351 points by ingve 17 hours ago | 286 comments on HN
| Mild positive Moderate agreement (3 models)
Editorial · v3.7· 2026-03-15 22:48:16 0
Summary Cultural Preservation & Digital Access Advocates
A personal blog post by Charles Petzold critiques Spotify's AI DJ for failing to understand classical music structure and metadata, demonstrating systematic ignorance of a 500-year cultural tradition. The content advocates for recognition and preservation of western classical music in digital platforms, framing this as a cultural heritage issue underserved by corporate profit-driven systems. The work exercises free expression while advocating for cultural respect in algorithmic design.
> Am I naïve in expecting Artificial Intelligence to be smart? Is my interpretation of the word “intelligence” too literal? And when an AI behaves stupidly, who’s to blame? The programmers or the AI entity itself? Is it even proper to make a distinction between the two? Or does the AI work in so mysterious a way that the programmers need no longer take responsibility?
IMO this is a programming/prompting failure - not a failure in the general capability of 'AI'.
We can prove that an AI can understand this with a basic prompt:
This is a minimal base prompt, with no fine-tuning, with the same user prompt, which shows that an AI will respond correctly by default. Presumably either the AI they are using is a weak model, or their prompt is encouraging the model against this (e.g. maybe the prompt says 'return one song based on the suggestion, and then songs from similar artists after')
> I’ve heard people claim that an AI can compose music. But how can that be when it can’t even grasp basic concepts in music?
Trying to infer the underlying capability of AI to generate music based on a badly-prompted Spotify DJ feature is always going to have it's limits. The proof of 'can AI compose music' will be in the eating of the pudding. AI models have already been able to compose classical music to some extent, and can grasp music theory, so after this point it's just going to be a matter of quality/taste.
He doesn't really even dig into the quality of Spotify's AI DJ apart from pointing out, in a very roundabout way, that it was designed for popular music.
Classical is a harder (or at least different) problem and it's why specialist apps like Apple Music Classical exist.
I've tried using Spotify and similar services that try to track your preferences but they're just, I don't know, boring. I much prefer the challenge of a human-picked DJ set.
I usually listen to dublab (los Angeles, cologne, and Barcelona) and nts1 (usually London) and nts2 (location rotates). They have 1 or 2 hour DJ sessions (live or recorded) and your hear some music that you normally wouldn't be exposed to and sometimes you hate it but usually not.
I briefly tried it when they first launched it, but in less than an hour decided I hated it.
Which I really should have anticipated since I generally dislike music radio "DJ"s too and Spotify's AI DJ is trying to be like one.
In particular it would do things like start playing tracks with no bearing on anything I'd ever listened to, like local South African music which is very far from universally preferred here. I also got the feeling it was pushing "promoted" tracks with little regard to what I would likely like, just like real life radio stations.
I also don't care to have some voice interrupting the music all the time.
I was hoping it would kind of be like their other "radio"s, but it would be more explorative to finding more "similar" tracks to what I have listened to, without seeming to get stuck in a repeating play list.
I suppose it's a cool gimmick for people who are prefer the broadcast radio experience.
I do wonder how people can be satisfied with automatic music playlists. I was entertained by this for maybe a few hours when Pandora was new, but they all seemingly always devolve into either playing weird shit, playing the same 50 songs over and over again, or playing whatever new release shilled crap the record companies are paying to promote. Yet it seems like everybody else these days is a Spotify addict. I guess most people are fine with it.
But he already explains why it won't work at the beginning. If stuff is cataloged according to a pop paradigm, why would we expect to be able to reassemble it according to a classical one?
Presumably a pop DJ would also mess this up. It's like going to an Indian restaurant and asking what Dim Sum they recommend.
The only reason a human would be able to do this task is that they might be trained in how to find classical music, and they have spent some time learning what is what in that world.
But a Spotify AI is of course going to be trained on the prevailing classification system only.
I haven't tried AI DJ, so I can't comment on that, but I find it hard to empathize with the author. Not because the criticism lacks merits, but because there is no real attempt to explore the pro/cons of the tech. I see this pattern often with people who complain about AI. They pick a narrow case where it isn't good at and use it to dismiss the whole thing. AI isn't a human, it's going to have its limits.
Same thing I saw in AI-assisted coding. People complaining how AI- enabled some XYZ security risk, it's bad, it's crap. This could be true, but why ignore the fact that you create a full blown native Mac app, with a single sentence? That should be good for at least a few things. Right?
What a strange article, from somebody who should understand the underlying technology (click on the “books” tab - the author is a technologist).
This is not about AI, the author is mostly just pointing out that Spotify was not designed for classical music.
