5 ms·

> The big question is will internet free the good artists that were gatekeeped I don't think so. What they need the most is publicity, and this is not magicall

by shakow 6y ago

> The big question is will internet free the good artists that were gatekeeped I don't think so. What they need the most is publicity, and this is not magically granted by internet. Just take a look at e.g. Spotify; I'm sure there are hundreds of extremely gifted artists sitting down at barely a few dozens listenings, just because no one found them.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
Spotify charges $1/song/month as a listing fee. I bet a majority of Spotify artists pay more to Spotify than they receive.
- steverb 6y ago
  I've never had to pay spotify a monthly fee to list a song. I've had to pay some one time costs to get the song listed (via a distributor), but I've never had to pay a maintenance fee of any sort. And I assure you, the stuff I've put up does not make enough money to cover any fees (20 listens a month).
- circlefavshape 6y ago
  I don't know where you heard this, but it's incorrect. I have lots of music on Spotify, and pay no listing fees
agumonkey 6y ago
But it's interesting. Do we like artists due to marketing only ? Or seducing feature over artistic quality. A small but gifted artist on Spotify could, in theory (in theory), generate word of mouth at quickly get known. Sometimes I believe that labels were filters for that. They could see who was just very good and who had some 'it factor'.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  'Some factor' was usually the previous generations' equivalent of virality - typically a blend of sexual charisma, personal charisma, theatricality, entertainment value, and shock value. Without that packaging music is a very tough sell. Being competent and creative on its own isn't enough. I can't think of anyone who has made it on musicality alone without at least some of the above OR enthusiastic and regular promotion by gatekeepers (top radio DJs) while they were still an influence.
  - tomc1985 6y ago
    I think movie/game composers might fit this criteria, unless you count the movies/games themselves as gatekeepers
    - agumonkey 6y ago
      Actually interesting, I think we all remember some video game scores deeply even though they were never sold to us, never relied on naming or branding .. it was just 'that music that captured my brain for hours so well' Some people today do acapella renditions for SNES F-Zero soundtrack.. that says something :)
- bluGill 6y ago
  The problem is there are more great artists with the potential than the world needs. Only one artist can be number one for the week in any given week, and the artist who holds that often does for several weeks (and often they get a second hit). People like a small amount of change in life, which means they listen to a few artists, then change to a different one. Then they grow up/old and review that set of artists for memory sake and need even less new great ones. I don't have time to listen to all the great music in the world. Even if "God" gave me a list of all the great artists trying to record today, it would take me more than a day to listen to all their recordings. So the labels choose for me, and to a large extent it doesn't matter which ones they choose, what matters is there is a filter to gets the right amount of music to me. In the world being great isn't enough as there are more than enough greats, so if you can great, good looking (this helps me overlook any of your faults - I'd like to think otherwise but I know better), and good in the bed of the label - you make it. If you fail any of the above three you have probably lost (note to the good looking, the labels may use you for sex knowing that you won't make it). Note too that labels bring in other help for the great. I can record music in my basement: I don't have the best microphones, but they are good enough to pick up the sump pump in the corner. I can mix tracks in my basement as well, lets just say I'm not quitting my day job. I could go on about other parts of the process of turning a great artist into a great recording for mass consumption that labels have figured out.
  - jancsika 6y ago
