Is Spotify Killing the Top 40? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#241

Post by newen » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #209

newen wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden’s leaks were about a conspiracy that involved many more than a 1000 people and it lasted for years. You get reports about one government program or another that’s been kept secret for decades. These are conspiracies. Statistically improbable is different from mathematically impossible. It’s also much less improbable when the people involved have to join through rituals like government classification designati…

Not sure of what conspiracies you’re thinking of, but if actual evidence was leaked, then we are talking about a clear failure of those involved, therefore this is evidence for the claim that large scale conspiracies are indeed impossible ;-) You can believe what you want of course, but from my POV when the discussion ends up in non-falsifiability land, you might as well talk about the existence of God or Santa Claus…

If it is possible for a significant period of time, then it is possible. Saying something is impossible because it "only" lasted for 50 years is stupid.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#242

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

kjakm wrote: post #121

toyg wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

[deleted]

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#243

Post by waaaaaaat » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

freyr wrote: post #140

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

if the question is whether pop music has ever been anything other than muzak written by AI to tick a number of emotional boxes, I think the answer is pretty obviously yes. That's a ridiculous conclusion. We don't have to dig very deep in the well of incredible pop music...all of Motown, psychedelic rock, etc. was the pop music of the time.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#244

Post by virtue3 » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #239

mywittyname wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art has been democratized in recent years. And not just the drawing type of art either: music, videos, 3d modeling, animation, digital print, literature, etc can be produced on a computer. So today, pretty much anyone with a computer can create whatever random idea is spinning in their brains. You don't even need "talent" anymore. Music can be created by ear using drag-and-drop interfaces. Illustrator makes it dead s…

> You don't even need "talent" anymore. Music can be created by ear using drag-and-drop interfaces. Illustrator makes it dead simple to do vector art without any drawing ability. I'd argue that that's still talent, if the product is any good. You don't need technical expertise, but you still need creativity.

The talent has moved from your actual technique to your message. How many 10-20$ words can you shove into your statement about the art.

She switched out of painting when the someone in class used pain straight from the tube (no mixing) and just made a vagina that was smoking a cigarette but then had some real good fluff backing it up.

She deeply respected the impressionists so it was rough for her. She's happy in her new medium tho.

source: sister with a masters in fine art from a very prestigious university.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#245

Post by 29athrowaway » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

newen wrote: post #165

bad_user wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> conspiracy of some kind could be an explanation, who knows Actually we do know. It’s safe to say that conspiracies involving a lot of actors are mathematically impossible. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Snowden’s leaks were about a conspiracy that involved many more than a 1000 people and it lasted for years. You get reports about one government program or another that’s been kept secret for decades. These are conspiracies. Statistically improbable is different from mathematically impossible. It’s also much less improbable when the people involved have to join through rituals like government classification designati…

Organized religion involves millions of people and is still alive and well.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#246

Post by waaaaaaat » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #222

maxmamis wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone with even a vague understanding of music can write a song on the same level as a pop song. Ok, why don’t you prove it by writing a hit pop song? Come back to this thread when you have your gold record, I’ll wait

The entire point is making the song isn't the hard part. Marketing and managing the artists image is.

I don't even care about the actual gold record or any accolades of any sort. I'd love to hear the gold record level pop song written by someone with only a vague understanding of music. I have 0 respect for most modern pop music, but that's complete nonsense.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#247

Post by jcims » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

skciva wrote: post #237

austhrow743 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Streaming didn't kill the album, but something did. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/music-industry-sales/ Looks like piracy did it in.

I don't think focusing on album sales paints the full picture on how modern artists find success. I've heard artists mention how albums don't really make them much money. Things like touring and merch sales account for the bulk of their income. I'd guess with streaming, podcasts, social networks, etc. artists have found ways outside of releasing a traditional album to stay relevant to the listener.

That was my point about killing the album. It’s no longer a particularly relevant milestone or attribute. The songs stand or fall in their own merit.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#248

Post by CydeWeys » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #240

CydeWeys wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, if I hear a new rock song with a lead male vocalist I'll also struggle mightily to identify them immediately. There are very few bands/singers with such unique styles that they can be told immediately apart. Same with any other genre really.

I think you need to be familiar with the songs' content in order to tell all these vocalists apart. If instead each of the top 5 male and female pop singers of today were to sing each others' songs, I challenge anyone to tell them apart. And I don't think it's an artifact of being old. It's more about how much pop production homogenizes these voices into one "ISO Standard Voice." Back in the nineties, I couldn't tell…

I don't think is a recent phenomenon though. Good luck distinguishing by voice alone the boy bands of the 90s, or the hair bands of the 80s, or the disco bands of the 70s, or the British invasion bands of the 60s either. And going back much further, can you really say you can distinguish the operatic and choral singers from each other either? I think it's always been the case that music has a particular sound that's in, and everyone is singing to that sound. There was no one singing in the grunge or mumble rap style a hundred years ago. It would have been unique and would've easily separated itself from the pack, but it simply wasn't even a thing that anyone was doing yet.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#249

Post by simias » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

virtue3 wrote: post #244

rsynnott wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't even need "talent" anymore. Music can be created by ear using drag-and-drop interfaces. Illustrator makes it dead simple to do vector art without any drawing ability. I'd argue that that's still talent, if the product is any good. You don't need technical expertise, but you still need creativity.

The talent has moved from your actual technique to your message. How many 10-20$ words can you shove into your statement about the art. She switched out of painting when the someone in class used pain straight from the tube (no mixing) and just made a vagina that was smoking a cigarette but then had some real good fluff backing it up. She deeply respected the impressionists so it was rough for her. She's happy in her…

Art is subjective. I never found Guernica aesthetically pleasing, so by your standards I could judge it as a bad painting with "some real good fluff backing it up".

Art is always about the message and the emotions it impresses on people, not raw technique. Or do you think that literature is the art of typesetting?

You're still talking about this smoking vagina, how many other pieces from this class do you mention in casual conversation? Clearly if it was meant to be a provoking piece, it worked to a certain extent.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#250

Post by derivagral » Tue, Sep 08, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

fnord123 wrote: post #163

jillesvangurp wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Netflix, their catalogue is small enough that I can find what I want regardless of what they suggest. They seem to have nailed the "more of the same" algorithm which is mostly looking at their weird notion of genre. For me that means it recommends me stuff I've already decided that I'm not interested in watching because they've been recommending it for months and I've declined to watch it. This seems in general…

>With Netflix, their catalogue is small enough that I can find what I want regardless of what they suggest. How is that even possible? They barely have anything! > Their profile of me is probably very confused because I listen to a lot of different things and what I listen to is mostly dependent on context and what I'm in the mood for, which spans 5 decades of music and quite a few genres. This is not unique. Probabl…

> How is that even possible? They barely have anything!

For people like myself or my partner, this is kind of a perk. People who want Disney-style stuff have multiple platforms for it and those still exist, but the long-tail of Netflix can be great to dive into. My social bubble has gotten quite into the variety of Korean drama, including a few who'd never (normally) watch a subtitled show.