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

851–860 of 861 posts

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

#851

Post by thirdsun »

lucb1e wrote: post #217
oblio wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Most people hated getting and paying for whole albums, out of which most stuff was garbage. Few artists have whole albums worth listening to.

Call me young but I didn't really realize until now that having to buy a whole album was a thing. I grew up with Kazaa, Ares, The Pirate Bay, Google Video, Newgrounds, YouTube, Grooveshark and Spotify (in that order). CDs existed but were something my parents used; I didn't like much music in the first place as a teenager and the stuff that I liked I never saw anyone own a CD of. Heck, I don't think I knew anyone tha…

A few brief points:

I also grew up during Napster & Co., but it's really not that hard to recognize that albums exist and aren't really tied to a specific medium. You can buy them as digital downloads, on CD or vinyl.

As someone who loves albums and regards EPs let alone singles as a lesser, rushed and not particularly worthwhile format, let me assure you that you don't have to pay for things you don't want. The trick is to buy strong albums that avoid filler content and don't need to rely on a single hit. I admit that it takes effort to find the gems in a sea of mediocrity, but in absolute numbers there are more great albums than ever in addition to the ones you might have missed in the past. I'd say anyone claiming that there isn't any fantastic, album-worthy music isn't looking hard enough.

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

#852

Post by ClikeX »

ksec wrote: post #738
ganfortran wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Taylor Swift releases the full new Album on youtube the first day, which is unthinkable even 5 years ago. I think the industry already accept it is the way forward.

>I think the industry already accept it is the way forward. Yes but this sort of makes me question, if it is on Youtube for free, why are we paying for it on Spotify and Apple Music?

Both Youtube and Spotify allow you to listen for free with ads.

But to humor you. Youtube is for video content primarily. Youtube Music is a premium service that costs as much as Spotify does and has a whole lot less content.

As someone who listens to a lot of music. Spotify offers me a way better UI/UX for consuming music than Youtube Music does.

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

#853

Post by satyrnein »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #836
satyrnein wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem with Spotify is that they pool all payments, and then portion it out based on how big of a part of the total amount of plays per month that artist gets. That means basically all of my $10 subscription would go to huge popular artists, instead of to the artists I actually listen to. By buying on Bandcamp, I make sure my money goes to the artists I actually listen to.

Yes, most of your $10 goes to popular artists. But people that only listen to popular artists, some of their money goes to the artists you listen to as well. Meanwhile, the fact that it's free to the user to play unknown artists on Spotify lowers the bar to discovery. The net effect is that independent share of total revenue is rising.

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

#854

Post by satyrnein »

thirdsun wrote: post #849
satyrnein wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's difficult to square that idea with the fact that streaming has caused both industry revenue to increase as well as independent share of the overall pie to increase.

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

#855

Post by lenkite »

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…

A fairly significant amount of young people believe that modern American music is repetitive crap where most songs sound exactly like one another. (Because they are really are) Yet it is being pushed down their throats.

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

#857

Post by abhayhegde »

quacked wrote: post #12
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…

> 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.

It truly boggles me how much does one person have to produce in order to gain the same magnitude of fame, back in the days of middle 19th century.

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

#858

Post by grasshopperpurp »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #828
grasshopperpurp wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Same beats. Same cadence. Same flow. Voices indistinguishableffrom each other. This is how people used to talk about Hip Hop in the 90s. People familiar with Trap can easily distinguish between the different rappers and producers - just like people familiar with 90's Hip Hop could distinguish between Nas and Ghostface or DJ Premier and Pete Rock. And, that's only Trap. There are still popular MC's and producers who…

>This is how people used to talk about Hip Hop in the 90s This isn't true unless you're talking the bling Era of the late 90s. Also, past criticisms existing doesn't invalidate new ones even if there's similarities in the complaint. So that's a side step. Tribe, wu, west coast gfunk rappers, mobb deep, fu schnickens, onyx, bone thugs, cypress, busta, we're all wildly different. Even at the height of g-funk, I could h…

>This isn't true unless you're talking the bling Era of the late 90s.

You lived in a different 90s than I did then.

>Now who deviates? Danny brown? He's like 40. RtJ? They're like 40 too. Kendrick tends to always be the modern exception to every hip hop criticism. So I consider him the exception that proves the rule.

Who deviates from what?

>And they're treated the same as Rhymesayers or DefJux rappers, Saul Williams or immortal tech were during the bling and Crunk eras. It's all "white" even if black, nerdy, back packing shit thats not considered part of the "culture". Thats the way most lyrical rappers are treated today. They're talked about like Atmosphere was in 2004.

Not my experience. During that time, and a little before it, you had Blackstar, Common, Dead Prez, and a bunch of other underground acts who were respected - to the point Jay Z name dropped Talib Kweli and Common in the early 2000s. Freddie Gibbs and Big Krit both operate primarily outside the scope of Trap, are very talented, and respected. I don't like J Cole, but he's another one who is liked and respected.

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

#859

Post by guyzero »

wwweston wrote: post #752
guyzero wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reminded of the story about ceramics students being told that half would be graded on quantity and half would be graded on the quality of a single piece of work. https://excellentjourney.net/2015/03/04/art-fear-the-ceramic... It turns out that the students who were just churning out pots ended up making the pots that were ultimately better. I think there's probably something to be said for constantly creating.

After hearing this story for years and finally trying to source it, as far as I can tell it's not entirely clear this experiment was ever actually run -- and in fact is sourced in the link behind your link as a "parable." I can imagine it's true that churning out quantity is its own education but I can also imagine there's a plateau past which deliberate practice and polish matter quite a bit.

Well t's a better parable than the one about boiling a frog, so I guess it got that at least.

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

#860

Post by philmcc »

crazygringo wrote: post #504
philmcc wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not touching the whole heft of the argument, I would like to point out that the original poster didn't compare the difficulty of writing a hit song to a "hit app", he compared a creating a hit song with creating working software. I can co-sign on this part of his premise. I worked for a music producer who has a number of #1 hits (Beyonce, Fergie, John Legend etc). He wrote >1 songs per day almost every day for over a…

But working software doesn't mean commercially successful software. It just means it runs and does something. "Working software" would be comparable to "listenable music". I'm sure every song that producer wrote daily was listenable . But even if you mean "working software" as something that goes up on the app charts, top 100 in a popular category? I mean, then no -- I could easily see a developer spend an entire yea…

Sorry for the late response, I just mean to suggest that it's pretty clear to me that your average software developer reaps the benefits of his work, day to day, on a higher percentage than your average producer.

There are 4.4 million software engineers in the United States. I would imagine most of the work that is generated by them on a day to day basis moves the needle of their careers forward. I could be wrong, but I bet most of them are employed, and getting paid for it.

At the very least I bet that more than half of them get paid for more than 5% of their workdays, right?

I doubt the same can be said for music producers, at least the ones making hits that the OP was referring to.

Post reply on HN