Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music IT Technology

How Fake Song Lyrics Ended Up On Spotify (pitchfork.com) 26

DevNull127 writes: More bad news for Spotify from Conde Naste via their music site Pitchfork:

Last month, in the tone of a band reluctantly summoned from some deep seabed, My Bloody Valentine issued a prickly public service announcement: "Just noticed that Spotify has put fake lyrics up for our songs without our knowledge," the Irish shoegazers tweeted. "These lyrics are actually completely incorrect and insulting." Cocteau Twins' Simon Raymonde chimed in to report that they, too, had found gibberish transcriptions of their famously elliptical songs on streaming services.

The lyric snafu was not limited to Spotify. Over the past decade, a data platform called Musixmatch has assumed dominion over the world of lyrics, securing sub-licensing deals with the major publishing companies. The lyrics you see on Spotify, Tidal, and Amazon Music usually come through Musixmatch, via a data pipeline that links the platform's enormous transcriber community with a small core of paid quality-control monitors. (Apple Music has a dedicated lyrics team handling most of its transcriptions.)

The affair illustrates tech capitalism's discombobulation when faced with a key element in art, which is the inexplicable. I think the problem, though, is not Musixmatch and its protocol so much as the service's unilateral rollout, with quasi-official imprimatur, on platforms already under fire for flattening artistic identity and repackaging music as scaleable content. Having sub-licensed the rights, Musixmatch is perfectly entitled to crowd-source transcriptions and sell them on. But artists should know whose words are being put in their mouths—and that, should they wish, they have the right to opt out.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Fake Song Lyrics Ended Up On Spotify

Comments Filter:
  • "should they wish, they have the right to opt out"

    They assigned their rights to someone else as part of their contract. They can buy those right back, if they want. If they do then they can opt out.

    It's pretty much spelled out in the contract that they signed.

    Reporters are great at talking about how "it should be." But if the actual artist believed that they would change their behavior...but they don't, because money.

    • by jd ( 1658 )

      Not all contracts assign rights in said manner. Most do, but there are plenty of labels that don't do that, mostly smaller ones. Precisely what is transferred is also important, is it the recording? The song as an integrated whole? Or each part (such as the lyrics)?

      • Re:Rights assignment (Score:5, Informative)

        by thomst ( 1640045 ) on Monday February 14, 2022 @04:51PM (#62267487) Homepage

        jd pointed out:

        Not all contracts assign rights in said manner. Most do, but there are plenty of labels that don't do that, mostly smaller ones. Precisely what is transferred is also important, is it the recording? The song as an integrated whole? Or each part (such as the lyrics)?

        Actually, it's less straightforward than that [tunecore.com]. Labels typically own the recordings made by their artists/indentured servants, but they seldom own the rights to the songs themselves. Instead, those are 50/50 co-owned by the songwriter(s) and their publishing company, with the publishing company owning the exclusive right to license the lyrics and/or "sheet" music.

        Then, as if the system weren't intentionally complex enough, the publisher always contracts with a performance-royalty collection organization (ASCAP and BMI being the two biggies in the English-speaking world) and licensing agent (principally The Harry Fox Agency in the USA) to enforce payment for the performance of the songs under license in any public venue or via any transmission medium.

        It's all in the hallowed tradition of "Hollywood accounting" of making it as difficult as possible for the actual creative persons to track the money, and the corporate bean counters to obscure its trail ...

        • by jd ( 1658 )

          So we need a copy of the Necronomicon to perform a bean-counter banishing ritual.

    • Don't their moral rights provide for this? OK, the US doesn't have moral rights (to go with the music industry in general), but in the rest of the world they'd have control over how their lyrics are being (ab)used.
  • by peterww ( 6558522 ) on Monday February 14, 2022 @03:57PM (#62267301)

    Just allow bands to submit their own lyrics to their own songs. They'd probably do it for free. Jesus.

    • Re:obvious solution (Score:4, Informative)

      by clarkkent09 ( 1104833 ) on Monday February 14, 2022 @04:03PM (#62267327)

      They already can. From Musixmatch front page:

        "Verified artists are able to manage and distribute their own lyric catalog on any international music channel â" such as Spotify or Instagram."

