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

251–260 of 266 posts

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#251

Post by mywittyname »

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.

That's why I said "talent." You don't need to play an instrument to make music anymore. You don't need to draw to make digital illustrations. You can get away with a computer, the right software, and your imagination.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#252

Post by paul_f »

goto11 wrote: post #211
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.

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

The Beatles were the biggest pop act in history. They'd never crack the top-40 today.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#253

Post by compiler-guy »

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.

Plenty of people can’t tell the difference between Bach and Beethoven, but that says more about them than it does about the artists.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#254

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #187
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #6

"In a seminal 2004 essay in Wired titled "The Long Tail," journalist Chris Anderson argued that digital culture would help niche music, books, and movies thrive. With fewer gatekeepers and more avenues to find likeminded fans, people would be more likely to indulge their true interests, rather than just accept what was offered by the mainstream." Nice idea, there is some truth to it based on what we've seen so far, b…

I'd disagree in music. Many of the industry's top musicians started lo-fi in their room or basement, like Lorde or Billie Eilish, or all the garage rock, punk rock, hip hop, etc. Those artists get propelled by mass media, but they were nobodies and had basic equipment. So even in the Poppiest of genres, you have breakout by unheard of people. Then, expanding to folk or jazz or electronic, Spotify allows a measly inco…

Big difference between Napster and Spotify.

No gatekeepers with P2P. It is like two friends lending each other LPs, tapes, or CDs. That is how "long tail" music used to spread, pre-Internet

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#255

Post by tomcam »

geraltofrivia wrote: post #78
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?

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.

Experiment? Little late for that. Nicki Minaj has been doing songs like this, better, for years

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#256

Post by tomcam »

082349872349872 wrote: post #134
dredmorbius wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 musi…

Those Russian/Soviet clips were all wonderful, thanks. Also just plain good pop songs.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#257

Post by adamsea »

imtringued wrote: post #175
adamsea wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t someone take what you just said and replace the word “music” with “book”, or “film”? IMHO art (all the arts), art is like food. There’s nothing wrong with ice cream, or McDonald’s sometimes. Not everyone has to be vegan. Eat junk food all the time, though, and it’s unhealthy for you. I think the same is true for music, film, the visual arts, literature, fashion, design, etc. It’s your loss, IMHO. It’s like s…

Any form of art or hobby can be appreciated deeply or used for simple minded entertainment. You can enjoy everything at a surface level but going deeper requires commitment and you can't commit yourself to everything at once. Therefore saying something along the lines of "It’s your loss, IMHO." will be understood as disrespect of someones personal preferences and invites unnecessary hostility.

No disrespect intended.

Agreed, not all of us go deep on all things. I am biased towards being open to new experiences and continuing to learn and develop over the course of our lives, and do think it's good for people, and important, and that includes the arts.

I think part of the beauty of film (including TV), music, and literature (those three things in particular), is just how much really good stuff is easily accessible and easily available these days. Video games, too.

The real barrier is lack of familiarity and lack of that one person to introduce / guide you, in my heavily biased and optimistic opinion : ).

It's why the kids with the older siblings often knew about all the cool music ; ).

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#258

Post by adamsea »

watwut wrote: post #79
adamsea wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t someone take what you just said and replace the word “music” with “book”, or “film”? IMHO art (all the arts), art is like food. There’s nothing wrong with ice cream, or McDonald’s sometimes. Not everyone has to be vegan. Eat junk food all the time, though, and it’s unhealthy for you. I think the same is true for music, film, the visual arts, literature, fashion, design, etc. It’s your loss, IMHO. It’s like s…

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…

"Unchallenging" isn't quite right for the food comparison, you're correct.

For instance I don't consider The Beatles, say, or Michael Jackson or Jay-Z or Frank Sinatra or Mozart necessarily "challenging" (for some people some of those artists are), but would consider them "healthy".

Healthy food can be tasty and delicious, too ; ).

I do think if someone listens only to music without any depth (again, I'm using the Beatles - or Led Zeppelin, or Jimi Hendrix, or Taylor Swift, or Robyn or Daft Punk, or Lauryn Hill, or Billie Holiday, or Kanye West as examples of popular artists with depth), it is a lost opportunity for development of the self, and in a sense, "stunts" the growth of one's own self.

It's also just a huge loss. There's so much beautiful art that is not "challenging", and much of the "challenging" work simply requires a friendly environment and an introduction, and they yield huge rewards.

At the same time I think the emotions which a lot of art can stimulate cause fear to a lot of people, which can be cause for avoidance of them, but that's a separate (albeit related) conversation : ).

I dunno. I did start off talking about "challenging" art. But, the line is so thin!

I don't think Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" would "challenge" many people - it's maybe the most popular jazz album, one of the best, and a beautiful piece of listening. It has lots of depth though, and his other work can be considered challenging, for sure ...

Really I guess I'm making an argument for the value of cultivation of the self through education, which includes the arts : ).

There's just so much out there: Indian classical music, Afrobeat, Latin jazz, country music, tons of electronic music from everywhere, traditional Chinese music, etc.

Not unlike programming/computer science, there's so much neat stuff that people have done in the arts that often people don't even realize exists.

Not all of us have the time and the inclination to do the deep digging, but, I think it's important to have a balance and at least an appreciation for the vastness of what exists in our lives, and that doing so enriches our selves.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#259

Post by adamsea »

watwut wrote: post #93
lucasverra wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being cognitively unchallenged by music or visual arts could be considered "harm". I know i do but anectada I guess. The fact that you imply his argument is "cheap" or that you very quickly judge it as "bad comparison" with no more arguments than whatever you think could be interpreted as "his point exactly".

> Being cognitively unchallenged by music or visual arts could be considered "harm". Is being cognitively unchallenged by something being harmed by that something in general? That is extraordinary claim that would require evidence. That is not standard we apply to other daily activities. And listening to music is not even activity, it is just something you put onto environment as you do something else. If I go somewh…

I think "lack of development/enrichment" might be a better term than harm. And "challenge" might not have been a great word-choice of mine, either. Depth? Craft? Some value.

For example, imagine a programmer/software engineer who never, ever, in their entire career, saw good code written by others?

Does that lack of good code (and there's lots of ways for code to be "good") harm their development as software devs?

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#260

Post by adamsea »

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…

> Since your body (and your mind) doesn't require any music / movie / book to survive ...

I respectfully disagree : ). Name a single culture that has ever existed which had no art. No storytelling, pottery, visual crafts, music, dance, etc.

It might not have been art purely as its own thing as in today's Western art, it might have been art as part of religion ritual or tradition, but everyone everywhere has art.

Would you want to live in a world with zero music, and zero decorative arts, zero visual arts, zero stories, etc? Zero designed objects, zero rugs that have any sort of color or pattern, etc?

Art is totally necessary for our survival. It's so fundamental that we don't realize most of the time it's there.

Early example of fashion? The military, to distinguish soldiers and make people feel special about killing. Also, music (drums, etc) - to coordinate folks and lift their spirits. One example of how pervasive art is.

That's why the art/technology divide breaks down and why design is so interesting, imho. As soon as any material technology starts to get sophisticated, you start to get "aesthetics" and "styles". Think Russian vs U.S. engineering styles, for one example.

Creating tools is a creative act.

Plus, look at the cave paintings. Art's been around since day one. %;-)

Also if you only eat McDonalds it does indeed harm you, FYI :). Or, like, eating really unhealthy will harm you over time. Or eating ice cream all day : ).

Post reply on HN