4 ms·

The issue is twofold. Like you say, most people want their easy music and Spotify delivers. The downside of that is the fact that commercially produced music i

by exDM69 9y ago

The issue is twofold. Like you say, most people want their easy music and Spotify delivers. The downside of that is the fact that commercially produced music is now targeting Spotify consumption aggressively and using all those fancy analytics Spotify provides. This makes new music more and more alike each other. Because of this tight feedback loop on Spotify and the producers, I think it's only a matter of time when they cut out the middle man and start producing music with AI algorithms. I'm sure that algorithms can keep the muzak-consuming masses happy. I've already heard some convincing sounding music (sheet music played with synthesizers) and audio (music produced directly as audio waveforms) produced by algorithms. The second issue is what's described in the comment you quote. Anyone making niche music is suffering. It was never easy for musicians taking this route but the algorithm based recommendations engines is making it harder to be discovered while taking a bigger cut from the small income. It's not like there is another viable platform out there. Spotify has a near monopoly and they dictate the terms. People aren't buying a second subscription service or buying songs separately let alone buying a physical album. I find one positive in this all. Because there's no more income from record sales, musicians are performing live more than in decades. I really like live music, so that's nice.

lovehashbrowns 9y ago
> Spotify has a near monopoly and they dictate the terms. People aren't buying a second subscription service or buying songs separately let alone buying a physical album. That's not even close to being true. Google Music, Apple Music, Amazon Prime whatever it's called, regular ol' Youtube videos and playlists, services like last.fm or Pandora.. There are lots of ways to discover music that don't depend on record labels and their marketing. If your music is independent and you want to stay away from the man, you have to put work into marketing your music. That's the step that you'd normally hand off to the record label. At least now you actually have a viable way (lots, actually) of making money as opposed to the past when distribution was much more difficult.
- exDM69 9y ago
  > That's not even close to being true. Google Music, Apple Music, Amazon Prime whatever it's called, regular ol' Youtube videos and playlists The others have pretty small consumer base but more importantly, suffer from all the same issues as Spotify. To reach the widest audience, you need to be with all of those. Most consumers have only one music subscription service. That's what makes it a near monopoly for them. YouTube is a bit of an exception, and my favorite for niche and rare music and forgotten live performance recordings of more popular music. But YouTube is not very good for providing income for musicians who don't want to be predominantly 'tubers.
  - lovehashbrowns 9y ago
    That makes it a near monopoly for whom? Having a big chunk of the industry doesn't mean you have a monopoly, by the way. Anyone can freely choose from a number of music subscription services. There's no monopoly here. The monopoly probably lies in how licenses are handled, and that process comes before Spotify/Google Music/Apple Music/etc. It's an archaic system and what should be the blame here, not the streaming services we currently have. It's always comical to me how people will attack Spotify and co. for things that the record labels are directly responsible for, and after having screwed artists for decades. > But YouTube is not very good for providing income for musicians who don't want to be predominantly 'tubers. Okay, this is not a great excuse. I think I understand what you mean by this. But if a musician doesn't want to follow the distribution channels that consumers prefer, then that's on the artist. If you want to take care of distribution for yourself and avoid any big labels, then you take responsibility for the success and failure of your music's distribution.
  - zaphar 9y ago
    But YouTube is not very good for providing income for musicians who don't want to be predominantly 'tubers. The question here is whether it's better at providing income for niche musicians than the alternatives. It has always been hard to make money doing niche music. Youtube has made it much easier. Complaining that it doesn't make it profitable enough is beside the question. Some products are never going to be profitable no matter what the distribution mechanism is. For those products it may be sufficient to make it possible for an artist to recoup some costs for their hobby.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by exDM69 9y ago

lovehashbrowns 9y ago

> Spotify has a near monopoly and they dictate the terms. People aren't buying a second subscription service or buying songs separately let alone buying a physical album. That's not even close to being true. Google Music, Apple Music, Amazon Prime whatever it's called, regular ol' Youtube videos and playlists, services like last.fm or Pandora.. There are lots of ways to discover music that don't depend on record labels and their marketing. If your music is independent and you want to stay away from the man, you have to put work into marketing your music. That's the step that you'd normally hand off to the record label. At least now you actually have a viable way (lots, actually) of making money as opposed to the past when distribution was much more difficult.

exDM69 9y ago
> That's not even close to being true. Google Music, Apple Music, Amazon Prime whatever it's called, regular ol' Youtube videos and playlists The others have pretty small consumer base but more importantly, suffer from all the same issues as Spotify. To reach the widest audience, you need to be with all of those. Most consumers have only one music subscription service. That's what makes it a near monopoly for them. YouTube is a bit of an exception, and my favorite for niche and rare music and forgotten live performance recordings of more popular music. But YouTube is not very good for providing income for musicians who don't want to be predominantly 'tubers.
- lovehashbrowns 9y ago
  That makes it a near monopoly for whom? Having a big chunk of the industry doesn't mean you have a monopoly, by the way. Anyone can freely choose from a number of music subscription services. There's no monopoly here. The monopoly probably lies in how licenses are handled, and that process comes before Spotify/Google Music/Apple Music/etc. It's an archaic system and what should be the blame here, not the streaming services we currently have. It's always comical to me how people will attack Spotify and co. for things that the record labels are directly responsible for, and after having screwed artists for decades. > But YouTube is not very good for providing income for musicians who don't want to be predominantly 'tubers. Okay, this is not a great excuse. I think I understand what you mean by this. But if a musician doesn't want to follow the distribution channels that consumers prefer, then that's on the artist. If you want to take care of distribution for yourself and avoid any big labels, then you take responsibility for the success and failure of your music's distribution.
- zaphar 9y ago
  But YouTube is not very good for providing income for musicians who don't want to be predominantly 'tubers. The question here is whether it's better at providing income for niche musicians than the alternatives. It has always been hard to make money doing niche music. Youtube has made it much easier. Complaining that it doesn't make it profitable enough is beside the question. Some products are never going to be profitable no matter what the distribution mechanism is. For those products it may be sufficient to make it possible for an artist to recoup some costs for their hobby.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]