This is a product issue. Spotify DJ is essentially “shuffle with some voice interludes”. There’s probably some non-AI code in there to explicitly prevent it from playing an album end to end.
Besides, AI is not one thing. It’s weird to generalise “This beta spotify feature doesn’t serve me, hence AI is useless”. For example, when the author says “if it can’t do this, how could it compose music?”, that’s a category error.
Honestly the whole post and tone are just baffling. It’s mixing up all sorts of opinions and trying to put them under one umbrella, and about 50% of the text is just name dropping specific classical pieces.
I happen to agree that the Spotify DJ feature is terrible, but I think this is a very ineffective way of presenting the argument.
AI DJs for music feel a bit like AIs writing restaurant reviews. Possible in theory, but fundamentally I don’t really care what a machine thinks, I care about what a human, preferably an expert human, thinks.
I listen to a lot of DJ mixes on YouTube (Hör Berlin is great, for example) and part of the appeal is what this particular DJ picks: what kind of music are they listening to in the country they’re from, how are they interpreting it, what are they mixing it with, etc. For some DJs there’s also kind of a personal visual brand, like musicians themselves.
The idea of an anonymous AI picking an optimized list of music kind of defeats the purpose.
In this article we see proof that the words people use to describe a phenomenon influence how they think about that phenomenon: what they expect, what they assume, how they reason about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
Every time someone calls an LLM "AI", their brain faults a little more.
This is the profession of marketing's greatest success: inflicting so much damage on the rest of the world.
This isn’t really related to the core argument, but I think the author would be better served on just about every count by switching to Apple Music (Classical). The discovery and organization mechanisms are built for classical music first and make the whole project of finding, saving, and enjoying the material way better. They include PDFs of the booklets, for goodness sake! (And let you cross-shop recordings of the same piece by different performers so, so easily.)
The real problem with Spotify's DJ is that, if you use it a lot, it gets into a feedback loop where it keeps playing the same songs that it serves you up because it thinks you like them. It's pretty bad at finding new music which is ironic because I find Spotify's Discover Weekly algorithm to be quite good (sometimes)
> Am I naïve in expecting Artificial Intelligence to be smart? Is my interpretation of the word “intelligence” too literal?
I wish more people would ask themselves those questions.
Sadly Charles himself didn't appear to conclude that yes, it's naïve to expect AI to be "smart" (whatever that means) and yes, he and many other people get hung up on the word "intelligence" in AI, a field that's been called that since the 1950s.
> I’m aware that many people are unfamiliar with this musical tradition, but it forms one of the sturdiest pillars of what we casually refer to as “western civilization.” Plus, it’s a whole lot of really enthralling music.
I really had to push to keep reading past this part.
But this piece doesn’t really say anything surprising anyway. Spotify isn’t for classical music. There are other services that are.
I do think the Spotify DJ has been dumbed down a lot since its launch (“a’ight, I got you. Here’s some songs for your washing up session.” [proceeds to play the same 10 songs it always does]).
But for classical music: Apple Music Classical is where it’s at, it understands the relationship between composer, work and recording.
I think advertising it as a DJ is a stretch, last time I tried it, it was basically just Siri for music. DJing is much more than just playing random tracks.
I’ve been wondering if AI could be used to compose a set that rivals real DJs, but it seems like a difficult problem. First it needs to select tracks that fit well together, and stitch them together to ramp up and ramp down energy over time. Then it needs to layer the tracks, which requires an intuition for what sounds good and I’m not sure can be done algorithmically. It also needs to do engaging transitions which are appropriate for the moment - also difficult.
I'm pretty sure it comes down to radio vs interactive music licensing. A general radio license doesn't allow users to pick the track they want to hear. They only get a shuffled playback and face other limitations like "can't play an album all the way through". Interactive licensing allows users to pick exactly what they want, including playing full albums, but it's much more expensive per track.
It appears that Spotify's engines use a mix of these licenses to reduce costs. Since AI isn't explicitly user-made selections, it's quite possible that the AI playlist generator is limited to a radio license model for playback, simply to save money (considering the additional cost of providing AI).
Who pays for a Spotify subscription, to listen to out of copyright compositions, and recordings that probably can be found easily in the public domain? Might as well complain that TikTok has no feature length documentary films in IMAX.
Your reference to prompting is pretty disgusting since you try to shift the blame to the user. All the prompts were crystal clear. Trying to shift any blame on user error is non-sensical stupidity or dumb manipulation in this case.
Also, might I recommend looking at the way the world is, not the way the world might be. This is one of the ugly AI tendrils this disgusting industry is putting into everything, bringing ruin to the world. This is the actual reality of it, making the world a dumber, less interesting more stupid place.
