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

Post by mola » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 7:22 AM UTC

singhrac wrote: post #90

gwd wrote: post #81

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. If the CEO of an open-source company said, "Software isn't our product, software is our marketing", would you feel the same way?

It's not comparable - music is art.

Post by beachy » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 7:25 AM UTC

swinglock wrote: post #719

whiddershins wrote: post #628

The way in which Spotify (and other streaming services) hurts the development of music isn’t what most people say. The problem with per-stream plays is that it is based on pop music logic: more streams equals more money. Fair! But many recording artists made a modest living by releasing music that you might not want to listen to over and over and over. This music is often labeled ‘art’ or ‘experimental’ or whatever,…

They could stop paying out flat per listen. If I pay $10 and listen to 50 tracks, I want $10 (minus the provides fee) to be split among precisely those 50 tracks. The difference is if you only listed to 50 tracks your listens are worth more that someone that diluted their listens over 5000. Throwing everyone's fees into one big vat and dividing that according to the total listens, is bullshit. I want my favorite arti…

Post by beachy » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 7:33 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #612

platz wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole analogy between working software and music production is flawed from the start and elaboration on the theme does not help. What's needed is to discuss artists compensation on their own terms. Don't distort it by relating it to software development.

This tendency to hyper-analogise everything oh so sinks my boat. I can’t think of even one example of the use of analogy that has helped me understand a subject better than if it were discussed and explained on its own terms. It seems all analogies do is enable the analogiser to delude themselves in to thinking similar is equal to same.

Post by geraltofrivia » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 8:01 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #712

haram_masala wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kanye West is a singular being. He is a human work of art, this generation’s Warhol. Perhaps even more fascinating than Warhol, if less self-aware. I’m a huge fan of his brilliant public trajectory, yet I despise his music.

I struggle to find anything that Kanye has ever done, in or outside of the studio, that will be held as artistically relevant or meaningful in any way in twenty years. His music isn’t groundbreaking or innovative, and anyone can be an asshole to people. At least Warhol had interesting and relevant things to say.

Post by feanaro » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 8:05 AM UTC

PierceJoy wrote: post #711

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this very model has prevented hip hop from evolving and instead we ended up with mumble rap which feels like a step backwards in multiple ways. Music has become all gimmick, fueled by celebrity gossip and social media bullshit. It's samey as hell and stagnant and lacks innovation.

I prefer good lyrics over mumble rap, but music is entirely subjective. You think it's a step backwards, but young people think it's a step forwards. Mumble rap is essentially just natural selection. Some random rapper started doing it, people liked it, and so it propagated. If people didn't like it, it would have died out quickly. You just aren't one of those people. > It's samey as hell and stagnant and lacks innov…