Archive for Writings

Spotify’s fake artists vs. Endel

The fantastic article on Spotify by writer Liz Pelly in Harper’s Magazine (The Ghosts in the Machine1) felt like an apt summary at the end of the year. I appreciated the nuanced approach, especially since the writer makes efforts to follow and interview current working musicians on the scene, which is so often not the case in many of the other writings I’ve seen on this subject.

Spotify’s fake artists issue was a topic I’ve been following for many years, for the courses I offered at Bennington College. I was made aware of it back in 2016 when Tim Ingham, founder and publisher of Music Business Worldwide (MBW), started the excellent reporting on the subject. The first in the series was titled SPOTIFY IS MAKING ITS OWN RECORDS… AND PUTTING THEM ON PLAYLISTS2 published on August 31, 2016. I believe this was the first time the general public was made aware of this issue on a wider scale. MBW followed up with a story about Spotify’s denial – and rebuttal to that denial including a rough estimate of the $$$ these tracks by fake artists could rack up (July 9, 2017 SPOTIFY DENIES IT’S PLAYLISTING FAKE ARTISTS. SO WHY ARE ALL THESE FAKE ARTISTS ON ITS PLAYLISTS?3), continuing with a report on a possible effort by Universal Music Group (UMG) to ameliorate their situation (August 2, 2018 FAKE ARTISTS STILL DOMINATE SPOTIFY ‘CHILL’ PLAYLISTS. NOW UNIVERSAL IS FIGHTING BACK… WITH APPLE MUSIC.4) and a story about one of the production companies allegedly supplying this type of music to Spotify (March 28, 2022 REMEMBER SPOTIFY’S FAKE ARTISTS? THEY’RE STILL GOING STRONG – AND STILL ATTRACTING SCANDAL.5) along with a response from a well-connected reader.6 This year, MBW followed up with a portrait of one of the composers7 of this type of music.

If you haven’t followed MBW’s reporting, I highly recommend chronologically reading the above articles to get a sense of how the story developed. I also appreciate that MBW disaggregates the problems and reports separately on Spotify stock price/cash out8, a related but fundamentally different issue. Conflating the two only adds to the muddied landscape, fueling moral outrage about the wealth gap and generating a certain kind of interest, which may not be a bad thing, but ultimately putting the focus on the polarization and bringing us no closer to a solution.

Spotify is hardly the only platform offering functional music playlists. There is one company which offers ONLY that: Endel, the creator of AI-generated music which, according to its 2022 press release, is “a sound wellness company” with an “award-winning patented technology” which supposedly “creates science-backed, functional soundscapes that help people relax, focus, and sleep better.” As evidence of their effectiveness, Endel often cites the 2021 research paper9, which used technology developed by its collaborator Arctop Inc., research funded by both Endel and Arctop, with the support of UMG, Warner and Sony. Endel has partnered with UMG and Warner, and has also released through AWAL which is now a subsidiary of Sony10. As musicologist Ryan Blakeley writes in AMS Musicology Now’s article “Welcome to the Sound Wellness Revolution”: Endel’s AI-Generated Soundscapes and the Commodification of Passive Listening11, an overview of issues surrounding Endel, there are very clear financial incentives to offering functional music. Endel now has its own set of merch too, like the Endel Icon Hat described as “the classic dad hat never goes out of style”.

And here we see the outline: a land grab for the digital functional music space – by platforms, major labels, artists and AI-generated music creators. Currently most visible are the Spotify and “fake” artists, while the work by major labels with their collaborators like Endel remains less conspicuous.

So, what are the real issues here? Is it that the contributing human artists are using “fake” names? What if they don’t want to use their real names? Is it that the public is being duped by fake artists? But artists have always had the tradition of using pen names. Or is it that the human artists have entered into a “work for hire” agreement? That too has always been an option for us artists. Is it that the amount paid to artists is not commensurate with Spotify’s profits? Spotify has never turned an annual profit as of the writing of this post (12/26/2024) although this year may be different. 70%+ of its revenue has been paid back to rights holders. If there is a problem here at all, it would be between the rights holders and the artists.

Yet, there is a fundamental inequality which needs to be addressed. Monopsony and oligopsony have unfortunately become par for the course. Everyone is pursuing a share of their listening time for profit and artists are losing out.

