1. Introduction: Standards and myths

Standardisation and formatting of musical, technical, or economical aspects are integral to the history of popular music. It is important to remember the foundations and debates surrounding standardisation in the essay by Theodor W. Adorno (Adorno and Simpson Reference Adorno and Simpson1941). Adorno accused popular music of embodying numerous standardisations, thereby reinforcing the long-standing dichotomy between serious and popular music within the context of critical theory. The standards of Adorno’s era encompassed various elements, including form, melodic range, and harmonic aspects of popular music. He also highlighted the necessity of avoiding monotony through constant repetition. Additionally, standardisation and formatting through technical configurations were shaped by the progression of audio media. From 2-minute play times on gramophones to shellac and vinyl records, cassettes, and eventually CDs, these provided media-imposed time constraints. Radio and television further influenced popular music, with the duration of singles and their structural forms being shaped by airtime limitations. The terrestrial distribution dynamics of radio and television broadcasts also restricted signal quality, impacting music production and mastering processes (for a comprehensive discussion, see Tschmuck Reference Tschmuck2006). Commercial music television introduced playlists that could be plugged by label and publisher promotions (payola), significantly affecting consumer reception (Mol and Wijnberg Reference Mol and Wijnberg2007). These issues became even more pronounced with the rise of digital sales and streaming platforms (Wikström Reference Wikström2020).

In addition to technical standards – such as the loudness specifications on streaming services (Morris Reference Morris2020) – numerous myths within popular music cultures pertain to various aspects. These range from general myths surrounding star genesis and artist authentication to genre-specific and regional myths that can affect the negotiation process during song creation, as well as the distribution and reception of products, performers, and performances (Loy et al. Reference Loy, Rickwood, Bennett, Loy, Rickwood and Bennett2018). Jaques Attali, in his work, follows Lévi-Strauss’s assertion that in modern societies, music itself may be understood as a substitute for myths (Attali Reference Attali1985, p. 28). The most widespread myths are likely those that are economically relevant or prevalent in specific contexts, often characterised by overnight sensations and rags-to-riches narratives (Kelly and McDonnell Reference Kelly and McDonnell1999). On the academic side, listeners of popular music tend to describe or interpret these myths as part of working-class narratives, even though many prominent artists emerged from British art schools (Frith and Horne Reference Frith and Horne1987). Simon Frith critically observes that the analyses in cultural studies concerning subcultures are based on a ‘myth of resistance through rituals’ (Frith Reference Frith, Grossberg, Nelson and Treichler1991, p. 179), which can obstruct further interpretations. Numerous works also exist that discuss and analyse myths surrounding nationality, ideologies, creativity, authenticity, and other significant discourses in popular music cultures.

However, in relation to the focus of this article, few well-known, scholarly processed myths have been identified; these are primarily found in the context of music production and the glorification of producers (Frith Reference Frith, Frith and Zagorski-Thomas2012; Hennion Reference Hennion1989; Mayhew Reference Mayhew and Bennett2017). Brett Lashua and Paul Thompson reconstruct the recording studio as a site where various myths are active and, in turn, are perpetuated in the perception of the ‘creative collective’ (Hennion Reference Hennion1983) both within the studio and at the fan level. In our study, we adopt the authors’ conceptualisation of myths based on Roland Barthes and Stuart Hall:

This article works with original data from a selection of twenty-five interviews with songwriters, and music industry personnel and ethnographies of songwriting camps. It focuses on identifying two central standards that songwriters, collaborative artists, and music industry representatives rely on in the context of platformisation (Bonini and Magaudda Reference Bonini and Magaudda2024), and the platform-centric myths that are implicitly addressed. To achieve this, we will first provide a theoretical overview of the structures of collaborative songwriting and platformisation. Subsequently, we will discuss the two central platform standards – streaming and social media – based on interviews and ethnographic observations. From this analysis, we identified and empirically examined two central myths. It becomes very clear in the analyses how standards and platforms are currently playing an increasingly central role in numerous fields of songwriting and producing. However, some of the myths are very clearly deconstructed by the interviews and detailed perspectives from creatives and the industry combined are brought into the academic discourse.

2. Collaborative songwriting

This article focuses on group-based, or collaborative, creative processes involved in creating and producing popular music. It deliberately excludes discourses and romantic notions of a sole ‘auteur’ or established concepts of genius (Shuker Reference Shuker2012). Popular music has long been conceived, arranged, and sold according to a division of labour. This division began with the roles of librettist, later lyricist, and composer and expanded to include arrangers, music typesetters, session musicians, producers, engineers, and specialised contributors who are now expected to provide catchy hooks and phrases as topliners within the creative collective network.