      If you can't be bothered to do so and expect fans to decipher your mumbling, don't get mad when they get it wrong sometimes.

      • Re:obvious solution (Score:5, Interesting)

        by organgtool ( 966989 ) on Monday February 14, 2022 @04:28PM (#62267401)
        If I understand the situation correctly, the labels are the ones that made the deal with Musixmatch and the labels are the ones reaping the vast majority of the profits from that deal. If that's correct, then I assume that either the labels own the distribution rights on the lyrics or they've pressured the artists to agree to allow Musixmatch to distribute them (probably for a pitiful percentage of the profits). If all of that is correct, then the labels should be the ones supplying the lyrics to Musixmatch since they're calling all of the shots regarding distribution and reaping lots of the profits. The labels should be collecting the lyrics from the artists and then have their associates deal with Musixmatch to iron out the distribution.
      • This is just one more way Spotify is devaluing their own platform, by making themselves look cheap and showing the world that they have no respect for the artists from whose work they reap millions.
        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          This is just one more way Spotify is devaluing their own platform, by making themselves look cheap and showing the world that they have no respect for the artists from whose work they reap millions.

          Who cares? Not spotify, because they have an open complaint against Apple for unfair competition. Thus, if Spotify loses subscribers, it's Apple's fault. It's going to be Apple's fault even if the user is Android, or they move to a non-Apple service.

          Thus, if users should happen to leave Spotify for various reason

      • But if the artists or labels provided the original lyrics, e.g. by copying them from the album sleeve/liner notes, then crowdsource lyrics websites would lose their business model, i.e. selling ad-space exposure to the music fans who do the transcribing. It doesn't matter if the lyrics are correct, in fact it's better if they're wrong because that'll get more people on their websites for longer, which means more âââs. That's what they bought the rights in order to do. Basically, the internet
    • Lyrics are copyrighted. These kinds of lyrics sites skirt the law.

      I'm sure Spotify has permissions, though.

    • by Potor ( 658520 )

      In these two cases, part of the art is the ambiguity of the lyrics (and in the case of the Cocteau Twins, often if there are even any lyrics, but that's another issue). Printing them, especially the wrong lyrics, takes an aesthetic choice away from the artists.

      Long-time listener to both bands, btw. I still have no idea what most of Loveless means lyrically ...

      • Lyrics, schmirics: unleash the true potential of voice. I admit to being a Cocteau Twins fan, and fascinated by text-sound compositions in general.
  • ... Cocktail Twins, when I run out of vodka I just use a blended scotch for to make my Bloody Ballantine's!
  • Excuse Me (Score:5, Funny)

    by Your Anus ( 308149 ) on Monday February 14, 2022 @04:56PM (#62267497) Journal
    While I kiss this guy
  • The band sings 'In the garden of Eden"

    They write: In-a-gadda-da-vida.

  • by klipclop ( 6724090 ) on Monday February 14, 2022 @08:40PM (#62268071)
    Google can exploit this discombobulation by forcing people to listen to crappy music and transcribe the lyrics in the form of a new type of captcha (or captured) service offering. No getting into the websites/you're digitally held hostage until you Proof read the lyrics.
  • 49s Lunchtime Result is Announce Now. We update regularly all results which are holding 12:49 PM (UK). The entire criteria for playing the game are the same as for Teatime Results. We Update all Uk49s Latest Results [area3.co.za] Live for our Users. And congratulations to the winners.
  • Cocteau Twins' Simon Raymonde chimed in to report that they, too, had found gibberish transcriptions of their famously elliptical songs on streaming services.

    So what they're saying is that the system is working correctly

  • I've heard that story too. In fact, it's not really great, which is why I haven't used spotify for a long time. I started using TuneCore [emanate.live] because there are still a huge number of young new musicians who are just starting their reality. I think you should look there too, I wish you good luck!
  • I am very shocked by this situation that I recently found out. It seems to me that you should try another very interesting platform [emanate.live] that does not do such things. In general, this platform also has a blockchain that will allow you to keep your donations safe and sound. I think you might be interested in this. I wish you good luck!

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.

Working...