Despite all of the above attracting attention, it’s important to remember that we are actually dealing with a small section of music: digital music which is not performed live. It’s easy to forget that so much music exists outside of this paradigm. If we look back on the history of music, the recent research on why it exists and its possible roles, and how music has been participatory for most of human history, we can perhaps find alternative paths for the next generation musicians who desire to work in both the digital and acoustic world, creating music for sync licensing as well as cultivating spaces where artists and audiences can mingle over live music. There are so many paths.

When working musicians are kept out of the conversation, the picture becomes a version of the simplified binary argument: is Spotify good or bad? The situation is so much more complex than that. We creators are not a monolith. Our relationship to Spotify runs the spectrum, depending on where we are on that particular commercial totem pole. As a former reporter who still has a foot in media, I am always perplexed as to why musicians’ viewpoints are so often left out of the coverage surrounding the music industry. Liz Pelly’s writing was all the more impactful to me because of the lengths the writer went to capture the voices of the creators. I look forward to reading the book.

This will be posted on Bluesky and Mastodon. Happy holidays everyone!

  1. Pelly, L. (2024, December 18). The Ghosts in the Machine. Harper’s Magazine. https://harpers.org/archive/2025/01/the-ghosts-in-the-machine-liz-pelly-spotify-musicians/ ↩︎
  2. Ingham, T., & Ingham, T. (2017b, July 8). Spotify is making its own records… and putting them on playlists. Music Business Worldwide. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-is-creating-its-own-recordings-and-putting-them-on-playlists/ ↩︎
  3. Ingham, T., & Ingham, T. (2017d, July 10). Spotify denies it’s playlisting fake artists. So why are all these fake artists on its playlists? Music Business Worldwide. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-denies-its-playlisting-fake-artists-so-why-are-all-these-fake-artists-on-its-playlists/ ↩︎
  4. Ingham, T., & Ingham, T. (2018, August 2). Fake artists still dominate Spotify ‘chill’ playlists. Now Universal is fighting back… with. Music Business Worldwide. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/fake-artists-still-dominate-spotifys-chill-playlists-now-real-artists-are-fighting-back-with-apple-music/ ↩︎
  5. Ingham, T., & Ingham, T. (2022, March 28). Remember Spotify’s fake artists? They’re still going strong – and still attracting scandal. Music Business Worldwide. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/remember-spotify-fake-artist-theyre-still-going-strong-and-still-attracting-scandal/ ↩︎
  6. Stassen, M., & Stassen, M. (2022, April 6). An MBW reader just blew open the Spotify fake artists story. Here’s what they have to say. Music Business Worldwide. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/an-mbw-reader-just-blew-open-the-spotify-fake-artists-story-heres-what-they-have-to-say/ ↩︎
  7. Stassen, M., & Stassen, M. (2024, March 19). This ‘secret’ composer is behind 650 fake artists on Spotify. His music has been streamed 15bn. Music Business Worldwide. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/this-secret-composer-is-behind-650-fake-artists-on-spotify-his-music-has-been-streamed-15bn-times-on-the-platform-report/ ↩︎
  8. Ingham, T., & Ingham, T. (2024, November 27). Daniel Ek just cashed out $35.8 million in Spotify shares. But that’s nothing compared to his co- Music Business Worldwide. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/daniel-ek-just-cashed-out-35-cashed-in-384-million/ ↩︎
  9. Haruvi, A., Kopito, R., Brande-Eilat, N., Kalev, S., Kay, E., & Furman, D. (2022). Measuring and modeling the effect of audio on human focus in everyday environments using Brain-Computer interface technology. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2021.760561 ↩︎
  10. https://static.endel.io/presskit/Endel-PressRelease-AmazonSleepPlaylist.pdf ↩︎
  11. “Welcome to the Sound Wellness Revolution”: Endel’s AI-Generated Soundscapes and the Commodification of Passive Listening – Musicology Now. (2024, January 18). https://musicologynow.org/welcome-to-the-sound-wellness-revolution-endels-ai-generated-soundscapes-and-the-commodification-of-passive-listening/ ↩︎

The Sportification of Politics

[This has been edited on 11/6/2024 to reflect the election results. This post is now a list of links to articles relating to media leading up to the election, continually updated.]

