21 ms·

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

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 it’s basically assumed you’ll be releasing singles every month. The music isn’t your product, the music is your marketing. The shows, the merch, your influence - that’s your product.

quacked 6y ago
> The music isn’t your product, the music is your marketing. The shows, the merch, your influence - that’s your product. Man, that's depressing.
- shakezula 6y ago
  It’s not tho! It means tighter release cycles which means a tighter feedback loop which means bands can find their sound faster and grow their backing faster.
- oconnor663 6y ago
  I think it could be depressing if we think of "your product" as "the most important part of what you do". But we could also think of it as "the thing that you need to make money from". If the music itself isn't the thing that you need to make money from, then instead of charging a bunch for it, now you want to spread it as widely as possible as cheaply as possible. That's a good thing!
  - Hoasi 6y ago
    > If the music itself isn't the thing that you need to make money from, then instead of charging a bunch for it, now you want to spread it as widely as possible as cheaply as possible. That's a good thing! It is, but only if the music gets better in the process. Unlikely to happen if you rush for faster releases. More production doesn't equal to more novelty.
    - vkou 6y ago
      Faster, smaller releases, compared to one new album every few years do not necessarily need to compromise on quality. It's rare that an album contains all gems.
    - ta1234567890 6y ago
      > but only if the music gets better in the process. Unlikely to happen if you rush for faster releases Actually, if you are constantly working at it, you'll probably get really good at it and the quality will get better and better. There's a story about a ceramics professor that would divide his class in two at the beginning of the semester. He would grade one group by the quality of their best piece at the end of the semester and the other group by the weight of all the pieces produced during the whole semester. The professor said that invariably, the best pieces were produced by the people in the group that was graded by the weight of their pieces. His hypothesis was that people graded by the weight would produce a lot more pieces, so in the process they would also get really good at making the pieces, whereas the people graded by their best piece would just spend too much time on their pieces trying to make them perfect and wouldn't get enough practice to actually become better at making them.
      - AsyncAwait 6y ago
        > Actually, if you are constantly working at it, you'll probably get really good at it and the quality will get better and better. That's true for engineering, but for music it only goes so far. A lot of musicians working this way will, after a while, find a formula that repeatedly sells, but loose a lot of originality in the process.
      - riversflow 6y ago
        I really like this anecdote, I find it very prescriptive for life, but I don’t think it applies. Professional musicians aren’t learning how to make music like the students of the ceramics class, they are mostly fully developed artists with their own artistic style and voice. I think that constantly producing art leads an artist to become a slave to his prior work, a sort of creative fatigue. In order to foster development of an artist’s voice, they need space to get away from that style and explore other styles and forms of art. Not a popular opinion here, but I really don’t think that coding is very comparable to pure art like music or painting, and I think that a lot of these ideas come from that place(that coding is art). Coding is art like electrical work is art—there is certainly a distinction between work crafted by a master and something muddled together by an amateur, but at the end of the day it’s functional. In these trades it’s perfectly okay to have creative fatigue as long as all the parts are good. If you have great variable names, nice modular form, terse functions, excellent descriptive comments, etc, its actually better if you have a monolithic unchanging form. Pure art, that is art meant to be consumed in the form its created, by contrast, brings with it all kinds of aesthetic values that are put by the way side in coding, and novelty and creativity are front and center.
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    Not if you’re coerced into having to produce a piece of music every month/couple of months to keep the machine running. That’s just producing a commodity. Some groups have got it together and are able to fund years of quiet work before releases, but no matter how much I enjoy creating I would hate to be so bound as outlined above.
    - chesterarthur 6y ago
      A lot of creative endeavors run on this timeline. It's just a shorter cycle and it's not new.
      - 52-6F-62 6y ago
        You’re right. It’s not new. Not for pop music anyway. I’d argue that it’s worse, though. Shorter cycles are even less healthy. And just because it’s been done before(-ish) and other endeavours run in this timeline doesn’t make it good or beneficial to anything but those who aspire to only make money off of it. The fact is, good music doesn’t require business to be good music. And the business doesn’t necessarily require the music to be good—it just requires that it directly or indirectly generates revenue. From the perspective of commerce the rest is incidental. Encouraging the commercial perspective over something more balanced is a net negative for culture and society. At least I think so.
    - guyzero 6y ago
      I am reminded of the story about ceramics students being told that half would be graded on quantity and half would be graded on the quality of a single piece of work. https://excellentjourney.net/2015/03/04/art-fear-the-ceramics-class-and-quantity-before-quality/ https://excellentjourney.net/2015/03/04/art-fear-the-ceramic... It turns out that the students who were just churning out pots ended up making the pots that were ultimately better. I think there's probably something to be said for constantly creating.
      - e1g 6y ago
        Just FYI this story originally was about photography as clarified by the author at https://jamesclear.com/repetitions https://jamesclear.com/repetitions In photography, you can get lucky. When I come back from holidays and review a thousand of random snapshots, a couple of them look great. Take 200 shots of a single thing, and one of them might be pro-level due to pure chance. Yet I'm not sure how well this "randomly great" percentage would translate to me playing the violin, dancing ballet, or writing a song.
  - mellow2020 6y ago
    > When books or pictures in reproduction are thrown on the market cheaply and attain huge sales, this does not affect the nature of the objects in question. But their nature is affected when these objects themselves are changed, rewritten, condensed, digested, reduced to kitsch in reproduction, or in preparation for the movies. This does not mean that culture spreads to the masses, but that culture is being destroyed in order to yield entertainment. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Crisis in Culture - Its Social and Its Political Significance"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I dunno. I've known a few people who dreamed of being in a band, and they weren't excited about the part where they sit at a desk revising lyrics; they were excited to perform their songs, to get up in front of a crowd and have everyone hear them.
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    That’s the classic line between a performer alone and a songwriter.
- gwd 6y ago
  >> The music isn’t your product, the music is your marketing. The shows, the merch, your influence - that’s your product. > Man, that's depressing. If the CEO of an open-source company said, "Software isn't our product, software is our marketing", would you feel the same way?
  - singhrac 6y ago
    It's not comparable - music is art.
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      The implication in your comment is that code isn't art, when code absolutely can be art. Functional things can be artistically beautiful too.
