Spotify Saved the Music Industry (But Not Necessarily Musicians) • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by skookumchuck » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

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…

Being in a band, even a low level band, is a great way for young men to get laid, and hence they are highly motivated to do it.

A friend of mine once had a conversation with the drummer of a nationally known band. The drummer was an ordinary looking fellow, who said he was a "high school loser never made it with a lady" type. After the band became known, he looked up and hooked up with every woman who'd rejected him in high school, including the married ones.

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

#102

Post by Animats » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

Now can someone do Spotify for old movies? The online Netflix catalog keeps shrinking. Studios are cracking down on Youtube showing movies that used to be used as filler on late-night TV.

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

#103

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #44

matthoiland wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Spotify (streaming services) are influencing the composition of new music – listening habits are mostly unchanged since popular music in the 50's. The 3-minute song with the initial hook is a product of 50's AM radio. Whereas Radiohead/Sigur Ros/Slowdive artists with long builds do so intentionally, and their listeners enjoy that about them. But.... what has changed is the frequency in which artists nee…

> 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.

It could be released today. And it would be nothing like the event it was at the time.

It's not about the physical delivery format, but about the social rituals around it and the impact they make.

Streaming cheapens and commodifies music and turns culture into wallpaper. Likewise subscription video on Netflix, etc, which seems to have become a home for trashy potboilers about zombies, vampires, superheroes, and soapy post-apocalyptic dramas. Likewise Amazon's all-you-can-binge-on KDP for fiction readers.

Culture has always had the potential to be an event. In the past, the arrival of a stand-out movie, album, or novel literally left a generational imprint.

It's hard to imagine Spotify, Netflix, Apple, or Amazon, creating an environment in which that's possible. There will be products that have millions, maybe billions of fans, but there won't be many creative projects that keep the interest of those fans for more than a month or so, and even fewer - probably none at all, in fact - that will continue to have cultural power decades after their release.

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

#104

Post by rchaud » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

kilroy123 wrote: post #24

shmerl wrote: post #18

I prefer to buy, not rent music. Luckily we have enough DRM-free music stores around that simply sell you music files. FLAC is the best option.

Like what stores?

Bandcamp for sure. The radio/streaming landscape is extremely bleak for anything that isn't Top 40 material. Fortunately, Bandcamp has become the go-to community to upload stuff that's more indie feeling. As a result, it's the place to go now if you're looking for music off the beaten path. Bandcamp also has a weekly newsletter highlighting artists across many different genres, from African guitar music from the '60s, post-punk and alternative rock, minimal electronic, indie hiphop, you name it.

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

#105

Post by rchaud » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:09 PM UTC

mr_tristan wrote: post #6

mrob wrote: post #4

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…

> It amazes me how most of the other streaming services try to turn everything into an algorithm, via "special radio" stations,

I think they do that because it's the only way to keep people from switching to rival platforms. Spotify's selection isn't that different from Google Play Music/Apple Music/Amazon Prime Music etc. There's also little in the way of community interaction on those platforms beyond "sharing playlists".

SoundCloud at least has a system where you can comment on specific parts of a song. It creates a really interesting visualization of which parts of a single song people enjoyed the most.

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

#106

Post by Daishiman » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:11 PM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #58

lmpostor wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't replace something that is dead.

Revenues from US digital recorded music sales steadily rose from the introduction of iTunes up into the billions through at least 2012. Maybe 2013/14-ish. I think at one point it'd actually matched 90s CD sales revenue, though I may not recall correctly. That was hardly "dead." There's this narrative that goes around "oh, yeah, the internet happened, copies are cheap, no one was ever going to buy music again" ... and…

Buffet streaming killed it because it's cost-competitive to the consumer, period. That's a triumph of capitalism.

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

#107

Post by Bud » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #82

Bud wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Um, well yeah, those doing music professionally have always been a minority and still are, which has no bearing on this post, or this thread, or what I was talking about.

The thread is about professionals; those making money from music. Mr. Bach and Mr. Handel weren't farming all day, I can assure you.

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

#108

Post by rchaud » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

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?

If you let an algorithm script a movie, it would be a 2-hr superhero movie with extremely simplistic moral conundrums, that will cost $300m to make, but will gross $1 billion +.

If the algo scripted a TV sitcom, it would be 5-6 mostly white people who occasionally hook up, break up, get married, struggle to conceive, and then everything eventually works out.

Same goes for music. People have a habit of liking what's in front of them. Few are going to want to make the effort to find something that's more than "good enough".

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

#109

Post by Daishiman » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

People love to complain about nothing, eh?

Think about what the distribution landscape for musicians used to be like in the past.

You can literally put up your entire music catalog at almost no effort and and generate enough popularity to support your act through live plays. Live shows have always been the main source of revenue for artists.

People saying that the situation for artists is bleak have no idea of what they're talking about. It has never in history been easier to start a music act and get followers from all around the world. It has never been easier to concentrate fans of every possible little genre into their own communities.

What most people don't realize is that the live act scene has exploded all over the world. There a literally thousands of live music festivals going on every summer that just weren't there 20 years ago. Modern festival culture is fueled by streaming media, Soundcloud, BandCamp and Youtube.

I follow scenes where an artist's greatest hit gets 20k plays on YouTube and 500 physical vinyl copies. That's literally enough to make a living and tour around a little on your free weekends. How possible do you think that was before Youtube?

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

#110

Post by rubyfan » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

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…

The thesis here is that more people are paying for music than in that golden age of music. Spotify in theory has enabled access to a diversity of music at a more tolerable price point which has grown the pool of music payers but not necessarily equated to more money for artists.