) - Like if you can, you know, if you, that there's going to be a period where, where shows are going to start to open up and, you know, and of course the big venues will push for licenses and whatever, but, you know, people are gonna want to put on shows and if they can get guaranteed income, I mean, I, I find it worrying the timing is boring. 

Liz Pelly (01:13:51) - Yeah. Well, I think it, it is worrying. Um, but I also think that, you know, there are still spaces in, in music and culture where, um, you know, artists are fully aware, this is all bullshit. And just trying to like carve out, you know, uh, sorry, there's a, uh, ambulance about to go by. My building will be really loud for a second. I don't know if could hear it or not. 

James Parker (01:14:25) - Zoom's Machine, uh, filtering of the ambulance. I can't hear anything anymore. So that's 

Liz Pelly (01:14:33) - Okay. Well, um, uh, yeah, I, from, from my perspective, like, I, it is like alarming, but I also think that during the pandemic, I have seen so many examples of like artists organizing and, um, like at least in New York, there's been like a really big concerted effort amongst this group called the music workers Alliance to, um, make demands of local elected officials for, um,

Liz Pelly (01:15:09) - Uh, works programs and funding for music, which is something that never happens in the United States. Like, um, and that has, it was, I don't know. I, I went to a protest that they organized outside of Andrew Cuomo's office, um, in Midtown Manhattan a few weeks ago, that was like a, um, they were calling for a statewide, um, program that would create jobs for musicians and artists. And from what I understand that like program, um, hasn't gone through, but, uh, there's like some funding for music and the arts that, um, in about, as a result of the pressure that musicians had, like, um, put on and the organizing that had happened. Um, so I, yeah, yeah. I don't know. It doesn't like exactly address what you were asking about. 

James Parker (01:16:09) - No, no. There's reasons to be hopeful. I mean, it's, it's the socialization point. Like, you know, music become, can become a, you know, a method for, you know, Paul or frontier or politics. I mean, as it always has done as it should be, but it seems to me like as a no brainer that so far sounds at least should be resisted. 

Liz Pelly (01:16:29) - Yeah. Yeah, totally. I, I feel confident that artists won't just throw their hands up and be like, Oh, well, like when the pandemics over, we should all play so far. So on shows. Like I don't, I don't think that that's, uh, necessarily, uh, going to happen. Although like, you know, there are some artists who probably will, um, I think, uh, it's thinking about like Spotify and so far sounds and companies like them, like in total, like, because there are so many musicians who ultimately like will in the short term rely on them for compensation. That's kind of like why I think when thinking about, you know, like a healthier music scene or music, community music world, it's like important to both do the work of like imagining alternatives and putting pressure on elected officials for public funding, for the arts, thinking about cooperative alternatives and socialized alternatives, but also holding these companies accountable to pay artists more and be more transparent and create, um, you know, systems that are more fair to artists. Um, because there are people who rely on them for a short-term income, um, whether or not that's fair income, you know? 

James Parker (01:17:53) - Um, what, what are you writing on next, uh, on Spotify or review? Are you wrapping that up? 

Liz Pelly (01:18:00) - Oh, um, so I know I have a bunch of stuff that I'm, I'm working on. Uh, I am right now working on an article that's like, kind of about, um, the stuff that I just mentioned with, um, the musicians in New York who have been like advocating for a WPA style program and thinking about that, but also, so I guess some of the stuff I'm working on right now is kind of more of the direction of like the, um, the bigger picture vision of imagining, um, alternatives and different ways of funding and valuing music like outside of the corporate models. But, um, I also do have a couple of Spotify things as well. 

James Parker (01:18:48) - I look forward to reading them. They're going to be out in Baffler as well. 

Liz Pelly (01:18:52) - Yeah. Yeah. I know the Spotify stuff will be in the Baffler. Um, yeah, I can, I can tell you about it more like not on the record or whatever. 

James Parker (01:19:02) - Yeah, yeah, no, no, let's wrap it up. That was, that was fantastic. We've taken up so much of your time already. It was a real pleasure. Thank you so much, Liz. 

Liz Pelly (01:19:10) - Thank you. Thanks for having me.