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

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

#791

Post by Juliate » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

bmitc wrote: post #231

Juliate wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not depressing. That's one part of the "music industry". It's a huge sales channel, per se. Now, being a musician or an artist, you decide what you do with it. If you consider that what matters is your sales and nothing else, Spotify's stance might apply to you. But you might have different point of view as well, still make music, and still live from it, perhaps.

It's a bit disrespectful to reply to someone saying something's depressing by bluntly saying it's not. It's not up to you to judge what they find depressing. I also find it depressing. It's a societal problem that we do not value art in the same way that we value science and technology. We see it everywhere from the STEM myth to arts educational programs and artists struggling just to survive. Even earning my living…

Huh? Someone's saying "that's depressing" is a statement. It's not "I find this depressing" or "I'm depressed by that". It's not disrespect, it's bringing a different perspective that does not see the depression there.

I don't find this depressing. I don't even find this societal at all. What would be depressing would be to take Spotify's view of "what music should be" or "how musicians should work/behave" for a relevant, world-wide truth. When it is only a very specific, skewed and biased take by someone's who's got a direct interest into making people believe that it is the only way to go.

That many people go this way does not mean they are right, neither they are winning.

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

#792

Post by zuminator » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 2:32 PM UTC

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #666

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…

Except this very model has prevented hip hop from evolving and instead we ended up with mumble rap which feels like a step backwards in multiple ways. Music has become all gimmick, fueled by celebrity gossip and social media bullshit. It's samey as hell and stagnant and lacks innovation.

Music generally lacks innovation for the same reason why phones and men's clothing lack innovation. Most of the easy low-effort ways to be appealingly different have been discovered already. Music's creativity has been spurred by a series of technological innovations, the invention of the electric guitar, then the invention of synths, multitrack recording, drum machines, then computers with sampling, loops and DSP. It's been artistically transformed by blues, country, jazz, rock and roll, urban, dance and rap. Each one had its own series of innovations driven by creativity (doo-wop? math rock? new jack swing?) but the genres have settled into their mature phases. Probably some entirely new genre needs to come along and shake things up, but that's hard. Until then we'll continue to get the artistic equivalent of a new coat of paint every few years.

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

#793

Post by Juliate » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

d12345m wrote: post #768

dsabanin wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, maybe they had a point. We went from Bach to 50 cent…

You’re not from the generation that produced Bach though.

Hopefully, we'll soon have the means to ask an AI-based Bach model what it thinks of 50 cent!

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

#794

Post by KozmoNau7 » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 2:48 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #479

ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How do they capture revenue from people like me in your model? It's not like bands stopped selling CD's/BluRays's, collectible box-sets, stickers, pins, access to behind-the-scenes videos and mailing lists. But the most someone like you can do for an average band/performer is promote their art through any channels available. The most valuable resource you have is your attention.

> selling CD's/BluRays's, collectible box-sets, stickers, pins Hmmm... it's a shame they're trying to sell stuff like this. I want to support artists but the last thing I want is junk.

Then buy their music on Bandcamp and pay more than the listed price, since Bandcamp gives you that option.

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

#795

Post by Juliate » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #445

tomphoolery wrote: post #429

I don't see the lie here. :) Many of us in the music industry have been doing more single-based releases than album-based, because there really is no point to albums anymore. If you have a couple of tracks that all fit together, by all means, release them at once. But music isn't album-driven anymore, it's track-driven, and has been for a very long time.

>But music isn't album-driven anymore, it's track-driven, and has been for a very long time. This is exactly the problem: the technological advances changed the music consumption and music, unfortunately, follows. So instead of empowering the artists with more creative freedom it forced everyone to follow the same route. It's appalling.

On the other hand, technology has always shaped music: each instrument's specific technology shaped what could be done, or not done, with it. And how disks, then tapes, then disks again, before Internet, all shaped how music was "packaged", experienced and distributed outside of live concerts.

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

#796

Post by pragmatic » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #666

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…

Except this very model has prevented hip hop from evolving and instead we ended up with mumble rap which feels like a step backwards in multiple ways. Music has become all gimmick, fueled by celebrity gossip and social media bullshit. It's samey as hell and stagnant and lacks innovation.

I think "pop" music ( which now very much includes hip hop) by it's very nature has been this way. I can't think of a the when it wasn't.

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

#797

Post by chucky » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 3:46 PM UTC

sukilot wrote: post #636

egypturnash wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you stop playing the huge AAA games and start playing smaller ones, you see another solution: lower prices for games that can be finished in an amount of time that fits into the busy life of an adult, and very often a grant from a national art fund . Not for American games, of course, we basically destroyed the National Endowment for the Arts, thanks a lot guys.

I prefer art not selected by the government. "Finishing" a game is a weird concept. I don't know anyone who finished chess. Small games aren't necessarily cheaper than big ones; it depends on popularity to sustain a low unit price.

> I prefer art not selected by the government.

That's not even remotely how most art grants work though? The selection process in most (democratic) countries is quite detached from the government.

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

#798

Post by jariel » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 3:46 PM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #277

jariel wrote: post #125

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. T" Revenues to artists from digital distribution is a fraction of what it was during the CD days. People used to pay for music, now they do not.

> People used to pay for music, now they do not. People also used to steal music too. Having a "free" or minimal-cost streaming option has pretty much removed that desire for most people. > Revenues to artists from digital distribution is a fraction of what it was during the CD days. Perhaps for the Taylor Swift's of the world, sure. For everyone else, which makes up 99.99% of musicians, bands and artists... they mad…

So the 'paying' bit happened because of Mp3s, not because of streaming. Artists, were they given the choice, would choose neither, they would chose a kind of DRM.

So yes, you make a good point about the long tail.

However - the barrier was reasonable. It was possible to make an album and get it out without killing yourself - the actual manufacture of a CD/Cassette is not that much.

So that barrier was maybe artificial, but it did definitely make it so that most big music was good. The secondary acts could make demo/mix tapes.

By dropping the barrier you definitely get a bunch of artists we would not otherwise, but the signal to noise ratio is immense. There are 100 waste-of-time-noise artists for every serious one, and it's harder for the good one's to get through.

We see this on the top pop charts. There are still mega acts with decent production qualities like Taylor Swift - where the artistry is getting low (she is no Michael Jackson), and then the rest of it is unlistenable, reductive garbage. There was always quite a lot of that (i.e. a lot of not-very-good music on the charts) - but the signal to noise ratio is a much bigger problem now.

So - the 'decent music' that is not 'really pop' like Taylor Swift never gets through. Decent artists are stuck in a pile of noise and rubble.

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

#799

Post by odyssey7 » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

feanaro wrote: post #729

PierceJoy wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer good lyrics over mumble rap, but music is entirely subjective. You think it's a step backwards, but young people think it's a step forwards. Mumble rap is essentially just natural selection. Some random rapper started doing it, people liked it, and so it propagated. If people didn't like it, it would have died out quickly. You just aren't one of those people. > It's samey as hell and stagnant and lacks innov…

Everything is natural selection, so that isn't necessarily very insightful.

An implicit premise here might be that music is good if people think it’s good.

If a genre is taken up through “natural selection,” that means a lot of people like it, and it is therefore good music to those people - regardless of what some critic might think.

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

#800

Post by swinglock » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

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.

My view isn't the opposite of that.