While duos predominantly produced hits during the Tin Pan Alley era in the 1920s (Shepherd Reference Shepherd2017) and in the Brill Building in the 1960s (Inglis Reference Inglis2003), the number of people involved in productions who also receive credits has been steadily increasing. Collaborative songwriting in popular music has become the standard since the end of the twentieth century and particularly in the early twenty-first century, becoming increasingly differentiated. Research on this topic encompasses the creative processes (Clarke and Doffman Reference Clarke and Doffman2017), the music production process (Wilsmore and Johnson Reference Wilsmore and Johnson2022), and a specific focus on songwriting (Bennett Reference Bennett2011). For instance, Joe Bennett (Reference Bennett2011, Reference Bennett2014) explains that there is a mutual benefit for artists and songwriters, which he labels as economically and artistically relevant in his ‘svengali model’. Mühlbach and Arora (Reference Mühlbach and Arora2020) even describe a new relationship between songwriters and their songs, whereby songs are seen as marketing tools for the songwriter’s own branding.

A recent trend in the perception of the authors of this article is the increased professional organisation of songwriting camps. These camps are organised by individuals, but primarily by publishers, labels, or associations. Our binational research projectFootnote ¹ between the United Kingdom and Germany has found that the orientation, organisation, and participants of these camps can vary significantly. The offerings range from opportunities for mostly inexperienced creatives to pay for knowledge and networking to commercial camps where artists and songwriting teams are specifically assembled. The current practices of participants reflect ideas, concepts, experiences, and approaches developed, tested, and implemented by their predecessors in the so-called hit song factories, such as Sweden’s Cheiron Studios writing for Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, or Celine Dion (Seabrook Reference Seabrook2015). However, recent forms of this creative work have changed significantly due to the now entirely digital means of production and communication (Bennett Reference Bennett and Donin2018), leading to global creative networks where individuals write for or with artists (Herbst et al. Reference Herbst, Ahlers and Barber2024).

To date, only a few studies have provided an insider’s perspective on these mostly exclusive and publicly invisible spaces (Hiltunen Reference Hiltunen2021; Tolstad Reference Tolstad2023). While academic work often focuses on the organisational aspects of creative processes, it pays less attention to the influence of formats and platforms. In general, it can be stated that songwriting camps typically consist of collaborative writing sessions limited to a few days, where three individuals in different roles (topliner, songwriter, and producer/tracker) develop both musical and lyrical ideas together in a studio environment. These ideas are then recorded and produced to at least a demo quality. The roles may change, but often not within a single session; rather, they shift between sessions. The writing occurs either based on a briefing or with the artists present, on-site or virtually. In concluding listening sessions, the material is collectively reviewed before it is selected, either by the participants themselves or by publishers and labels, before being pitched, produced, and ultimately exploited.

3. Platformisation between reception and production

Qian Zhang and Keith Negus discuss platforms concerning the classification of the live and streaming economies of the twenty-first century in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic:

Several studies have already highlighted how logistical-informational networks operating behind platforms increasingly penetrate the everyday consumption practices of users, resulting in new power structures, aesthetics, and ultimately new business models through progressive processes of market integration and concentration (Jansson Reference Jansson2023; Morrow et al. Reference Morrow, Nordgård and Tschmuck2022). On the reception side, more recent works indicate that music listeners can experience flow even in TikTok videos, which are greatly shortened in time and form, as well as when streaming music in playlists on platforms, moving away from a previous focus on the pop single (Loepthien Reference Loepthien, Moormann and Ruth2023). Meaning is actively created in these contexts. Conversely, research focused on the relatively new phenomenon of ‘cultural omnivores’ and cultural hybridity in mainstream music productions, with an emphasis on users, adopts a more critical perspective: Omnivores are typically playlist listeners who exhibit increasingly less differentiated tastes in preferred genres or artists. In these analyses, platforms and formats such as podcasts are recognised as new cultural intermediaries with significant influence. Moreover, Marxist critiques of the music industry are evident in these analyses, where attention is given primarily to new symbolic varieties of capital while simultaneously identifying familiar hegemonic models in platformisation (Barna Reference Barna, Tofalvy and Barna2020).

Several studies have shown that de-intermediation – the ability of an economic entity to separate individual tasks or functions from a value chain or network and manage them independently – has led to restructuring in the field of cultural industries (Nieborg and Poell Reference Nieborg and Poell2018; van Dijck et al. Reference Van Dijck, Poell and de Waal2018). Technologies such as user interfaces, network structures, and algorithms are primarily employed to reformulate cultural production accordingly (Benghozi and Paris Reference Benghozi and Paris2016; Duffy et al. Reference Duffy, Poell and Nieborg2019; Magaudda and Solaroli Reference Magaudda and Solaroli2020). However, it is questionable to what extent the structural changes associated with this phenomenon truly have long-term effects or whether some of the anticipated changes are merely products of myth. As Zhang and Negus (Reference Zhang and Negus2024) have shown for the Sinophone popular music industry, platforms even have the ability to become intermediaries themselves, as their staff now carry out the work that planners at labels did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Research on the relationships between musical creativity, music production and distribution, and the platforms involved is still lacking. While older works on the political economy of streaming exist (Scherzinger Reference Scherzinger, Cook, Ingalls and Trippett2019), there are only a few references to new hegemonies and the impact of recommendation algorithms on creative processes. However, convincing empirical data is absent to support the often-pointed descriptions of ‘algorithmic songwriters’ (Labarca Reference Labarca2021).

