4 ms·

Seems to be actually a complaint about the decline of music journalism. Which I agree is sad, but is probably not related to the rise of "platforms" but part of

by Isamu 7y ago

Seems to be actually a complaint about the decline of music journalism. Which I agree is sad, but is probably not related to the rise of "platforms" but part of the overall struggles of print journalism. Also the graph in the beginning shows the long linear decline in non-streaming music sales that started decades before streaming became viable, hence not caused by streaming, and in fact streaming platforms are now propping up the mainstream music industry which otherwise would be really circling the drain.

evilantnie 7y ago
I don't know if it's a fair takeaway to consider the decline in non-streaming music was unaffected by streaming that early on. Napster launched in 1999 as a first iteration of what could be considered a streaming service at the time. This chart doesn't represent that impact at all since it's focused on revenue, but timing wise I think there could be correlation.
- Isamu 7y ago
  >Napster .. could be considered a streaming service It was downloads. Anyway the article specifically calls out "streaming platforms" and that's what I take issue with. The big difference is the newer streaming platforms tend to be subscription-based or otherwise ad-based and share revenue with the music industry. My point is the decline in music industry revenue is more due to rogue free download sites or user uploads to YouTube, etc. This generated no (direct) revenue to the music industry. Whereas the newer streaming platforms are working with the music industry and are turning back the tide.
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    I wouldn't be so certain. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/streaming-platforms-keeping-more-money-from-artists-than-ever-817925/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/streaming-... https://nowtoronto.com/music/features/artists-vs-spotify/ https://nowtoronto.com/music/features/artists-vs-spotify/ That music industry money isn't going to the artists. https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-services-pay-musicians https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-... (Ironically, Napster's streaming service appears to pay the most out of all of them now)
    - Isamu 7y ago
      >That music industry money isn't going to the artists. No argument there! The artists have always been the last to be paid. It may be getting worse for the artists, but the situation for actual creators has always been bad ... on average.
      - drngdds 7y ago
        Yeah, this is important. I remember reading plenty of screeds about how awful the music industry and record labels are for artists long before streaming took over.
      - 52-6F-62 7y ago
        It’s been bad, but it’s getting worse. Buddy Holly was revolutionary for the way he negotiated his contracts and set a precedent for better treatment for a time. There a lot more nuance to that history.
extradego 7y ago
This doesn’t hold at all. The blog era was a golden age of indie pop, expressly because there was no dominant platform. The blogs themselves hosted mp3 singles along with the journalism. The way we found the blogs was by each blog having a blogroll, a list of links to other blogs with associated tastes. The bloggers were almost always locally employed. They were talent buyers, musicians, indie labels and writers for local dailies. It led to a surge in music festivals that hosted gobs of smaller musicians as a result. A booming industry that was glorious for the enthusiasts like myself. The major labels started buying the smaller labels as imprints and hiring the blog owners as representatives. In turn, the musicians that conformed and followed orders survived, and those that didn’t died. As the blogs dried up, Shazaam and Spotify filled the void of access to singles while social media filled the void of journalism, to the reluctance of the audience. Likewise, the print journaism industry ran a similar course, with MTV and Clear Channel taking the place of local radio DJs. The issue seems to be the tendency to conform local markets to a broad average. For a corporation, it makes no sense to have local tastemakers. They always tend toward a cosmopolitan ideal but in the end we get nothing but a monoculture that alienates everyone.
Barrin92 7y ago
>but part of the overall struggles of print journalism. which not coincidentally is also related to another platform economy, the shift of advertising revenue from publishers and distributors to the large platforms, Ben Thompson writes about this all the time. I think it's largely detrimental to independent creators, it treats the independent creator of artistic work as an afterthought in the name of aggregate consumer welfare and price. It's centralizing power in the name of efficiency and people talk gleefully about it because it robs the distributors and taxi companies, and movie studios and so on of their perceived ill-gotten power. I think that's a huge mistake, the centralization of power streamlines all goods and removes all diversity, takes agency away from everyone but the large platforms, it turns open spaces into proprietary walled gardens because it's the only way for platforms to defend their content, and we're going to really regret it in a few years if we don't already.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > It's centralizing power in the name of efficiency and people talk gleefully about it because it robs the distributors and taxi companies, and movie studios and so on of their perceived ill-gotten power. I don't agree, because "the movie studios and so on" that you referred were actually the centralizing power, and that power was overthrown by these new platforms in a way that they no longer control and arbitrarily restrict access to the public.
wwweston 7y ago
> but is probably not related to the rise of "platforms" but part of the overall struggles of print journalism. This is partially accurate, but I think it's more accurate to say that journalism in general is struggling because the way the attention economy works now: firehose supply, fiercer competition for attention, consumer indifference to being the customer rather than product, and algorithmic/crowdsourced content recommendation. And the rise of platforms figures into some degree of every one of those aspects.
matchagaucho 7y ago
Exactly my thoughts. Payola was alive and well until Internet distribution took over. Music Journalists were the "Social Influencers" of their day. They were given front row seats, overnight stays at 5-star hotels, lavish meals, and flights on private jets with touring bands. Without Music Journalists, and their access to print, there was just no means to getting the word out. They could make or break any artist.

by Isamu 7y ago

evilantnie 7y ago

I don't know if it's a fair takeaway to consider the decline in non-streaming music was unaffected by streaming that early on. Napster launched in 1999 as a first iteration of what could be considered a streaming service at the time. This chart doesn't represent that impact at all since it's focused on revenue, but timing wise I think there could be correlation.

