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

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

#371

Post by hunter2_ » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #364

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 wish more people, especially tech CEOs Well, you can't really blame the tech CEO here... Spotify charges people what they're willing to pay to listen to music. I think it's a minor miracle that they've worked out a way to get people to pay anything for music considering how easy music piracy has been since the internet came along. (Not taking a moral stance, just stating a fact).

Speaking as another sound engineer and software engineer:

I believe the effort and risks involved with piracy are -- on average in well-off places -- simply "worth it" compared to owning physical media and "not worth it" compared to paid streaming subscriptions.

It's not just about dollars, but the value proposition of the total experience. The average pirate doesn't streamline their rig with all sorts of automation to pull things into a slick xbmc derivative heuristically; rather it's a time sink and less on-demand.

On the other hand, the more restrictive back catalog does keep piracy relevant for those who want less common selections.

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

#372

Post by user5994461 » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 7:58 PM UTC

adamsmith wrote: post #317

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's orders of magnitude easier to make working software than it is to make a hit record. True, but hardly apples-to-apples; it's orders of magnitude easier to make music than it is to make a viral app. In either case, the barrier to entry is low, the standard for doing it professionally is surprisingly high, and making a hit is a huge undertaking.

Yes, there are orders of magnitude of scale in both fields. In software it can cost $10k to build an app but Google Search costs $10^10: a six orders of magnitude difference. In music there’s got to be a big dynamic range in effort involved as well. (I doubt it’s 10^6 though!) But comparing the best music to the lowest end app is apples to oranges.

This might approach 10^6 if you consider the largest band tours going around the world and filling stadiums with 50 000 people.

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

#373

Post by mr_tristan » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

shakezula wrote: post #4

I used to work in the music industry professionally, on the ground level doing booking and management. This trend has been happening slowly for nearly a decade but it’s finally here. Rap and Hip Hop figured out a long time before most other genres that rapid small releases was a far better way to keep hype and sales up. Before Spotify was a thing, the shift was happening with YouTube but it wasn’t as predominant. Now…

Since independent venues have been gradually disappearing in the US in the 21st century, and ticketing is locked down by Live Nation, it sure seems that the only revenue stream American musicians can control is their merchandise.

Makes sense that everything else is just "marketing" these days.

I'm sure this has an impact on who decides to make music professionally. Why stick with it, only to sell your own t-shirts? (Note: I can't figure out how to get trend data for from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, to see if that question has merit.)

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

#374

Post by burntoutfire » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

shakezula wrote: post #141

7thaccount wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend once explained this to me a decade ago. I would buy albums, but he would torrent everything. In his eyes, music has shifted to the public domain now. He said the best way to support a band now would be to buy t-shirts and go to as many concerts as you can. I still buy all my albums, but finally see his point. I mean now, all artists have their entire collection of music on YouTube. If everyone almost always…

Your friend was absolutely right. I never cared if people pirated my bands music (or later the bands that I was managing) because the real thing I wanted was them showing up at shows, buying merch, posting us on facebook, asking events to bring us on, etc... At a certain point, Taylor Swift and larger artists _do_ make a good chunk of change from their actual music sales, but it isn't a feasible strategy to rely on t…

> Your friend was absolutely right. I never cared if people pirated my bands music (or later the bands that I was managing) because the real thing I wanted was them showing up at shows, buying merch, posting us on facebook, asking events to bring us on, etc...

This model breaks down for people like me who are neither interested in merch nor in going to concerts. I just like the music.

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

#375

Post by CryptoBanker » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 8:01 PM UTC

gwd wrote: post #81

quacked wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The music isn’t your product, the music is your marketing. The shows, the merch, your influence - that’s your product. Man, that's depressing.

>> The music isn’t your product, the music is your marketing. The shows, the merch, your influence - that’s your product. > Man, that's depressing. If the CEO of an open-source company said, "Software isn't our product, software is our marketing", would you feel the same way?

That's literally what it is most of the time. Software is marketing and enterprise level support is the product

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

#376

Post by toohotatopic » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

adamsmith wrote: post #317

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's orders of magnitude easier to make working software than it is to make a hit record. True, but hardly apples-to-apples; it's orders of magnitude easier to make music than it is to make a viral app. In either case, the barrier to entry is low, the standard for doing it professionally is surprisingly high, and making a hit is a huge undertaking.

Yes, there are orders of magnitude of scale in both fields. In software it can cost $10k to build an app but Google Search costs $10^10: a six orders of magnitude difference. In music there’s got to be a big dynamic range in effort involved as well. (I doubt it’s 10^6 though!) But comparing the best music to the lowest end app is apples to oranges.

If you have an orchestra with 100 musicians who receive something like $10^5 per year, you pay $10^7 per year. You need several years to practice and to form the orchestra into a team with a repertoire. If it takes 10 years, then that is $10^8.

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

#377

Post by adrr » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #290

adrr wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

iTunes offers purchasable music. And it could be argued a better deal for consumers who only listen to 100 songs or less a year. Market doesn’t want it. It is inconvenient to force people to go through a checkout flow for every song they want to listen to.

People always forget that storage and distribution of music is a relatively new concept and a new revenue channel for musicians. When did records become main stream? And how old is music? Technology gave artists a means to sell their work besides live performances. Technology also makes the market more efficient which leads to the costs being drive down. Physical media has been replaced with digital media. Physical stores replaced with digital marketplaces.

Without Spotify or other streaming services , piracy would be even more rampant with the ability of people to transfer 1000s of songs between other people in a matter of seconds. Only way to fight it is to lock down the devices which public doesn’t want and would require the government intervention.

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

#378

Post by erfgh » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 8:03 PM UTC

7thaccount wrote: post #124

shakezula wrote: post #4

I used to work in the music industry professionally, on the ground level doing booking and management. This trend has been happening slowly for nearly a decade but it’s finally here. Rap and Hip Hop figured out a long time before most other genres that rapid small releases was a far better way to keep hype and sales up. Before Spotify was a thing, the shift was happening with YouTube but it wasn’t as predominant. Now…

A friend once explained this to me a decade ago. I would buy albums, but he would torrent everything. In his eyes, music has shifted to the public domain now. He said the best way to support a band now would be to buy t-shirts and go to as many concerts as you can. I still buy all my albums, but finally see his point. I mean now, all artists have their entire collection of music on YouTube. If everyone almost always…

> I mean now, all artists have their entire collection of music on YouTube.

No they don't.

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

#379

Post by Kiro » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 8:04 PM UTC

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…

For electronic music producers the barrier is definitely lower and releasing one EP every other month is not uncommon. I listen to an artist that has released hundreds of songs this year alone (God's Warrior, check his Spotify or SoundCloud if you don't believe me). Every song is of incredibly high standard as well.

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

#380

Post by CryptoBanker » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 8:04 PM UTC

larrik wrote: post #366

jp57 wrote: post #256

I'm not sure why this is controversial. In the vinyl era, when a single LP was about 40 minutes long, it was pretty normal for artists to release roughly an album a year. (e.g. Led Zeppelin's eight studio albums were released over a span of 10.5 years, but one was a double album and they took a long break when Robert Plant's son died. The first 7 albums were released over 7 years). It seems like it was only when albu…

I honestly don't think the length of the albums matter. As bands get more successful, they tour more, and that eats up all of their time. Lots of bands will tour for 2 full years after an album release, and only then start to work on another. Back in the 70's, bands just didn't casually tour the world like now.

That's because profits were skewed towards record sales back then, whereas now the profit is all in concerts