In the taxonomy proposed by Dolata and Schrape (Reference Dolata, Schrape, Carstensen, Schaupp and Sevignani2023, p. 350), the platforms significant for songwriting can be categorised into social spaces (such as Instagram, TikTok, and Zoom) and consumption spaces (such as Spotify and Splice). These social and consumption spaces permeate all stages of the songwriting process, as well as during reception. However, this does not imply that every platform must integrate every songwriting process, or vice versa. Depending on the services offered and the range of functions, only specific processes may hold importance. For instance, while Spotify plays a key role before, during, and after the writing process in the areas of research, reference, production, optimisation, and monetisation of the product, specialised platforms like Splice and Zoom are particularly important during the writing phase. Conversely, platforms like Instagram and TikTok can also play significant roles in preparing, executing, and monetising the songwriting process.

Research in music education even attributes distinct roles to these platforms, significantly influencing the reconstructed processes of songwriting in the amateur sector: ‘Three entangled actors become effective: the short video format of the platform, the recommendation algorithm, and the TikTok community as co-author in creative practices’ (Haenisch et al. Reference Haenisch, Godau, Barreiro, Maxelon, Neuhausen, Göllner, Honnens, Krupp, Oravec and Schmid2023, p. 305). New standards have emerged from these conditions and transformations. These standards primarily emphasise the roles of social media and streaming services as central intermediaries in the dynamic between experience and attention economies. The extent to which these standards have also transformed songwriting as a collaborative creative process gives rise to various myths and serves as the starting point of this article.

4. Sampling and method

The following analysis is based on semi-structured interviews and supplemented by ethnographic observations from three industry-organised songwriting camps. These camps were structured either as ‘writing with an artist’ (Eurovision Song Contest (ESC), hip-hop/pop/electronic dance music (EDM)) or ‘writing for an artist’ (German Schlager). The interviews were conducted between March 2023 and August 2024. The documented camps took place between May and September 2024.

The interview dataset consists of twenty-five interviews featuring relevant statements selected from a total of forty-four interviews (twenty-nine male and fifteen female). This 2:1 gender ratio is consistent throughout the entire sample, on both the German and the UK sides. The striking gender disproportion regarding the interviewees is not, however, to be regarded as a peculiarity of sampling, but rather concerns a peculiarity of the Western popular music industry in general, which is still heavily male-dominated. According to Ying Zhen (Reference Zhen2023), women in the United States make up only one-third (35%) of the population of musicians, based on a dataset of 263,438 musicians collected by the American Community Survey (ACS). Zhen and ACS make a differentiation between classical and popular musicians. Despite this, for English-speaking countries in general, as well as German-speaking countries, no comparable data in terms of representativeness are available so far. However, the proportion of women in major British and German music-specific organisations may also indicate a similar imbalance, suggesting that the imbalance is even more pronounced here. For example, in 2016, only 15% of the members of the British Performance Rights Organisation (PRO) Performing Right Society (PRS) were women (Gross Reference Gross2016). In one of the interviews in her study, Melanie Ptatscheck (Reference Ptatscheck, von Appen, Chaker, Huber and Prieske2024, pp. 303–4) confronts a member of the German Association of Songwriters (VERSO) with the observation that of the 135 registered members, only 20 could be read as female based on their names, which also represents a quota of only 15%. She also reveals that the male networks that result from that perpetuate their structures by applying (unconscious) gender-homomorphic recruiting strategies. In the meantime, however, VERSO appears not only to have grown even more significantly, but the proportion of women has also nearly doubled. Even though progress has been made in this regard also with VERSO having a female co-chair, we still cannot speak of parity here either. The German Music Information Centre (MIZ) reports that in 2019, of the 6,280 registered freelance musicians in the field of popular music (excluding jazz) in the German Artists’ Social Security Fund (KSK), only 800 (13%) were female (Melodiva 2019). There are also other studies indicating a gender disproportion in terms of female authorship in German Top-100 single charts, membership of the German PRO Gema, and female musicians performing at music festivals (Schäfer Reference Schäfer2022), as well as perceived and experienced gender-specific inequality of opportunities (Keychange 2024). Against this background, the apparent gender imbalance of the sample is relativised to a realistic reflection of the current gender reality in the music industry.

