4 ms·

Spotify is not for putting out art, it's for generating buzz about your art so you can get paid for it later. If your goal is the best art you can produce, the

Spotify is not for putting out art, it's for generating buzz about your art so you can get paid for it later. If your goal is the best art you can produce, then perhaps Spotify and that roller coaster isn't what you should care about. If you want to good art while also also getting a lot of buzz so you can make money or be popular, then you need to deal with market forces, just like everyone always has. Different artists will value to varying degrees generating good art, exposing many people to that art, and getting paid well. All those goals are related, but I doubt any one of them can be maximized without concessions from others. > Imagine telling Hemingway he has to release a new blog post every week instead of a book every couple of years. Authors release at their own schedule if they don't rely on the money from the books, they have other income, or they've already made enough to be secure. Hemingway is not really different. Neither is any other already famous artist.

pier25 6y ago
Right, but my point is that if you're absorbed dealing with market forces you won't be able to produce significant work. The more cookie cutter stuff you release, the more you will adopt that mindset and it will consume your creativity. I guess in the past musicians toured and performed to satisfy that need, and relegated the "important" work to long term writing/composing. With Spotify (and specially now with COVID) it seems this has changed since the only way to generate income is by releasing music.
- kbenson 6y ago
  My guess is that things have only changed for the mega-stars. Household names that are in the public consciousness need to work to stay at that level, and keep people hyped about their work. I think those people are likely already making significant concessions in their work for this, so it's not like it affects them that much. Does it really matter for artists that aren't being played multiple times a day on iHeartMedia/Clear Channel radio stations already if they follow this model? I doubt it, unless their goal is more about fame than art, in which case the question answers itself.
rewgs 6y ago
> Spotify is not for putting out art, it's for generating buzz about your art so you can get paid for it later. If your goal is the best art you can produce, then perhaps Spotify and that roller coaster isn't what you should care about. And how exactly will people get paid, when Spotify (and other streaming services) have effectively replaced album sales? This is just the same tired old "exposure" argument.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > And how exactly will people get paid, when Spotify (and other streaming services) have effectively replaced album sales? Touring and merch sales, which is why the aggressive release schedule on Spotify to keep buzz up is supposed to be good in the first place. > This is just the same tired old "exposure" argument. The whole argument about needing to release more often is predicated by that exposure argument. If you don't think it works, then when you release on Spotify doesn't matter at all. Either you accept that Spotify buzz drives attendance and thus more buzz from more releases more often brings more money, or you don't accept that and then there's no pressure to release more often.
  - rewgs 6y ago
    sigh You're dead wrong. I don't have the energy to go into it anymore, but see my other comments on the matter if you care.

pier25 6y ago

Right, but my point is that if you're absorbed dealing with market forces you won't be able to produce significant work. The more cookie cutter stuff you release, the more you will adopt that mindset and it will consume your creativity. I guess in the past musicians toured and performed to satisfy that need, and relegated the "important" work to long term writing/composing. With Spotify (and specially now with COVID) it seems this has changed since the only way to generate income is by releasing music.

kbenson 6y ago
My guess is that things have only changed for the mega-stars. Household names that are in the public consciousness need to work to stay at that level, and keep people hyped about their work. I think those people are likely already making significant concessions in their work for this, so it's not like it affects them that much. Does it really matter for artists that aren't being played multiple times a day on iHeartMedia/Clear Channel radio stations already if they follow this model? I doubt it, unless their goal is more about fame than art, in which case the question answers itself.

rewgs 6y ago

> Spotify is not for putting out art, it's for generating buzz about your art so you can get paid for it later. If your goal is the best art you can produce, then perhaps Spotify and that roller coaster isn't what you should care about. And how exactly will people get paid, when Spotify (and other streaming services) have effectively replaced album sales? This is just the same tired old "exposure" argument.

kbenson 6y ago
> And how exactly will people get paid, when Spotify (and other streaming services) have effectively replaced album sales? Touring and merch sales, which is why the aggressive release schedule on Spotify to keep buzz up is supposed to be good in the first place. > This is just the same tired old "exposure" argument. The whole argument about needing to release more often is predicated by that exposure argument. If you don't think it works, then when you release on Spotify doesn't matter at all. Either you accept that Spotify buzz drives attendance and thus more buzz from more releases more often brings more money, or you don't accept that and then there's no pressure to release more often.
- rewgs 6y ago
  sigh You're dead wrong. I don't have the energy to go into it anymore, but see my other comments on the matter if you care.