Isamu 7y ago
>Napster .. could be considered a streaming service It was downloads. Anyway the article specifically calls out "streaming platforms" and that's what I take issue with. The big difference is the newer streaming platforms tend to be subscription-based or otherwise ad-based and share revenue with the music industry. My point is the decline in music industry revenue is more due to rogue free download sites or user uploads to YouTube, etc. This generated no (direct) revenue to the music industry. Whereas the newer streaming platforms are working with the music industry and are turning back the tide.
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  I wouldn't be so certain. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/streaming-platforms-keeping-more-money-from-artists-than-ever-817925/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/streaming-... https://nowtoronto.com/music/features/artists-vs-spotify/ https://nowtoronto.com/music/features/artists-vs-spotify/ That music industry money isn't going to the artists. https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-services-pay-musicians https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-... (Ironically, Napster's streaming service appears to pay the most out of all of them now)
  - Isamu 7y ago
    >That music industry money isn't going to the artists. No argument there! The artists have always been the last to be paid. It may be getting worse for the artists, but the situation for actual creators has always been bad ... on average.
    - drngdds 7y ago
      Yeah, this is important. I remember reading plenty of screeds about how awful the music industry and record labels are for artists long before streaming took over.
    - 52-6F-62 7y ago
      It’s been bad, but it’s getting worse. Buddy Holly was revolutionary for the way he negotiated his contracts and set a precedent for better treatment for a time. There a lot more nuance to that history.

extradego 7y ago

This doesn’t hold at all. The blog era was a golden age of indie pop, expressly because there was no dominant platform. The blogs themselves hosted mp3 singles along with the journalism. The way we found the blogs was by each blog having a blogroll, a list of links to other blogs with associated tastes. The bloggers were almost always locally employed. They were talent buyers, musicians, indie labels and writers for local dailies. It led to a surge in music festivals that hosted gobs of smaller musicians as a result. A booming industry that was glorious for the enthusiasts like myself. The major labels started buying the smaller labels as imprints and hiring the blog owners as representatives. In turn, the musicians that conformed and followed orders survived, and those that didn’t died. As the blogs dried up, Shazaam and Spotify filled the void of access to singles while social media filled the void of journalism, to the reluctance of the audience. Likewise, the print journaism industry ran a similar course, with MTV and Clear Channel taking the place of local radio DJs. The issue seems to be the tendency to conform local markets to a broad average. For a corporation, it makes no sense to have local tastemakers. They always tend toward a cosmopolitan ideal but in the end we get nothing but a monoculture that alienates everyone.

Barrin92 7y ago

>but part of the overall struggles of print journalism. which not coincidentally is also related to another platform economy, the shift of advertising revenue from publishers and distributors to the large platforms, Ben Thompson writes about this all the time. I think it's largely detrimental to independent creators, it treats the independent creator of artistic work as an afterthought in the name of aggregate consumer welfare and price. It's centralizing power in the name of efficiency and people talk gleefully about it because it robs the distributors and taxi companies, and movie studios and so on of their perceived ill-gotten power. I think that's a huge mistake, the centralization of power streamlines all goods and removes all diversity, takes agency away from everyone but the large platforms, it turns open spaces into proprietary walled gardens because it's the only way for platforms to defend their content, and we're going to really regret it in a few years if we don't already.

rumanator 7y ago
> It's centralizing power in the name of efficiency and people talk gleefully about it because it robs the distributors and taxi companies, and movie studios and so on of their perceived ill-gotten power. I don't agree, because "the movie studios and so on" that you referred were actually the centralizing power, and that power was overthrown by these new platforms in a way that they no longer control and arbitrarily restrict access to the public.

wwweston 7y ago

> but is probably not related to the rise of "platforms" but part of the overall struggles of print journalism. This is partially accurate, but I think it's more accurate to say that journalism in general is struggling because the way the attention economy works now: firehose supply, fiercer competition for attention, consumer indifference to being the customer rather than product, and algorithmic/crowdsourced content recommendation. And the rise of platforms figures into some degree of every one of those aspects.

matchagaucho 7y ago

Exactly my thoughts. Payola was alive and well until Internet distribution took over. Music Journalists were the "Social Influencers" of their day. They were given front row seats, overnight stays at 5-star hotels, lavish meals, and flights on private jets with touring bands. Without Music Journalists, and their access to print, there was just no means to getting the word out. They could make or break any artist.