    > I don't have time to listen to all the great music in the world. The problem is that the filters you describe are so narrow that certain genres of music don't get adequately explored, and some genres don't exist at all. In broad terms that's bound to happen, but the missing and under-served genres are so obvious that the filters are clearly limiting the maximum amount of musical enjoyment and meaning that's available to the average listener. For a dead simple example-- Bach and Beethoven were known as the greatest improvisers in their eras. So where is the Grammy winning album of someone improvising a set of their own variations in the style of Beethoven? Who is the Michael Jordan of improvising a set of 30 new variations atop the bassline of the Goldberg variations? Don't get me wrong-- there are people who can improvise perfectly well in those styles. But there's no industrial incentive to push those artists to release something truly transcendent-- e.g., something that reveals for a general audience something new about music in the time of Bach's, who makes it fresh, and who redefines what improvisation can be. There's no period improviser so single-minded and driven that an audience of tens of millions would spend lock-down watching a 10-part miniseries on the making of such an album. Another one, off the top of my head-- what's the version of math rock where there's no common subdivision shared by each line? Computers make this effortless to write, but AFAICT that genre doesn't exist. For just a simple example, Steve Reich's Phasing exists as a prototype-- it shows that there's a compelling perceptual basis for presenting the same melody at tempos that are very close to one another. There are many other examples, and the filter you refer to means you've never, ever heard them. So growing old and getting set in a desire for nostalgic music isn't so much a natural law of musical desires as it is the result of creating "The Matrix" for music in the age of the internet by locking your ears into the same old payola scheme from the before times. (I guess the "heat" captured from your attention is to fuel the machine world of the filters... :)
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Discoverability. There is more new music uploaded to Spotify every day than I could listen to in a year[0]. How do I discover the new stuff I like? Spotify does a terrible job of recommending new music to me - mostly my "Discover Weekly" is a mixtape of my existing playlists, and "Release Radar" is entirely stuff I hate. I'm not sure how a new band would reach me, but it's not via the methods they're trying now. I haven't been genuinely excited by a "new" band since, oh, Mumford? Bad Shepherds? something like that. [0] I don't listen to that much music. I would if I got more new stuff, though, I'm sure
  - xzel 6y ago
    Soundcloud used to have pretty great discoverability but people started, in my opinion, the repost feature and you ended up with the same song recommended over and over again. Their genre recommendations were also pretty tight. All of my experience was from about 5+ years ago. By far the best discovery I've seen was on What.CD, RIP. The similar artists web they had on ever artist page was extremely tight. I tried a few months ago to find the old What.cd data to look into it but wasn't able to find it in a couple minutes of googling. Look into Last.fm. They do a pretty decent job of recommending similar artists but its more of a what you played tracker than true music discovery.
  - season2episode3 6y ago
    If you're actually interested in up and coming artists, Tik Tok is probably the place to go. Their algorithm really does bring good stuff up.
  - nradov 6y ago
    A Pandora station based on other bands I like seems to work reasonably well for finding new music. Most are still terrible but it finds a good one often enough.
- P_I_Staker 6y ago
  No, good marketers also pick good artists. You can't polish a turd. However most of the products we like are only so popular because of marketing. So in a way the answer is yes?
- rhino369 6y ago
  Even if we don't like artists due to marketing, I'm fairly sure I only become aware of artists due to marketing.
- teraku 6y ago
  In German we distinguish between 'Interpret' (the one interpreting or performing an art) and the 'Künstler' (artist). I think this explains it very well: Most of the popular 'Interpreten' are not famous for their exquisite music, but for who they are, as a brand, and how they perform in public and on stage. The movie Yesterday is such a farce because it suggest The Beatles songs are super successful no matter who performs them, as long as they are the first to perform them. When effectively it was a mix of having skilled musicians, produce and perform good songs on the one hand, but also who they were, the marketing and their performances on the other hand.
  - agumonkey 6y ago
    > Künstler reminds me of Gunnm / Battle Alita Angel, where the author coined the term panzerkunst as a martial art name.. first time I read about the real life term. slight anecdote: some people really do have a glow that we can feel but not really explain, something electric and immediate, that will either catch an audience or even stop the air in the room. I don't go to concert often but the few time it happened I was quite shocked. You can put all the best vocal or musical technicians next to them and they would not be able to create that.
    - teraku 6y ago
      Japanese people love German words. Panzerkunst just meaning tank art.

