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

91–100 of 128 posts

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

#91

Post by NikolaeVarius »

moate wrote: post #75
criddell wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what has changed is the frequency in which artists need to release content So, the album is dying? Could something like Pink Floyd's The Wall be released today? It's a two CD package with gapless songs.

The Album has always been a weird thing. Yes, the album as a concept has largely fallen off. It has very little advantage over a 2-4 song EP at this point. You no longer need to package weak b-sides in, because they're not going to get plays anyway. More bangers, less chaff. But yea, you can still do a concept album like The Wall or Sgt. Pepper's. Kids doing drugs and laying around listing to weird noises for an hour…

I don't quite understand this claim that the concept of Albums have fallen off, Metal still puts out quality albums today.

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

#92

Post by amyjess »

not2b wrote: post #70
zwkrt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

On the flip side, it's easier to be an indie artist now than it's ever been.

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

#93

Post by mikepurvis »

not2b wrote: post #70
zwkrt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Do those deals have expirations, or are they "for life"?

I feel like once a musician is established, the label should have to justify their ongoing role in that musician's career, and certainly in the past lots of musicians have switched labels or started their own small labels later on in their career.

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

#94

Post by scarface74 »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #90
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.

Spotify isn’t exactly rolling in money. They aren’t even making a profit.

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

#95

Post by skinnymuch »

criddell wrote: post #20
jasode wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Some record labels have (had?) sweetheart deals with Spotify 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?

I thought they mostly exited by now. I know Sony and Universal sold significant amounts of their stakes.

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

#96

Post by scarface74 »

wolco wrote: post #88
linuxftw wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It had nothing to do with the subgroups availability to pirate. By that I’m assuming you mean the “urban youth”.

Sale of rap and even “gangsta rap” has been dominated by White people for two decades.

https://atlantablackstar.com/2014/11/06/really-listening/

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

#97

Post by reaperducer »

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…

unlike every other time in human history

This is not true. People have paid for music for centuries. Before it was recorded on discs, tapes, wires, or cylinders, people bought and sold sheet music. It was a massive industry.

Before everyone had an electronic music player there were pianos in almost every middle-class home. Pianos were a huge industry with some cities having a half-dozen local manufacturers.

And before pianos became mass-market, people bought sheet music to... get this... sing! People would get together in each other's houses to sing. Companies had bands and choirs, and would compete against each other.

Spending money on music is not something new.

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

#99

Post by shmerl »

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.

That's nonsense. What improved are means of communication and distribution. I.e. Internet. You can reach a lot more people. Copyright and patents have nothing to do with it.

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

#100

Post by rchaud »

esilver wrote: post #79

This interview sets up this false dichotomy where people ostensibly accessed music by spending $15 on a CD or not at all. The contention seems to be that piracy/Napster were a forgone conclusion because there was no real choice. People listened to ad-supported radio or they listened to records socially or borrowed them. That’s how it worked for about 80 years. I’m not defending the music industry, its practices, or i…

Or they made copies of friend's records ("ripping"). the CD-R drive has been around for 2 decades now, and came as a default option on many laptops and desktops in the early 2000s. And before that, people had CD/Casette Boomboxes where you could record CD tracks to the cassette. It was the only way to make mix tapes.

I remember the days of ripping CDs borrowed from friends on a 4x speed drive; back then, you could do 8x but there was a risk of file corruption/recording failure.

Post reply on HN