The SPOTIFY fake-artist story, which is basically about real music made by real people for real playlists heard by real subscribers, but which is otherwise entirely fake, continues to reverberate around the music internet. (Tweet of the day, from THUMP's MICHELLE LHOOQ.) Here's MUSIC BUSINESS WORLDWIDE on why it makes economic sense for Spotify to commission and/or license these pseudonymous instrumental tracks. Here's THE VERGE on why it doesn't make economic sense. You decide. Either way, you may come away with some new info on how Spotify is paying people—an elusive and ever-useful subject... But here's the real reason I'm bringing this up again. This claim, from a Spotify spokesperson interviewed by NPR MUSIC's ANDREW FLANAGAN: "A good playlist... can't be all algorithm, or have it all be human—it has to be a human curator armed with data and tools." Let me shorten that some more: "A good playlist... can't... all be human." Is this the state of the art of the music-programming discussion in 2017? Is this what we've come to? Do we not trust our own species to put together a pleasing or provocative or beautiful or inspiring flow of music? Can humans no longer be trusted to make mixtapes? I'm impressed by data and algorithms. But given a choice between TUMA BASA's ears and consumer research, or between JULIE ADENUGA's heart and click-through metrics, I'll go for the flesh-and-blood every time. No faking... Also, can we please show some respect to real fake artists? Bang-shang-a-lang to this... And bawitdaba da bang da dang diggy diggy to this. Two questions: Will the office door say SEN. KID or SEN. ROCK? And are you serious?... Noble pursuits: Trying to compile every track played at BERGHAIN last weekend. Trying to compile every track played at THE GAP between 1992 and 2006... Coming next week from STRETCH, BOBBITO and NPR. Hell yes... RIP RAY PHIRI and DAVID KAPRALIK.