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

111–120 of 128 posts

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

#111

Post by hannasanarion »

JackFr wrote: post #76
hannasanarion wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, mus…

> The great musicians of 5he 19th century and earlier didn't make a living selling recordings and concerts. Actually they did, certainly in the 19th century which was the era of the concert hall. Without recording technology, music had to be performed to be enjoyed. The market for live performances was much, much bigger. Because the market lacked the 'winner-take-all' aspect of today, the opportunity to make a living…

It's not a matter of whether musicians get paid, it's where the money comes from. Even in the golden age of concert halls, ticket sales barely paid the rent. Orchestras and composers were reliant on donors and patrons.

Even Beethoven, superstar of his time, couldn't make a living on his own, he was reliant on Archduke Rudolph, Prince Kinsky, and Prince Lezkowitz to keep food on his table.

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

#112

Post by esilver »

rchaud wrote: post #100
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…

I completely forgot about this set of practices. Yes, a huge part of youth culture concerned itself with the creation and sharing of mix tapes. Looked at through this lens it makes me almost wistful thinking about the mix CDs I exchanged with friends in high school. They took a fair amount of work to put together and were often deeply personalized for the receiver. Makes you wonder who’s missing out, us or “kids these days.”

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

#113

Post by wwweston »

Daishiman wrote: post #106
wwweston wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At best that's like saying it's a triumph of capitalism when Walmart hollows out local retailers, or industrial agriculture hollows out smaller operators and with it communities. Sure, you get cheaper goods, but there are less pleasant externalities that go with it.

As someone once said about another triumph of capitalism: when you value McDonalds, you get McJobs.

Possibly McMusic, as well.

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

#114

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

mikepurvis wrote: post #93
not2b wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

5-10-15 years and more is not unheard of. In case a musicians becomes established they will just say it's the result of their support and their investments, so that's when they push for max returns (see the many stories of rushed albums which labels forced out of the artists while trying to ride the wave of initial success).

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

#115

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

skookumchuck wrote: post #101
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…

That's completely anecdotal and isn't typical, at least in the current culture. More often than not this is just a myth that musicians themselves spread to boost their ego and perceived status. Although, there's of course some basis in reality.

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

#116

Post by skookumchuck »

ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #115
skookumchuck wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's completely anecdotal and isn't typical, at least in the current culture. More often than not this is just a myth that musicians themselves spread to boost their ego and perceived status. Although, there's of course some basis in reality.

Read a history of about any band and you'll see the same effect. For example, see "The Dirt" which is the history of Motley Crue. The lead singer was recruited from another band, explaining that the only reason he had joined the other band was to get laid.

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

#117

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

skookumchuck wrote: post #116
ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's completely anecdotal and isn't typical, at least in the current culture. More often than not this is just a myth that musicians themselves spread to boost their ego and perceived status. Although, there's of course some basis in reality.

Read a history of about any band and you'll see the same effect. For example, see "The Dirt" which is the history of Motley Crue. The lead singer was recruited from another band, explaining that the only reason he had joined the other band was to get laid.

1. This may be a case of Survivorship bias. The most successful bands really take all the girls and all less successful just say they get laid constantly to boost their status. 2. Mötley Crüe started almost 40 years ago! Come to any gig of a really loud local band playing their instruments with attitude (don't really want to say "Rock") today and estimate the gender proportion in the crowd.

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

#118

Post by wwweston »

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'…

> 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

People did do this. From the time legit outlets like iTunes appeared to up through around 2013, revenue from digital recording sales rose into the billions, on the road to matching 90s CD sales. But then they fell dramatically over the last 5 years, and we shouldn't talk about this as if it's a law of the internet or there's a big mystery why. Streaming services offered on-demand listening of huge catalogs for a fraction of the price. Consequently, the demand for purchased recordings dropped, and artists get paid a fraction of a fraction.

Patronage is nice, I'm glad the option exists, it's one of the rays of light.

Still it lacks one of the virtues of retailed recordings: you know how much you're supposed to pay to make a meaningful economic contribution. Do you want to listen to this song again and again? Great, pay an asking price for a single or album, you have done your part. Or decide it's not that important and listen to it when it comes up on transient music services like terrestrial radio or shuffle-streaming. Or decide it's kindof important and pirate but you know in the back of your head you haven't really meaningfully participated yet and you'll need to decide to one day (which is another thing services like Spotify work against -- they grant an imprimatur of legitimacy which erases that sense in the back of your head that you might owe something).

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

#119

Post by syrrim »

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.

huh? is label revenue unrelated to artist revenue?

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

#120

Post by skookumchuck »

ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #117
skookumchuck wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read a history of about any band and you'll see the same effect. For example, see "The Dirt" which is the history of Motley Crue. The lead singer was recruited from another band, explaining that the only reason he had joined the other band was to get laid.

1. This may be a case of Survivorship bias. The most successful bands really take all the girls and all less successful just say they get laid constantly to boost their status. 2. Mötley Crüe started almost 40 years ago! Come to any gig of a really loud local band playing their instruments with attitude (don't really want to say "Rock") today and estimate the gender proportion in the crowd.

Ask the drummer in the next local band you see live.
Post reply on HN