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

Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 266 posts

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#121

Post by kjakm »

toyg wrote: post #117
kjakm wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My complaint would be less the instrumentals (it's formulaic but that doesn't make it bad) but the lyrics. Look up the lyrics to any of the songs you listed and read them. If you don't have the melody in your head they read awfully. They say nothing, make me feel nothing, and make me think of nothing. They don't resonate in any way. You could obviously look at someone like Bob Dylan as a counterpoint but even if you…

> They say nothing, make me feel nothing, and make me think of nothing. That's because you're not their target market. The industry as a whole targets teenagers. It's been the same model since the '60s: turn teenagers into faithful consumers of acts (which are really just brands) and ensure they will buy for the rest of their life just to reminisce. Ariana Grande and Billie Eilish speak to teenagers. All teenagers do…

I take your point but I would argue you could remove 'me' from my statement and it would hold true. I think the pop stars mentioned make people 'feel' more through their social media and image than their music. Maybe I'm just an old man now but the lyrics to Bille Eilish's 'Bad Guy' surely can't resonate with anyone...

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#122

Post by wjnc »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #97
tobr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say “music characteristics hadn’t much to do with it” but then you list a number of specific characteristics that make music more likely to work on radio. That suggests the opposite of “any music will do”. Only music with very specific qualities will do. Or maybe you just meant to say you don’t like pop?

It means pop has turned into a social psychology experiment designed to maximise the return invested in production, and not an individually expressive art form. The obvious end point will be AI-generated muzak which tweaks all the right receptors but is devoid of any disturbingly non-optimal fleshy surprise.

"has" should be "is" right. Most mainstream music has been, from what I understand for a few centuries, a combination of artists expressing themselves while trying to cater to an audience. Otherwise it's an art or a hobby. I don't know any "music as a (pure) art" and I guess with me most causal listeners.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#123

Post by rob74 »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #40
dylan604 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words its formulaic garbage people really don't care about, yet are too occupied to change it. When given the choice, they choose not.

I think that not all music is the same in that it won't be chosen in every context. Sometimes people just don't want to listen to music, they just want some background "noise" that will cover whatever background noise is present (like during a commute). I guess even the "formulaic garbage" is better than the traffic hum or the random noise on public transit. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. When I drive (which I do…

Speak for yourself :) I can think of several songs where I would prefer the engine noise...

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#124

Post by geraltofrivia »

Freak_NL wrote: post #116
geraltofrivia wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WAP specifically feels like an experiment. A female singer's equivalent to the overtly sexual hiphop. In music, and in video. Anecdotal: Friends have acknowledged that they're more disgusted by it than the male singer's counterparts. I admit I am, too. And this is regardless of the particular singer's ability to sing/rap, or the lack thereof.

Interesting. What makes it more disgusting? Artistic merits aside, the (uncensored version of the) song and the music video seem justly regarded as a feminist redressing of the balance (if men can rap explicitly about being horny and wanting sex, so can women).

I recognise that, and thus acknowledge the importance of WAP, but I guess I'm more conditioned to expect this behaviour from men than from women? And the song makes me realise, and possibly correct for it, down the line.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#125

Post by mrweasel »

tiku wrote: post #84

Spotify is really the true top 40. Because there are direct statistics about what is most played and shared..

It's even better for smaller countries. Denmark has a best selling music list, published by the record industry, which is often used as the basis for TOP XX playlists on the radio.

That seems reasonable, until you realize that it's actually within the reach of a dedicated individual on a normal salary to affect the list. The best selling album have in some weeks sold in the low hundreds.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#126

Post by 082349872349872 »

SimplyUnknown wrote: post #77
chrisco255 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no trouble listening to pop music from the 80s, 90s and early 00s. I don't know if that's old age and nostalgia or if music was just better then. I think in many cases, music was just better in prior decades, pop music in particular.

I also think that's partly survivor bias. You listen to the best hits of those decades, tricking you into thinking that all music from those decades was like that. In reality, there was a lot of junk in those times too but we don't listen to it anymore. The same will happen with the 10s and the current 20s in twenty years.

With the virus, most of my exposure to foreign languages is due to YouTube these days. While the words for "heart" and "eyes" and various possessive pronouns are often among the first things I pick up on from the clips themselves, if I am curious enough to bother machine translating comments I often learn how to say "the kid's music is noise" just after "anyone listening in 2020?"

(For me, the best examples are all the 2000's videos with comments saying "remember when we had real music?")

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#127

Post by simias »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #97
tobr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say “music characteristics hadn’t much to do with it” but then you list a number of specific characteristics that make music more likely to work on radio. That suggests the opposite of “any music will do”. Only music with very specific qualities will do. Or maybe you just meant to say you don’t like pop?

It means pop has turned into a social psychology experiment designed to maximise the return invested in production, and not an individually expressive art form. The obvious end point will be AI-generated muzak which tweaks all the right receptors but is devoid of any disturbingly non-optimal fleshy surprise.

Commercial art in general has been that way for centuries. Doesn't mean that it's intrinsically devoid of quality. Many of the classical masterpieces were made to order to cater to the fancy of some rich patron.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#128

Post by theshrike79 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #106
mNovak wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I agree. I anticipate some amount of people still discover music on the radio (even pop mega hits you have to hear the first time somewhere), then go seek it out on spotify. I haven't much been in a car, thus haven't heard the radio, in 7 months. I have no idea what's on the top 40 right now.

> I haven't much been in a car, thus haven't heard the radio, in 7 months. What's the connection between being in a car and listening to the radio? Do people not generally have radios in their homes where you live? And you must have a phone or laptop to be typing this where you could listen to the radio!

Radio just works. Someone else is choosing the playlist and you kinda hear the music in between the ads and annoying hosts.

At home, I can select what I want to hear. I don't need to keep my attention on the road.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#129

Post by theshrike79 »

manishsharan wrote: post #37
29athrowaway wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix did a pretty bad job with Death Note. Willam Dafoe was a good cast, but the same cannot be said of the rest.

I am dreading the release of Netflix' s "The Last Airbender". All indications are that it will be much more worse than that awful movie version.

Yea, the creators of the original left because of "artistic differences".

Not holding my breath for this one...

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/14/entertainment/avatar-airb...

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#130

Post by theshrike79 »

teruakohatu wrote: post #18
baron816 wrote: post #14

> While blockbuster movies are only growing in importance... Obviously, there have been no real blockbusters released this year. I don’t have evidence, but for me it seems like indie movies are thriving. The Streamers are all pouring money into original movies—I can’t think of a single movie that Netflix, Prime, or Hulu has produced that was a sequel.

You need to create originals before you can cash in on sequels. Or buy them eg. Disney buying Marvel for $4b and making $18 billion 10 years later from the IP. Off the top of my head a Netflix original Christmas movie has had two sequels.

That christmas stuff was 100% algorithm driven stuff.

They analysed that christmas movies sell and pumped out a bunch for 2-3 years straight now. None of them are especially good or bad, it's a way to spend 1-2 hours while eating christmas candy.

Post reply on HN