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

Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

thefader.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 861 posts

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#751

Post by jokethrowaway »

err4nt wrote: post #667
brandonmenc wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always send money to your favorite musicians.

Can confirm! I've sent tips to musicians who put up music under free/Creative Commons music! My theory is if you want to see something tomorrow, the best insurance you have it is to make it profitable for the people doing it today, so giving my money to musicians means a better chance there will be more music in the future <3

Totally agree!

That's also why I don't give money to homeless (but my country support for homeless is outstanding; when I lived elsewhere I donated to a homeless organisation - which hopefully meant that money didn't go on drugs).

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#752

Post by wwweston »

guyzero wrote: post #65
52-6F-62 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you’re coerced into having to produce a piece of music every month/couple of months to keep the machine running. That’s just producing a commodity. Some groups have got it together and are able to fund years of quiet work before releases, but no matter how much I enjoy creating I would hate to be so bound as outlined above.

I am reminded of the story about ceramics students being told that half would be graded on quantity and half would be graded on the quality of a single piece of work. https://excellentjourney.net/2015/03/04/art-fear-the-ceramic... It turns out that the students who were just churning out pots ended up making the pots that were ultimately better. I think there's probably something to be said for constantly creating.

After hearing this story for years and finally trying to source it, as far as I can tell it's not entirely clear this experiment was ever actually run -- and in fact is sourced in the link behind your link as a "parable."

I can imagine it's true that churning out quantity is its own education but I can also imagine there's a plateau past which deliberate practice and polish matter quite a bit.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#753

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

hedora wrote: post #656
shakezula wrote: post #4

I used to work in the music industry professionally, on the ground level doing booking and management. This trend has been happening slowly for nearly a decade but it’s finally here. Rap and Hip Hop figured out a long time before most other genres that rapid small releases was a far better way to keep hype and sales up. Before Spotify was a thing, the shift was happening with YouTube but it wasn’t as predominant. Now…

I prefer to listen to bands that produce an excellent album every few years, vs a pile of sameness every three months. Examples: “Boy Meets Robot”, “Unwoman”, “The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets”, “Goldfrapp”, much of what is featured on “Dark Compass”. Where do people go for music like this? Bandcamp? Other places?

Progarchives is a site I have come to appreciate lately.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#754

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

whiddershins wrote: post #628

The way in which Spotify (and other streaming services) hurts the development of music isn’t what most people say. The problem with per-stream plays is that it is based on pop music logic: more streams equals more money. Fair! But many recording artists made a modest living by releasing music that you might not want to listen to over and over and over. This music is often labeled ‘art’ or ‘experimental’ or whatever,…

Patreon is also on the pop music logic: If you don't keep pumping out stuff people tend to stop donating.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#755

Post by shi314 »

wyattpeak wrote: post #728
mixmastamyk wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true and yet the decreasing revenue, monetization, and relentless cost-cutting is real as well.

Concerns about making money are not going to destroy art. Almost all art through history has been made by people trying to make a living, not trying to express for its own sake. We don't have a thousand years of portraiture of the elite because artists were just absolutely convinced that was the ultimate expression of the medium.

You should say mainstream art in any era.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#756

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

sneak wrote: post #712
haram_masala wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kanye West is a singular being. He is a human work of art, this generation’s Warhol. Perhaps even more fascinating than Warhol, if less self-aware. I’m a huge fan of his brilliant public trajectory, yet I despise his music.

I struggle to find anything that Kanye has ever done, in or outside of the studio, that will be held as artistically relevant or meaningful in any way in twenty years. His music isn’t groundbreaking or innovative, and anyone can be an asshole to people. At least Warhol had interesting and relevant things to say.

Agreed. I really don't understand what people find on Kanye. All I see is someone who is clearly only focused on selling as much as possible. I am yet to find a Kanye song that felt really unique in some way. Comparing him to Warhol feels almost offensive.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#757

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

Reimersholme wrote: post #494
pradn wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if being able to update albums has been a good thing. It may encourage people to release "MVP"s because they can always improve them later. It doesn't quite fit because reviewers will review the first version. For me personally, it has been a negative, because I really loved Tame Impala's Borderline, which was switcheroo'd with a song I don't feel for when the album came out. They even took out the single ve…

There is a very scary thing about digital art where platforms at any time can remove things or silently release a new version. It makes me uncomfortable in the same way as when newspapers online make updates to their articles with no transparent revision history of what was changed and when. The technology just makes it easier though. The Foundations have been trying to erase the original Colin Young version of Build…

Just save everything you like locally. I still do that for most stuff.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#758

Post by scooble »

drchopchop wrote: post #63
Alupis wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be honest. The amount Spotify/Pandora/et al pay the majority of musicians per stream is far more than they'd make selling CD's. The overwhelming majority of music is unknown, has few fans, and will never "go platinum" nor sell out stadiums - ie, most musicians are not Taylor Swift. For all those artists... access to millions of potential listeners from around the world is an amazing advancement. The number of a…

No way. How can music simultaneously be "unknown, has few fans" but also benefit from "access to millions of potential listeners"? If they get millions of listens they aren't exactly unknown anymore. One CD sold at a gig for $10 is equal to about 2,000 Spotify plays. A t-shirt sale is double that. A mid-level band can play to 200 people a night and do $1000 daily in merch, easy (and I've personally done it). Sure, if…

"One CD sold at a gig for $10 is equal to about 2,000 Spotify plays"

Assuming the album is 10 songs, am I then right in thinking that once I've listened to an album over 200 times (2000 individual song-plays) then the artist would have been better off if I'd used spotify rather than buying the cd?

200 plays over a few decades of album ownership sounds like a pretty low threshold for cds to be better for artists than spotify. Perversely, it looks as though the only artists who will have done better from me buying their album are ones I grew tired of quickly (though my reselling the album could mitigate that).

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#759

Post by StringyBob »

sefrost wrote: post #746
swinglock wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could stop paying out flat per listen. If I pay $10 and listen to 50 tracks, I want $10 (minus the provides fee) to be split among precisely those 50 tracks. The difference is if you only listed to 50 tracks your listens are worth more that someone that diluted their listens over 5000. Throwing everyone's fees into one big vat and dividing that according to the total listens, is bullshit. I want my favorite arti…

It would be very interesting to see which artists would win/lose from this scenario.

There is a gut feeling that indies and up-and-coming artists are losing out with their fans effectively subsidizing pop that gets more ‘disposable’ plays.

I’m sure Spotify will know the numbers for moving to user centric streaming payouts, would be very interesting to know the truth of who the winners and losers would be.

There’s a bit of info and some research here: https://musically.com/2020/05/13/what-are-user-centric-music...

I think the option to be user centric could be a compelling feature for premium customers, to show money is going to artists fans love, and ultimately move more people on to the premium versions of streaming platforms

Personally at this time I’m more concerned that my Spotify subscription is subsidizing podcasts by Joe Rogan than Drake / Taylor Swift.

Re: Spotify CEO: musicians can no longer release music only “once every 3-4 years”

#760

Post by StringyBob »

beachy wrote: post #723
swinglock wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could stop paying out flat per listen. If I pay $10 and listen to 50 tracks, I want $10 (minus the provides fee) to be split among precisely those 50 tracks. The difference is if you only listed to 50 tracks your listens are worth more that someone that diluted their listens over 5000. Throwing everyone's fees into one big vat and dividing that according to the total listens, is bullshit. I want my favorite arti…

That's your view, but artists likely hold the opposite view. I imagine they want to be paid more if more people listen to their music.

Here’s an example of what some artists want: https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Home/News/2020/Jun/An-Upda...
Post reply on HN