My observations are that the average person is bothered by the slop of modern playlists full of AI music, but they don’t care enough to do anything about it.
Personally I dropped playlists long ago for YouTube dj sets which are a million times better than Spotify’s AI dj. Some of this is not a tech failing but the DJs have access to unreleased tracks, their own private edits, and are more willing to do more bold things. The AI DJ will never drop a surprise change that makes the crowd scream.
Pandora is the only one that even remotely came close to something worthwhile, for me. It usually picked stuff that I wanted to hear; and that was a decade ago. Every other selection service regularly fed me garbage.
Pandora was worthless, though, because of their skip limit (even in the paid version). Even with its effectiveness, it would still feed me junk.
This guy is a classical music guy, though, and all the pickers suck, for that. Classical has been treated badly, forever. I am extremely disappointed that Apple segregated classical into its own app, because I have always enjoyed mixing it in with my regular music.
One thing about classical music, is that every performance is a “cover.” Who performs the piece is just as important as who wrote it. None of the selection services seem to understand that.
MP3 tags are pretty much worthless. They are incredibly limited, and I don’t know why they have never been improved.
I listen to a lot of old music - 1950s, 1960s. I don't really have peers who listen to it so discoverability is a real issue. Pandora was amazing for me ~20 years ago, it introduced me to songs I never would have heard. Especially in the 50s you had a lot of "one hit wonders" so just listening to a band wasn't a great way to find other songs that I would like.
I don't really use Spotify so I can't compare but Pandora was awesome. I've found Youtube playlists to be the best replacement so far.
I've tried using Spotify and similar services that try to track your preferences but they're just, I don't know, boring. I much prefer the challenge of a human-picked DJ set.
The significant problem that AI faces in automatically curating something is that the input data is usually pretty terrible. It's based on either similarity of the thing being curated which doesn't work because people don't want things to be too similar or to dissimilar, or it's randomness which doesn't work because it's too discordant, or it's based on patterns in the data (people who listened to X listened to Y, so recommend Y to people who listen to X) which works but only if the listener's taste aligns with the majority. If you introduce multiple sources of patterns in the data you quickly lose any variation and things stop being interesting.
This is a hard problem. No one has ever really solved it, despite Spotify, Netflix, YouTube, etc investing hundreds of millions into the space. Humans are probably just too fickle to accept that an algorithm can choose for us. It lacks the social proof that a tastemaker like a DJ brings.
> This could be true, but why ignore the fact that you create a full blown native Mac app, with a single sentence?
I would guess it's for the same reasons that you're ignoring all the fixes necessary to get to an actual "full blown native Mac app". It's rarely a single sentence unless your app does something trivial like printing Hello World.
Basically it's because what "AI" can do is extremely different from what "AI evangelists" claim it can do.
I haven't seen a single "AI evangelist" address any concerns and limitations, other by than "throw more AI at it" or "it will get better in 5 years, just in time for cold fusion".
> you create a full blown native Mac app, with a single sentence
Like they created a full blown C compiler that "could compile linux" but in reality didn't pass its own tests?
If you constantly cry wolf, no one's going to believe you when the wolf actually comes.
These are great, thank you so much for sharing the recommendations. I tuned in to NTS and casually just kept on listening for a very long time. If anyone else has good recommendations, I'm all ears. Thank you.
The classical classification system is equivalent to the classification of cover versions in popular music. Of course, most audio software handles cover versions poorly too, but it's not like it's a completely unknown problem.
I think what you're describing is what people working with recommender systems call serendipity. Maximizing serendipity, while maintaining relatively high relevance/recommendation success rate, is supposedly a pretty difficult problem to solve. I'm not sure if LLMs have changed that.
Or someone cueing up well-known pop/dance tunes at a wedding/disco. Last time I was at one they weren't generally firing up symphonies, string quartets then doing a deeper drop of a heavy hitting baroque banger to see the bodies hit the floor.
> I don’t listen to pop songs. I prefer music of the 500-year tradition (...)
And who apparently wants to stream music, it is wild he's not subscribed to Apple Music Classical which exactly circumvents all complaints in this article...
In this case, I see the author's point. The DJ isn't being advertised as "a narrow tool to select some random pop tunes". If an average person is told this is AI, has a full text interface and responds with "sure I'll do what you asked" and appears to understand, then they expect it to do what it is asked.
We're told its better than people at selecting songs (e.g. has the combined wisdom of all music and music experts), basic requests like "play the first movement of Beethoven's 7th" don't sound hard for an average person with limited / no musical expertise. If I said "please play the entire 7th symphony", and the tool responds with "sure, I'll play the whole thing", then proceeds to play the Beatles, I'd say that's a fair thing to point out as a shortcoming.