      - Juliate 6y ago
        Plus the implication that music might not be a tool for a specific purpose (which it is also absolutely in some contexts). The thing is that "music", is not "one thing". It all depends on the purpose, if there is one, and on the intention of the composer and of the players and of the audience. Here, Spotify's CEO adresses a very specific market in the music industry, not "musicians" per se.
      - bmitc 6y ago
        This is a really silly argument. There is an art to building software, no doubt, in terms of it being a craft. But I think you've misspoken about functional things being artistically beautiful. What you really should mean is that functional things can be aesthetically beautiful, which is true and different. Art is primarily defined by expression and exploration, particularly revolving around human emotions. Software products, in the end, do not fit this category. There is a vast difference. Edit: I defined it elsewhere a bit smoother. I define art as the exploration of emotional expression. Art products are the end result of that exploration. Live acts or art or performances could be viewed as a sort of merger between the two, either as a reenactment of the exploration or as a new exploration happening in the moment.
- kkhire 6y ago
  not really considering artists can actually get paid now
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    in exchange for not being artists, ironically. If you instrumentalize music to maximise your influencer career with the content of the music as an afterthought what you get isn't art but a mediocre commodity. It's like Ricky Gervais remark at the Globes, the actors aren't actually actors any more, it's a competition for the best looking, most ripped steroid junkie.
- Juliate 6y ago
  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.
  - bmitc 6y ago
    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 in science and technology, I personally have grown to believe art is far more important for human progress and development than science and technology. It's a real problem that we blindly let markets decide what is important because it is in fact humanity's lack of progress emotionally, which is unfortunately tied strongly to our biology, but our insane progress in technology that causes almost all of our problems.
    - nullspace 6y ago
      I think I vaguely agree with much of what you said, but just want to point this one out. > It's a societal problem that we do not value art in the same way that we value science and technology. Want to give a couple of examples against this: - some of the most valuable software out there is free and open source. The authors of said software don’t get compensated anywhere near the softwares value. Coz everyone uses it for free. - I very much value the games I play on my iPhone, but I have never paid any money for them. - I will buy Opeth t-shirts, and Akerfeld custom guitars, but I’m never going to give Spotify as much money. So, I don’t think your claim is so clear cut as you state it.
    - Juliate 6y ago
      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.
- hammock 6y ago
  It's the same for fine art honestly
  - jontro 6y ago
    Also for open source projects
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- shoulderfake 6y ago
  Well this is only true if your music is good. You can release till the cows come home, if the music sucks nobody will buy anything from you
- afterburner 6y ago
  And the most common business tactic for content creators is to gain a loyal following and milk them forever.
- JJMcJ 6y ago
  This is more a reflection of the royalty structure for recorded music than anything else.
- hoorayimhelping 6y ago
  It's also not universally true. Some of Steve Albini's interviews are really on point with regards to this stuff. Really worth listening to if nothing more than to provide contrast to comments like the one above (which seem pretty reductive and flippant): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRAc3hx5pok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRAc3hx5pok
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  It's amazing, not depressing. Music is an incredibly effective marketing channel.
- vlunkr 6y ago
  I think it's just inaccurate. People go to shows to hear the music, therefore the music is the product still.
- mxcrossb 6y ago
  Especially when Spotify is telling you this because they pay you so little for streaming rights.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- abhayhegde 6y ago
  It truly boggles me how much does one person have to produce in order to gain the same magnitude of fame, back in the days of middle 19th century.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bobthepanda 6y ago
Korean pop music has been doing this for a while too. This group has pretty rapid releases, 5 singles a year, and 10 EPs and 3 albums since 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_discography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_discography
- bmitc 6y ago
  While I enjoy Kpop, I don't feel it's necessarily a great model for artistic expression. It's an industry where fake is the status quo. Kpop is not selling people music per se. It's selling people this idea that you could be an idol or be friends with an idol or be a partner of an idol. It's an emotional hack like a carrot being dragged in front of you. I personally like a lot of Kpop for the strange music production that comes out of it with bands like Red Velvet, Mamamoo, Stellar, Lim Kim, Dalsooobin, Dal Shabet, etc., but that is really more of a side effect of Kpop's main product.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    To be quite clear I'm not endorsing it. It just seems to be a natural evolution of music industry in the digital age. South Korea was, if not is, one of the countries farthest on the digital curve.
- tikwidd 6y ago
  In addition, Kpop groups put a huge amount of effort into their physical albums. Sales of physical albums are extremely high in Korea (Japan I think too) compared to other countries (just my impression, but if anyone has sources I'd be interested). Albums are usually sold as boxes with a photo book inside and collectible cards, they are almost more like magazines. Some albums come in different editions with different idols featured - it's common for a fan to buy multiple copies of the same album in hopes of getting the edition or cards of their favourite idol (bias). The fans see album purchases and 'streaming' (playing their youtube singles on repeat) as ways to support their groups and increase their reputation.
  - ganfortran 6y ago
api 6y ago
For everyone who actually likes music, there is Bandcamp.
stephencoyner 6y ago
This is very true. One of the first artists I noticed doing this was a rapper, Curren$y. All the mixtapes were free on Datpiff.com (major throwback) and the tours / Merch were the $$$ makers. This also allowed artists to go fully independent and keep all their profits. Added into the mix now are independent vinyl / cd / tape makers who the artists partner with on Physical music releases. Yes, physicals are back in a major way thanks to platforms like Bandcamp. *edited for a grammatical change.
- shakezula 6y ago
  yeah, Datpiff, worldstar, HHWW, etc... these sites were all at the forefront of this paradigm shift for backpack hip hop and rap. Hardcore and punk genres had similar approaches with BandCamp, PureVolume, and even MySpace, and if you actually look at punk and rap they have really interesting overlaps in these areas. Hip hop going independent was a major shift from the established late 90's/early 2000's tradition of signing with a label.
- comprev 6y ago
  Even without physical media, I'd rather pay for a copy of the music I can "own" (I.e. like a physical CD) from Bandcamp as the revenue the artist gets is _significantly_ higher than a dozen streams of the same album on Spotify. At the end of the day, I want the artist to continue producing music, and prefer to find a channel by which they get the most revenue. IMHO Bandcamp is one of the best things to happen to the music industry in the last decade. Love it!
  - cheez 6y ago
