Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

David Bowie Has Died

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 312 posts

Re: David Bowie Has Died

#131

Post by jorgearturo »

Nullabillity wrote: post #120
blfr wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify stopped working on Ubuntu a while back so I can't check but I'm pretty sure there is a HypeMachine app for Spotify. So you can get recommendations from them within the Spotify client. EDIT: it stopped working after 15.04. Something with an old version libgcrypt. I didn't care enough to debug it.

Spotify works fine for me, under both Ubuntu and Arch, but they removed support for apps a while ago (on all platforms, IIRC Linux was actually the last holdout).

It is buggy for sure; But many of the Spotify apps I use work fine on Linux even without support though.

Re: David Bowie Has Died

#132

Post by s0l1dsnak3123 »

blfr wrote: post #117
dluan wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? What about the anti-Spotify's like HypeMachine? Fiercely independent, trendspotting/trendsetting, and sustainable. It's a very valuable service to lots of folks. IMO Spotify/Rdio/Pandora could only ever hope to go the advertising route over subscription because they couldn't crack the much harder distribution problem (e.g. the HypeM's, SoundCloud's, Drip's, etc).

Spotify stopped working on Ubuntu a while back so I can't check but I'm pretty sure there is a HypeMachine app for Spotify. So you can get recommendations from them within the Spotify client. EDIT: it stopped working after 15.04. Something with an old version libgcrypt. I didn't care enough to debug it.

I don't know about whether the spotify app doesn't work for you anymore, but I use mopidy-spotify on arch which gives me full spotify access in the terminal.

Re: David Bowie Has Died

#133

Post by [deleted] »

braythwayt wrote: post #78
synthmeat wrote: post #21

I don’t even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, because I don’t think it’s going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way. The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it’s not going to happen. I’m fully confident that copyrigh…

> I don’t even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, > because I don’t think it’s going to work by labels and by distribution > systems in the same way. > > --David Bowie, 2002 Something to think about in music that also happens in startups and software: These are social activities. People don’t judge music solely by some kind of independent metric of appeal. They also judge whether the music is popu…

[deleted]

Re: David Bowie Has Died

#134

Post by lectrick »

rplnt wrote: post #48
cageface wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything labels are more important than ever and music sales are driven by the kind of marketing campaigns that only big records labels can afford. There's a ton of interesting music being made outside their domain but most people will never hear any of it.

One would think services like Spotify would help, but they only make the music more accessible, they don't help you find it. I don't have pro and only ads I hear (besides the spotify ones that are trying to annoy you into paying) are ones from Universal Music.

> they don't help you find it

Not true in my case. (I've had Pro for a long time, not sure which if any of these are Pro-only...) I can audition as much unheard-by-me recommended-by-Spotify music as I want through its Weekly playlist, its various curated genre "browse" playlists, its "trending" playlist (where you will often hear things that only become "visibly" popular MONTHS later, the playlist content is actually determined via algorithm to spot trendings super early)

Re: David Bowie Has Died

#135

Post by joosters »

synthmeat wrote: post #21

I don’t even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, because I don’t think it’s going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way. The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it’s not going to happen. I’m fully confident that copyrigh…

See also 'Bowie Bonds' - http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/01/11/2149761/a-short-histor...

David Bowie sold the rights to future royalties from his music, in the form of bonds. Presumably influenced by his thinking that music was going to be napsterised.

Re: David Bowie Has Died

#136

Post by junto »

josteink wrote: post #20
brunorsini wrote: post #17

Such sad news. Given the Golden Globes is just over, it might be timely to rewatch the classic Extras segment in which Bowie roasts Gervais - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE

"This video contains content from BBC Worldwide, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." You just have to love modern copyright.

The rules of globalisation sadly only suit corporations and not individuals.

Re: David Bowie Has Died

#137

Post by ebbv »

cageface wrote: post #44
synthmeat wrote: post #21

I don’t even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, because I don’t think it’s going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way. The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it’s not going to happen. I’m fully confident that copyrigh…

If anything labels are more important than ever and music sales are driven by the kind of marketing campaigns that only big records labels can afford. There's a ton of interesting music being made outside their domain but most people will never hear any of it.

> If anything labels are more important than ever and music sales are driven by the kind of marketing campaigns that only big records labels can afford.

That's just not true. While the very few artists that do sell albums nowadays (Taylor Swift, Adele, Kanye West, etc.) are on major labels and do have promotion from major labels, these artists are also already successful enough to have done their own promotion if they wanted to.

On top of that, these successful artists by todays standards are selling what would have been considered disappointing numbers for artists at their levels 20 years ago. In the 90s Hootie and the Blowfish (an act with no staying power) sold 16 million albums in the US. By comparison Adele's 25 which is a huge hit by today's standards has only sold 3 million copies in the US (though 16 million worldwide.) In the 90s many albums sold tens of millions of copies, nobody does that any more.

Bowie was 100% right.

Re: David Bowie Has Died

#138

Post by huxley »

tjl wrote: post #118
ktamura wrote: post #2

When September 11 happened, I was living in New York City, and like many other NYC residents -American or not- I was distressed. Paul McCartney and Co. put together a concert to cheer us up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concert_for_New_York_City ), and that was the first time I had a chance to listen to Bowie live. It turned out to be the last time. RIP.

Wow, I feel old. I saw him in concert over a decade earlier for his Sound + Vision tour.

Me too, on July 2 1990 in New Brunswick. I won't ever forget it not just because Bowie was awesome but because a woman that climbed on stage to grab Bowie's arse leapt over the barriers and landed on my girlfriend, knocking her out.

I had to lift Em over the barrier so the roadies could take her off to get medical treatment and I spent the rest of the concert trying to find her. Poor Em was a bit stunned by the blow so when they asked her if she wanted to meet Bowie, she said, "no, I need to find my boyfriend."

Re: David Bowie Has Died

#140

Post by reitanqild »

philh wrote: post #121
will_pseudonym wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a non-sports person, but I had a dawning realization earlier this week. We crave shared, tribal experiences, and that's why we seek out those shared events. On the same topic, sports is a religion. If you disagree, or don't yet understand, please compare and contrast the two for me.

What do you mean by 'religion', and why does it matter whether sports is a religion under this meaning? Here are some differences: sports fans don't think that their team is capable of supernatural feats. I don't think I've ever seen a fan of one team try to convince a fan of another to change allegiance, or proselytizing on a street corner. Sports fans know that the teams of the other fans exist, while religious peo…

> Here are some differences: sports fans don't think that their team is capable of supernatural feats. I don't think I've ever seen a fan of one team try to convince a fan of another to change allegiance, or proselytizing on a street corner.

thinking that something is capable of supernatural feats is not required for something to become a religion.

Quite on the contrary I present you exhibit A: "forum atheists", non-believers that believe so strongly in the non-existence of anything they haven't personally seen that they will hijack any thread that is remotely near using any religious word.

To be fair, IMO a whole lot of atheists are great people. A few of them though seems to be more religious and more proselyting about it than almost any other religious group. Which is so ironic it would be quite funny if it wasn't so annoying.

Edit: removed dumb Meh

Post reply on HN