The way streaming is better for all performers, if they work at it [All Platforms][Other]

Question

I'm no trying to be your PR or law firm but, from my perspective, being new to Spotify, I think some of the performer and recording industry comments about your not paying enough could be offset by this simple idea that, few in music seem to understand about streaming: Discovery on a massive scale.Attached is a screen shot I took of just one section of many, many new records I have saved. My saved playlists from others and playlists I made have many, many more performers on them.This is what makes streaming great, and what Apple does not seem to get very well with its Music app.If a performer or label realy gets this idea of making playlists here (and elsewhere) and being on social media (Facebook, Twitter, here) to not advertise or pester but, maybe, once a week, post a new playlist or comment on another performers playlist, these tendrals of connection all mean MORE plays. The good old days of the mega performer selling loads of CDs is not over entirely but, the days of more performers and labels getting more deserving listens is here.I have pretty eclectic tastes (I used to work at Tower Records as a teen and college student) so it is a lot of classical, jazz, but also contemporary, rock, and even African. Both living and dead. Young and old performers.I would have seen NONE of these and did not see much of any music CDs for a decade or more because of music store closure. Spotify brings back the music store and the ability to discover and audition an album (maybe even making the artist some money but not buying it!). Sure, iTunes and Amazon let you do that but, some classical CDs cost $25+ with downloads not that much less AND lower quality on Amazon. I'd listen then weigh it; How many times will I listen to this? Unless it was $7-10 AND I loved it, I skipped buying. I would even hold out a few years for lower price or buy used CDs instead.Now I am listening to more performers of all kinds I would never have heard and never have bought. Perhaps the big names are making less. But many less known but superb performers are being heard by me. If any artist does good work and promotes it online and it is ACTUALLY good work (rare for all genres), then people will listen and they will make money. Bad, unpromoted, derivative, worn out, lousy music with lazy artists or badly run labels, will not make money.  

Answer 1

Indeed :-)
This forum is riddled with questions by users that cannot get their computer to do what they want, *despite* the fact they use a very precise and (usually) unambiguous method of telling it want they want it to do -- a programming language. Making it comprehend *natural* language is, by any way of measuring, a number of degrees more difficult.
That said: in what way would a computer program (advanced or "dumb") be able to help the OP? Spell check is one -- but it's not a *fact* that anything written *badly* equals nonsense. In politics, for example, the most eloquent speakers still manage to make a fool of themselves :D The same goes for "grammar". Of course, bad grammar is more difficult to understand -- EVEN for a human. So a computer is bound to fail on that as well.
Fact checking then? I usually can't even find what I want in one go with Almighty Google (which seems to turn things around: if it cannot find "enough" web pages with the exact phrase you asked it, it automatically assumes you are interested in synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, and other *unrelated* stuff! Yeah THANK you but I want to find what I typed in!)
A good starting point would be to define in more detail what this hypothetical software *ought* to do -- that needs to be a bit more concrete than "I want it to do my job for me."