    If Bandcamp has better quality, that should be the selling point (IMO)
    - mattmar96 6y ago
      I disagree. Name your price is the selling point. Effectively a donation option for your favorite small artists.
- 6y ago
7thaccount 6y ago
A friend once explained this to me a decade ago. I would buy albums, but he would torrent everything. In his eyes, music has shifted to the public domain now. He said the best way to support a band now would be to buy t-shirts and go to as many concerts as you can. I still buy all my albums, but finally see his point. I mean now, all artists have their entire collection of music on YouTube. If everyone almost always has an internet connection, is buying music even necessary? Does Taylor Swift make more money off of the albums my wife buys from her or the 8 t-shirts and yearly concert she goes to?
- shakezula 6y ago
  Your friend was absolutely right. I never cared if people pirated my bands music (or later the bands that I was managing) because the real thing I wanted was them showing up at shows, buying merch, posting us on facebook, asking events to bring us on, etc... At a certain point, Taylor Swift and larger artists _do_ make a good chunk of change from their actual music sales, but it isn't a feasible strategy to rely on that for indie and DIY artists.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I listen to a lot of music but I’d never go to a live show (can’t think of anything worse) and I’m not going to wear a branded t-shirt. How do they capture revenue from people like me in your model? Now I think about it I did once buy a video log of the production of an album. But that’s one artist from the thousands I listen to.
    - shakezula 6y ago
      To be honest - they don't. You're not the target demographic for them, and that's fine! But for this approach is optimized for the audience that will wear those shirts, go to those shows, buy the posters, follow them on instagram, etc...
      - ksec 6y ago
        I think these people may still provide some value in the form of Retweet, Gossip, Views, Media, Hype, Clicks that helps marketing. In the world of Social Media just having your name known is better than totally unknown. And will funnel back to other places.
unabst 6y ago
Also, didn't the hip hop crowd just give away their music for free and make all their money touring? Until signed anyway. And mix tapes were more than a single. So to that end, music definitely was their marketing. To put it another way, they let the music market itself. That's all they needed, and was all they got. I would put influence under marketing though, unless we can settle that music and influence are both both.
- shakezula 6y ago
  You're basically just repeating what I said, but yes. I would say influence is a little different from marketing. Marketing is you trying to reach new fans, influence is you reaching established fans.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
Fair. But doesn't that stifle genres that focus more on experimentation, deep philosophical lyrics etc.? I don't mean to imply that Rap is not that, just that some types of music, (including Rap & Hip-Hop in many cases am sure), require more time and experimentation to 'feel right' than others, they require research, studying history etc. Not sure these are fit for a single/month type of release. Even on a 12 song album that used to come out every 3-4 years, you only have enough material for a single year now, at that pace. Quantity is often said to come at the expense of quality and for a good reason.
- shakezula 6y ago
  I really don't think it does. If you spend 3 months straight on a single (which isn't out of the ordinary for my friends who are still in the scene) you're approaching the same level of time input per song, but you're still on a tighter release schedule.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    See, but that's the thing. Many artists don't work in this way where they'd have a major project that is this single to get our in 3 months and that's like me having a sprint deliverable and that's that. They'll write songs when there's inspiration, but maybe nothing for six months after. Then some don't feel right so they get thrown into the bin etc. An album release is very much "when it's ready". Forcing it on a schedule only works when there's already a formula, which is mostly true only for very mainstream music. As an example, look at the distance between these 2 albums[1], both great in my opinion, but technically it took 14 years after the last one to get it out, (abet not being worked on continually of course). 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_of_Solace#Discography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_of_Solace#Discography
    - shakezula 6y ago
      Spotify isn't saying that if an artist doesn't put out material every 3 months they'll be de-ranked. That's absolutely not the idea here. What they're saying is that in the current climate, you have to fight for attention, and rapid, small releases achieve that. A quick check of Dawn of Solace's Spotify page and tour schedule shows me that they're active but probably not making full-time jobs out of this. And that's absolutely fine. They're doing their thing and probably enjoying it. The article is saying that to be profitable and relevant, you're going to have to put out more frequent, smaller, rapidly-digestible bits of music. This was a model I applied regularly to death metal and hardcore bands that I worked with during my time in the industry and I can tell you right now- _it works_.
smrtinsert 6y ago
Maybe if you want to be part of the eternal churn. I'd rather be no one and release real music on my schedule.
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  It is your choice. Just like horse buggy drivers didn't have to become truck drivers...
jadell 6y ago
> The music isn’t your product, the music is your marketing. The shows, the merch, your influence - that’s your product. In case anyone is wondering why all pop music sounds the same.
quattrofan 6y ago
And why most is utter dross. People still buy millions of classic albums from the 70's and 80's, in 30 years time very few artists will have that same comfort.
- carlinmack 6y ago
  every generation has older people thinking the new generation of music is bad :)
  - dsabanin 6y ago
    Well, maybe they had a point. We went from Bach to 50 cent…
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - d12345m 6y ago
      You’re not from the generation that produced Bach though.
      - Juliate 6y ago
        Hopefully, we'll soon have the means to ask an AI-based Bach model what it thinks of 50 cent!
- shakezula 6y ago
  Ah yes, the "new music sucks" argument. I've definitely never heard this one before. Please tell me how Metallica is relevant right now.
  - mortivore 6y ago
    People still listen to Metallica's music, and their music still ends up in movies. I don't really think all new music is bad, just most of it. The same could be said for back in the day though. Metallica is a bad example for you to use cause they are still widespread because they are really good. There are other bands you haven't heard of from the 70s and 80s.
ssully 6y ago
I never worked in the music industry, but hasn't it always been this way? I have a lot of my grandparents old records, and when I first went through the collection I was surprised at the output of some artists both big and small. The obvious example would be Elvis. Just counting his studio albums, the guy put out over 20 albums over his career 24 year career, and that isn't counting singles, soundtracks, or whatever else he put out. If you factored in all of that, it's easily in the range of 150-200+ releases.
- shakezula 6y ago
  Nope, it definitely hasn't always been this way. When vinyls were the predominant media form, it was prohibitively expensive for most artists to press a master, cut vinyls, package them, market it, and distribute it. I can do all of that in 10 minutes with Spotify now. Tapes made this a little bit faster. And then CDs made it a little bit faster from there. And then MP3 players made it quite a bit faster. And then download speeds and prevalence of internet made streaming possible, and it made it a LOT faster. And then here we are - about 10 years after the emergence of Pandora and similar services. To use your example: Elvis had a TON of funding and was able to maintain that rapid release cycle while touring because of that. Smaller DIY artists don't have funding, they're all working jobs, etc...
