Live data from Hacker News

The Problem with Music (1993)

thebaffler.com

41–50 of 101 posts

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#41
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many (most?) new prominent acts get their start in their bedrooms with SoundCloud. It’s beautiful. I don’t think there’s ever even a case where they _have_ to go through the industry ringer. They can just keep cleaning up using self promotion and Spotify royalties. Of course if they want to tour, that changes the equation a bit.

Radio is still a thing, and studios decide what goes on there.

Is it though?

I grew up in the Bay Area listening to “Live 105” the local Alt-Rock station. It doesn’t even exist anymore. There’s maybe one station on the dial that caters to a demographic younger then 40.

I’m not sure radio is still relevant for anyone under the age of 30.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#42

The beauty with the internet and now AI is that it greatly reduces the power of and need for gatekeepers who take most of the profit

Just by virtue of how the human brain transducers auditory signals versus visual signals there is a big disparity in being able to automate music production. We fill in many gaps for vision but to a much smaller degree for music. There's a lot less room for AI to fudge the difference between human and generative model derived music.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out as I'm sure AI will found some use in music that has broad application and influence. But it will take a lot longer than generating pictures

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#44
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I've certainly done everything in software, there are a lot of genres (such as metal) where micing is a part of the sound. If you listen to metalcore vs a lot of metal, you can hear it.

I would disagree on that, as a hobbyist metal guitarist myself, software like Neural DSP, Bogren etc has made such strides in amp modelling that you can get the same sounds in the box. There are a number of releases I've heard where you simply cannot tell the difference, arguably nor should you bother trying, they sound fantastic.

I own a copy of bias fx, but I still feel that the nuances of mic positioning and acoustics can give an organic feel easily, much like how good musicians swing beats in an aesthetic way that beat swing plugins don't quite live up to in most cases.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#45

Here is something that may be of use. When someone sends you or hands you a contract, read it. If they hand you a contract and expect you to sign it on the spot either ask to look at it overnight or sit down and read it in the spot. Anyone who expects you to sign something without reading it should feel shady. Read it with a pen in hand. You are allowed to change things in a contract. People often give you things as…

From what I read in the article, you need to also avoid signing anything that says you’ll sign something else later (why in the world is that kind of contract legal?).

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#46
Now do startups. But seriously, while I have not got to investment stage, I have been in shitty bands in the early 90s where I know the names of the people in the article, had partners in the model-acting-whatever game, written as a freelancer and lived with authors and publishing people, and then also worked on hopeful startup products for myself and others, and even sometimes help VCs choose decks from the slop pile. It's the exact same grind across all those industries.

Reality is, you are either money side, or talent side, and there is almost nothing in between, other than the "judas goat" roles of the A&R guy, writing course adjunct, model scout, VC associate, where you get a job bringing talent into the funnel.

If you thought your dev job was different, your recruiter is probably getting compensated with 20-30% of your first year's salary if you persist in the job for 6mos, and if you are in the contracting game without negotiation skills or leverage, the company you work for is paying anywhere from 20% to 100% premium to your agency where you do work, an they did their work.

Around the time of this article in my late teens or early 20s I was sitting beside a pool at the vast country estate of a friends very wealthy parents, and I asked him, "How do I get this?" He told me something along the lines of "the reason you don't make any money is because you want money for what it gets you, like freedom, approval, acknowledgement of your talent, status, appreciation, and maybe some nicer versions of what you need to live. You don't actually want money, you don't make it for its own sake, and you don't use it or manage it to make more of it, you use it for these other things." I responded, "Of course, why would I want to be a slave to making money? What an empty life. I don't want to be some douche bag bridge and tunnel tourist working at a bank." He said, "If you want this, you need to only want that. You don't get this from what money gets."

The lecture didn't land at all. I was always a bit of a punk ass. I went on to do some really interesting stuff, where decades later I make a passable living having done some interesting and even legendary things I get to dine out on the stories from, but while I don't have many regrets, I am conscious of the attitude in this article and how it plays out. If you want money, make money. if you want something else, own that. Thinking you're going to be wealthy from your talent and efforts is practically the definition of magical thinking. Money is made by managing it, which means getting some, leveraging and investing it and extracting value from the risk and growth.

There's nothing wrong with not being wealthy, I do it very well, but attributing our ignorance about money to injustice, as a way to protect our magical thinking about the untested value of our talent, is to be stuck in a kind of adolescence.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#47
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many (most?) new prominent acts get their start in their bedrooms with SoundCloud. It’s beautiful. I don’t think there’s ever even a case where they _have_ to go through the industry ringer. They can just keep cleaning up using self promotion and Spotify royalties. Of course if they want to tour, that changes the equation a bit.

Radio is still a thing, and studios decide what goes on there.

I can't imagine radio is relevant at all to an up and coming musician at this point.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#48
post #35

The beauty with the internet and now AI is that it greatly reduces the power of and need for gatekeepers who take most of the profit

Sure. I as a musician that practised for years to play the right note in the right way the right moment will truly appreciate it when the unique style I developed with my band over years of work and sweat will be cloned in mere seconds by a multi-national corporation and their AI. Or it could be a 13 year old teenager that has the AI create music in the style of someone else. Not that I am against sampling and remixi…

You are not the authority on what counts as an "artform of its own".

I agree with your last statement though.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#49
>>>> Especially “Punchy” and “Warm.” Every time I hear those words, I want to throttle somebody.

I've seen this first-hand. I'm a bassist. When you ask any bassist about their sound, they all say that they want it to be "punchy." Every bass, amplifier, and speaker is described as "punchy." If not, it doesn't even make it to the market.

Protip: To overcome any problem with your sound, turn the volume up a bit. This is also a known trick in the studio, and the equipment showroom: Make a few arbitrary adjustments, then play it back again, but with the volume turned up.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#50
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that producers have no bar at all for the role, and the role is not well defined, unlike software engineers that typically have a 4 year degree, 2 year degree, or at the very least a code camp, before being hired. Would you hire someone for software engineering who had no engineering training or experience just because they can talk lucidly and in detail about what software they like? Maybe a better soft…

> unlike software engineers that typically have a 4 year degree, 2 year degree... they do NOW. Back when a lot of us started getting involved with this, most 'engineers' had physics, engineering, mathematics, and other various backgrounds because software engineering degrees were too freaking new. In the near-future (10 5? years? possibly sooner?) kids are gonna graduate with specialized PM degrees having gone to hig…

It’s a good point that things have changed a bit, but in 1993 when this article was written you couldn’t get a web job based on code camps, neither really existed. There was no role called webmaster yet. Webmaster today is a team only if you’re managing a large site, but not for small sites, and it doesn’t require many specific skills for small sites. Like you said, most engineers had degrees of some sort. For the purposes of comparing to a producer job (which has existed in film, tv, radio, and music for ~100 years) engineering has always had higher skill & technical requirements.
Post reply on HN