The Republican sweep was decades in the making, and a win for unbridled capitalism. The markets are elated, for now.

What role did the media play, including Roger Ailes and Fox News? Elon Musk who controls the platform X? The cumulative advantage given through media exposure to a particular individual, party or agenda? The Apprentice ran fifteen seasons from 2004 to 2017, a time period which coincided with the rise of social media in the mid-2000s and the prioritization of algorithmic feeds in the mid-2010s, further amplifying polarization. Republicans also took advantage of podcasts in ways Democrats could not.

Media exposure, including information shared on social media, favors the rich and the powerful regardless of party affiliation. Media platforms are for-profit, and their gatekeeping works in tandem with technological advances which also favor the rich and powerful. By keeping our eyes glued to the spectator sports of the presidential election, were we missing something important?

Selected further reading/listening:

The relationship of the election and the media:

Jon Stewart Looks Back with Sanity and/or Fear (NYT 11/04/2024)

A Master of the Media Evolved Yet Again in 2024 (NYT 11/07/2024)

Joe Rogan and the Fifth Estate: How the Podcaster and a Group of Cable News Exiles Became More Powerful Than Traditional Media (Variety 11/13/2024)

Pro-Harris TikTok felt safe in an algorithmic bubble — until election day (The Verge 11/14/2024)

On Elon Musk:

Elon Musk’s Unmatched Power in the Stars (NYT 7/28/2023)

Elon Musk could be the biggest winner of a second Trump Term (NBC News, 11/5/2024)

On technology, prosperity and the wealth gap: Power and Progress by Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson (Daron Acemoglu is 2024 Nobel Laureate)

On my reading list: The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. “Dan Hopkins, associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania… explores how politics in the U.S. have largely become a spectator sport. That is, politics have become more nationalized—issues are more likely to be argued and adjudicated at the national rather than local level. This stands at odds with the historical intent of our framers, who envisioned that political power would favor states and municipalities.” [1]


[1] French, C. (2022, December 11). Democracy from the Sidelines: How U.S. politics became a spectator sport – behavioral scientist. Behavioral Scientist. https://behavioralscientist.org/democracy-from-the-sidelines-how-u-s-politics-became-a-spectator-sport/

How Do We Find Music?

Ruben Whitaker's chart tracking exposure points to the music they listen to.
Ruben Whitaker's chart tracking exposure points to the music they listen to.
(Above chart by Ruben Whitaker)

How do we find music? Recommendations from friends? Movies? Video games? Algorithm? Music is everywhere. But when 120,000 tracks are being uploaded every day to digital streaming platforms1 and Spotify gives us access to over 100 million tracks,2 the chances of us encountering a piece of music become surprisingly low. 

Yet, we find them.

This semester at Bennington College, my class “Musical Taste and Monetization” took another deep dive into music discovery methods. The image above is a page from a project by Ruben Whitaker, recent graduate of Bennington College, who analyzed years of their playlists and made the following observation: “Friend recommendation + Algorithm seems to be a powerful phenomenon of exposure especially if the artist and sub-genre are completely new…I was surprised at the low number of artists and songs I encountered through algorithms, this highlights that peer-to-peer recommendation is strong…” 

Ruben continues: “I think a lot of people listen to…music they know personally or locally because it’s more of a personal relationship. I think this aligns with the hypothesis of music being developed for social bonding. This is something to think about in terms of how to build strong musical networks and offer something that AI music or mass-produced popular tracks cannot.”

When I first designed this course back in 2021, I anticipated students to rely heavily on the Spotify algorithm. How wrong I was! Although Spotify is the main platform many use to listen to music, the ways in which students discover music were remarkably diverse and creative, with person-to-person communication and live concerts playing huge roles, that I had to completely rethink and recalibrate all I had thought I knew. 

