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

Spotify Saved the Music Industry (But Not Necessarily Musicians)

freakonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 128 posts

Re: Spotify Saved the Music Industry (But Not Necessarily Musicians)

#21

Post by kristianc »

It's interesting how different types of music have thrived through the streaming economy.

Hip hop is huge on Spotify, where it struggled for radio play and sales before because commercial radio is so conservative (in the sense of risk-averse). Then there's the whole Billie Eilish thing: huge on Spotify, almost no radio play at all.

On the other hand, there are Billboard 100 artists who are more or less absent from the streaming landscape. Some sell lots of albums but aren't on the streaming charts at all.

It's probably not as simple as saying that streaming is only good for established artists, but bad for the long tail. For some of the previous long tail, it's been very good. And for some of the oldies, it's been phenomenal - Spotify enables them to monetize their back catalogue with near zero promotion or distribution costs, year round.

Re: Spotify Saved the Music Industry (But Not Necessarily Musicians)

#22

Post by wwweston »

If something hasn't "necessarily" saved musicians, then there's not much of a defense of whatever else it's done for the industry.

And any idea that services like Spotify were just the only way forward to revenue is one that thoroughly ignores the growth of digital recording sales that took place independent of it (not to mention what they may well have been like if it'd never happened).

Buffet streaming services marry the worst of piracy and the old-school middleman capture. They give the illusory impression that you're actually rewarding value.

Re: Spotify Saved the Music Industry (But Not Necessarily Musicians)

#23

Post by linuxftw »

kristianc wrote: post #21

It's interesting how different types of music have thrived through the streaming economy. Hip hop is huge on Spotify, where it struggled for radio play and sales before because commercial radio is so conservative (in the sense of risk-averse). Then there's the whole Billie Eilish thing: huge on Spotify, almost no radio play at all. On the other hand, there are Billboard 100 artists who are more or less absent from th…

> Hip hop is huge on Spotify, where it struggled for radio play and sales before because commercial radio is so conservative.

What? See how many rap albums are in this list [1].

1: https://www.billboard.com/archive/charts/2000/top-album-sale...

Re: Spotify Saved the Music Industry (But Not Necessarily Musicians)

#25

Post by tunesmith »

zwkrt wrote: post #3

It seems to me like musicians have always been in a precarious relation to the economy, same as all other artists. The only difference is that for a brief time in the 20th century the average person was willing to spend money on music, unlike every other time in human history. Nothing will ever stop people from making music, and 99% of working musicians are making a meager living doing what they enjoy, just like alwa…

That strikes me as dismissing "progress" as a mere blip in human history. The reason the average person was more willing to spend money on music is because we improved matters having to do with copyright and licensing. Good copyright and patent law serves a useful purpose in encouraging people to create or innovate in a system that would otherwise discourage doing so.

Re: Spotify Saved the Music Industry (But Not Necessarily Musicians)

#26

Post by chewz »

brycesbeard wrote: post #16
chewz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What’s interesting is that these algos are trained on human feedback. What does that say about our revealed preferences in music?

As an anecdote I have left Apple Music after it had been suggesting to me at least 3 heavy metal playlists for 30 days. And this is the one genre I do not listen to.

I had been clicking 'I don't like it' buttons hoping the AI will get it but no luck. So after 30 days I had enough and moved on back to Spotify.

So much for human feedback.

Re: Spotify Saved the Music Industry (But Not Necessarily Musicians)

#27

Post by thegayngler »

I would argue that most musicians should be salaried employees making 80-150k. The label would then handle everything else. The musicians only need to focus on creation and performing. I have always been interested in the problem Spotify is trying to solve for. However, I think they've only solved half the problem. The other half of the problem is solved by putting long tail musicians on a salary and then they can graduate out of that once they achieve a certain level of commercial success.

(Why is this being downvoted?) It is on topic and is not at all hostile.

Re: Spotify Saved the Music Industry (But Not Necessarily Musicians)

#28

Post by kristianc »

linuxftw wrote: post #23
kristianc wrote: post #21

It's interesting how different types of music have thrived through the streaming economy. Hip hop is huge on Spotify, where it struggled for radio play and sales before because commercial radio is so conservative (in the sense of risk-averse). Then there's the whole Billie Eilish thing: huge on Spotify, almost no radio play at all. On the other hand, there are Billboard 100 artists who are more or less absent from th…

> Hip hop is huge on Spotify, where it struggled for radio play and sales before because commercial radio is so conservative. What? See how many rap albums are in this list [1]. 1: https://www.billboard.com/archive/charts/2000/top-album-sale...

There's a bit of cherry picking going on choosing a year where Eminem and Jay-Z were at their peak. 2000 was probably one of the top three years in the last 20 or so for hip hop.

Scheduling Eminem for radio play while he is arguably the biggest artist on the planet is not really going out on a limb.

Re: Spotify Saved the Music Industry (But Not Necessarily Musicians)

#30

Post by bitwize »

kristianc wrote: post #21

It's interesting how different types of music have thrived through the streaming economy. Hip hop is huge on Spotify, where it struggled for radio play and sales before because commercial radio is so conservative (in the sense of risk-averse). Then there's the whole Billie Eilish thing: huge on Spotify, almost no radio play at all. On the other hand, there are Billboard 100 artists who are more or less absent from th…

Hip-hop has been on the mainstream radar for about 30 years, dude. If Spotify had come out in '90 (that's a "Wonders of the World Wide Web" video begging to be made), you'd have a point. But as it is, for a while in tge early 2000s the Billboard 100 was consistently topped by R&B acts, or as Chris Rock liked to call it, "singing over rap beats".

Where Spotify comes into play is granting exposure to artists who are still trying to make it, or whom mainstream radio won't play. But that's cross-genre and diesn't affect the mainstream viability of hip-hop itself.

Post reply on HN