The corpus of forty-four interviews includes thirty-two interviews from the German-speaking region, encompassing Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (indicated by the prefix ‘DACH’ in quotations). Additionally, there are seven interviews from the United Kingdom (abbreviated as ‘UK’), three from Australia (‘AU’), and two from the United States (‘US’). These data were collected as part of the UK partner project.

The interviews were conducted with A&R managers, label and publishing house owners, camp organisers from collecting societies, editors at publishing houses, songwriters, session producers, camp conveners, and participants. Some interview participants hold hybrid roles; for example, they may be both participants and conveners/organisers or remain artistically active as songwriters and/or producers while also being label/publisher owners or representatives. All songwriting interviewees are commercially successful in their respective fields. Among them are award-winning artists and songwriters experienced in the ESC, all of them ranging from pop, urban, and EDM to Schlager. The interviews also included representatives of PROs, along with a creative director from the synchronisation sector. The interviews were conducted via both in-person and video conferences, and they were recorded, transcribed, and subsequently returned to the interviewees for communicative validation or pseudonymised upfront. The average duration is 71 minutes. Ethnographic data were also collected in the form of field diaries, notes, and memos. All data have been pseudonymised and handled in accordance with constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz Reference Charmaz and Smith2015) through an iterative process of coding and sampling. This approach allowed for the continuous development and deepening of emerging topics and new areas of interest as new interview data were collected. Interviewees were categorised into three areas:

1. (1) artists (ART),

2. (2) business (BUS), and

3. (3) education (EDU).

Thus, the interview code for each interview consists of the region and the aforementioned categorisation, as well as an abbreviation for gender, whereby male (m) and female (f) could be distinguished here.

For those with hybrid roles, they were assigned to the area most central to the research project. In consultation with the interviewees, an assignment to the binary gender category was made. However, this served mainly to promote diversity during the sampling of participants.

All interview data are stored and analysed together in a MaxQDA file, which includes paragraph numbers in the transcripts. These paragraph numbers are referenced below as positions within the interviews. The research team held regular coding sessions throughout the analysis process to discuss varying interests, evaluation strategies, data collection methods, and preliminary findings from the United Kingdom and Germany.

All quotes from DACH interviews with non-English interviewees were translated to make it easier for readers. This does not apply to DACH-ART11, who is an English native speaker with permanent residence in Germany.

5. Standard 1: Feed the beast

Spotify’s influence on songwriting should not be underestimated (Hesmondhalgh Reference Hesmondhalgh2021; Labarca Reference Labarca2021). According to the interviewees, collaborative songwriting is becoming increasingly important for contemporary songwriters, largely due to Spotify’s role and its impact on the music industry.

The increased frequency of songwriting camps aligns with the music industry’s general drive to accelerate and diversify processes, which is viewed critically:

But the reason for the increasing output of new music is economic. It has become more difficult to earn money as a songwriter (DACH-ART02m, pos. 42). This situation is related to the changed royalty structure following the transition from physical media to streaming (Towse Reference Towse2020). As a result, songwriters face an increased workload:

Consequently, songwriters are now seeking master points to enhance their share of the royalties (DACH-ART02m, pos. 38, 162). However, due to the oligopoly of major companies, songwriters remain vulnerable to their negotiating power: ‘Whenever the author share on Spotify increases, the master share becomes smaller, and you can’t really negate these conflicts of interest among the big publishers or major record companies]’ (DACH-BUS05m, pos. 33).

This situation makes songwriting partnerships more appealing, as collaborations between established artists can reach broader consumer groups. While collaborations could be very beneficial – such as enhancing a song’s success through co-branding (Ordanini et al. Reference Ordanini, Nunes and Nanni2018) – they seem to be becoming increasingly challenging, according to an A&R representative from a medium-sized, integrated publisher-label company:

Spotify is also the tool that songwriters and session producers use to prepare for writing by listening to the latest releases from the artists they are writing for or with. From this information, sketches are sometimes created to take into the writing session. At the observed songwriting camps, participants often sent each other links to Spotify playlists or the respective artist’s page via WhatsApp at the beginning of a writing session to reference songs. Some artists have even been criticised for replacing the descriptive text of a brief for a write with the current most successful tracks on Spotify. One songwriter mentioned, ‘I always find that a little silly because they could just as easily write, “Write a song that makes me money”’ (DACH-BUS15m, pos. 37).

Additionally, during a German Schlager camp, it was evident that Spotify served as an important reference tool to circumvent the obvious. One artist described himself as ‘commercially cool’ and stated he wanted ‘hits, hits, hits’, which the writers perceived negatively in subsequent sessions. They noted, for instance, that the artist had a low number of monthly listeners on Spotify and pointed out that his last single had also underperformed. One team even questioned the artist’s integrity, arguing that many songs from his recent album borrowed too heavily from successful hits of previous decades. They played the artist’s song on Spotify alongside the original to illustrate this point. Spotify allowed for instantaneous verification of these concerns, which would have required more effort or shared specialised knowledge among all parties without streaming platforms.

