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

61–70 of 128 posts

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

#61

Post by hannasanarion »

wwweston wrote: post #35
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…

> Nothing will ever stop people from making music The funny thing is how true this statement is, and yet how often it's deployed as if that means nobody needs to further consider or negotiate the present economics. How would one establish the idea that average person wasn't willing to spend money on music before the 20th century? Because I'd expect as long as there's been instruments and money, there's been some form…

The great musicians of 5he 19th century and earlier didn't make a living selling recordings and concerts. The price that would get butts in seats wasn't enough to cover the cost of living for all the performers, the composers, and the house.

Back then, musicians fed themselves using a system of funds that has popped back up again now that selling records isn't economically realistic anymore: patronage.

Back then, musicians were patronized by monarchs, feudal lords, aristocrats, churches and schools. Nowadays it's media conglomerates, bourgeois philanthropists, and patreon users.

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

#62

Post by renjimen »

rob74 wrote: post #51

The thing that fascinates me about Spotify and other streaming services is that the people who weren't willing to fork out 15$ for a CD in the past are now willing to pay 10$ every month for... pretty much nothing at all, if you think about it?!

You're getting a service? I used to buy a CD a week and listened to less music than I do now with Spotify for a quarter of the cost. Yes, it's nice to have a physical collection but I'd rather discover more new music

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

#64

Post by shmerl »

Semaphor wrote: post #57
ry-n wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://bandcamp.com/ is really wonderful if you're asking about music in general and not artists hitting the billboard charts. However, as it supports free listening there isn't a barrier to searching around and discovering new things. If you want some good coding music for the day I'd suggest starting with https://wanderband.bandcamp.com/

I love bandcamp. For 9 years now I've been getting almost all my music (I think maybe one or two albums from Amazon in-between) from them. I can get straightforward notifications, I can get whatever format I want and I can stream the whole album as much as I want before buying it (though I never listened to one fully before buying it – or deciding against it). And not to forget that I can often choose my own price (w…

Yep, Bandcamp is my favorite store for music as well.

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

#65

Post by zwkrt »

wwweston wrote: post #35
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…

> Nothing will ever stop people from making music The funny thing is how true this statement is, and yet how often it's deployed as if that means nobody needs to further consider or negotiate the present economics. How would one establish the idea that average person wasn't willing to spend money on music before the 20th century? Because I'd expect as long as there's been instruments and money, there's been some form…

> how well does what we're doing support people who are in a position to make musical contributions that people value?

This is the best possible time to support an artist you enjoy. You can buy physical and digital copies of any artist in the world, artists can set up Patreon accounts, and you with a small amount of ingenuity can probably even mail your favorite artists a check directly.

The issue is that people don't do this, because they don't value the music enough to do it. It is not a great argument to say that Apple Music is mistreating artists, the fans are mistreating artists.

As a final point, the way most popular (not just pop) artists get popular is through marketing, advertising, venue promotion, radio deals, etc. The record company probably deserves the majority of the money produced by such enterprises because without their intervention no one would be that famous to begin with. Kanye West is a brand, just like Ford and Dockers.

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

#66

Post by dmitriid »

rob74 wrote: post #51

The thing that fascinates me about Spotify and other streaming services is that the people who weren't willing to fork out 15$ for a CD in the past are now willing to pay 10$ every month for... pretty much nothing at all, if you think about it?!

> willing to pay 10$ every month for... pretty much nothing at all

A collection of 14 million songs doesn't sound like "nothing at all"

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

#67

Post by [deleted] »

geden wrote: post #40
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…

Spotify has had a severe and negative effect on musicians who make what I term 'peak experience music'. Amazing music, but not something you listen to every day. Say you listen once a month or even just a few times a year. Before: 2 listens = dealer price of a CD in UK = about £7.5 (on a good UK indie that's split 50/50 with the artist). Now: 2 listens = income from 2 streams on Spotify = about £0.0006 I'm thinking o…

[deleted]

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

#68

Post by dmitriid »

So, Spotify pays 70% of revenue to labels. In the end it's labels who pay the artists.

Why does no one, literally no one ask: where the hell does that money disappear? Everyone is busy writing 20,000-word essays on how streaming is bad for artists. Maybe, just maybe, it's not streaming that's bad but the labels and their agreements with both the artists and the streaming services?

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

#69

Post by pertsix »

geden wrote: post #40
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…

Spotify has had a severe and negative effect on musicians who make what I term 'peak experience music'. Amazing music, but not something you listen to every day. Say you listen once a month or even just a few times a year. Before: 2 listens = dealer price of a CD in UK = about £7.5 (on a good UK indie that's split 50/50 with the artist). Now: 2 listens = income from 2 streams on Spotify = about £0.0006 I'm thinking o…

This is not true/unfair interpretation.

An artist does not get paid after the first payment from the label from the sale of a CD. If you play the CD on repeat, the artist does not benefit, nor does the label.

/Labels/ get paid for every single listen on Spotify.

There is also Spotify Direct, too, and the artist can directly benefit more than if they went with a label.

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

#70

Post by not2b »

zwkrt wrote: post #65
wwweston wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing will ever stop people from making music The funny thing is how true this statement is, and yet how often it's deployed as if that means nobody needs to further consider or negotiate the present economics. How would one establish the idea that average person wasn't willing to spend money on music before the 20th century? Because I'd expect as long as there's been instruments and money, there's been some form…

> how well does what we're doing support people who are in a position to make musical contributions that people value? This is the best possible time to support an artist you enjoy. You can buy physical and digital copies of any artist in the world, artists can set up Patreon accounts, and you with a small amount of ingenuity can probably even mail your favorite artists a check directly. The issue is that people don'…

Only indie artists can do that. Record companies are now signing musicians and bands to what they call "360" accounts, meaning that the company controls every aspect of how the musician might make money, from digital presence to merch to advertising to touring. By staying independent, they can make their own deals, but then they have the problem that they can't get on the radio and have a hard time getting known.
Post reply on HN