  - analog31 6y ago
    Oddly enough, in the decades before the phonograph, there was a sheet music industry with almost every feature of the recording industry. There were superstar composers, such as Scott Joplin, shady deals, composers getting rich and then getting screwed, the whole nine yards. People bought sheet music to play on their parlor pianos. There was plentiful work for pianists and organists in movie theaters before the talkie. And so forth. Musicians have faced a constant back and forth relationship with technology practically from the git go.
    - MrsPeaches 6y ago
      > from the git go. Not sure if this is intentional, but it's a great HN style eggcorn. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
mr_tristan 6y ago
Since independent venues have been gradually disappearing in the US in the 21st century, and ticketing is locked down by Live Nation, it sure seems that the only revenue stream American musicians can control is their merchandise. Makes sense that everything else is just "marketing" these days. I'm sure this has an impact on who decides to make music professionally. Why stick with it, only to sell your own t-shirts? (Note: I can't figure out how to get trend data for from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, to see if that question has merit.)
weeksie 6y ago
The medium is the message. This is the equivalent to amazon kindle self-pubbers needing to crank out 3-5 books per year to make a living.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  Do you have links on articles on how many books are needed to make living and how much of a living it might be expected at median and high ends? I'm interested in the subject and your offhand comment makes me hope you have more insight into it than I do.
  - weeksie 6y ago
    If you’re interested in kindle self pub, there’s a pretty vibrant community on the kboards (kboards.com) forum. Tons of info on producing volume as a marketing strategy but people are definitely making a living. It’s not my approach but I’ve certainly considered it.
rhizome 6y ago
Rap & Hip Hop are different because historically there's much less of a touring component than there is in Rock, Country, Soul/R&B, etc. I'm not saying there's no overlap or that nobody can learn from anybody else, but to lump them all together ignores a lot of actual differences between marketing among genres. Heck, I bet TV talent shows are for country music right now what radio has been for hip-hop/R&B since the late 90s, which makes sense because country has (ironically) been appropriating just about all they can find in radio rap for the past many years (way before Lil Nas X).
908087 6y ago
So basically musicians are SOL now that touring isn't a realistic possibility. Nice.
jayp1418 6y ago
https://www.abc.net.au/doublej/featured-music/feature-albums1/tool-fear-inoculum-review/11461628 https://www.abc.net.au/doublej/featured-music/feature-albums...
hedora 6y ago
I prefer to listen to bands that produce an excellent album every few years, vs a pile of sameness every three months. Examples: “Boy Meets Robot”, “Unwoman”, “The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets”, “Goldfrapp”, much of what is featured on “Dark Compass”. Where do people go for music like this? Bandcamp? Other places?
- panzagl 6y ago
  The Seventies.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- loa_in_ 6y ago
  YouTube/some kind of streaming service for music, Facebook/Twitter to get information about tours and get pointers to official stores and sites
- npteljes 6y ago
  Services with recommendation algorithms can help. Mixcloud can be good, because it features longer mixes that often contain similar music, collected by someone who knows their stuff. You can also check the associated label's other artists, smaller labels often organize around a similar mood or style. I check the people my favorites collaborate with.
- HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
  Progarchives is a site I have come to appreciate lately.
loudtieblahblah 6y ago
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.
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  Which is the sad reality. There are definitely talented rappers that work their tails off to produce great lyrics, in some cases their own beats / tracks and are being overshadowed by what I call pop rap (you can throw mumble rap under than umbrella). I can only imagine the same is happening in other genres. The one decent thing about rap was always all the mixtapes on the other hand.
  - janbernhart 6y ago
    That's just how popular music and pop culture works. Internet and streaming did enable long-tail though. Its way easier to listen to and find those underground rappers compared to 20 years ago.
- wyattpeak 6y ago
  > we ended up with mumble rap > It's samey as hell and stagnant I don't follow rap, but these two claims seem contradictory. Is the first not evidence of evolution in the genre, if in a direction you don't like?
  - z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
    No one of any value enjoys mumble rap, don't kid yourself
  - daodedickinson 6y ago
    I think the claim is that mumble rap dominates this new ecosystem, that this ecosystem is less diverse, and that this ecosystem does not seem to be changing significantly. I have no idea about Spotify or mumble rap but that's how they might not contradict.
solarized 6y ago
freemium business model
AniseAbyss 6y ago
The 1970s golden age of making a concept album in a French villa doing drugs for two years on the record label's dime are long gone.
- grasshopperpurp 6y ago
  The only album that comes to mind is Exile on Main Street, but I'm not particularly into back stories. Were a lot of people doing this in the 70s? I'm D'Angelo is as good as it gets. Voodoo and Black Messiah are two of my absolute favorite albums, and they're the only two albums he's put out in the last 20 years. Other than it being a long process, I don't know a lot about the Black Messiah recording process, but Voodoo was multiple years of jamming with super-talented musicians then condensing that material into an album. They'd listen to classics like There's a Riot Going On then use that inspiration to guide the jam sessions. I think this approach is pretty similar to what you're referring to. On the other hand, look at how quickly acts like The Beatles, Bob Dylan, and the Stones put out music in the 60s. The Beatles released two albums in '67 then a double-album in '68; Dylan released two albums in '65 then a double-album in '66 - then recorded all the Basement Tapes material in '67 and released another album that same year.
  - armandhammer 6y ago
    Fleetwood Mac was definitely fueled by cocaine.
abraxas 6y ago
lol, all shit in the world is soon turning to an "agile" model. Soon enough there will be scrums and daily standup for musicians. Time to create a Jira like app for them and cash in on the gold rush. Quality of the art is of course completely absent from any such discussions.
rasjani 6y ago
Id go even deeper than hiphop. Jamaican music that was essentially a big influence to rap, was “singles” market from the start and album stuff was more about pleasing the international crowds.
thirdsun 6y ago
I absolutely hate this development. Admittedly within the genres and niches I listen to the album and the music itself is still the product, but I worry that this will change. Concerning the single format: Going through and listening to my Bandcamp new release notifications is a weekly habit I enjoy. There are a lot of of those notifications and I gladly take the time to check them out, but I won't even listen to single track releases. I'm an album person. If an artist doesn't have enough quality material to compile an actual cohesive selection of his work and rather rushes from short-lived single to single, I'm not interested. I'm even less interested in t-shirts, merchandise and live shows, though I get the appeal of the latter.

