HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music • Hacker News Board

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#131

Post by k-mcgrady » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 1:33 PM UTC

Touche wrote: post #116

k-mcgrady wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "I don't believe that a monetary incentive is necessary for good art." It's not necessary but it's important. I'll explain how: 1) If artists can not earn money from their art the need a full time job to support themselves, provide food and shelter and pay the bills. 2) They will also need some of this money to pay for equipment and in the case of musicians studio time, sound engineers, mastering engineers, design…

There wasn't great art pre 20th century?

Yes definitely and those people got paid. Lots of the great works of art were commissioned be the wealthy. Other great works of art were created by people starving and living in shit. By allowing artists to sell their work at a low price they get to live comfortably, we get lots of great stuff, and nearly everyone can afford it. They don't have to make a choice between not creating great work and creating great work but living a horrid life. The current system (which has been getting cheaper and cheaper for consumers) is the fairest for everyone imo.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#132

Post by giulivo » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 1:35 PM UTC

bmaland wrote: post #78

giulivo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

quality indeed is my main concern too ... I haven't started using any of the cloud services simply because none (that I know) provides lossless music.

WiMP recently launched a lossless streaming service ( http://wimpmusic.com/ ). It's not available in the US though.

thanks, they seem to be looking for how much people is waiting for the service to be available in other countries ... so I just registered!

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#133

Post by roma1n » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 1:37 PM UTC

Popcorn time really filled a void; how is hiphop different from say, grooveshark or deezer?

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#134

Post by peteretep » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 1:43 PM UTC

Touche wrote: post #118

peteretep wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I should look more in to that. I'm using Netflix, which I pay for, and Amazon's ondemand video stuff I get from Prime. I paid for the most recent Sherlock, but I think I'm still a bit cheap for anything that isn't All You Can Eat.

So you're saying that music is priced reasonably but video is not... which is the difference between PT being good and HipHop being bad... what makes you the sole decider of pricing? To me it seems that either both are valid or none are.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not the sole decider, I'm expressing an opinion.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#135

Post by Daedris » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 1:44 PM UTC

Touche wrote: post #117

oalders wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the artist chooses not to distribute digitally, it may well appear online in some digital format anyway.

Only if they are creating art that is inherently digital.

Any art form can be converted to a digital format against the artist's will.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#136

Post by Touche » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 1:50 PM UTC

brentm wrote: post #128

Touche wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artists make nothing from Spotify, so why is it so much worse to use a service that is completely free?

Spotify has paid artists more than $1B to date, $500 million in 2013 alone. source: http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/

Totals don't speak to individual income, what is the mean, median, and range per artist?

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#137

Post by krisgenre » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 1:52 PM UTC

ing33k wrote: post #46

krisgenre wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to buy songs from an online store ( Flyte by Flipkart.com, which later was shutdown ) and upload it to Ubuntu One ( which too is going to be shutdown ). The above scenario worked perfectly for me. I could access all my music anytime and from any device but unfortunately looks it didn't work out for the vendors :)

yeah, this still appears to an unsolved problem, even the mighty flipkart were not able to sort out the licenses properly. I think saavn pro might be an option. http://www.saavn.com/pro/

Saavn pro is mobile only :(. I like their pricing though, paying Rs 5 as when you want for a day is an excellent way to let people try it out.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#138

Post by giulivo » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 2:11 PM UTC

runeks wrote: post #126

giulivo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

quality indeed is my main concern too ... I haven't started using any of the cloud services simply because none (that I know) provides lossless music.

> quality indeed is my main concern too ... I haven't started using any of the cloud services simply because none (that I know) provides lossless music. Have you tried performing an A/B test to see if you can tell the difference between lossless CD audio and 192 kbit AAC (the format used for 720p video on YouTube)?

hi, no I haven't A/B tested those but I'm sure the videos sound very good. The hifi equipment is probably far more important than the quality issues of a 192AAC vs the CD.

Yet, I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective, let me give you an argument.

Keeping the sound of good quality while lowering the bandwidth is an issue; the 192bit AAC is a great achievement in that regard.

Recording and reproducing music with highest quality is another; the CD itself is not entirely lossless in this context.

So I just think for a music streaming service it would be nice to not diminish the music quality at the source of reproducing chain.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#139

Post by dankoss » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 2:11 PM UTC

aw3c2 wrote: post #62

d135_1r43 wrote: post #17

As a part time musician who needs to spend around 10k for a new album I find this frustrating.

Would you mind sharing what that money goes into?

As someone looking to do this myself I can tell you. Any good studio these days charges at least $100/hour for time recording. Even if you walk in ready to go, it can take 4 or more hours to record one song. More if there are complicated production tasks like auditioning different guitar amps or vocal mics.

At some studios, their price includes an engineer, but often a good engineer charges extra. Once the song is recorded, a separate mixing engineer will take the raw tracks and make a finished mix. Then a mastering engineer will polish them further for different markets including radio or AAC. And if you need or want a producer, arranger, cowriter, or session player, you have to pay them for their time. All the while you need to eat and pay rent as an artist or band.

$10k is an average budget for a short album, and consider to break even an artist must sell 13,000 songs if independent through iTunes, more if they split revenue with a label. How many artists have less than 13,000 fans? This is why many record deals today include touring revenue as part of the contract, because they know they can't sell enough downloads to recoup the cost.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#140

Post by Argorak » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 2:21 PM UTC

1stop wrote: post #88

Argorak wrote: post #69

> We believe that listening to music should always be free and available to everyone, and that only owning it should bare a cost. I hate this entitlement. As if it was their decision. As if they were running a social movement. I am all for open access to arts, but this is the artists decision and not some programmers, just because they can.

They are collating youtube content... So... everything you said is a bit ridiculous.

I take offense in their statement, not the methodology. As I said in other responses: sold differently, I would be perfectly okay with what they are doing.