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

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#71

Post by chx »

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…

Here AI might be useful, I am not saying maroofy is perfect but it's worth a try. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34635352

It's one of the few uses where if the AI is wrong? oh well.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#72

Post by r1b »

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…

> Discoverability is especially hard because 99% of the music people create sucks

This - as a listener, quality is the hard problem. It is encouraging that the proposal affirms the value of curative functions (like labels).

As an artist, I actually don’t really care about music’s commercial problems - I’m more annoyed by the constraints on musical art objects inherent in all music platforms.

Like, experiencing art objects in a gallery hits different vs scrolling through bandcamp. The internet is, already, the gallery but it’s like we replaced all of the paintings with tiny prints, eclipsed by the placards.

The thing I would really love is a music platform that feels like a hosting platform, not a marketplace. Where a user can simultaneously act as a listener, an artist, a curator or a critic.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#73

Post by geraldmcboing »

cloudfudge wrote: post #52
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…

For the record, I'm not affiliated with Subvert and in reading the docs I find their arguments about the "problem" with Bandcamp extremely weak/hypothetical and stated over and over again without any evidence. I am skeptical that they understand the economics of running a music retail site and think they might find that the cut Bandcamp takes is actually pretty fair for the value bands get. And I also don't really ge…

The problem with Bandcamp is neither hypothetical or weak. The problem is that its been sold twice, and is now owned by a company who attempted to fire anyone who tried to unionise, which is a red flag. Will bandcamp be sold again? Yes, very very likely. So that is exactly the problem.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#74

Post by jtafurth »

ChrisArchitect wrote: post #25

So, great, another place to host and sell your music. Love bandcamp. Nothing really that special about it. It rose to popularity because it didn't take that much of a cut of sales from the artists and was offering the easy ability to host all the digital files etc. What's different about this? The 'artists' will have a say on the cut that Subvert is taking? Shrug. All sounds fine and not really that complicated. It w…

The real problem with the platform I think is discoverability, and that will get affected more and more with corporate clutches.

However I do agree with your point overall, I'm struggling to see how this will not go the same path in a few years.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#75

Post by NetOpWibby »

pragma_x wrote: post #11

The most recent blog post they have up is titled "The Mondragon of Music" which, frankly, is all I needed to see. https://subvert.fm/blog/our-50-year-roadmap-the-mondragon-of... The article mentions the highlights, but a deeper drive into the Mondragon Corp can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Mondragon Corp sounds incredible, thanks for sharing. I joined Subvert as an artist, looking forward to releasing remastered music on there next year.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#76

Post by dr_kiszonka »

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…

Spotify has a few mechanisms for discovering music and I find that they largely work for me. I also listen to interviews with random artists to get exposed to music I am not aware of.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#77

Post by doctorpangloss »

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.

What is the approach, on a concrete, technical level, that you are taking to make recommendation N, based on the 3, 4...N-1 choices?

Do you think online NNMF collaborative filtering with Spotify bands with fewer than 100,000 monthly listeners is the answer? If you had infinite resources, what would you do?

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#78

Post by FactKnower69 »

n-exploit wrote: post #49
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #41

I like it! Why aren't there more creator owned platforms?

I think silicon valley actually LIKES founder fiefdoms. Not really the same spirit as worker cooperatives. The cap table is the game.

hard for investors to get paid for other people's work when the workers own their profits :(

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#79

Post by nick__m »

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.

Did you install malware on my computer ;) How did it manage to predict so much of what in my collection with just 3 names ?

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#80

Post by cyberax »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #66
theamk wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart contracts only affects on-chain stuff, and this deals with real-world things. No smart contract is going to help you if webmasters update website, or if a board decides to add a rule. See also: NFT delisting.

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.

Post reply on HN