11–20 of 128 posts
For example see Pusheen the cat. Started off as a tumblr web comic/character and now generates millions in merchandising revenue:
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-an-internet-cat-craze-be...
As an amateur musician I still make most of my monthly sales from iTunes. Streaming pays so little, unless you're a big name – which incentivizes the big labels while squeezing the smaller artists. Early platform like Lala (bought by Apple) had a cool model – $0.10 per song, but you can only stream it. Ownership was still there, and artists were paid equally per sale. Nevertheless, getting your music distributed is e…
Are you saying big acts get more per stream?
Also, I'd love to hear what you think about how the incentives from Spotify et al are changing music itself. From what I understand, a play isn't registered until a certain portion of the song has been played. This hurts songs that have a slow build and so hooks are being pushed right up front. Do you think it's homogenizing music to any degree?
The long tail is dead. The algorithm that was supposed to help you find it has killed it instead.
Can you substantiate this? Based on conversations with musicians I know in that long tail, seems like it's helped them get discovered but they're not earning a livable wage from it. It's not clear to me that they'd be any better off in the absence of Spotify, although I don't have strong convictions either way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The long tail is more alive than ever, but algorithms have always been a bad way to find it. Instead, listen to personal recommendations on web forums etc. There are people who are passionate about any obscure micro-genre you can imagine, and they'll point you to the best of it. Bandcamp and Soundcloud are full of long tail music that's completely ignored by the mainstream music industry.
It's interesting, I've gone back to Spotify from Apple Music primarily because I can easily find more interesting playlists from curators. I don't think Spotify has any kind of special algorithmic sauce, they just make it easy for people create and share playlists. It amazes me how most of the other streaming services try to turn everything into an algorithm, via "special radio" stations, etc. And yet, the best way t…
For a solid year, any time I played a Daily Mix or let one of my personal playlists runout and it reverted to "recommended music", Neko Case was always in the first top 3 songs. Before that it was Iron and Wine. I don't mind either artist, but I have never chosen to play either one myself.
I do like Spotify's curated playlists though. They are always a better source of new music than the automatic playlists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting, I've gone back to Spotify from Apple Music primarily because I can easily find more interesting playlists from curators. I don't think Spotify has any kind of special algorithmic sauce, they just make it easy for people create and share playlists. It amazes me how most of the other streaming services try to turn everything into an algorithm, via "special radio" stations, etc. And yet, the best way t…
There's definitely some algorithmic shenanigans going on with Spotify on any of their auto playlists. Whatever algorithm they have decides that I absolutely love one specific artist and shoves them down my throat for months. For a solid year, any time I played a Daily Mix or let one of my personal playlists runout and it reverted to "recommended music", Neko Case was always in the first top 3 songs. Before that it wa…
The main benefit of Spotify is that I can just bypass the algorithms, and go straight to people. And that's really where the "long tail" effect seems to thrive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting, I've gone back to Spotify from Apple Music primarily because I can easily find more interesting playlists from curators. I don't think Spotify has any kind of special algorithmic sauce, they just make it easy for people create and share playlists. It amazes me how most of the other streaming services try to turn everything into an algorithm, via "special radio" stations, etc. And yet, the best way t…
In my humble opinion all discovery algorithms with all large providers are terrible. Instead of expanding they narrow down choices and never surprise me in a good way like some human curated playlist can. I had been switching between Apple Music, Spotify and Google Music in different countries. Currently I have settled on Google Music simply because Google practically abandoned Google Music so they are not so in my f…
As an amateur musician I still make most of my monthly sales from iTunes. Streaming pays so little, unless you're a big name – which incentivizes the big labels while squeezing the smaller artists. Early platform like Lala (bought by Apple) had a cool model – $0.10 per song, but you can only stream it. Ownership was still there, and artists were paid equally per sale. Nevertheless, getting your music distributed is e…
> Streaming pays so little, unless you're a big name Are you saying big acts get more per stream? Also, I'd love to hear what you think about how the incentives from Spotify et al are changing music itself. From what I understand, a play isn't registered until a certain portion of the song has been played. This hurts songs that have a slow build and so hooks are being pushed right up front. Do you think it's homogeni…
The big acts may get more per stream because of 2 factors:
1) the Spotify allocation algorithm of subscription payments works top-down from the most popular artists' percentage of total streams instead of bottom-up from individuals' play logs. (The top comment of a previous HN thread discusses this.[1])
2) Some record labels have (had?) negotiated sweetheart deals with Spotify for different revenue share and stream payouts. So a Universal/Sony/Warner major label with a roster of desirable artists that Spotify wanted may get slightly more per stream than an unknown indie label with no leverage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting, I've gone back to Spotify from Apple Music primarily because I can easily find more interesting playlists from curators. I don't think Spotify has any kind of special algorithmic sauce, they just make it easy for people create and share playlists. It amazes me how most of the other streaming services try to turn everything into an algorithm, via "special radio" stations, etc. And yet, the best way t…
In my humble opinion all discovery algorithms with all large providers are terrible. Instead of expanding they narrow down choices and never surprise me in a good way like some human curated playlist can. I had been switching between Apple Music, Spotify and Google Music in different countries. Currently I have settled on Google Music simply because Google practically abandoned Google Music so they are not so in my f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Streaming pays so little, unless you're a big name Are you saying big acts get more per stream? Also, I'd love to hear what you think about how the incentives from Spotify et al are changing music itself. From what I understand, a play isn't registered until a certain portion of the song has been played. This hurts songs that have a slow build and so hooks are being pushed right up front. Do you think it's homogeni…
>Are you saying big acts get more per stream? The big acts may get more per stream because of 2 factors: 1) the Spotify allocation algorithm of subscription payments works top-down from the most popular artists' percentage of total streams instead of bottom-up from individuals' play logs. (The top comment of a previous HN thread discusses this.[1]) 2) Some record labels have (had?) negotiated sweetheart deals with Sp…
That reminds me of something else I've been thinking about. The labels all have substantial equity stakes in Spotify. It feels like that could be a massive conflict of interest or maybe a collusion problem. Why should the labels push for higher streaming fees when that could hurt Spotify's stock price which would hurt the label's own balance sheets?