Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

subvert.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 140 posts

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#101

Post by nxpnsv »

chx wrote: post #70
mg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a self-learning music discovery engine called Gnoosic: https://www.gnoosic.com I can confirm that when you suggest a random band to a random user, they will dislike it with over 90% probability. I'd be interested to hear how well Gnoosic works for your musical taste.

Band level doesn't quite work. Alas, it needs to be track level. There are a lot of bands where I like a track and that's it. My favorite example is Seven Sirens And a Silver Tear from Sirenia, a Norwegian gothic metal band. There's no metal in that. It took me a long long time before I learned this but the track is a direct descendant of the Midlight Sonata. And I was hunting for similar songs and I now keep a playl…

If the track is known, then from the context of this and other things you like, you would still reach useful recommendations in not too many clicks. Track level would be interesting, but is also harder as data is a lot sparser making it harder to build reliable recommendations.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#102

Post by FireInsight »

4dregress wrote: post #91

The burning question I have is: Why do artists feel the need for a platform? The tools are out there to allow you to advertise, sell and distribute your music (I'm not talking about the distribution platforms like distrokid etc, fuck streaming, fuck social media and fuck making content whilst we're at it), why give away control over your art? My model is this: * Make some awesome music * Self host it. Provide means f…

Most people do not have the means to self-host it. A platform is just make an account, upload the files and cover, set the title, done. The platform might help with getting an audience as well. To self-host you need to have both the technical ability for it and pre-existing audience to use your self-hosted platform.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#103

Post by kevincox »

FireInsight wrote: post #47
wavemode wrote: post #42

Edit: it's been pointed out to me that the zine actually is publicly available for free - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ra6r2zSkw7NCYNTAqP9923ValZi... I really like the overall idea. Two thoughts I had while browsing. From the main page: > PURCHASE ZINE Is the only way to get a copy of the manifesto, really to purchase it (or join as a member)? How is someone supposed to even know whether they want to be involved…

FAQ: "Can I read the zine first?" has an email input box.

So you at least need to pay with personal information before you even know about the cause you are paying to.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#104

Post by Ylpertnodi »

freedomben wrote: post #31
pdntspa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's very simple... a) Find good DJs playing music you like (YouTube is very helpful here, as is partying) b) Listen to their sets c) Shazam (or just trainspot) the tracks you like. (Shazam has a really nice integration with SPotify that dumps everything it IDs into a Spotify playlist) I am a DJ and constantly on the hunt for new music, this is how I find most of it. No algorithms necessary!

Sorry for what's probably a stupid question, but how do you find DJs on Youtube? Do you literally just search for stuff like "Hard Rock DJ" and then start clicking through results?

It's a limited field of one person, but John Peel (BBC dj) sure introduced me to so much. Never found anything like the show for making me realise how much music I was missing...so thought fuck it...can't listen to everything, so I won't bother trying. I write my own music for me. It's on a yt channel (no images), so if anyone does discover it all....it's yours. And everyone elses.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#105

Post by Self-Perfection »

josephg wrote: post #88
Self-Perfection wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it possible to host a website almost on blockchain (see TON Sites as example) and withdraw certain modification permissions once the contract in launched. It seems to me that it is possible to implement fully decentralized bandcamp-like site.

I’ve yet to see any useful product built on top of crypto. Can you name any ? (Not including things that just make early adopters rich or simply provide services to other crypto related projects).

How about auctions for telegram usernames? It helps to distribute limited resource.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#106

Post by lancesells »

pessimizer wrote: post #61
lancesells wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's been going on since early 2020. And yeah, I can't really tell a difference between Bandcamp before it was sold and today. It's a shame that they not only sold to Epic of all companies but then fired so many people.

> fired so many people. If there's no degradation, it should have been done long ago. Those salaries come out of musicians' pockets.

