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

131–140 of 266 posts

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#131

Post by jcims »

ehnto wrote: post #53

I hope so. Top 40 lists are constructed not observed. They seem to have no relationship to what music is favored by listeners, just what is being pushed on pop radio. A self satisfying loop.

Top 40 was born in an era where a large part of the economic equation in music was album sales. The tribal signal helped overcome the activation energy required to shell out the equivalent of a half day’s labor for a teen at the local music store.

Streaming services have killed the album, so the top 40 really has no calling.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#132

Post by watwut »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #94
watwut wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Junk food is bad comparison, because listening to unchallenging music will not harm you at all. For that matter, the same goes with visual arts and fashion and design. There are movies and books that can actually harm you (when it teaches wrong history or facts for example, when violence is more then you can handle), but I would argue the cheap predictable popular ones are rarely those. It is cheap argument to try to…

I think to make a food comparison work, you need to set the reference point straight. Since your body (and your mind) doesn't require any music / movie / book to survive, the proper comparison is to food eaten on top of nutritional baseline - to all the extra things you eat above minimum survivable calories/nutrients. This way, pop music can be correctly likened to McDonald's food: won't harm you at all, and it's one…

The typical issue with McDonald's food put on top of other food is that it makes you fat and also unhealthy in the long term. As in, it is bad because it does some harm.

Otherwise there would not no issue with McDonald's food on top of regular food.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#133

Post by heavenlyblue »

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!

> Do people not generally have radios in their homes where you live?

No.

> And you must have a phone or laptop to be typing this where you could listen to the radio!

Do I need an RTL-SDR?

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#134

Post by 082349872349872 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #92
menybuvico wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got curious and listened to it, and after listening to that load of rubbish, I simply don't feel connected with society anymore. Do people actually listen to this and like it, or is it just the perceived shock value that counts?

"Rock and roll" is an explicit reference to the sex act and "jazz" the usual male contribution to same. Mick Jagger couldn't "get no satisfaction", the Beatles asked "why don't we do it in the road", Nina Simone wanted "some sugar in my bowl", one-not-really-a-hit-wonder Hillary instructed listeners to "drop your pants around your ankles" ( https://youtube.com/watch?v=Wu9Zps8vnEY ), and then there's pretty much every…

Also folk music[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24130589

(peasants with little to no agricultural surplus aren't interested in freemartins, neither four- nor two-legged. Compare "we also have a ‘big’ cycle of generations" in https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they... )

I'm not intending to watch WAP until I must in order to understand a parody. There's certainly no shortage of other musical sublimation, such as the pin-up pastiche of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpuemnGD-44 .

Bonus clip (with gentlemen, it's "ladies first"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDcixye_0Jo

[1] is there any popular genre that lacks in innuendo? Those highly-censored soviets produced https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tDZl_wj8Fo , which raises a pose estimation question: how could the eponymous girl's tears possibly fall directly on such long spears? Was she standing on a ladder?

Even the Taliban, I believe, allow arguably amorous lyrics, as long as (a) they're not accompanied by instrumentals, and (b) the surface meaning of "beloved" is the divine.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#135

Post by wmil »

3np wrote: post #46
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.

It's almost like there's some force of nature making animated-to-live adaptations terrible. There are a few exceptions, though. I think Netflix did kind of OK on Erased (僕だけがいない街). The first movie that was made from that great source material was excruciatingly bad.

The whole animation to live adaptation idea is equivilant to remaking the original with a new cast, bigger budget, and shorter run time if you're going TV series -> film.

Hollywood studios have certain expectations about pacing and storyline.

The writter and director will either have their own ideas about the story, or they will be cashing a paycheck and not care.

Basically it's a bad start creatively. You're almost certain to lose what made the original special.

Really fans shouldn't get exicted about them. The best case is that you get something good but very different.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#136

Post by jcims »

laurent92 wrote: post #65
ehnto wrote: post #53

I hope so. Top 40 lists are constructed not observed. They seem to have no relationship to what music is favored by listeners, just what is being pushed on pop radio. A self satisfying loop.

It is astonishing when you realize it. Since the MCM times, we’ve transferred music bands from sound to image, and we noticed the commercial drums (and repetition on radios in particular) produced linear return in investment, and music characteristics hadn’t much to do with it. To the point that today, any music will do. It’s much easier for the labels, since they can pimp anyone among the 1-10% of the population who…

You can even see the difference with individual artists in their studio vs live performances.

For some unknown reason I’ve been geeking out on Miley Cyrus lately. Her studio releases have that glossy, overproduced sound of too many cooks in the kitchen. Her live performances on the other hand rely on the power of her vocals and a really tight band that has been together for a stretch now.

Just compare the studio release of Slide Away [1] with what they did on the BBC Live Lounge [2]. Lyrically the song is what it is, but there’s so much more energy and feel (to me anyway) in the latter.

[1] https://youtu.be/rrvFv6j3-sM

[2] https://youtu.be/liRu4mhUF7I

Then of course her Backyard Sessions have been a treat for a while now, but would never grace the airwaves:

https://youtu.be/wOwblaKmyVw

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#137

Post by swiley »

menybuvico wrote: post #82
gruez wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it seems that the ultimate goals of mainstream music industry are: [...] Songs are an effective way to deliver a message to be repeated over and over and over again until people break and assimilate the message. It sounds like you're saying that the music industry is engaged in a conspiracy to change people's behavior. Is this a correct characterization? If so, is there any evidence for this conspiracy, or some plau…

The music industry has never hidden that they manipulate listeners into consuming more and more media, so it's pretty much the opposite of a conspiracy. It's like saying the ad industry is conspiring to manipulate us into buying their clients' products and services.

I don’t think conspiracies have to be secret.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#138

Post by goto11 »

menybuvico wrote: post #76
tomcam wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WAP.

I got curious and listened to it, and after listening to that load of rubbish, I simply don't feel connected with society anymore. Do people actually listen to this and like it, or is it just the perceived shock value that counts?

Did you know the original version of "Tutti Frutti" (Little Richard, 1955) was about anal sex? ("If it don't fit, don't force it / You can grease it, make it easy")

If you are appalled by that, fair enough. It is not something particularly new though. Of course people at the time also saw Rock'n'roll as bringing the end of civilized society.

The furor caused by WAP is pretty hilarious to see.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#139

Post by sjwright »

jcims wrote: post #131
ehnto wrote: post #53

I hope so. Top 40 lists are constructed not observed. They seem to have no relationship to what music is favored by listeners, just what is being pushed on pop radio. A self satisfying loop.

Top 40 was born in an era where a large part of the economic equation in music was album sales. The tribal signal helped overcome the activation energy required to shell out the equivalent of a half day’s labor for a teen at the local music store. Streaming services have killed the album, so the top 40 really has no calling.

It hasn’t killed the album, it’s just changed the rules of the game for marketing “popular” music by reducing the power of radio and increasing interest in the long tail.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#140

Post by freyr »

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 "pop music" ever been anything other than this? Since the beginning, it has typically been manufactured by producers and songwriters for mass appeal.
Post reply on HN