Daniel Ek recently made comments about the cost of creating content, and my class too had previously reached a similar conclusion specifically regarding digital content: anything that can be reproduced digitally ad infinitum with a click of a button skews the traditional supply and demand curve. We discussed what it means to live in a society surrounded by technologies of abundance: “New technologies continue to democratize, decentralize, and disrupt production, offering the possibility that scarcity will be a thing of the past for many industries. We call these technologies of abundance. But our economy and our legal institutions are based on scarcity.” 3  

Music is so much more than digital content. Reexamining the non-digital component of music feels especially important right now. Music has been integral in every culture since the dawn of humanity, with many researchers highlighting the relationship between music and social bonding.4 In that spirit, I continue to make music and explore the opportunities of social bonding through music. The next generation already understands this. These students are creating our future. We have so much to learn from them. 

[All images by Ruben Whitaker, used with permission. Ruben Whitaker is a Chicago-based songwriter and multi-instrumentalist, and a graduate of Bennington College. During college, Ruben ran a radio show called “Folkloric Geography” which showcased music from around the world. Ruben has several releases under the name “Ruben Jai” including the the album Present for You and the singles Washburn and Neighborhood Planets.]

  1. Stassen, M., & Stassen, M. (2023b, May 24). There are now 120,000 new tracks hitting music streaming services each day. Music Business Worldwide. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/there-are-now-120000-new-tracks-hitting-music-streaming-services-each-day/ 
  2. Konstan, E. & Spotify Technology S.A. (2023). FORM 20-F. In UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Report], P.35, https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2023/ar/26aaaf29-7cd9-4a5d-ab1f-b06277f5f2a5.pdf 
  3. Desai DR and Lemley MA (2023) Editorial: Scarcity, regulation, and the abundance society.
    Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 7:1104460. doi: 10.3389/frma.2022.1104460 
  4. Mehr, S. A., Krasnow, M. M., Bryant, G. A., & Hagen, E. H. (2021b). Origins of music in credible signaling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x20000345 

(This article originally was written for, and appeared on, New York Jazz Workshop blog)

友人の辻田希世子さんが本を出しました!

35年来の友人、辻田希世子さんが本を出しました!

「ヴェネツィアの家族」(社会評論社)
https://www.shahyo.com/?p=13602

カーニバル、お針子、映画祭、そして家族…。記憶の引き出しにしまってあった面影たちが、ある日心の扉を静かにたたく。海の都ヴェネツィアで、かつて時を共にした人たちへの追想と愛惜。喜びと哀しみが今新しくよみがえってくる。

著者
辻田希世子(つじたきよこ)
1965年、大阪生まれ。上智大学外国語学部比較文化学科卒業。広告代理店にてコピーライターとして働いた後、1995年、イタリアへ留学。ヴェネツィアに移住し、ライターをしながら、ヴェネツィア大学、ボローニャ大学で日本語を教える。元イタリア記者協会会員。2007 年、日本に帰国。2019 年にHP トリリンガル・マム https://trilingual-mom.com を開設、イタリアおよび英語に関するエッセーと情報を発信している。翻訳書に「くろいちょうちょ」(講談社)。

アマゾンからのご購入はこちらから。
https://www.amazon.co.jp/ヴェネツィアの家族-辻田希世子/dp/4784513892

ーーーーーー
希世子はヴェネツィアで、私はパリと東京で、人生の最も多感な時期を過ごしました。友達歴35年以上。彼女の文章を読むと、あの頃の自分達を思い出します。現在は二人とも母親兼社会人としてセカンドキャリアを歩んでいますが、あの時間があって今がある。たくさん笑いましたが、限りなく切なかったことも。懐かしく思い出します。北村京子

A Mistake or Implicit Bias?

Recently, I learned of an album review written by a seasoned writer, whom I did not know personally, published on an online platform frequented by music fans. The review itself was wonderful, but there was one error which I noticed. The author, referring to my nonverbal vocal improvisation, wrote that I sometimes sang in Japanese on the recording.

Nowhere on the entire recording do I sing in Japanese. My vocal improvisation used my usual method of combining consonants and vowels in my own way. Perhaps the author decided that I was singing in Japanese because of my ancestry. Perhaps he took a mental shortcut without fact checking. (Many writers already know about my reluctance to use pre-existing language since language can both unify and divide; I’ve mentioned this personally to writers or in interviews or press releases, and have posts about it on my website.)

