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

841–850 of 861 posts

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

#841

Post by wwweston »

lmm wrote: post #820
wwweston wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is crazy but we used to have this scheme where you actually just paid them for access to the recording. Weird, right? Then we Spotifyd and that was the end of that and people got a new hobby coming up with justifications for why it's good that we replaced a revenue source for musicians with ... maybe giving them money? Or maybe having them run a T-shirt business?

Yeah, it was weird. I don't want to have to keep track of a particular object, whether it's a physical recording or a downloaded file. Make sure the music is available when I want it. Send a bit of money to artists I want to support. But don't couple them together with a bunch of transactions I've got to manage individually.

Retailed-recording doesn't mean you have to manage the file. That nut's been cracked for at least a decade. Every digital purchase I've made through outlets like Bandcamp or Amazon (and some of Apple, IIRC) is kept track of by the service and has a cloud player I can use. And the artist actually sees revenue from each track that's a fraction of a dollar rather than a fraction of a penny.

But you can actually download/manage the file if you want to. Which is nice, because it's the most practical distinction between owning and a long term lease, given the fact that few things are forever.

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

#842

Post by Larrikin »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #839
Larrikin wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Tribe, wu, west coast gfunk rappers, mobb deep, fu schnickens, onyx, bone thugs, cypress, busta, we're all wildly different. I would argue that they all sound the same when compared to any southern rappers that came after them. You keep referring to the bling and crunk era like they are sneers but I would argue that if New Yorkers had gotten their way and got to be the gate keepers of hip hop and you were only allow…

You said wu and outkast are somehow the same and then defended juvenile? And then gatekept who's "really appreciates hip hop?" Freaking lol

It was a typo, I was grouping Outkast with the Hot Boys

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

#843

Post by lmm »

wwweston wrote: post #841
lmm wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it was weird. I don't want to have to keep track of a particular object, whether it's a physical recording or a downloaded file. Make sure the music is available when I want it. Send a bit of money to artists I want to support. But don't couple them together with a bunch of transactions I've got to manage individually.

Retailed-recording doesn't mean you have to manage the file. That nut's been cracked for at least a decade. Every digital purchase I've made through outlets like Bandcamp or Amazon (and some of Apple, IIRC) is kept track of by the service and has a cloud player I can use. And the artist actually sees revenue from each track that's a fraction of a dollar rather than a fraction of a penny. But you can actually download…

> Retailed-recording doesn't mean you have to manage the file. That nut's been cracked for at least a decade. Every digital purchase I've made through outlets like Bandcamp or Amazon (and some of Apple, IIRC) is kept track of by the service and has a cloud player I can use. And the artist actually sees revenue from each track that's a fraction of a dollar rather than a fraction of a penny.

You still have to keep track of what you've bought when and where. You have to answer questions like which release of an album you want (extended edition or not? Explicit or clean?). It's not a huge amount of effort, but it's extra faff compared to just listening to what you want when you want, and sending money to who you want when you want.

I gave up on buying after I moved countries and found I couldn't access my old cloud player and my new one at the same time. Yes, I have mp3 files of everything I bought in my old country, but it's such a fiddle to actually listen to them that I don't bother - particularly when I can find almost all of them in the service that I'm paying monthly for in my new country.

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

#844

Post by thirdsun »

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…

I absolutely hate this development. Admittedly within the genres and niches I listen to the album and the music itself is still the product, but I worry that this will change.

Concerning the single format: Going through and listening to my Bandcamp new release notifications is a weekly habit I enjoy. There are a lot of of those notifications and I gladly take the time to check them out, but I won't even listen to single track releases. I'm an album person. If an artist doesn't have enough quality material to compile an actual cohesive selection of his work and rather rushes from short-lived single to single, I'm not interested.

I'm even less interested in t-shirts, merchandise and live shows, though I get the appeal of the latter.

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

#845

Post by thirdsun »

lukeh wrote: post #682
gen220 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say this is definitely true for big-label musicians. For independent or smaller-label musicians, they still have a large upside potential from certain retailers, like Bandcamp [1]. If you really care about them and they're listed on Bandcamp, it's pretty trivial to sign up for email announcements at an artist level, so you don't miss an opportunity to support them financially whenever they release new materia…

Bandcamp is great. If you're with a major, though, you will likely be contractually prohibited from selling through anything but the label's online store (I am).

I think that only applies to very few labels. Bandcamp isn't some kind of exclusively niche underground store. These days all kinds of big, critically acclaimed labels and artists sell through them.

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

#846

Post by thirdsun »

olyjohn wrote: post #803
wwweston wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is crazy but we used to have this scheme where you actually just paid them for access to the recording. Weird, right? Then we Spotifyd and that was the end of that and people got a new hobby coming up with justifications for why it's good that we replaced a revenue source for musicians with ... maybe giving them money? Or maybe having them run a T-shirt business?

Maybe they can work for a living. Like go on tour and perform live. Selling tickets and such. If they are any good, people will want to go see them live. Look at the Grateful Dead, they allowed people to copy their music. There are massive sites dedicated to archiving all of their music recordings and you are free to download and listen to it. Yet they made a fortune on touring and performing. Not playing the song on…

I have been saying this again and again, but not every artists is a rock band. There are countless releases that are best enjoyed in a home-listening environment and attract a mature audience that couldn't care less about t-shirts and merch. Thankfully the album still seems to be the primary product in those circles, but obviously even those artists will be affected by the expectation of having their discography available on Spotify.