Throughout all the observed songwriting camps, Spotify was frequently utilised for another purpose during writing sessions. At various points in discussions, reference songs were accessed and listened to on Spotify to clarify ideas or provide emphasis. Bennett (Reference Bennett2014, p. 228) has noted that the suspicion of plagiarism can serve as a veto reason for a songwriting idea during the writing process, which was confirmed by the ethnographies conducted. As already observed by Bennett, these vetoes often manifested as ‘proposing alternatives’ (Bennett Reference Bennett2014, p. 234). The team’s internal rejection of the artist in the Schlager camps was an exception, as it only pertained to the completed songs prior to the camp. The way the songwriters interacted with each other mirrored the behaviour noted in Bennett’s observations. For young artists, Spotify necessitates the immediate establishment of a portfolio of songs rather than releasing them gradually. This approach requires a higher initial investment, such as hiring more successful songwriters. One underlying reason for this is economic in nature and somewhat tautological:

Simultaneously, having a rich portfolio of songs allows for greater listener engagement, ultimately converting listeners into fans:

From a strategic standpoint, the portfolio and the listener numbers generated from it become essential factors in converting this development into live performances or securing record deals:

However, this conversion ratio becomes problematic when an artist’s song ends up on the ‘wrong’ playlists, and streaming numbers do not stem from an engaged fanbase.

Prey (Reference Prey2020) discusses how Spotify channels its platform power as an intermediary between the music market, the advertising market, and the finance market, leveraging its ‘curational power’ – though not without friction. Despite the profitability of playlists, there are conflicting interests among the markets involved, which can adversely affect the playlists themselves. A rather unfortunate consequence of this development is Spotify’s employment of ‘fake artists’. To minimise the royalties paid to publishers and labels, Spotify has hired its own songwriters to create royalty-free music for mood playlists (Prey et al. Reference Prey, Esteve Del Valle and Zwerwer2020, p. 86).

From an aesthetic point of view, playlists can also pose challenges for songwriters. One songwriter notes that especially in pop music co-writes, there is a risk of focusing too much on getting onto Spotify playlists, leading to the creation of ‘generic music’ that conforms to playlist conventions. ‘But even this four-chord song needs something unique to have an identity and a signature’ (DACH-ART01f, pos. 28).

Conversely, playlists can facilitate an artist’s creative process. One interviewee describes self-curated playlists featuring the music of the artist they wish to collaborate with – along with thematic playlists – as ‘a good trigger’, serving as background music for breaks and lunches during songwriting camps (US-ART19m, pos. 36). He particularly highlights the ‘billions club’ playlist on Spotify, which includes only songs with at least 1 billion streams. Furthermore, Spotify has become the production standard in the sync sector to avoid creating merely ‘production music’, paralleling the status of playlist music as just individual background music.

In summary, Spotify’s influence is evident in the social dynamics of songwriting camps and the increase in collaborations. While it serves as a useful reference tool, concerns have emerged regarding the pressure for constant releases, the shifting royalty structures, and the prevalence of generic music. Additionally, the transition from streaming success to building engaged fan bases and live performances presents further challenges in the modern music landscape.

6. Standard 2: Social media

Social media repeatedly emerges in the interviews as a crucial tool intended to create viral moments. Prey (Reference Prey2020) demonstrates how Spotify promoted playlists, albums, and songs using Twitter to actively influence user listening behaviour. Very early in the production chain, prior to actual distribution (Wikström Reference Wikström2020, pp. 164–73), the extensive utilisation of social media starts with publishing companies. Their strategy appears to be twofold: communicating internally within the music industry and, indirectly, about the artists for whom they are writing, targeting the intended audience. In this regard, Wickström’s (Reference Wickström, Endreß and Wandjo2021) assertion that ‘the publishing segment […] has almost no direct contact with the music audience’ (p. 62) is not incorrect, as it reflects more of a multiplier effect for the participating writers and artists. This is particularly evident in the context of songwriting camps.

On the one hand, communication about songwriting camps is aimed at their own writers. One publisher articulated:

On the other hand, visibility on social media enhances the reputation of the camp’s organiser within the broader music industry. According to the Head of Operations at an international publisher with a branch in Germany, camps set against ‘Instagrammable’ backdrops or featuring top-tier artists help publishers build a symbolic reputation in the music industry, thereby increasing the company’s attractiveness to writers:

As previously mentioned, the financing of the camp should not be underestimated when it comes to communication about the camp. An important additional source of income for camps is sponsorship, such as for food, drinks, and musical instruments. Sponsors hope to gain visibility through their contributions:

Consequently, it is not surprising that some publishers who view their songwriting camp business primarily as hosting online camps – with the sterile grid look of Zoom – disagree on the importance of social media, stating, ‘[b]ecause a lot of what we’re doing is behind the scenes, to be honest’ (DACH-ART15m, pos. 68).

