There will be services in Asia that offer to do Spotify plays, and it's likely to be cheaper than TV/Radio advertising or buying physical copies to get an initial high ranking.

That’s what I would put in the background if I had to make random people wait in a room for an hour.

There are “discovery” playlist outside of the ranked ones, so I wouldn’t be surprised if my use is not so far from their intended purpose.

- To glorify violence, substance abuse, disrespect of women, domination behavior, anti-intellectualism.

- To reinforce racial stereotypes, including fear of minorities.

- To make people superficial.

Songs are an effective way to deliver a message to be repeated over and over and over again until people break and assimilate the message.

And I really can't see your points about superficiality, racial stereotypes etc. That niche surely exists, but it's far too hot for the big labels.

Lastly, on anti-intellectualism: Yes, those songs tend to not be too intellectually challenging, but I don't think that's bad. People tend to listen to those when partying or just relaxing ; it's okay to simply chill out sometimes. Most people don't want to read technical literature for coming down either and that's fine.

> "It's all hip hop's fault, you see. Not the three companies who decide what you hear and see."

nice timing at 1:47, or decent 'shop skillz?

It sounds like you're saying that the music industry is engaged in a conspiracy to change people's behavior. Is this a correct characterization? If so, is there any evidence for this conspiracy, or some plausible motivations? I'm not sure how the powers that be would benefit from people being more violent abuse drugs, or disrespect women, for instance.

'WAP' - was designed to break through the noise by being crude and shocking - a title that I literally cannot write :), and almost on cue, had a 'GOP Congressman' talking about the 'Godlessness' of it all, playing perfectly into the hands of the labels. Like comedy.

But it's a horrible song, because it's not meant to be one - it's more of a 'audio meme' meant to accompany the visuals media stars who made it. The press was more than happy to glom onto it for social reasons.

This is pretty toxic to music and 'driven' by the labels, though not specifically for any purpose other than making money.

MTV however - has always had a 'social change agenda' as part of their ethos.

Most of the best music is accompanied by something 'new' and possibly a little bit rebellious, but generally not 'shocking'. It seems every big artists curates an image, but usually it did not overshadow the music.

Since social media however, I'm not so sure. LadyGaga, however talented, seems to have always been 'visual first'.

The top 40, while always mostly crap, did have a lot of gems, it was guarded by people with 1/2 decent taste in music and there were always indies.

Now there's much, much more noise.

It's like saying the ad industry is conspiring to manipulate us into buying their clients' products and services.

noun a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. "a conspiracy to destroy the government"

Music isn’t much different, there are just more variants. The goal is engagement, not social outcomes. Think YouTube recommendations, but slower motion.

But to be honest, a conspiracy of some kind could be an explanation, who knows.

For some people, there are substantial tangible, material benefits to dumbing down society.

For example, the "gangster rapper" stereotype is pushed aggresively by the music industry. The popularity of "gangster rap" results in "gangster" aesthetics becoming fashionable, even among law abiding people who are not gangsters. However, when people see a person that resembles the "gangster" stereotype (purely based on their attire) pushed by the entertainment industry, they will be more likely to call 911, eventually resulting in an innocent person being killed for no valid reason. Is this a racist conspiracy? who knows.

Likewise, oversexualization results in people having unplanned kids, causing them to ultimately become poor, and more susceptible to predatory loans, low wages, political manipulation and all the machinery that exists only to abuse the poor. Similar to anti-intellectualism.

And then, glorification of violence, competition, non-compliance, etc... this just makes people very divisive, and in order to dominate a large population you want them to be as divided as possible, and constantly distracted with immaterial disputes while you lobby the government.

So, yeah... it could be a conspiracy. It is very profitable to make people vulnerable and susceptible to manipulation and abuse. Especially political manipulation, which is already prominent in American journalism.

It kind of resembles the psychological warfare techniques used by the Soviets (i.e.: ideological subversion). https://youtu.be/IQPsKvG6WMI?t=60

Actually we do know. It’s safe to say that conspiracies involving a lot of actors are mathematically impossible.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Statistically improbable is different from mathematically impossible. It’s also much less improbable when the people involved have to join through rituals like government classification designations.

Again, government programs regularly involve much more than a 1000 people and are known to be kept secret for decades. These programs are clearly conspiracies.

You can believe what you want of course, but from my POV when the discussion ends up in non-falsifiability land, you might as well talk about the existence of God or Santa Claus, an interesting discussion for sure, but not one that can yield any useful insight.