Background music is a short-term win for DSPs – but it could be a long-term problem

In this month’s issue of Harper’s Magazine, Liz Pelly published “The Ghosts in the Machine”. This hard-hitting article details her years-long investigation into Spotify’s mood playlists, alleging that many are populated with so-called “Perfect Fit Content” – stock music by pseudonymous or “ghost” artists collaborating with Spotify in exchange for a flat fee. While Spotify has denied past allegations that it is creating “fake” artists to fill its playlists (per Billboard), the company has not yet commented on Pelly’s piece. Still, the article reflects a larger, ongoing conversation about streaming services’ role in shaping listening behaviour. As a growing number of listeners push music to the background, streaming platforms may become the homes of “muzak” – while popular culture finds its home elsewhere.

What is Perfect Fit Content?

According to Pelly, Perfect Fit Content (PFC) is an internal program at Spotify that, since 2017, has partnered with stock music companies and artists to supply background music for editorial playlists including Deep Focus, Cocktail Jazz, and Bossa Nova Dinner. The article also alleges that Spotify is pushing the editors of playlists like these to shift the balance of tracks towards PFC. Many PFC tracks, according to Pelly, are released pseudonymously – the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported in 2022 that around 20 songwriters were allegedly behind over 500 artist profiles in the PFC program. Spotify would theoretically benefit from users listening to more PFC tracks, because the platform does not need to pay out most royalties for those streams, and because it would reduce Spotify’s dependency on larger music rightsholders.

“Background music” is nothing new – and some consider it an art form

The practice of mass producing ‘background music’ is not new, and neither is music that is designed to be listened to passively. During Tin Pan Alley’s peak, many composers and songwriters made a living selling publishing companies exclusive rights to their music for a flat fee. These composers, usually contracted to create sheet music libraries, were often urged to compose whatever style was selling best at the time. Even with this structure, Tin Pan Alley managed to launch several songwriters to global fame. Unlike the alleged PFC program, writers had a more tangible path to fame, as they were able to claim their music under their own name (even if they relinquished the publishing rights).

When prominent musician and songwriter Brian Eno coined the term “ambient music” in the late ‘70s, he envisioned the genre complementing the listener’s mood without overwhelming it, saying it must be “as ignorable as it is interesting”. While some may consider this “ignorable” approach antithetical to the goal of music creation, Eno saw it as an art of its own, writing, “we were making music to swim in, to float in, to get lost inside”.  

Eno’s vision lives on through companies such as Lofi Girl, which has built niche fandoms around its brand of music to “study / chill / relax / game / sleep to” while also elevating its artists and composers. However, this approach is wildly different from the PFC program Pelly’s article alleges. Streaming’s “lean back” approach means that today, background music is quickly cannibalising the listening ecosystem. 

Nature versus nurture

Everyone listens to music differently, and passive listening has always been an important part of the music business. In a world that demands one’s full attention, many listeners enjoy listening to music as a rare activity that does not require active focus. For these listeners, ‘background music’ provides value to their daily lives, so PFC is arguably a welcome solution. Conversely, others argue that streaming’s all-access model, algorithmic playlisting, and focus on songs over artists has made all music listening more passive over time, accelerating the devaluation of music as a whole. Both sides make valid arguments.

As algorithmic playlists grow in popularity, listeners are becoming more comfortable with having music as background noise in their daily lives. As consumer behaviour evolves, the strategy of replacing licenced ‘easy-listening’ music with tracks commissioned in-house for a lower fee makes financial sense for companies like Spotify. This replacement would prove to be more profitable for the streaming platforms in the short-term but may end up driving away the dedicated music-listening culture that the platforms were originally built upon. If this happens, where does that ecosystem go? 

What this means for DSPs, listeners, and creators

With the rise of AI-generated music, human-created background tracks may not be long for this world. AI replacements would be an even more cost-effective strategy for DSPs, and the most passive listeners will likely not care who – or what – composed the music that plays in the background of their lives. However, any streaming platforms tempted by a PFC-like strategy must be careful what they wish for. 

As the music industry bifurcates, the lean-back “listen” ecosystem can comfortably remain on pure-play streaming platforms. Perhaps these streaming platforms will be content to morph into “muzak” providers and arguably provide a valuable service to consumers by doing so. But the lean-in “play” ecosystem must find a new home – and perhaps a new platform. Music’s “play” ecosystem – one celebrating fandom, active participation, and creativity – is already thriving on social platforms. The more streaming leans in to leaning back, the further away that culture will shift.