quacked 6y ago

> The music isn’t your product, the music is your marketing. The shows, the merch, your influence - that’s your product. Man, that's depressing.

shakezula 6y ago
It’s not tho! It means tighter release cycles which means a tighter feedback loop which means bands can find their sound faster and grow their backing faster.
oconnor663 6y ago
I think it could be depressing if we think of "your product" as "the most important part of what you do". But we could also think of it as "the thing that you need to make money from". If the music itself isn't the thing that you need to make money from, then instead of charging a bunch for it, now you want to spread it as widely as possible as cheaply as possible. That's a good thing!
- Hoasi 6y ago
  > If the music itself isn't the thing that you need to make money from, then instead of charging a bunch for it, now you want to spread it as widely as possible as cheaply as possible. That's a good thing! It is, but only if the music gets better in the process. Unlikely to happen if you rush for faster releases. More production doesn't equal to more novelty.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Faster, smaller releases, compared to one new album every few years do not necessarily need to compromise on quality. It's rare that an album contains all gems.
  - ta1234567890 6y ago
    > but only if the music gets better in the process. Unlikely to happen if you rush for faster releases Actually, if you are constantly working at it, you'll probably get really good at it and the quality will get better and better. There's a story about a ceramics professor that would divide his class in two at the beginning of the semester. He would grade one group by the quality of their best piece at the end of the semester and the other group by the weight of all the pieces produced during the whole semester. The professor said that invariably, the best pieces were produced by the people in the group that was graded by the weight of their pieces. His hypothesis was that people graded by the weight would produce a lot more pieces, so in the process they would also get really good at making the pieces, whereas the people graded by their best piece would just spend too much time on their pieces trying to make them perfect and wouldn't get enough practice to actually become better at making them.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      > Actually, if you are constantly working at it, you'll probably get really good at it and the quality will get better and better. That's true for engineering, but for music it only goes so far. A lot of musicians working this way will, after a while, find a formula that repeatedly sells, but loose a lot of originality in the process.
    - riversflow 6y ago
      I really like this anecdote, I find it very prescriptive for life, but I don’t think it applies. Professional musicians aren’t learning how to make music like the students of the ceramics class, they are mostly fully developed artists with their own artistic style and voice. I think that constantly producing art leads an artist to become a slave to his prior work, a sort of creative fatigue. In order to foster development of an artist’s voice, they need space to get away from that style and explore other styles and forms of art. Not a popular opinion here, but I really don’t think that coding is very comparable to pure art like music or painting, and I think that a lot of these ideas come from that place(that coding is art). Coding is art like electrical work is art—there is certainly a distinction between work crafted by a master and something muddled together by an amateur, but at the end of the day it’s functional. In these trades it’s perfectly okay to have creative fatigue as long as all the parts are good. If you have great variable names, nice modular form, terse functions, excellent descriptive comments, etc, its actually better if you have a monolithic unchanging form. Pure art, that is art meant to be consumed in the form its created, by contrast, brings with it all kinds of aesthetic values that are put by the way side in coding, and novelty and creativity are front and center.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  Not if you’re coerced into having to produce a piece of music every month/couple of months to keep the machine running. That’s just producing a commodity. Some groups have got it together and are able to fund years of quiet work before releases, but no matter how much I enjoy creating I would hate to be so bound as outlined above.
  - chesterarthur 6y ago
    A lot of creative endeavors run on this timeline. It's just a shorter cycle and it's not new.
    - 52-6F-62 6y ago
      You’re right. It’s not new. Not for pop music anyway. I’d argue that it’s worse, though. Shorter cycles are even less healthy. And just because it’s been done before(-ish) and other endeavours run in this timeline doesn’t make it good or beneficial to anything but those who aspire to only make money off of it. The fact is, good music doesn’t require business to be good music. And the business doesn’t necessarily require the music to be good—it just requires that it directly or indirectly generates revenue. From the perspective of commerce the rest is incidental. Encouraging the commercial perspective over something more balanced is a net negative for culture and society. At least I think so.
  - guyzero 6y ago
    I am reminded of the story about ceramics students being told that half would be graded on quantity and half would be graded on the quality of a single piece of work. https://excellentjourney.net/2015/03/04/art-fear-the-ceramics-class-and-quantity-before-quality/ https://excellentjourney.net/2015/03/04/art-fear-the-ceramic... It turns out that the students who were just churning out pots ended up making the pots that were ultimately better. I think there's probably something to be said for constantly creating.
    - e1g 6y ago
      Just FYI this story originally was about photography as clarified by the author at https://jamesclear.com/repetitions https://jamesclear.com/repetitions In photography, you can get lucky. When I come back from holidays and review a thousand of random snapshots, a couple of them look great. Take 200 shots of a single thing, and one of them might be pro-level due to pure chance. Yet I'm not sure how well this "randomly great" percentage would translate to me playing the violin, dancing ballet, or writing a song.
- mellow2020 6y ago
  > When books or pictures in reproduction are thrown on the market cheaply and attain huge sales, this does not affect the nature of the objects in question. But their nature is affected when these objects themselves are changed, rewritten, condensed, digested, reduced to kitsch in reproduction, or in preparation for the movies. This does not mean that culture spreads to the masses, but that culture is being destroyed in order to yield entertainment. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Crisis in Culture - Its Social and Its Political Significance"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I dunno. I've known a few people who dreamed of being in a band, and they weren't excited about the part where they sit at a desk revising lyrics; they were excited to perform their songs, to get up in front of a crowd and have everyone hear them.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  That’s the classic line between a performer alone and a songwriter.
gwd 6y ago
>> The music isn’t your product, the music is your marketing. The shows, the merch, your influence - that’s your product. > Man, that's depressing. If the CEO of an open-source company said, "Software isn't our product, software is our marketing", would you feel the same way?
- singhrac 6y ago
  It's not comparable - music is art.
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    The implication in your comment is that code isn't art, when code absolutely can be art. Functional things can be artistically beautiful too.
    - Juliate 6y ago
      Plus the implication that music might not be a tool for a specific purpose (which it is also absolutely in some contexts). The thing is that "music", is not "one thing". It all depends on the purpose, if there is one, and on the intention of the composer and of the players and of the audience. Here, Spotify's CEO adresses a very specific market in the music industry, not "musicians" per se.
    - bmitc 6y ago
      This is a really silly argument. There is an art to building software, no doubt, in terms of it being a craft. But I think you've misspoken about functional things being artistically beautiful. What you really should mean is that functional things can be aesthetically beautiful, which is true and different. Art is primarily defined by expression and exploration, particularly revolving around human emotions. Software products, in the end, do not fit this category. There is a vast difference. Edit: I defined it elsewhere a bit smoother. I define art as the exploration of emotional expression. Art products are the end result of that exploration. Live acts or art or performances could be viewed as a sort of merger between the two, either as a reenactment of the exploration or as a new exploration happening in the moment.
kkhire 6y ago
not really considering artists can actually get paid now
- Barrin92 6y ago
  in exchange for not being artists, ironically. If you instrumentalize music to maximise your influencer career with the content of the music as an afterthought what you get isn't art but a mediocre commodity. It's like Ricky Gervais remark at the Globes, the actors aren't actually actors any more, it's a competition for the best looking, most ripped steroid junkie.
Juliate 6y ago
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.
- bmitc 6y ago
  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 in science and technology, I personally have grown to believe art is far more important for human progress and development than science and technology. It's a real problem that we blindly let markets decide what is important because it is in fact humanity's lack of progress emotionally, which is unfortunately tied strongly to our biology, but our insane progress in technology that causes almost all of our problems.
  - nullspace 6y ago
    I think I vaguely agree with much of what you said, but just want to point this one out. > It's a societal problem that we do not value art in the same way that we value science and technology. Want to give a couple of examples against this: - some of the most valuable software out there is free and open source. The authors of said software don’t get compensated anywhere near the softwares value. Coz everyone uses it for free. - I very much value the games I play on my iPhone, but I have never paid any money for them. - I will buy Opeth t-shirts, and Akerfeld custom guitars, but I’m never going to give Spotify as much money. So, I don’t think your claim is so clear cut as you state it.
  - Juliate 6y ago
    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.
hammock 6y ago
It's the same for fine art honestly
- jontro 6y ago
  Also for open source projects
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
shoulderfake 6y ago
Well this is only true if your music is good. You can release till the cows come home, if the music sucks nobody will buy anything from you
afterburner 6y ago
And the most common business tactic for content creators is to gain a loyal following and milk them forever.
JJMcJ 6y ago
This is more a reflection of the royalty structure for recorded music than anything else.
hoorayimhelping 6y ago
It's also not universally true. Some of Steve Albini's interviews are really on point with regards to this stuff. Really worth listening to if nothing more than to provide contrast to comments like the one above (which seem pretty reductive and flippant): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRAc3hx5pok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRAc3hx5pok
ZephyrBlu 6y ago
It's amazing, not depressing. Music is an incredibly effective marketing channel.
vlunkr 6y ago
I think it's just inaccurate. People go to shows to hear the music, therefore the music is the product still.
mxcrossb 6y ago
Especially when Spotify is telling you this because they pay you so little for streaming rights.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
abhayhegde 6y ago
It truly boggles me how much does one person have to produce in order to gain the same magnitude of fame, back in the days of middle 19th century.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bobthepanda 6y ago