It took me a while to think about how to deal with this, or if I should deal with it at all. Given all that the world was going through right now, calling attention to a seemingly small error in a music review did not feel appropriate. At the same time, given what many of us go through on a daily basis as we continue to be seen as hyphenated-Americans on a good day, I felt that I should at least attempt to rectify the error, however small.

There were three ways I could approach this. One, do nothing. Two, post the issue on a public forum like Twitter. Three, contact the writer and see if he is open to having a conversation. The first option, I had already abandoned. The second option, I abandoned as well because I didn’t want a public discussion about implicit bias and assumptions based on race. We live in a polarized environment. The author and I represented two races and two genders which could easily be framed in a more explosive narrative. I wanted this to be an opportunity to  explore the why and the how – especially how to prevent these things from happening in the first place. A public social media forum, to me, was not always constructive for nuanced matters.

Fortunately, I was able to find his email address and wrote to him about the error. He emailed back two days later, apologizing and saying that he will rectify the error as soon as he could. Then I emailed him back with an invitation to have a more formal dialogue about what happened, to examine the reasons and see if we could both gain insight from this incident. I did this because we are all human and we all make mistakes. In fact, making mistakes is pretty much the only way we learn, as has been shown in neuroscience research. If every small mistake was blown up in a public forum, what would that do to us? In the fear of making a faux pas, will we stop making mistakes, and thus stop learning? Stop communicating with each other, listening and discussing? I think all these things are already happening. Had I been in the same position as the author, I would have liked for the musician to reach out to me in the way I reached out to the author. I would want to learn, correct my mistake, and use that knowledge to make the world a better place.

For this process to work, we also need to be open to being corrected, because that is one of the most important parts to learning. And it goes without saying that mistakes which create victims… That would call for a serious investigation and all that goes with it.

If the author wants to engage, this story can continue. If not, this post will hopefully provide one direction out of many, in the ways we can deal with bias and assumptions. This incident has already given me an opportunity to put my thoughts into words, and that is a positive thing. As Anthony Braxton repeatedly told me, “Making no mistakes is the biggest mistake of all.” Mistakes are key to learning. Next time we make a mistake, no matter who makes it, let’s take a breath and see what we can learn from it, together, before rushing to condemn it. Because the only way to make the world a better place is to learn to do it together. And if we are not learning, then we are not part of the solution. We become part of the problem.

[Update] The author sent me an email with a thoughtful apology, although he declined to engage in a discussion. I am happy to let this matter drop, and hope that this interaction added something positive however small.

PR strategy for a performing arts organization during the pandemic

The following is based on a presentation I recently did during a class visit at Dartmouth College.


When the pandemic hit, live in-person performances were suddenly cancelled, the phrase “force majeure” was thrown around to nullify contracts, and the organization had to quickly reevaluate its raison d’être as well as shift its PR strategy. In the beginning, we probably didn’t understand its severity, or perhaps we were in denial. What we had thought would be a few months became half a year, a year, and now we are hearing that normalcy, whatever that means, may not be back until perhaps 2022. It was, and still is, a terrible and difficult time for all of us. There will be no easy way out of this situation. Throughout it all, I had a job as the executive director of an arts organization. I looked at five criteria:

  1. Visibility
  2. Relationship with the audience
  3. Community
  4. Funding
  5. Creativity

Visibility

Visibility today includes exposure in traditional mass media as well as social media where self-generated content can be disseminated to the masses. It is usually a symbiotic process on our scene; presenters or labels and artists work together to publicize events or album releases. For example, when I work with a festival, I will be in close communications with their communications team about when to announce (embargo), contents of the release including press photos, discuss press requests and promote the event to our networks.

Once the pandemic hit, the symbiotic relationship with presenters and their huge networks disappeared along with live in-person performances. However, new relationships quickly strengthened, namely arts organizations working with other arts organizations and amplifying visibility together. This was already going on before the pandemic because artistic collaborations are a natural part of our work, but I believe I am seeing an increase in number of requests our organization receives for collaborations, consultations and pedagogy. We are all searching for ways to maximize our new two-dimensional platform: the screen. Organizations working together meant a larger network and reach.

