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

The Problem with Music (1993)

thebaffler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#71

Post by freedomben »

lisper wrote: post #57
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?).

Your question makes a mistaken assumption about contracts. Contracts are not "legal" or "illegal", they are "binding" or "non-binding". And a contract that stipulates that you will sign something else later is generally non-binding. The people who ask you to sign such contracts are counting on you not knowing that. There are several criteria that a contract needs to meet in order to be binding. Interestingly, being w…

> Verbal contracts can be binding.

Yes this is true, although most jurisdictions impose fairly low upper limits on the amount of consideration that a verbal contract can cover. As of 2012 the most common value was $500 or less (and probably is still the same level or close to it in most areas). Anything involving consideration valued at more than $500 USD was not binding unless written.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#72

Post by [deleted] »

mikeryan wrote: post #41
bombolo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#73

Post by brandall10 »

bombolo wrote: post #34
dclowd9901 wrote: post #19

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.

Olivia Rodrigo was launched into the stratosphere by TikTok - yes with label support.

Billie Eilish I think came by way of Soundcloud, no?

Can't imagine radio, being a means of discoverability, as more than a minor factor in this current era of Spotify.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#74

Post by mitch3x3 »

analog31 wrote: post #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…

Punchy commonly translates to “compressed” and warm to “saturated/distorted”. Volume will of course help, but it’s not always what people want.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#75

Post by [deleted] »

lisper wrote: post #66
Kranar wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contracts absolutely can be legal or illegal. Binding/unbinding contracts are a related but separate concept. A legal contract is a contract whose terms do not violate the law or public policy and whose terms are enforceable. A binding contract is legal contract that has been signed by all parties involved. It is perfectly valid to question whether a contract is legal or illegal, regardless of whether that contract i…

"Legal", "enforceable", and "binding" are all more or less synonyms in this context. Yes, it's true that a "legal" contract is a thing, but it's really just a synonym for "enforceable", which is really just a synonym for "binding". None of these things mean the same thing as "legal" in the sense that it is, say, "not legal" to rob a bank. There is nothing illegal under contract law in signing a contract to rob a bank…

[deleted]

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#76

Post by acuozzo »

bombolo wrote: post #69
mikeryan wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Is it though? Yes. > I’m not sure radio is still relevant for anyone under the age of 30. Maybe you don't drive? If you drive and you get tired of listening and re-listening the stuff you have on your phone… radio it is.

> If you drive and you get tired of listening and re-listening the stuff

At the risk of being snarky… you know that music streaming platforms are a thing, right?

I "explore" music that is new to me by listening to the full album on Apple Music which is nothing like listening to the radio.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#77

Post by msla »

atoav wrote: post #35
okareaman wrote: post #32

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…

And I'm sure all of the musicians you "took inspiration from" are happy about you stealing from them.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#78

Post by noizejoy »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #58
still_grokking wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I'm confused. Isn't the "DAW and some plugins" part actually the core of sound engineering nowadays?

They are, but the engineering aspect is greatly diminished, which is why these days in music everybody is a producer and audio engineers are more likely to work events or film/tv.

> audio engineers are more likely to work events or film/tv.

or in the creation of sample libraries.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#79

Post by noizejoy »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #44
PUSH_AX wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not everyone has a high opinion of bias fx in comparison to some other modelled amp and cab sims. So that sample size of 1 may not be representative of the current state of the art.

Love their GUIs though!

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#80

Post by noizejoy »

bombolo wrote: post #70
mb7733 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Exactly my point. But it's relevant to listeners :)

Those listeners, who want to listen to old/classic or regurgitated some young woman duetting with Elton John :-)

And it really helps to have a fondness for air headed radio dj ramblings …

Post reply on HN