Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

thefader.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 861 posts

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#281

Post by mpoteat »

bmitc wrote: post #152
oarsinsync wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication in your comment is that code isn't art, when code absolutely can be art. Functional things can be artistically beautiful too.

This is a really silly argument. There is an art to building software, no doubt, in terms of it being a craft. But I think you've misspoken about functional things being artistically beautiful. What you really should mean is that functional things can be aesthetically beautiful, which is true and different. Art is primarily defined by expression and exploration, particularly revolving around human emotions. Software…

The statement of saying someone else's view of art is objectively incorrect or silly is in itself silly. I like your proposed definition of art, but as you know everyone is free to have their own conceptions.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#282

Post by chrisco255 »

wolco wrote: post #248
adrr wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious what you think the optimal solution for music in today’s world with massive storage and high bandwidth. Spotify is paying 70% of revenue to artists. You have factor in piracy if the price is to high or the solution is inconvenient. The public has rejected DRM and songs are easily give away to their friends. Lastly, No one wants physical media.

Artists/creators should be able to determine what they want to charge for streamed songs.

I think they should combine Spotify with a Substack subscription model to provide exclusive tracks or live sessions for insider fans.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#283

Post by wolco »

bmitc wrote: post #152
oarsinsync wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication in your comment is that code isn't art, when code absolutely can be art. Functional things can be artistically beautiful too.

This is a really silly argument. There is an art to building software, no doubt, in terms of it being a craft. But I think you've misspoken about functional things being artistically beautiful. What you really should mean is that functional things can be aesthetically beautiful, which is true and different. Art is primarily defined by expression and exploration, particularly revolving around human emotions. Software…

The 80s underground scene had many zines that were programs.. the art would be part content part reader/application. The best part were the crazy menus.

The problem now is an application must look like all other applications or you would see more creativity. Making parts of the app 60% visible so the background came through had a cool visual effect.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#284

Post by t-writescode »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #262
searchableguy wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's market valuing things based on scarcity. Music is in abundance right now due to lower barrier to entry for distributing and producing it than ever before. You have to provide more value than someone producing music as a hobby for free on youtube.

Good music - electrifying, change-your-life music - is still extremely scarce. But Spotify has made it even harder to find by swamping it in mediocre burger+fries music.

I don’t buy that. Much of my favorite music is video game fan-made music; and, while that is hard to make and their skill is great, there’s a lot of that music.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#285

Post by gh123man »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #262
searchableguy wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's market valuing things based on scarcity. Music is in abundance right now due to lower barrier to entry for distributing and producing it than ever before. You have to provide more value than someone producing music as a hobby for free on youtube.

Good music - electrifying, change-your-life music - is still extremely scarce. But Spotify has made it even harder to find by swamping it in mediocre burger+fries music.

I disagree. Music is subjective. In fact, the lower barrier to entry and discovery has enabled me to find my favorite music that 5 years ago I had no idea even existed. You would probably hate the music that changed my life, and I would probably not enjoy yours.

I do agree that bands are getting screwed though. That's why I use Spotify for discovery and buy lots of merch when a band really lands with me (and go to live shows - pre COIVD of course).

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#286

Post by sweetheart »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #262
searchableguy wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's market valuing things based on scarcity. Music is in abundance right now due to lower barrier to entry for distributing and producing it than ever before. You have to provide more value than someone producing music as a hobby for free on youtube.

Good music - electrifying, change-your-life music - is still extremely scarce. But Spotify has made it even harder to find by swamping it in mediocre burger+fries music.

Huh, this is an interesting take to me. I'd say that my using Spotify has definitely increased the amount of "bad" music I listen to, but it has _drastically_ increased the amount of amazing, life-changing music I find. There are _so_ many artists I enjoy now because Spotify threw them in my Discover Weekly. By increasing the sheer amount of music I listen to, thanks to Spotify, I've increased the number of bands I love that I stumble upon, and bands I hate. It's a net win though, because I forget the shit stuff, but really, really cherish the gold I find.