The focus of live performance is in the moment, with a medium length pre-event publicity often in the form of “what to do and see” articles, and a very short post-event publicity in the form of reviews. Now, events were live streamed or taped beforehand, and the post-event publicity has grown a very long tail. The International Contemporary Ensemble, NYPL and Tri-Centric collaborated to produce a Braxton75 event which was broadcast over Facebook and YouTube (I.C.E. was the lead organizer). That event produced the wonderful lecture on the music of Anthony Braxton and an interview with the ensemble Thumbscrew, both of which can be promoted independently. Tri-Centric’s Carl Testa and Belgian guitarist Kobe Van Cauwenberghe worked together for a live streaming EEMHM performance which was then written up in a wonderful interview article.

Basically, we moved to a two-dimensional digital platform sans geographical constraints, and an event format which could be synchronous or asynchronous. The more organizations work together, the wider our reach (and it’s usually more fun). We are definitely making more use of post-event publicity. I don’t see this as a replacement of the old; in-person live performances cannot be replaced. I see this as a branching off, with its own modest possibilities. We were also fortunate to be able to work with many artists and ensembles interested in performing Braxton works, of which a sample can be seen on this YouTube playlist.

Relationship with the audience

In-person events were where artists could interact with the audience, and we missed those moments terribly. Here, I had to rethink what it was that happened between audience and artists during a performance. I always felt that there was an exchange going on between the audience and artist, in the form of attention for experience. According to Wikipedia, “Attention remains a crucial area of investigation within education, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, and neuropsychology.” For me, attention is a finite gift, zero sum, as explained by Michael Goldhaber in a recent NYT opinion piece. A performance space is usually set up so that the finite attention won’t be taken away from the action on stage: a bright elevated stage with the audience sitting in the dark. So, could I somehow distill this essence and apply it in another way?

The out-of-the-box idea was a tote bag with a musical score. A score, from a communication perspective, is music trapped in ink, a message which can be transmitted to and decoded by someone other than the composer. During the pandemic, we can’t interface with the audience in person. The tote would be a way for us to reach the audience, to disseminate the music, and for us to hopefully still be present in their lives. This bag was used as part of the 2020 year-end fundraising campaign and performed remarkably well. We were also able to communicate with the supporters while mailing the totes. It was not a substitute, but it was something. Otherwise, we kept up our regular newsletters to inform our audience of any activities such as online performances of Braxton works. (As an aside, an activity such as making a tote bag can help boost intraorganizational morale. Communication strategies should also take into account issues of communication among the board and staff of a nonprofit.)

Community

Without the community of artists, we would not have a scene. There is no solution to what is going on now during the pandemic, with artists out of work, moving away, going back to school, etc. Marshall McLuhan’s global village has encroached on a scene which thrived on propinquity, the in-person full-body experience of playing music together in the same room. For the moment, all we can do is to try our best to support each other, and if we can highlight each others’ works somehow, e.g., a newsletter, that should count for something. It’s similar to ingredient branding except we have become the ingredients. This is an evolving situation. We probably will not understand the full impact for a few years. Although it is important that we do our best to keep the community intact, the reality is that the community probably has become dormant and will certainly undergo a change. A desert bloom waiting to happen, waiting to rebound.

Funding

Another difficult area, but if all of the above somehow came together, then there might be wonderful people and institutions who can see value in what an organization does and be inclined to support it. I am always so thankful for donors who generously support arts organizations. At the same time, I see it as a responsibility for those who receive the money to keep delivering the best. And what is the best during a pandemic? That is a key question that I have no answer for. I also applied to grants and loans; got rejected by two grants but did receive two forgivable loans for the organization. For the moment, things are okay, but there is no guarantee for the future.

Creativity

An arts organization can’t stay static. I have no answer to the current situation except to say that crisis situations will always bring about change. Whether that is positive or negative or both will depend on the organization. In my professional experience, the ability to navigate crisis situations depends largely on the ability for the people involved to be flexible. Also, whatever issues that existed prior to the crisis will most likely be exacerbated. In some cases, one crisis may have already been brought about by preexisting issues but were somehow hidden or tolerated, while another crisis pushes the organization over the edge so that those hidden issues would have to be dealt with. The crisis may be a way to tackle those issues head-on and resolve them once and for all.