Maybe. It's really hard to say because you don't know what it took to build Bandcamp up to what it is today. We also don't know if things are falling apart or if the people still working there have twice their normal work.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#107

Post by javajosh »

mmooss wrote: post #12

It's a great start. Co-ops and non-profits can also be subverted and taken over. I hope you look ahead and plan very carefully. For example, according to an (unverified) story someone told me, a vendor to US east coast food cooperatives now controls many of them; they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and disempowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for an…

>they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and dis-empowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for any legal struggle than any co-op member does.

Sounds like an opportunity for a binding arbitration clause, and hiring another co-op that performs binding arbitration.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#108

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

cyberax wrote: post #80
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I imagine using crypto for this problem, the on-chain portion is a registry of hashes (for the songs) which maps them to addresses which I can send money to and then the contract multiplexes the money out to the appropriate people. So if it's one dude with a guitar and a microphone, 100% goes to him. But if it's a remix of a remix of a remix, then maybe that money gets split 50 ways. I don't know if I need a web…

What would happen if somebody forgets or loses the key? Reality: there's nothing that blockchain does better than an Excel sheet.

They create a new address and from it they publish a revocation of the old address. Then they re-register their content and associate it with payment patterns that pay out to the new address. Then they propagate the new address in-person. When fans trust the new address, their client notices the conflict and they're prompted to prune the old one (since the trust-score on the new one is higher).

If the artist-fan-trust-relationship is multi-hop, it may take a little while for the switch to propagate from fan-to-fan rather than from artist-to-fan, but when it does they'd be notified to consider making the same change.

Meanwhile, a timer has been going since the last time the artist collected funds from the account with the lost key. Once it gets suitably high, the pending payments into it are reversed back to the fans, and the pattern is altered to exclude the abandoned address and notify payers that they might be a better pattern to use, prompting them to find and use the new pattern.

It's not the simplest way, but it's the best I can do without having anybody on payroll, which means maximizing the amount received by the artists.

Besides, art is supposed to be transformative, not status-quo preserving. Even though 99% of artists don't have to worry about being censored directly, I think they're more likely to be interested in protecting the 1% who do. That means having both groups using the same payment rails, and they must be rails that don't respect the kind of bullies that freeze accounts based on content.

Finally, you can lean on this web of trust for the distribution of things like concert tickets, making life more difficult for scalpers (and you can identify the scaplers who have infiltrated your fan network, and explicitly distrust them for next time).

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#109

Post by Jeff_Brown »

mg wrote: post #26
freedomben wrote: post #20

I think this is great, but I do hope thought is being put into solving the hardest problem of all IMHO: Music Discovery I have bought a lot on Bandcamp, but would have bought 10x more if I could just find stuff I liked. The existing system makes discovery nearly impossible unless you happen to like the stuff being mainly bought and curated or are in a lucky genre. Discoverability is especially hard because 99% of the…

I run a self-learning music discovery engine called Gnoosic: https://www.gnoosic.com I can confirm that when you suggest a random band to a random user, they will dislike it with over 90% probability. I'd be interested to hear how well Gnoosic works for your musical taste.

This is incredible!

I wish I could give it more bands, and see the distance (I imagine it computes one?) between each band I provided and the ones it suggests.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#110

Post by cyberax »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #108
cyberax wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would happen if somebody forgets or loses the key? Reality: there's nothing that blockchain does better than an Excel sheet.

They create a new address and from it they publish a revocation of the old address. Then they re-register their content and associate it with payment patterns that pay out to the new address. Then they propagate the new address in-person. When fans trust the new address, their client notices the conflict and they're prompted to prune the old one (since the trust-score on the new one is higher). If the artist-fan-trus…

> Once it gets suitably high, the pending payments into it are reversed back to the fans

So basically: you're screwed.

> Besides, art is supposed to be transformative, not status-quo preserving.

Blah-blah-blah. I would really love to belong to a collective that puts my music right next to CSAM. Fans would really appreciate it. So now you have to have an enforcement mechanism, like voting. What if somebody hacks enough keys to take over the voting? Have even more privileged members?

That's the thing: the real-world complexity has to deal with all kinds of edge cases. And we have a legal system for that, with several thousand years of legacy in it.

Post reply on HN