I'm just surprised that you feel it's _harder_ to find good music because of Spotify.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#287

Post by te_chris »

adrr wrote: post #222
alchemyromcom wrote: post #139

I wish more people, especially tech CEOs, could understand the incredible sacrifice of time, money, and energy it takes to make an album people actually enjoy. Everything you listen to, unless you are willing to listen to raw demos, is a miracle. I've worked both as a sound engineer and and a software developer. It's orders of magnitude easier to make working software than it is to make a hit record. The way tech com…

I am curious what you think the optimal solution for music in today’s world with massive storage and high bandwidth. Spotify is paying 70% of revenue to artists. You have factor in piracy if the price is to high or the solution is inconvenient. The public has rejected DRM and songs are easily give away to their friends. Lastly, No one wants physical media.

The way that 70% is counted is a huge scam

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#288

Post by apocalypstyx »

lux wrote: post #210
singhrac wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not comparable - music is art.

Musician and software developer here, and I'm calling BS on that. Here's a transcript of a talk I gave last year on "code as art" (apologies if this sounds like self-promo). You can skip the first half and scroll down to where it says "Which leads me back to code as an artform". There are a lot of ways to demonstrate that code IS art, and this was just a quick 5-minute overview of the subject. Cheers! https://www.joh…

As an acquaintance of mine put it the other day on this exact topic (who happens to be a writer/graphic artist/programmer):

"First STEM says that the humanities are worthless. Then they say how, really, STEM should get all that glory too because, really, it's the same thing -- but better."

Or this quote:

"Great paintings, for example, get you laid in a way that great computer programs never do. Even not-so-great paintings - in fact, any slapdash attempt at splashing paint onto a surface - will get you laid more than writing software, especially if you have the slightest hint of being a tortured, brooding soul about you. For evidence of this I would point to my college classmate Henning, who was a Swedish double art/theatre major and on most days could barely walk."

https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#289

Post by burntoutfire »

andybak wrote: post #249
wolco wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint is record companies are creating pop music or using audiotune without the artist quality a classic painting has.

Artistry != Singing in tune In fact art != artistry It's entirely possible for somebody relatively lacking in technical ability and/or any great insight into their craft to produce something wonderful.

> It's entirely possible for somebody relatively lacking in technical ability and/or any great insight into their craft to produce something wonderful.

100% that. Thom Yorke (Radiohead singer) has composed dozens of godly songs without even being able to read the notes (in fact, his band members are calling him the idiot savant and are asking him NOT to learn the notes at this point, as it might spoil the magic). Tricky composed some good songs without being able to read notes OR play any instrument.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#290

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

adrr wrote: post #260
wolco wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artists/creators should be able to determine what they want to charge for streamed songs.

How does that work for a streaming service that charges a flat rate? Do you think public has an appetite for a pay per usage model/micro transaction model or would it drive users back to piracy? Micro transactions in online news media hasn’t managed to get any traction.

It doesn't work for a streaming service which charges a flat rate - which is the point.

Spotify is not the same as Netflix etc, because Netflix etc is commissioning and promoting new work - something Spotify has no interest in.

So... you sell units, not streams. You buy a perpetual license to play a unit as many times as you want. The artist gets a royalty for the unit sale. This frontloads income around unit release, which encourages new creation, but units generate a perpetual royalty stream as part of the artist's back catalog, so artists are less likely to starve.

Preview streams are available for free as tasters. Or perhaps a full taster can be played X times before it has to be bought.

The player is tied to an app, but most music is now consumed on phones or in a web player, so DRM is irrelevant and there is no real loss of convenience.

This model worked (more or less) for decades.

The point is popular creators should be paid for full-time work. That's how you get the best work from artists.

And it's not as if the economy can't support this. Operating in any other way is entirely down to politics, not economics.

Post reply on HN