by vimes656 on 12/17/20, 6:25 PM with 205 comments
by grawprog on 12/19/20, 7:57 AM
Building playlists on a streaming service is not the same as building a music collection.
Music discovery is easy, relying on a streaming service for discovery is lazy. What's hard is commitment. Taking time to explore the back catalogue of artists you like and taking the time to get to know music.
When all you had was physical media, you listened to albums over and over got to know them, relished the new albums you purchased and had to take the time to decide between one or the other.
When you heard a new song on the radio or through a friend, there was anticipation. You had to wait before you could listen on your own. Whether it was a slow download on icewire or that wait until you could go buy an album, acquiring music gave you something streaming music doesn't.
It gave you forced limitation, which in turn I feel like led to a greater appreciation towards music. It wasn't just something tou consumed, it was something you waited for, finally acquired and then got to enjoy and became part of the rest of 'your music.'
by throwaway13337 on 12/19/20, 6:23 AM
The result is that a natural avenue for discovery music is cut off. Consumers will not associate the experience of the thing they're enjoying with the music as has traditionally been the case with TV, movies, and bars. The setting has a lot to do with growing attachment for that band or that song in the first place.
The record companies are shooting themselves in the foot here.
It's maybe a good thing - a new opportunity is open for a platform that allows a more permissive license. Artists that choose such would likely get a lot more exposure.
Maybe the Beatles of the future will finally be creative commons as it should be. Their music is, after all, is bigger than the band. All popular music is a reflection of our collective memory and a common ground to connect with others. After a certain point in popularity, it becomes our collective cultural heritage - no company should own that.
by oceanswave on 12/19/20, 5:21 AM
by randycupertino on 12/19/20, 5:09 AM
by fb03 on 12/19/20, 12:12 PM
I know this will sound harsh and obtuse, but if you notice, all 'dope' pop music now for kids is some variant of alternated trap-like rhythmic hihats and a really sloooow beats with a looong, bassy kick tail. to fill that huge nothingness pocket between the stuff, add some nice lush vocals (saying whatever, it doesn't matter much) and that's it.
or maybe i'm just getting old and cranky.
by Melting_Harps on 12/19/20, 10:03 AM
Streaming services like Spotify never really made sense to me as business model, for the artists it could be a double edged sword at best if they get the desired exposure and total waste of time at worst since they get paid nothing and are lost in total obscurity.
Most artists make money from touring and performances, and unless you're a mainstream artist you're never going to make anything on record sells. Bandcamp cut its fees during the pandemic, and it kept some artists afloat for a while, but it wasn't long after that when you saw the patreon crowdfunding model needed to prop things up.
Having DJ'd and been around a lot of musical talent in clubs throughout the last 14 years its clear most had to have day jobs in between gigs and supporting their own labels on top of living expenses. I doubt many had much or anything in savings and I fear with so many clubs and venues going under its going to take another generation of an underground rave scene to brings things back to what it was 10-15 years ago for many of the music scenes I still went out for. Which may be a good thing, but its still hard to see so many artists talent get wasted due to COVID.
by shadowofneptune on 12/19/20, 4:39 AM
If we're making comparisons to the traditional music industry, the streaming services might not be the labels -- they could be the recording formats. Just as with buying a CD player vs buying a Minidisc player, very few people with go through the cost or effort to use many different forms of media.
by comprev on 12/19/20, 10:23 AM
Fortunately I've always been one to seek out more underground artists, and platforms like Bandcamp have been amazing. Not only do the artists get an order of magnitude more revenue, sellers can offer merchandise and physical media (vinyl, CD, cassette) too. These often include a digital copy.
Due to the closer connection between artists and fans I've received many signed/personalised records for the collection over the years. Artists can also gauge demand for future releases almost like crowdfunding.
To me Bandcamp has been the saviour of music in the streaming age.
by KingMachiavelli on 12/19/20, 4:53 AM
TikTok relies on music and is popular enough now that they must have some license deal with the labels. I the amount per 30 second clip isn't much but I know people who spend hours on TikTok daily.
by gitowiec on 12/19/20, 10:52 AM
by systemvoltage on 12/19/20, 4:42 AM
by juancn on 12/30/20, 4:13 PM
2020 is unusual.
by denimnerd42 on 12/19/20, 4:38 AM
interesting error calling Dota 2 "Defense of the Ancients"
by throw_m239339 on 12/19/20, 2:07 PM
As for online services. Spotify is 100% pointless when it comes to monetization, bandcamp is a bit better if you can provide physical goods.
by slothtrop on 12/19/20, 6:14 PM
by ksec on 12/19/20, 10:31 AM
Could someone else confirms that. Because that is not the way how I know it works. Has this been changed?
by FrozenVoid on 12/19/20, 4:52 AM
by Animats on 12/19/20, 4:57 AM