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

The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

tedgioia.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#151

Post by Rastonbury »

nivenkos wrote: post #141
Rastonbury wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument here is that Spotify is adding to their curated playlists songs/artists that they do not need to pay royalties to. So they end up paying out less royalties to musicians like your wife

Royalties will still be paid though. And royalties are paid from a revenue share model AFAIK, it's not a strict 0.0X cents per stream, etc. It's probably a bit of a better deal than the royalty agreements with the big 4 record labels, but I'd be surprised if it's so much so to organise this sort of conspiracy.

If 3 songs out of 30 on every curated playlist was royalty free that's 10% less royalties. It's the same business rationale as Amazon Basics

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#152

Post by mc32 »

onionisafruit wrote: post #150
mc32 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why couldn't anyone on Spears' team come in and smooth out that idiosyncrasy? If someone writes gibberish for lyrics, do singers just go ahead and sing gibberish?

I don’t know if that story is true, but if it is the lyric still works even if it doesn’t match the songwriter’s intent.

There’s the other slang meaning as in, “I’d hit that”. Of course there is the darker physical hitting interpretation which advocates against domestic violence have a problem with.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#153

Post by mbg721 »

mc32 wrote: post #152
onionisafruit wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if that story is true, but if it is the lyric still works even if it doesn’t match the songwriter’s intent.

There’s the other slang meaning as in, “I’d hit that”. Of course there is the darker physical hitting interpretation which advocates against domestic violence have a problem with.

Or it could be taken as a blackjack metaphor, for pushing one's luck just a little bit more.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#154

Post by mc32 »

mbg721 wrote: post #153
mc32 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s the other slang meaning as in, “I’d hit that”. Of course there is the darker physical hitting interpretation which advocates against domestic violence have a problem with.

Or it could be taken as a blackjack metaphor, for pushing one's luck just a little bit more.

If she had been older and had marketed herself differently, sure.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#155

Post by jeffbee »

postingposts wrote: post #99
jeffbee wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just can't figure out what it would even mean for a jazz saxophonist to be "good on paper". What does it mean? Did he hit 100 RBIs? A take such as "I don't care for Coltrane's improvisational style" would be beyond debate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltrane_changes He and The Beatles and a lot of other musicians from this era have been subjected to a form of schizophrenic post-hoc pattern matching. In English: someone doodles on the sax or does a tune a little different and suddenly there are 100 papers about the specific and intricate genius of The Rolling Stones making a love song in the Second Person!!! and it’s the same sort…

I see you getting a few downvotes, but for the record I agree completely, to the extent that your complaint is about the members of the cult and not the object of their veneration.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#156

Post by postingposts »

jeffbee wrote: post #155
postingposts wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltrane_changes He and The Beatles and a lot of other musicians from this era have been subjected to a form of schizophrenic post-hoc pattern matching. In English: someone doodles on the sax or does a tune a little different and suddenly there are 100 papers about the specific and intricate genius of The Rolling Stones making a love song in the Second Person!!! and it’s the same sort…

I see you getting a few downvotes, but for the record I agree completely, to the extent that your complaint is about the members of the cult and not the object of their veneration.

Yeah like I said, if you like him that’s great! If you like The Beatles or The Rolling Stones I will happily listen with you! Because that’s just taste and I think in general most people make pretty good music. It’s all these really weird arguments that have to tell me “no, it’s not doodling on the sax it’s something else!”. When again I feel like you’re extracting patterns to justify the doodling rather than justifying the sound or melody. (Often, people like that don’t care about melody)

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#157

Post by postingposts »

zeruch wrote: post #124
postingposts wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John Coltrane is only good on paper and there’s a cult of personality which exists around his work. I can’t really say that I think much of his improvisations and in general, what people believe is “incredible” could be cranked out by an algorithm. Miles Davis is the real deal of jazz for me. Never cared about notes, fame, or much other than being free . That’s jazz.

"John Coltrane is only good on paper" Which is still a warmer sense than the room temp take you just attempted. Your entire comment was either trolling, or some seriously petulant, and gap-laden understanding of both Miles AND Trane. Not saying you have to like Trane, but damn if your comment was just musically and historically ignorant as all be damned.

It’s even more simple: I don’t care about being appealing to you.

Edit: also you saying something like “you’re wrong” and then not giving reasons is actually what trolling is. Go look in the mirror my friend.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#158

Post by blunte »

yesenadam wrote: post #146
iostream24 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the point we all smell here: some very fishy bandwagonning going on here defending Spotify by trying to water down the allegations. I allege Spotify agents here doing paid work.

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No post body was provided.

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#159

Post by antifa »

p1necone wrote: post #120
avs733 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that was my take too. As with any company, if they can stop sharing revenue with third parties it seems almost inevitable that they will. It isn't just Amazon basics, its Netflix producing its own shows that are a product of machine learning about people's preferences. Whether that is good or bad is a different question Whether they are being honest about it is a different question Whether they should inform people /…

Netflix doing it bothers me less than Spotify and Amazon for some reason. I think it's because TV/Movie production needs a proportionally much larger crew of people and budget behind it to produce content. So Netflix is both enabling things to be created that couldn't be without their help and there's actually a significant cost to them to produce said content. Also, the in house content that Netflix puts out strikes…

Netflix doesn't let anyone upload videos/music like youtube and spotify and they also clearly brand their shows as "netflix original".

Re: The fake artists problem on streaming platforms

#160

Post by kupopuffs »

randrews wrote: post #75
ttoinou wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I hope these guys are making a fortune in royalties for my plays Where does the money come from exactly ?

Well, I'm paying YouTube for a subscription for that, so probably out of there. People who aren't buying a subscription see ads, the advertisers pay to place those, so, out of there. Edit: I don't think the economics of it are the issue. My thing is, if people are fine with more famous artists getting revenue from streaming, why should they have a problem with other artists doing so? I don't care that these random sy…

if it's a 3P Youtube Creator (aka a random person who started a channel and is creating these mixes by pasting music together), these artists might not even be getting paid for their music
Post reply on HN