by shakow 6y ago

bryanlarsen 6y ago

Spotify charges $1/song/month as a listing fee. I bet a majority of Spotify artists pay more to Spotify than they receive.

steverb 6y ago
I've never had to pay spotify a monthly fee to list a song. I've had to pay some one time costs to get the song listed (via a distributor), but I've never had to pay a maintenance fee of any sort. And I assure you, the stuff I've put up does not make enough money to cover any fees (20 listens a month).
circlefavshape 6y ago
I don't know where you heard this, but it's incorrect. I have lots of music on Spotify, and pay no listing fees

agumonkey 6y ago

But it's interesting. Do we like artists due to marketing only ? Or seducing feature over artistic quality. A small but gifted artist on Spotify could, in theory (in theory), generate word of mouth at quickly get known. Sometimes I believe that labels were filters for that. They could see who was just very good and who had some 'it factor'.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
'Some factor' was usually the previous generations' equivalent of virality - typically a blend of sexual charisma, personal charisma, theatricality, entertainment value, and shock value. Without that packaging music is a very tough sell. Being competent and creative on its own isn't enough. I can't think of anyone who has made it on musicality alone without at least some of the above OR enthusiastic and regular promotion by gatekeepers (top radio DJs) while they were still an influence.
- tomc1985 6y ago
  I think movie/game composers might fit this criteria, unless you count the movies/games themselves as gatekeepers
  - agumonkey 6y ago
    Actually interesting, I think we all remember some video game scores deeply even though they were never sold to us, never relied on naming or branding .. it was just 'that music that captured my brain for hours so well' Some people today do acapella renditions for SNES F-Zero soundtrack.. that says something :)
bluGill 6y ago
The problem is there are more great artists with the potential than the world needs. Only one artist can be number one for the week in any given week, and the artist who holds that often does for several weeks (and often they get a second hit). People like a small amount of change in life, which means they listen to a few artists, then change to a different one. Then they grow up/old and review that set of artists for memory sake and need even less new great ones. I don't have time to listen to all the great music in the world. Even if "God" gave me a list of all the great artists trying to record today, it would take me more than a day to listen to all their recordings. So the labels choose for me, and to a large extent it doesn't matter which ones they choose, what matters is there is a filter to gets the right amount of music to me. In the world being great isn't enough as there are more than enough greats, so if you can great, good looking (this helps me overlook any of your faults - I'd like to think otherwise but I know better), and good in the bed of the label - you make it. If you fail any of the above three you have probably lost (note to the good looking, the labels may use you for sex knowing that you won't make it). Note too that labels bring in other help for the great. I can record music in my basement: I don't have the best microphones, but they are good enough to pick up the sump pump in the corner. I can mix tracks in my basement as well, lets just say I'm not quitting my day job. I could go on about other parts of the process of turning a great artist into a great recording for mass consumption that labels have figured out.
- jancsika 6y ago
  > I don't have time to listen to all the great music in the world. The problem is that the filters you describe are so narrow that certain genres of music don't get adequately explored, and some genres don't exist at all. In broad terms that's bound to happen, but the missing and under-served genres are so obvious that the filters are clearly limiting the maximum amount of musical enjoyment and meaning that's available to the average listener. For a dead simple example-- Bach and Beethoven were known as the greatest improvisers in their eras. So where is the Grammy winning album of someone improvising a set of their own variations in the style of Beethoven? Who is the Michael Jordan of improvising a set of 30 new variations atop the bassline of the Goldberg variations? Don't get me wrong-- there are people who can improvise perfectly well in those styles. But there's no industrial incentive to push those artists to release something truly transcendent-- e.g., something that reveals for a general audience something new about music in the time of Bach's, who makes it fresh, and who redefines what improvisation can be. There's no period improviser so single-minded and driven that an audience of tens of millions would spend lock-down watching a 10-part miniseries on the making of such an album. Another one, off the top of my head-- what's the version of math rock where there's no common subdivision shared by each line? Computers make this effortless to write, but AFAICT that genre doesn't exist. For just a simple example, Steve Reich's Phasing exists as a prototype-- it shows that there's a compelling perceptual basis for presenting the same melody at tempos that are very close to one another. There are many other examples, and the filter you refer to means you've never, ever heard them. So growing old and getting set in a desire for nostalgic music isn't so much a natural law of musical desires as it is the result of creating "The Matrix" for music in the age of the internet by locking your ears into the same old payola scheme from the before times. (I guess the "heat" captured from your attention is to fuel the machine world of the filters... :)
marcus_holmes 6y ago
Discoverability. There is more new music uploaded to Spotify every day than I could listen to in a year[0]. How do I discover the new stuff I like? Spotify does a terrible job of recommending new music to me - mostly my "Discover Weekly" is a mixtape of my existing playlists, and "Release Radar" is entirely stuff I hate. I'm not sure how a new band would reach me, but it's not via the methods they're trying now. I haven't been genuinely excited by a "new" band since, oh, Mumford? Bad Shepherds? something like that. [0] I don't listen to that much music. I would if I got more new stuff, though, I'm sure
- xzel 6y ago
  Soundcloud used to have pretty great discoverability but people started, in my opinion, the repost feature and you ended up with the same song recommended over and over again. Their genre recommendations were also pretty tight. All of my experience was from about 5+ years ago. By far the best discovery I've seen was on What.CD, RIP. The similar artists web they had on ever artist page was extremely tight. I tried a few months ago to find the old What.cd data to look into it but wasn't able to find it in a couple minutes of googling. Look into Last.fm. They do a pretty decent job of recommending similar artists but its more of a what you played tracker than true music discovery.
- season2episode3 6y ago
  If you're actually interested in up and coming artists, Tik Tok is probably the place to go. Their algorithm really does bring good stuff up.
- nradov 6y ago
  A Pandora station based on other bands I like seems to work reasonably well for finding new music. Most are still terrible but it finds a good one often enough.
P_I_Staker 6y ago
No, good marketers also pick good artists. You can't polish a turd. However most of the products we like are only so popular because of marketing. So in a way the answer is yes?
rhino369 6y ago
Even if we don't like artists due to marketing, I'm fairly sure I only become aware of artists due to marketing.
teraku 6y ago
In German we distinguish between 'Interpret' (the one interpreting or performing an art) and the 'Künstler' (artist). I think this explains it very well: Most of the popular 'Interpreten' are not famous for their exquisite music, but for who they are, as a brand, and how they perform in public and on stage. The movie Yesterday is such a farce because it suggest The Beatles songs are super successful no matter who performs them, as long as they are the first to perform them. When effectively it was a mix of having skilled musicians, produce and perform good songs on the one hand, but also who they were, the marketing and their performances on the other hand.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  > Künstler reminds me of Gunnm / Battle Alita Angel, where the author coined the term panzerkunst as a martial art name.. first time I read about the real life term. slight anecdote: some people really do have a glow that we can feel but not really explain, something electric and immediate, that will either catch an audience or even stop the air in the room. I don't go to concert often but the few time it happened I was quite shocked. You can put all the best vocal or musical technicians next to them and they would not be able to create that.
  - teraku 6y ago
    Japanese people love German words. Panzerkunst just meaning tank art.