> Maybe they can work for a living.

> Not playing the song one time and then trying to sell copies of it.

As in writing a few lines of code and selling copies of it? What a condescending and out of touch take on the issue. Those albums and songs aren't made of thin air - it's actual work that goes into them.

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

#847

Post by wwweston »

lmm wrote: post #843
wwweston wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retailed-recording doesn't mean you have to manage the file. That nut's been cracked for at least a decade. Every digital purchase I've made through outlets like Bandcamp or Amazon (and some of Apple, IIRC) is kept track of by the service and has a cloud player I can use. And the artist actually sees revenue from each track that's a fraction of a dollar rather than a fraction of a penny. But you can actually download…

> Retailed-recording doesn't mean you have to manage the file. That nut's been cracked for at least a decade. Every digital purchase I've made through outlets like Bandcamp or Amazon (and some of Apple, IIRC) is kept track of by the service and has a cloud player I can use. And the artist actually sees revenue from each track that's a fraction of a dollar rather than a fraction of a penny. You still have to keep trac…

> It's not a huge amount of effort, but it's extra faff compared to just listening to what you want when you want, and sending money to who you want when you want.

While we're talking about extra faff, how do you figure out how to send money to "who you want when you want"? Doesn't seem to be just one service everyone's taking OR sending money through any more than there's just one service anyone might buy recordings through. Or do we just say "If they're not on Kicktreonattrpaymo when it's on my mind I guess they don't want my money"?

Doesn't sound easier than keeping track of a few places you buy music. I've certainly never had any trouble at all figuring out whether I bought a recording on Amazon or Bandcamp.

And I know that my ledger's clear and doesn't depend on when I decide to get around to kicking a donation over.

It's interesting how the tenuously more convenient value proposition of cloud recording buffets features the convenience of pushing the hop through the hoop of actual economic support out into the undetermined and perhaps entirely optional future.

If this is all about convenience, Spotify could probably largely solve the economic problems by bumping up what they charge 5-10x and directing additional listener revenue by specific listener choices.

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

#848

Post by lmm »

wwweston wrote: post #847
lmm wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Retailed-recording doesn't mean you have to manage the file. That nut's been cracked for at least a decade. Every digital purchase I've made through outlets like Bandcamp or Amazon (and some of Apple, IIRC) is kept track of by the service and has a cloud player I can use. And the artist actually sees revenue from each track that's a fraction of a dollar rather than a fraction of a penny. You still have to keep trac…

> It's not a huge amount of effort, but it's extra faff compared to just listening to what you want when you want, and sending money to who you want when you want. While we're talking about extra faff, how do you figure out how to send money to "who you want when you want"? Doesn't seem to be just one service everyone's taking OR sending money through any more than there's just one service anyone might buy recordings…

> Or do we just say "If they're not on Kicktreonattrpaymo when it's on my mind I guess they don't want my money"?

Yes. I don't owe them a business model, they're the professional here, it's their job to be where I want to pay them.

> And I know that my ledger's clear and doesn't depend on when I decide to get around to kicking a donation over.

There's no ledger here. If you want to pay them, pay them, if you don't, don't. If that wasn't an arrangement they were content with, well, revealed preferences.

> If this is all about convenience, Spotify could probably largely solve the economic problems by bumping up what they charge 5-10x and directing additional listener revenue by specific listener choices.

What economic problems? There's no shortage of content being created, so evidently the deal for creators isn't actually that bad.

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

#849

Post by thirdsun »

satyrnein wrote: post #831
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The industry revenues are up, and all of that is going to the big labels and a token handful of artists at the very top of the celebrity pile. The vast majority of artists are still getting screwed over by the labels. They're getting a pittance, if anything. If at all possible, always buy directly from the artists or through sites like Bandcamp that actually pay out well.

I'm not sure how Spotify is to blame for bad label deals, which are nothing new. Artists also have lots of ways to get onto Spotify and other services without a label if they wish. Bandcamp takes only a 15% cut, which is better than Spotify's 30%, but the way people talk about it you would think there's a 10x difference or something.

> Bandcamp takes only a 15% cut, which is better than Spotify's 30%, but the way people talk about it you would think there's a 10x difference or something.

It's not about the relative cut of the services, but the absolute value of the payouts. On one platform you earn fractions of a cent per stream while the other allows you to collect whatever price you set for your release directly. I'm sure the latter approach is significantly better for smaller, niche artists, if not all but the most popular ones.

Or put differently: The number of plays on Spotify required to match the payout of a handful of album sales on Bandcamp is probably out of reach for most artists.

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

#850

Post by thirdsun »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #119
Denvercoder9 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Musicians can do whatever they want. They can, but only as long as they don't care about money. But musicians also need to pay rent.

How much money? Enough for personal private jets or enough to make a living? If the bar is to simply pay the rent then I still think that musicians can do what they want.

This should give some perspective: https://www.vulture.com/2012/09/grizzly-bear-shields.html - you'd think that the members of a band like Grizzly Bear, while not outright rich, should be able to live comfortable without too many financial struggles. You'd be wrong.

And that was 2012 - I'm sure things haven't improved since then.

Post reply on HN