Korean pop music has been doing this for a while too. This group has pretty rapid releases, 5 singles a year, and 10 EPs and 3 albums since 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_discography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_discography

bmitc 6y ago
While I enjoy Kpop, I don't feel it's necessarily a great model for artistic expression. It's an industry where fake is the status quo. Kpop is not selling people music per se. It's selling people this idea that you could be an idol or be friends with an idol or be a partner of an idol. It's an emotional hack like a carrot being dragged in front of you. I personally like a lot of Kpop for the strange music production that comes out of it with bands like Red Velvet, Mamamoo, Stellar, Lim Kim, Dalsooobin, Dal Shabet, etc., but that is really more of a side effect of Kpop's main product.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  To be quite clear I'm not endorsing it. It just seems to be a natural evolution of music industry in the digital age. South Korea was, if not is, one of the countries farthest on the digital curve.
tikwidd 6y ago
In addition, Kpop groups put a huge amount of effort into their physical albums. Sales of physical albums are extremely high in Korea (Japan I think too) compared to other countries (just my impression, but if anyone has sources I'd be interested). Albums are usually sold as boxes with a photo book inside and collectible cards, they are almost more like magazines. Some albums come in different editions with different idols featured - it's common for a fan to buy multiple copies of the same album in hopes of getting the edition or cards of their favourite idol (bias). The fans see album purchases and 'streaming' (playing their youtube singles on repeat) as ways to support their groups and increase their reputation.
- ganfortran 6y ago

api 6y ago

For everyone who actually likes music, there is Bandcamp.

stephencoyner 6y ago

This is very true. One of the first artists I noticed doing this was a rapper, Curren$y. All the mixtapes were free on Datpiff.com (major throwback) and the tours / Merch were the $$$ makers. This also allowed artists to go fully independent and keep all their profits. Added into the mix now are independent vinyl / cd / tape makers who the artists partner with on Physical music releases. Yes, physicals are back in a major way thanks to platforms like Bandcamp. *edited for a grammatical change.

shakezula 6y ago
yeah, Datpiff, worldstar, HHWW, etc... these sites were all at the forefront of this paradigm shift for backpack hip hop and rap. Hardcore and punk genres had similar approaches with BandCamp, PureVolume, and even MySpace, and if you actually look at punk and rap they have really interesting overlaps in these areas. Hip hop going independent was a major shift from the established late 90's/early 2000's tradition of signing with a label.
comprev 6y ago
Even without physical media, I'd rather pay for a copy of the music I can "own" (I.e. like a physical CD) from Bandcamp as the revenue the artist gets is _significantly_ higher than a dozen streams of the same album on Spotify. At the end of the day, I want the artist to continue producing music, and prefer to find a channel by which they get the most revenue. IMHO Bandcamp is one of the best things to happen to the music industry in the last decade. Love it!
- cheez 6y ago
  If Bandcamp has better quality, that should be the selling point (IMO)
  - mattmar96 6y ago
    I disagree. Name your price is the selling point. Effectively a donation option for your favorite small artists.
6y ago

