3 ms·

TBH, a lot of what I currently listen to on Spotify is relatively unknown Synthwave bands/producers who generally self-publish on Bandcamp, maybe have Patreon e

TBH, a lot of what I currently listen to on Spotify is relatively unknown Synthwave bands/producers who generally self-publish on Bandcamp, maybe have Patreon etc. I do not think Spotify should be trying to actually produce their own content in the way Netflix does, but I certainly do think there is scope to disrupt the traditional "music label" by helping to promote these independent artists, both online and in terms of tours, merchandise, etc. I already find a lot of this via Discover Weekly, so it doesn't seem like a huge jump. The key is recognising that the era of pop music is over, just as the days when 50% of the nation would tune in to the same TV programme are over (with the possible exception of certain sporting events). Music is heading away from supergroups on labels like Sony BMG and promoted on MTV, towards a larger number of micro-brands serving individual tastes more closely. Edit: I should add that it's also important to recognise the social aspect of music: what people listen to in clubs etc. This is where being on a label (currently) matters over just being on Bandcamp.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> Music is heading away from supergroups on labels like Sony BMG and promoted on MTV, towards a larger number of micro-brands serving individual tastes more closely. Any data to support this because from where I'm sitting, although the music industry is changing, the one place it isn't is as the top. I don't see the market for a small number of superstars owning the top 40 ever disappearing.
- robert_tweed 10y ago
  This assumes the top 40 holds the same relevance that it did in the 80s. Regardless, you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michael Jackson had in those days. And while the record labels continue to pull in profits, there's no comparison between a top artist today compared to the 80s or 90s. Top earners in 2013 each made about $30-$40m [1]. Michael Jackson in a good year made about as much the current top 10 combined [2], and still managed to make $160m in 2013 despite being dead [3]. [1] http://www.billboard.com/articles/list/5930326/music-s-top-40-money-makers-2014-the-rich-list http://www.billboard.com/articles/list/5930326/music-s-top-4... [2] https://www.forbes.com/pictures/geeg45eggig/michael-jacksons-career/#1d5f5811439f https://www.forbes.com/pictures/geeg45eggig/michael-jacksons... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/10401105/Michael-Jackson-tops-list-of-highest-earning-dead-celebrities.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/104...
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    >> you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michael Jackson had in those days 1. Comparing it financially true although I don't think that's fair as the economics of the industry are completely different, not because people are indulging in indie acts more but because music is cheaper generally. 2. I'm not a fan of Top 40 type music but I often look at the charts and it's always the same few people there (Rihanna, Major Lazer, Calvin Harris, Drake etc.). If you go to most clubs the music you hear is generally the Top 40. So although the returns financially are less I think it's more because people are paying less, not because they are spreading the money around to more artists.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

>> Music is heading away from supergroups on labels like Sony BMG and promoted on MTV, towards a larger number of micro-brands serving individual tastes more closely. Any data to support this because from where I'm sitting, although the music industry is changing, the one place it isn't is as the top. I don't see the market for a small number of superstars owning the top 40 ever disappearing.

robert_tweed 10y ago
This assumes the top 40 holds the same relevance that it did in the 80s. Regardless, you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michael Jackson had in those days. And while the record labels continue to pull in profits, there's no comparison between a top artist today compared to the 80s or 90s. Top earners in 2013 each made about $30-$40m [1]. Michael Jackson in a good year made about as much the current top 10 combined [2], and still managed to make $160m in 2013 despite being dead [3]. [1] http://www.billboard.com/articles/list/5930326/music-s-top-40-money-makers-2014-the-rich-list http://www.billboard.com/articles/list/5930326/music-s-top-4... [2] https://www.forbes.com/pictures/geeg45eggig/michael-jacksons-career/#1d5f5811439f https://www.forbes.com/pictures/geeg45eggig/michael-jacksons... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/10401105/Michael-Jackson-tops-list-of-highest-earning-dead-celebrities.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/104...
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michael Jackson had in those days 1. Comparing it financially true although I don't think that's fair as the economics of the industry are completely different, not because people are indulging in indie acts more but because music is cheaper generally. 2. I'm not a fan of Top 40 type music but I often look at the charts and it's always the same few people there (Rihanna, Major Lazer, Calvin Harris, Drake etc.). If you go to most clubs the music you hear is generally the Top 40. So although the returns financially are less I think it's more because people are paying less, not because they are spreading the money around to more artists.