However, it is common for songwriting camps to create two Dropbox folders: one for the songs and another for social media content. This setup allows participants to gain an overall view of the social media material, which they would not have otherwise, and helps them develop a personal marketing strategy:

Depending on the organiser of the camp and the general camp policy, the corresponding content was sometimes produced in ritualised formats. At the Schlager camp, for example, the artist moved from group to group at the beginning of the writing sessions, having his picture taken with each respective writing team. At an ESC camp, a staff member changed constantly between the writing rooms specifically for content production and sometimes interrupted the sessions for group pictures. Since these were writing sessions for ESC entries, special rules applied. For instance, according to the European Broadcasting Union regulations for ESC 2024, songs and parts of songs intended for participation must be ‘original and must not have been released and/or publicly performed in part or in full before 1 September 2023 (the “release date”)’.Footnote ² These rules will be adjusted accordingly each subsequent year, with the release lock updated. If parts or the whole song are released in whole or in part before September 1, ‘the song would be dead for ESC’ (BUS14f, pos. 162).

In another observed camp, however, social media content was only produced during breaks. For this purpose, a sponsored delivery of ‘fun instruments’ like Otamatones from a German online music instrument retailer was staged in exchange for high-quality gear for creatives. At this camp, social media even became a disruptive factor for ethnography, leading to its cancellation due to a leak. Although the leak was not caused by the ethnographer, the trust between the songwriters and external attendees was permanently damaged.

During writing sessions, participants also utilise social media for external communication. Many of the observed writing sessions began with participants following each other on Instagram. Young artists at an ESC camp felt encouraged to post content during the writing sessions. It was noticeable that all sessions were very intensive, with only a few short breaks. However, these sessions were sometimes completely interrupted by social media breaks. These breaks were used exclusively by the artists, some of whom posted unrelated stories. One artist had a special obligation in this regard, as she had recently achieved a moderate reach as a micro-influencer and, accordingly, faced high posting pressure. The extent to which influencers are generally under constant pressure to post and adapt to the requirements and changes of platform infrastructures has been illustrated by Arriagada and Ibáñez (Reference Arriagada and Ibáñez2020) in their study of Chilean fashion influencers. Stress therefore arises from interruptions to self-marketing tasks. Their occurrence can be seen as a reference to

The assessment of the reach of songwriters and producers compared to artists among the interviewees is not entirely clear. While a German songwriter active in Asia noted, ‘I’m not a big name on social media, especially not as a songwriter’ (DACH-ART10f, pos. 201), the A&R representative from a major publisher mentioned that songwriters and producers now have good reach (DACH-BUS09m, pos. 116). However, for another producer with several eight- to nine-digit streams on Spotify, the quality of followers particularly matters. He connects this to a certain social market value within the songwriter community:

This is linked to the fundamental realisation that songwriting camps, in particular, not only are organised in an output-oriented manner but also serve as an important networking opportunity for songwriters. This aspect goes beyond the creative benefits of increased heterogeneity and diversity within one’s writing network (Herbst et al. Reference Herbst, Ahlers and Barber2024; Nasta et al. Reference Nasta, Pirolo and Wikström2016). It also encompasses the economic and symbolic advantages that arise from participation. As one interviewee noted,

This symbolic capital is particularly significant, given that songwriters are aware that publishers use social media as a scouting and communication tool. Many interviewees confirmed that their communications today primarily occur via social media, particularly Instagram, which is also used to seek potential collaborations among songwriters. Only official communications, such as those regarding contractual conditions, are still handled via email. Facebook appears to play a diminishing role; during an ethnography, one songwriter pejoratively referred to it as a ‘boomer medium’.

Our data reveal that social media is integral to the modern music industry, facilitating communication, marketing, scouting, and networking. Songwriting camps serve as both creative spaces and networking opportunities, cultivating symbolic capital that is amplified through social media. This highlights the intricate dynamics of audience engagement, follower quality, and platform choice within the industry.

7. Myth 1: Self-marketing substitutes old industry practices

The first myth we address concerns the notion that self-marketing through social media could completely replace established players in the music industry. Jones (Reference Jones2021) demonstrates that in DIY music scenes, which have a long history of deviation from cultural hegemonic structures, the neoliberal nature of social media actors plays a problematic role. Furthermore, Haynes and Marshall (Reference Haynes and Marshall2018) argue that for independent artists signed to independent labels, the benefits of social media for career development have often been overstated.