Its only obvious to tech people that understand that the technology has extreme limits and only works well on areas with abundant high quality data and labels, and can't be expected to reason like a person at all in many cases, that those limits seem as obvious as hammer / screw-driver. And that given how spotify developed these models, they probably didn't really intend classical or test that area -- so it fails despite sounding confident.
But maybe we should stop advertising screwdrivers as universal intelligence? There's a lot of mott and bailey going on. When AI makes mistakes its "just tools, stop expecting intelligence." However, when people question the AI hype its "humans make mistakes too, LLMs are truly reasoning and better most humans already." And "the entire labor economy will be replaced, human DJs will cease to exist.".
I like using the automatic lists in soundcloud to discover new music. Often its hit or miss but it can surface some great tracks... Its intentional though, gotta have your finger on the skip track and heart...
The whole pitch of AI is that the model is going to be able to make exploit general knowledge outside of the local scope of the problem, just like a human would do. So I would also expect that it would be able to transfer his knowledge of classical music learned in language training, and apply that to the Spotify database.
Classical isn’t harder. It’s just so niche that leadership at spotify never bothered. It has a whole different taxonomy; it’s composer, not performer based etc.
Spotify isn’t against new taxonomies outside of weatern pop music. The India launch, where ragas were super important, shows it. But the Indian market is vastly larger than the small (albeit loud) number of classical music enthusiasts.
All that is to say, it’s a business decision, not a tech or AI problem.
(I really like classical music, too, btw., so please don’t read this as me not respecting that user base.)
I've been working on and off on something [1] that tries to address this problem through somewhat manual curation. You choose what genres you're interested in, and get auto updated playlists created from your music library.
I have a few other experimental features in the pipeline that will expand the music selection, but they are not there yet.
Spotify's discover weekly was genuinely good when it first came. It was on another level from other recommendation services. Maybe 90% of the music I've bought on Bandcamp, I would never have known about if it wasn't for discover weekly (Bandcamp's own recommendation/discovery features are lousy).
But somehow, probably from a combination of rights owners gaming it and Spotify gaming it, DW is a pale shadow of its former self.
> For example, when the author says “if it can’t do this, how could it compose music?”, that’s a category error.
That isn't really a category error. It's more begging the question. It makes the assumption that the ability to DJ music is the same ability as being able to compose music, and uses that assumption to suggest the conclusion that a failure to DJ classical movement would necessarily result in the failure to compose same. A category error would be assigning a property to AI that it cannot have. It would look more like, "if AI can't DJ music, we have no way to know what color it is."
What a strange take - you dismiss valid criticisms of Spotify product, just to venture off into the land of "well you can create a mac app with one sentence" as if that would matter here.
> For example, when the author says “if it can’t do this, how could it compose music?”, that’s a category error.
Given the author's background I believe it's intentional ragebait. It's as ridiculous as saying LLM can't count the number of Rs so it cannot generate grammatically correct sentences. No way he really thinks the logic is sound.
Content advocates for recognition and preservation of classical music tradition as cultural heritage. Author defends 500-year musical tradition against digital systems' marginalization, framing this as a cultural preservation issue.
FW Ratio: 57%
Observable Facts
Author extensively discusses western classical music tradition spanning 500 years and multiple composers.
Author explicitly states 'this tradition is not much respected in the sphere of digitized music.'
Author frames the problem as systemic ignorance of an entire cultural tradition by digital platforms.
Final statement asserts: 'There is nothing less consequential to corporate profits than the preservation of the western musical tradition.'
Inferences
The author advocates for recognition of classical music as a major cultural tradition worthy of digital respect.
The content implicitly argues that AI systems should accommodate diverse cultural expressions, not just commercial pop music.
Author's detailed cataloging of composers and compositions positions classical music as legitimate cultural heritage requiring protection.
Content exercises freedom of opinion and expression by publishing critical analysis of Spotify's AI implementation. Author directly states opinions about AI's performance and corporate indifference to classical music.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author publishes detailed critical analysis questioning AI's intelligence and capabilities.
Content presents author's personal perspective on Spotify's metadata limitations without apparent editorial censorship.
Blog post accessible without login or payment requirement.
Inferences
The author's ability to publish sustained criticism of a major corporation suggests exercise of free expression rights.
Free accessibility supports Article 19's protection of opinion-sharing in digital spaces.
The Appalling Stupidity of Spotify's AI DJ (title); 'borderline illiterate' application of the word 'song' to instrumental music; 'it obviously doesn't give a shit.'
appeal to authority
Extended catalog of 40+ classical composers positioned as cultural authority; reference to 'one of the sturdiest pillars of what we casually refer to as western civilization.'