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

81–90 of 128 posts

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

#81

Post by linuxftw »

kristianc wrote: post #55
linuxftw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I picked year 2000 because it was well before streaming. There were dedicated rap/hip-hop stations for well over a decade at point. > Scheduling Eminem for radio play while he is arguably the biggest artist on the planet is not really going out on a limb. I mean, you can't be the biggest artist on the planet without some level of main-stream support in the first place. To say that hip-hop became more popular due to s…

In 2017, hip hop surpassed rock to become the most popular genre, according to Nielsen, and crucially that was reflected in streaming rather than album sales: > According to the report, R&B and hip-hop are now responsible for 25.1% of all music consumption in the U.S., while rock claims 23%. > Looking at the rest of the numbers listed that dissect how people are consuming these styles of music, it’s clear that stream…

So what? Your original statement that rap is popular because of streaming is nonsense.

Rap popularity was steadily increasing before streaming, you can't credit streaming for it's popularity.

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

#82

Post by bluGill »

Bud wrote: post #59
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…

This statement reflects wearing a certain kind of blinders, where you think the current pop-music industry is what the word "music" means. I can assure you that people were spending plenty on going to operas in the 19th century, for instance. And in the 18th century. And of course world-class orchestras have been making money for a few centuries, as well.

You are correct that there were those making money in music for the last few thousand years. However they were a minority: the vast majority of music was made by someone who did something else. You farmed all day, and when the day was done you made music.

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

#83

Post by wolco »

tunesmith wrote: post #25
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.

Complete nonsense. Physical media played a part. Before the walkman you had to share music with everyone in the room. The identity association that began in the 60s. The rise of popstars, the Beatles, cds, etc.

Nothing to do with copyright.. more people were breaking copyright during this period. In fact the people who broke copyright spent the most on music. Everyone broke copyright by recording songs from the radio. The first mass market recording devices were everywhere.

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

#85

Post by ghaff »

mediascreen wrote: post #72
ghaff wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short-term experience anyway. Long-term experience requires remaining a subscriber ad infinitum. I admittedly come from the perspective of someone who prefers to own music that I care about. Which, in turn, is very influenced by the fact that I had a very large digital/digitized music catalog before streaming came along so incremental purchases aren't very expensive.

I think there is a difference between collectors and people who just want to listen to music. I gladly pay Spotify each month to NOT have to manage a collection of physical or digital music. I gladly pay HBO and Netflix as well, but it seems no matter what I pay, I cant get the same movie/series coverage that Spotify provides for music.

I don't really think of myself as a music collector. I just like to know that if I decide tomorrow I don't want to pay for a streaming music service any longer, I'll still have all the music I care about. That said, given that all the major music services have at least most non-niche music, having subscriptions to some things is just the way things are these days and you're probably not realistically going to drop a music streaming service.

Video is, of course, much more fragmented but it's also different in that you're not going to rewatch most video content. There never were music rental stores (although libraries did/do have music) but video rentals were a thing pre-streaming.

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

#86

Post by wolco »

neves wrote: post #73
geden wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I spend less music in streaming than before, but surely a lot of people didn't spend US$20 each month in music

In 1999 at the peak the average person spent $28 now the average person spends less than 15.

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

#87

Post by thegayngler »

kevincennis wrote: post #60
thegayngler wrote: post #27

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 gr…

The problem with this is that it requires really successful artists to work for far less than the value they create, which they won't – because they know they could make far more money independently. And without the top performers subsidizing the salaries of everyone else, the whole thing falls apart.

Top performers are already working for far less than the value they create allegedly. Usually, there are a whole host of people working on a project.

Right now you have fake writing and producing credits simply designed to generate a stream of income for the musician. I think going to a salary would allow people who are best at writing or production or something other than singing being able to focus and it brings the cost to produce a record down.

You may or may not be able to make more money independently. You never know when the public is going to move on to some other sounds and you never know the perks that are lost as a result. The top of the top performers probably could swing the independence but for many it may not be the way to go. The bottom line is that for the vast majority of musicians a salary system could be better to work under.

I think everything should be on the table as it relates to how the music business is run and that's what the Spotify CEO said he was interested in. He's just doing from one side instead of both sides of the equation. That's why the vast majority artists and content creators are on the losing end of Streaming.

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

#88

Post by wolco »

linuxftw wrote: post #81
kristianc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2017, hip hop surpassed rock to become the most popular genre, according to Nielsen, and crucially that was reflected in streaming rather than album sales: > According to the report, R&B and hip-hop are now responsible for 25.1% of all music consumption in the U.S., while rock claims 23%. > Looking at the rest of the numbers listed that dissect how people are consuming these styles of music, it’s clear that stream…

So what? Your original statement that rap is popular because of streaming is nonsense. Rap popularity was steadily increasing before streaming, you can't credit streaming for it's popularity.

Rap/HipHop sales have been growing since Napster compared to rock. The people willing to pay for music changed. Rap isn't more popular in general but the ability to pirate was much lower in this subgroup. So Rap sells more.. but rock concert's out sell rap concerts where indy rap isn't as celebrated as the superstar.

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

#89

Post by kzrdude »

pertsix wrote: post #69
geden wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe pay per play is not fair, payout shouldn't be linearly proportional to number of plays!

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

#90

Post by loudtieblahblah »

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…

artists deserve to be paid more than technology companies that deliver us the art.
Post reply on HN