In the Dutch music industry, Everts et al. (Reference Everts, Hitters and Berkers2021) found that young artists invest approximately 60% of their working time in entrepreneurial tasks. However, these artists differ in the core values that guide their actions. Everts et al. (Reference Everts, Hitters and Berkers2021, pp. 107–10) categorise these values into ‘Pop as an Art’, ‘Pop as a Business’, and ‘Pop as a Hobby’. Notably, musicians who align with the value of ‘Pop as a Business’ tend to hold a strong belief ‘that they themselves are responsible for creating their success’ (Everts et al. Reference Everts, Hitters and Berkers2021, p. 109).

Consequently, the role of publishers has evolved from being merely a source of advances to becoming service providers that offer tailored services for artists. The industry has shifted towards requiring speed in creative work and talent discovery, as well as attractive deal constructs that create genuine spaces for enabling songs and collaborations. As one A&R from an independent publisher noted, ‘In the past, a publisher served more like a bank where you went to get an advance. Today, speed in the creative process and in discovering talent is crucial’ (DACH-BUS08m, pos. 10).

This perspective contrasts with that of an A&R from a major publisher, who emphasises the role of the publisher as a mere back office for artists:

Interestingly, Everts et al. (Reference Everts, Hitters and Berkers2021, p. 105) found low levels of social media activity among the young artists researched in their study. However, the extent to which this relates to their success remains unexplored. At least among the songwriters in our study, it can be concluded that self-marketing on common platforms rarely, if ever, reaches the level of nano- or micro-influencers. However, this does not mean that publishers or labels will now provide special assistance, especially during the early stages of an artist’s career. Major publishers and labels tend to have a relatively poor mentoring ratio relative to the number of artists and songwriters they represent. The statement made by the major publisher’s A&R should be understood in this context. Furthermore, as demonstrated earlier, publishers and labels primarily utilise social media to scout talent rather than to support their existing artists.

Nonetheless, the need for publishers and labels persists, largely due to the problematic billing practices of streaming services. A songwriter encapsulates her feelings on this issue, stating, ‘I mean, I have a management team, I have lawyers, and the publisher. I also rely on the publisher to ensure that all royalties are collected. But personally, I don’t really notice this. Unfortunately, I have to trust them’ (DACH-ART10f, pos. 172–73).

Independent publishers, in particular, emphasise accurate billing and the organisation of songwriting sessions as their core responsibilities:

In line with this, the founder of another independent publisher characterises his company’s services as ‘modular’ (DACH-BUS15m, pos. 5). This means that rather than offering standard products and uniform contracts, they provide tailor-made solutions. While it is essential to recognise that such statements may also be part of the typical marketing strategy of these companies, the current role of publishers as intermediaries for billing and songwriting facilitation cannot be dismissed.

A former vice president of a leading imprint at a major label offers another perspective that critiques the standard use of social media in the industry. He argues that social media no longer fosters genuine connections between audiences and artists:

He identifies a significant marketing challenge on social media, noting that platforms no longer differentiate between followers and true fans. This culminates in the troubling issue that artist content is given equal weight to other types of content.

The extent to which Spotify has recently adopted this function by specifying tour dates remains to be investigated. So far, Spotify’s transition to what is termed the ‘auxiliary service phase’ has only been examined in relation to podcasts, vodcasts, and audiobooks (Kiberg and Spilker Reference Kiberg and Spilker2023).

For the interviewee who represents the business side, it is clear that social media is not the right ecosystem for music due to the lack of gatekeepers to filter content. However, he believes this issue does not stem from a desire to restore the old industry, which he sees as an inglorious amalgamation of PROs and major company oligopolies; rather, it is linked to the self-interests of social media companies. These companies do not promote art; instead, they aim to sell personalised advertising (Dolata and Schrape Reference Dolata, Schrape, Carstensen, Schaupp and Sevignani2023, p. 351). Accordingly, he points out that it is no secret among music industry executives that the measurement of success on social media does not reflect reality:

Ultimately, this perception emphasises that intermediaries must genuinely act as advocates for the artists.

8. Myth 2: It’s all about TikTokability and conversion

Managing music promotion on TikTok presents unique challenges. Over the past few years, TikTok has emerged as a significant force in the music industry, fundamentally changing how hits are produced and marketed (Cirisano Reference Cirisano2020). Research by Watson et al. (Reference Watson, Watson and Tompkins2023) demonstrates a correlation between an artist’s follower count and the royalties they receive from streaming. Consequently, TikTok is increasingly used to test musical hooks and toplines due to its instant feedback capabilities, according to a major publisher A&R:

For songwriters who primarily work as topliners, TikTok’s strength lies in its role as a zeitgeist medium:

He also describes artist careers that have developed directly from TikTok successes: ‘Some artists wrote these four lines and are now playing at major festivals. They built entire careers off just those four lines or one viral song on TikTok’ (DACH-ART05m, pos. 28). Additionally, TikTok is now organising its own songwriting camps to generate content,Footnote ³ likely influenced by its reliance on platform success and relationships with major labels. This culminated in tensions between TikTok and Universal Music Group.Footnote ⁴ Although such practices have likely been in place for some time, an Australian Prudential Regulation Authority representative confirmed:

