Is Spotify Killing the Top 40? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#211

Post by goto11 » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #71

gre wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With pop music you hear exactly the same track over and over with no variation and it gets predictable and monotonous. With classical, jazz, or live music there are many performances, so any two recordings will not sound identical. This is one reason I can't stand pop music after a few listens.

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.

And in the 80s, 90s and early 00s people were complaining that music was just better in prior decades.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#212

Post by toyg » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 2:37 PM UTC

kjakm wrote: post #120

toyg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some of the lowest quality/most unoriginal content The point of meme content (which is basically what these "same dance" videos are) is not originality; the point is taking part, belonging to the hivemind. Human beings fundamentally want to belong , not to be original.

I understand your point about taking part but what percentage of people take part vs. people who simply watch? It's not just the dance videos too. There's very little interesting content on TikTok in my opinion. It will certainly suck you in and have you watching mindlessly for hours a day but I think it's possible to do that and still be considered low quality and unoriginal.

> what percentage of people take part vs. people who simply watch?

I'd argue that the percentage has actually gone up pretty dramatically, when compared to the previous media (TV/cinema/theatre/music).

In reality, I would argue, more people than ever now make or take part in "something". Because 90% of everything is crap, though, the firehose is inevitably returning more crap than ever.

Do we need better consumption filters and better ways to emerge talent? Sure. Is this worse than before? I don't know, but it's definitely more democratic.

> It will certainly suck you in and have you watching mindlessly for hours a day

Not at all like TV, then. Oh wait

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#213

Post by rahoulb » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 2:46 PM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #190

rahoulb wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the UK and in my 40s. For me the Top 40 used to be one of the few places where you could hear stuff that wasn't just pop radio - because in the UK it was a sales chart, not an airplay chart and genuinely represented what people were listening to, not what the pluggers and labels had successfully pushed. However, since streaming, that equation has totally changed.

What labels pushed on the radio did certainly feed into what people bought, though.

Yes - but the Chart Shows (both the BBC and the commercial stations) were the places where the stations were obliged to play songs, during the daytime, that weren't on their playlists.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#214

Post by chrisseaton » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 2:46 PM UTC

ndespres wrote: post #185

chrisseaton wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not have radio stations where you value how the host selects, curates, and gives the background to the music for you? What about the current affairs, plays, comedy, history? I can’t imagine going without the radio!

No, not really in America. There are a few freeform music stations that still have actual DJs in the booth selecting records that they like, but mostly al the FM broadcast stations here are owned by 1 or 2 advertising companies who play preselected songs, have canned DJ banter, and a very low music-to-ad ratio.

Isn't A Prairie Home Companion a massive thing in the US?

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#215

Post by chrisseaton » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

rhodysurf wrote: post #198

chrisseaton wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I mean every radio station I know streams over the Internet as well.

Why would I choose listen to the radio with ads when I can listen to music without ads instead?

Not all radio has adverts though.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#216

Post by UncleMeat » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 2:56 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #184

UncleMeat wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complexity in pop music is driven by timbre and instrumentation rather than harmonic or melodic complexity - but timbre and instrumentation are no less valid forms of musical expression and complexity (talk to Ravel or Varese). The desire to judge all music based on the dominant ideas of 16-19th century european classical music seems to exist not to better understand musical expression but instead to let people feel…

Ooorr... because those measures correspond to something in the experience, that humans have been found to value.

This is obviously wrong, because there are entire classical traditions (centuries or millennia long) from outside of Europe that prioritize musical features beyond traditional western harmony. Any claim that harmonic complexity is fundamental to human experience or uniquely valuable among musical expression is ignorance at best.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#217

Post by blaser-waffle » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 2:57 PM UTC

Good! Top 40 -- and why 40 instead of 50, or 100? -- is useless pop nonsense for bland radio stations.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#218

Post by hilbertseries » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

fiblye wrote: post #144

hilbertseries wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you listen to Bad Guy by Billie Eilish, Chun-Li by Nicki Minaj and thank u, next by Arianna Grande. You would say all of these women sound the same and have the same instrumentals?

I can tell Nicki Minaj from them, but I can't tell Selena Gomez, Taylor Swift, or Ariana Grande apart and they've been looping on the radio for years. I can point out a specific song that I've heard before and looked up who it was, but whenever a new song pops up, I can't tell them apart. They've completely merged into the same media personality with the same music.

You can't tell Taylor Swift from Ariana Grande? I think this speaks more to the way you view pop music, than sonic similarities.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#219

Post by blaser-waffle » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #178

readred wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought writing a pop song was 10% talent and 90% marketing? Written by the same people because they gatekeep those marketing dollars.

There is massive competition to be a chosen producer or song writer. Being chosen as the one who is marketed is where the competition is. Their positions are earned.

They're earned the same way big movie star roles are earned -- by knowing the right people or sleeping with the producer.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#220

Post by bitwize » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 3:01 PM UTC

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.

If it were an experiment, it would be more interesting than it is. Experiments can be fun.

Pop as we know it started as a social psychology experiment in the 1960s or earlier. It has now reached the phase where the experiment is over and the results have been published. That is why pop sounds so boring and samey now: the record execs know precisely what works, and all songs must contain certain elements if they are to chart, all while swapping superficial details around to sound "fresh".

The last time there was experimentation going on in pop music was probably the 80s. That's why Michael Jackson's chart-topper "Thriller" sounds so much more layered, complex, and interesting than nearly anything shat out by the chart toppers of today.