7thaccount 6y ago

A friend once explained this to me a decade ago. I would buy albums, but he would torrent everything. In his eyes, music has shifted to the public domain now. He said the best way to support a band now would be to buy t-shirts and go to as many concerts as you can. I still buy all my albums, but finally see his point. I mean now, all artists have their entire collection of music on YouTube. If everyone almost always has an internet connection, is buying music even necessary? Does Taylor Swift make more money off of the albums my wife buys from her or the 8 t-shirts and yearly concert she goes to?

shakezula 6y ago
Your friend was absolutely right. I never cared if people pirated my bands music (or later the bands that I was managing) because the real thing I wanted was them showing up at shows, buying merch, posting us on facebook, asking events to bring us on, etc... At a certain point, Taylor Swift and larger artists _do_ make a good chunk of change from their actual music sales, but it isn't a feasible strategy to rely on that for indie and DIY artists.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I listen to a lot of music but I’d never go to a live show (can’t think of anything worse) and I’m not going to wear a branded t-shirt. How do they capture revenue from people like me in your model? Now I think about it I did once buy a video log of the production of an album. But that’s one artist from the thousands I listen to.
  - shakezula 6y ago
    To be honest - they don't. You're not the target demographic for them, and that's fine! But for this approach is optimized for the audience that will wear those shirts, go to those shows, buy the posters, follow them on instagram, etc...
    - ksec 6y ago
      I think these people may still provide some value in the form of Retweet, Gossip, Views, Media, Hype, Clicks that helps marketing. In the world of Social Media just having your name known is better than totally unknown. And will funnel back to other places.

unabst 6y ago

Also, didn't the hip hop crowd just give away their music for free and make all their money touring? Until signed anyway. And mix tapes were more than a single. So to that end, music definitely was their marketing. To put it another way, they let the music market itself. That's all they needed, and was all they got. I would put influence under marketing though, unless we can settle that music and influence are both both.

shakezula 6y ago
You're basically just repeating what I said, but yes. I would say influence is a little different from marketing. Marketing is you trying to reach new fans, influence is you reaching established fans.

AsyncAwait 6y ago

Fair. But doesn't that stifle genres that focus more on experimentation, deep philosophical lyrics etc.? I don't mean to imply that Rap is not that, just that some types of music, (including Rap & Hip-Hop in many cases am sure), require more time and experimentation to 'feel right' than others, they require research, studying history etc. Not sure these are fit for a single/month type of release. Even on a 12 song album that used to come out every 3-4 years, you only have enough material for a single year now, at that pace. Quantity is often said to come at the expense of quality and for a good reason.

shakezula 6y ago
I really don't think it does. If you spend 3 months straight on a single (which isn't out of the ordinary for my friends who are still in the scene) you're approaching the same level of time input per song, but you're still on a tighter release schedule.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  See, but that's the thing. Many artists don't work in this way where they'd have a major project that is this single to get our in 3 months and that's like me having a sprint deliverable and that's that. They'll write songs when there's inspiration, but maybe nothing for six months after. Then some don't feel right so they get thrown into the bin etc. An album release is very much "when it's ready". Forcing it on a schedule only works when there's already a formula, which is mostly true only for very mainstream music. As an example, look at the distance between these 2 albums[1], both great in my opinion, but technically it took 14 years after the last one to get it out, (abet not being worked on continually of course). 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_of_Solace#Discography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_of_Solace#Discography
  - shakezula 6y ago
    Spotify isn't saying that if an artist doesn't put out material every 3 months they'll be de-ranked. That's absolutely not the idea here. What they're saying is that in the current climate, you have to fight for attention, and rapid, small releases achieve that. A quick check of Dawn of Solace's Spotify page and tour schedule shows me that they're active but probably not making full-time jobs out of this. And that's absolutely fine. They're doing their thing and probably enjoying it. The article is saying that to be profitable and relevant, you're going to have to put out more frequent, smaller, rapidly-digestible bits of music. This was a model I applied regularly to death metal and hardcore bands that I worked with during my time in the industry and I can tell you right now- _it works_.

smrtinsert 6y ago

Maybe if you want to be part of the eternal churn. I'd rather be no one and release real music on my schedule.

JAlexoid 6y ago
It is your choice. Just like horse buggy drivers didn't have to become truck drivers...

jadell 6y ago

> The music isn’t your product, the music is your marketing. The shows, the merch, your influence - that’s your product. In case anyone is wondering why all pop music sounds the same.

quattrofan 6y ago

And why most is utter dross. People still buy millions of classic albums from the 70's and 80's, in 30 years time very few artists will have that same comfort.

carlinmack 6y ago
every generation has older people thinking the new generation of music is bad :)
- dsabanin 6y ago
  Well, maybe they had a point. We went from Bach to 50 cent…
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - d12345m 6y ago
    You’re not from the generation that produced Bach though.
    - Juliate 6y ago
      Hopefully, we'll soon have the means to ask an AI-based Bach model what it thinks of 50 cent!
shakezula 6y ago
Ah yes, the "new music sucks" argument. I've definitely never heard this one before. Please tell me how Metallica is relevant right now.
- mortivore 6y ago
  People still listen to Metallica's music, and their music still ends up in movies. I don't really think all new music is bad, just most of it. The same could be said for back in the day though. Metallica is a bad example for you to use cause they are still widespread because they are really good. There are other bands you haven't heard of from the 70s and 80s.

ssully 6y ago

I never worked in the music industry, but hasn't it always been this way? I have a lot of my grandparents old records, and when I first went through the collection I was surprised at the output of some artists both big and small. The obvious example would be Elvis. Just counting his studio albums, the guy put out over 20 albums over his career 24 year career, and that isn't counting singles, soundtracks, or whatever else he put out. If you factored in all of that, it's easily in the range of 150-200+ releases.