Some interviewees have questioned that platforms like TikTok produce disintermediation (Yuan Reference Yuan2024). Recently, it has been observed that TikTok may not function as effectively as it once did as a disintermediation agent. A producer associated with an established German ‘urban’ music publisher and label notes that the company’s business model must be adapted accordingly. Previously, the company had specialised primarily in TikTok artists for the German and European ‘urban’ market:

This sentiment is echoed by the A&R representative of another independent publisher-label company:

A creative director from an advertising music company, who was previously signed to a major label in the pop sector and had been groomed for TikTok appeal, also questions why A&Rs fail to grasp the platform’s intrinsic logic and attempt to generalise individual successes across a broader population of artists:

For this artist, this illustrates the lack of imagination among major label A&Rs:

He underpins the unpredictability of success with his own experiences from another artist’s project. Organic spikes in the streams of one song resulted from its random virality within beach videos and regular remixes by a YouTube creator. It was this unique combination that drove success for that particular song rather than an abstract notion of TikTokability (DACH-BUS16m, pos. 112). As a result, he questions why parts of the music industry still prioritise TikTok when it fails to convert into Spotify streams (DACH-BUS16m, pos. 112). He concludes that the easiest way to succeed on TikTok is to first produce relevant musical content. He cites Madonna as an example, noting that she has followers across every platform because she is already famous (DACH-BUS16m, pos. 114).

Another issue regarding TikTok is the challenge for songwriters to monetise their work. This concern arises from the practice of posting hooks and toplines, as mentioned earlier. For songwriters and session producers, this practice can devalue their product since parts of the song become accessible before the official release. Consequently, artists should always receive compensation:

9. Concluding thoughts

This article deals with recent developments in the context of the standardisation and formatting of popular music in the environment of the currently influential platform economies. It was assumed that this has a serious impact on the creative processes and the resulting products of music creation and distribution. Case studies were analysed on the basis of our own empirical data to verify these.

The interviews and ethnographies have shown that contemporary songwriting is influenced by a wide variety of platforms and services: Spotify has a significant impact on the music industry and songwriting. The platform necessitates the constant release of new music to meet its streaming requirements. This continuous production has altered the way songwriters collaborate, leading to more teamwork and the institutionalisation of songwriting camps. Collaborations between artists can also expand their audience reach and generate higher royalties for songwriters.

Social media, especially Instagram, also plays a crucial role in the music industry and songwriting. Publishing companies utilise these platforms to communicate with songwriters and artists, as well as to promote their songwriting camps. These camps are often funded by sponsors who expect visibility on social media in return. Additionally, artists may require breaks during intensive songwriting sessions to post their own content regularly. Much of the communication among artists occurs via social media, facilitating potential collaborations. The exchange on social media is also vital for scouting and communication between songwriters and publishers, enhancing the symbolic capital of songwriters.

However, myths persist in various sub-areas of the creative collective and the music industry. Through our data and insights into the processes and relationships among individuals, some myths can be understood in a more nuanced way and classified within the contexts of songwriting and creative work. Although the origins of these myths are not always clear, the interests and themes of the post-global music industry of the twenty-first century are often evident within them.

Our research has demonstrated that self-promotion via social media cannot entirely supplement established actors in the music industry. Publishers and labels remain crucial, particularly as a counterbalance to the flawed accounting practices of streaming services. Publishers have thus evolved from ‘banks’ to service providers offering bespoke solutions for artists and songwriters.

However, these metaphors are not always unambiguous. This becomes evident when considering that contracts with publishers transfer exclusive rights to trade in the created artefacts for several years, thereby removing them from direct exploitation by the creatives and thus preventing the generation of direct capital. A further challenge arises from the fact that artists can decide on their own position in dealing with the collaboratively created productions: on the one hand, they can use publishers to maintain an overview and ultimately rely on their networks. But in doing so, they enter into a financial dependency. Alternatively, they can take on these tasks of self-organisation and bookkeeping themselves, engaging in a form of self-empowerment within the platform economies of the twenty-first century.

Regarding the second myth, it has been shown that success on TikTok does not necessarily translate into streaming success. It even appears that this conversion is becoming increasingly difficult. This is particularly problematic in that hooks and toplines tested on TikTok may, in the worst case, diminish value for songwriters prior to an official release.

Overall, the presented case studies and analyses have revealed a complex network of dependencies between new and established intermediaries and their specific agencies. Many songwriting practices today are interwoven with various platforms. Simple answers to questions about the impact on the quality of productions or assumptions about marketability and commerciality, however, cannot be provided.

Our contribution raises awareness of the effects of platforms on the working practices of songwriters. Simultaneously, it demonstrates the complex interactions between platform-related marketing, myths, and songwriting realities.