shakezula 6y ago
Nope, it definitely hasn't always been this way. When vinyls were the predominant media form, it was prohibitively expensive for most artists to press a master, cut vinyls, package them, market it, and distribute it. I can do all of that in 10 minutes with Spotify now. Tapes made this a little bit faster. And then CDs made it a little bit faster from there. And then MP3 players made it quite a bit faster. And then download speeds and prevalence of internet made streaming possible, and it made it a LOT faster. And then here we are - about 10 years after the emergence of Pandora and similar services. To use your example: Elvis had a TON of funding and was able to maintain that rapid release cycle while touring because of that. Smaller DIY artists don't have funding, they're all working jobs, etc...
- analog31 6y ago
  Oddly enough, in the decades before the phonograph, there was a sheet music industry with almost every feature of the recording industry. There were superstar composers, such as Scott Joplin, shady deals, composers getting rich and then getting screwed, the whole nine yards. People bought sheet music to play on their parlor pianos. There was plentiful work for pianists and organists in movie theaters before the talkie. And so forth. Musicians have faced a constant back and forth relationship with technology practically from the git go.
  - MrsPeaches 6y ago
    > from the git go. Not sure if this is intentional, but it's a great HN style eggcorn. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

mr_tristan 6y ago

Since independent venues have been gradually disappearing in the US in the 21st century, and ticketing is locked down by Live Nation, it sure seems that the only revenue stream American musicians can control is their merchandise. Makes sense that everything else is just "marketing" these days. I'm sure this has an impact on who decides to make music professionally. Why stick with it, only to sell your own t-shirts? (Note: I can't figure out how to get trend data for from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, to see if that question has merit.)

weeksie 6y ago

The medium is the message. This is the equivalent to amazon kindle self-pubbers needing to crank out 3-5 books per year to make a living.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
Do you have links on articles on how many books are needed to make living and how much of a living it might be expected at median and high ends? I'm interested in the subject and your offhand comment makes me hope you have more insight into it than I do.
- weeksie 6y ago
  If you’re interested in kindle self pub, there’s a pretty vibrant community on the kboards (kboards.com) forum. Tons of info on producing volume as a marketing strategy but people are definitely making a living. It’s not my approach but I’ve certainly considered it.

rhizome 6y ago

Rap & Hip Hop are different because historically there's much less of a touring component than there is in Rock, Country, Soul/R&B, etc. I'm not saying there's no overlap or that nobody can learn from anybody else, but to lump them all together ignores a lot of actual differences between marketing among genres. Heck, I bet TV talent shows are for country music right now what radio has been for hip-hop/R&B since the late 90s, which makes sense because country has (ironically) been appropriating just about all they can find in radio rap for the past many years (way before Lil Nas X).

908087 6y ago

So basically musicians are SOL now that touring isn't a realistic possibility. Nice.

jayp1418 6y ago

https://www.abc.net.au/doublej/featured-music/feature-albums1/tool-fear-inoculum-review/11461628 https://www.abc.net.au/doublej/featured-music/feature-albums...

hedora 6y ago

I prefer to listen to bands that produce an excellent album every few years, vs a pile of sameness every three months. Examples: “Boy Meets Robot”, “Unwoman”, “The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets”, “Goldfrapp”, much of what is featured on “Dark Compass”. Where do people go for music like this? Bandcamp? Other places?

panzagl 6y ago
The Seventies.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
loa_in_ 6y ago
YouTube/some kind of streaming service for music, Facebook/Twitter to get information about tours and get pointers to official stores and sites
npteljes 6y ago
Services with recommendation algorithms can help. Mixcloud can be good, because it features longer mixes that often contain similar music, collected by someone who knows their stuff. You can also check the associated label's other artists, smaller labels often organize around a similar mood or style. I check the people my favorites collaborate with.
HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
Progarchives is a site I have come to appreciate lately.

loudtieblahblah 6y ago

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.

giancarlostoro 6y ago
Which is the sad reality. There are definitely talented rappers that work their tails off to produce great lyrics, in some cases their own beats / tracks and are being overshadowed by what I call pop rap (you can throw mumble rap under than umbrella). I can only imagine the same is happening in other genres. The one decent thing about rap was always all the mixtapes on the other hand.
- janbernhart 6y ago
  That's just how popular music and pop culture works. Internet and streaming did enable long-tail though. Its way easier to listen to and find those underground rappers compared to 20 years ago.
wyattpeak 6y ago
> we ended up with mumble rap > It's samey as hell and stagnant I don't follow rap, but these two claims seem contradictory. Is the first not evidence of evolution in the genre, if in a direction you don't like?
- z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
  No one of any value enjoys mumble rap, don't kid yourself
- daodedickinson 6y ago
  I think the claim is that mumble rap dominates this new ecosystem, that this ecosystem is less diverse, and that this ecosystem does not seem to be changing significantly. I have no idea about Spotify or mumble rap but that's how they might not contradict.

solarized 6y ago

freemium business model

AniseAbyss 6y ago

The 1970s golden age of making a concept album in a French villa doing drugs for two years on the record label's dime are long gone.

grasshopperpurp 6y ago
The only album that comes to mind is Exile on Main Street, but I'm not particularly into back stories. Were a lot of people doing this in the 70s? I'm D'Angelo is as good as it gets. Voodoo and Black Messiah are two of my absolute favorite albums, and they're the only two albums he's put out in the last 20 years. Other than it being a long process, I don't know a lot about the Black Messiah recording process, but Voodoo was multiple years of jamming with super-talented musicians then condensing that material into an album. They'd listen to classics like There's a Riot Going On then use that inspiration to guide the jam sessions. I think this approach is pretty similar to what you're referring to. On the other hand, look at how quickly acts like The Beatles, Bob Dylan, and the Stones put out music in the 60s. The Beatles released two albums in '67 then a double-album in '68; Dylan released two albums in '65 then a double-album in '66 - then recorded all the Basement Tapes material in '67 and released another album that same year.
- armandhammer 6y ago
  Fleetwood Mac was definitely fueled by cocaine.

abraxas 6y ago

lol, all shit in the world is soon turning to an "agile" model. Soon enough there will be scrums and daily standup for musicians. Time to create a Jira like app for them and cash in on the gold rush. Quality of the art is of course completely absent from any such discussions.

rasjani 6y ago

Id go even deeper than hiphop. Jamaican music that was essentially a big influence to rap, was “singles” market from the start and album stuff was more about pleasing the international crowds.

thirdsun 6y ago

I absolutely hate this development. Admittedly within the genres and niches I listen to the album and the music itself is still the product, but I worry that this will change. Concerning the single format: Going through and listening to my Bandcamp new release notifications is a weekly habit I enjoy. There are a lot of of those notifications and I gladly take the time to check them out, but I won't even listen to single track releases. I'm an album person. If an artist doesn't have enough quality material to compile an actual cohesive selection of his work and rather rushes from short-lived single to single, I'm not interested. I'm even less interested in t-shirts, merchandise and live shows, though I get the appeal of the latter.