7 ms·

> Recoded music ravaged the ranks of movie organists and other accompanists to the point that providing incidental music has not been an occupation in many dec

by mjr00 4y ago

> Recoded music ravaged the ranks of movie organists and other accompanists to the point that providing incidental music has not been an occupation in many decades. In more recent decades, being a session musician for regional or mid-tier bands has stopped providing a living, following the huge consolidation in radio and music publishing in the 90s and 00s. And yet it's never been easier for a musician to share their music on Soundcloud, use Bandcamp for album sales, put their music on Spotify/Beatport/etc and collect streaming royalties, and set up a Patreon to get recurring revenue from fans. Musicians who refuse to adapt won't succeed, and those who do thrive. Would you feel bad for a software developer who learned Visual FoxPro in the 90s, refused to learn any new tools, then complained that their occupation was no longer relevant? > There is far less live music today, at least in the US, than there has ever been in my lifetime. Is there any data to support this? I would be shocked if this were true outside of the COVID years. There's certainly more music readily available to people now than at any point in history.

pessimizer 4y ago
> And yet it's never been easier for a musician to share their music on Soundcloud, use Bandcamp for album sales, put their music on Spotify/Beatport/etc and collect streaming royalties, and set up a Patreon to get recurring revenue from fans. This just means that it is far more complex to be far less likely to make a living.
fooooobarbaz 4y ago
> And yet it's never been easier for a musician to share their music on Soundcloud, use Bandcamp for album sales, put their music on Spotify/Beatport/etc and collect streaming royalties, and set up a Patreon to get recurring revenue from fans. People love to say stuff like this, but having gone through that grind myself, it's not nearly as easy or accessible as you describe. These platforms also make it easier than ever for artists to face things like copyright strikes and takedowns, which people are more than happy to abuse. Additionally, streaming royalties pay peanuts for the vast, vast majority of artists and they get to determine how artists are paid based on calculations they determine. For example, Spotify pays artists by calculating their "stream-share", not a fixed amount per stream.[0] Sure, it's easier to platform your music, but that doesn't necessarily make it any easier to generate meaningful income, particularly when you need the service to be priced as cheaply as possible in order to get reach. In the long run, I think this is going to further incentivize entertainment that is created passively and augmented by things like AI, which I'm personally not that excited about. 0: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2022/10/22/how-much-per-spotify-stream/8094437001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2022/10/22/how-much-per-...
- post-it 4y ago
  > For example, Spotify pays artists by calculating their "stream-share", not a fixed amount per stream. Well, obviously. I don't pay Spotify per stream, I pay them per month. So my $10 must get split up across every song I've listened to that month. No other model is possible given a monthly subscription.
  - bjelkeman-again 4y ago
    Your money goes to the most played music on that platform. The artist you played may get nothing. > The Pro Rata model, currently used by all major streaming platforms, means that monthly revenue from premium subscription costs and advertisement revenues is collected into one pool of money. Spotify takes 30% of that revenue and distributes the rest based on artist’s total listening numbers, rather than the listening times of individual users. Meaning that, even if a user never listens to the most streamed artists on the platform, a percentage of the money they pay will be given to the most streamed artists. https://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2019/10/a-breakdown-of-music-streaming-monetization-flow.html https://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2019/10/a-breakdown-of-music...
    - amelius 4y ago
      This is outrageous.
    - Chinjut 4y ago
      What's the difference between whether my money is individually given to the artists I personally listened to and similarly for all other subscribers, or whether all subscribers' money is pooled and then re-apportioned out based on the cumulative listening tallies of all subscribers? Aren't these the same results in the end?
      - jefftk 4y ago
        Imagine we are the only two subscribers: * You spend an hour a day listening to A during your commute * I spend 9 hours a day, my whole workday, listening to B. In the current system, B gets 90% and A gets 10%, but some people would prefer to see a system in which they each get 50%. Additionally, I believe they use total streaming time and not total streaming time for paid subscribers. So an artist who is popular among paid subscribers doesn't earn any more than an artist who is popular only among free subscribers.
pleb_nz 4y ago
But I would hazard to say that the quality of well written likable music that will stand the test of time and keeps people interested has nose dived with the progression you outlined. Or at least, what is popular doesn't highlight the good music any longer. Being easier to write, produce and release didn't seem to have made music better from what I can see and what I have read. I'm sure there is still good stuff being produced, but by Jebs, it's very hard to find now. Edit. Quality isn't just my measure. As mentioned, I've read about the topic a few times as well articles and studies showing what music gets listened to the most, the complexity of music, how the simpler music gets the less it remains in listenership for long periods etc etc etc. Even playlists show that music pre 2010s, maybe 2000s can't remember now, is preferred by even people in their 20 to 30 year olds with some questioned stating new music is too simple or is rubbish. And by no means does it mean all modern pop music is bad, this is not a blanket statement. There is still good stuff, it's probably just getting drowned out by the weekly flavour changes.
- slyall 4y ago
  Unlike the great music that was produced when you were aged between 12 and 22 ?
  - pleb_nz 4y ago
    Personally I like music regardless of when it was made. If it sounds good then I like it. Time has nothing to do with it. And I can't remember exactly what dates the studies focused on as there have been a few I've read. One was over the last 60 years of music if I remember right and across all age brackets in 2022
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Except that autotuned singing is inferior.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  How do you measure “quality”, though? To my ear there’s a ton of great new music being made today, rivaling music from basically any point in recording history. As for whether it will stand the test of time, well, only time can tell that. But most people are forever stuck waiting for more music that sounds like it did when they were in high school and college, which is a mindset destined for disappointment.
nuc1e0n 4y ago
Rubbish. I have many friends who play instruments. Paying to hear certain sounds is the aberration of history.
- cik2e 4y ago
  What exactly are you even saying? What is "rubbish" and what do you mean by "certain sounds"? People have been paying for live performances of music, i.e., "certain sounds", throughout all of recorded history. So it's the opposite of an aberration. "Paying to hear certain sounds" is a time-honored human tradition. If we broaden our definition of "paying" to include barter, I would guess it goes back to the invention of musical instruments.
  - nuc1e0n 4y ago
    I meant that the idea there is little live music any more. Historically people have paid for the time of musicians, not for music. If you want to hear more live music, pay for someone to play at your venue. If you want to be heard as a musician yourself, take your instrument down the pub or onto the street and just start playing.
nuc1e0n 4y ago
>Would you feel bad for a software developer who learned Visual FoxPro in the 90s, refused to learn any new tools, then complained that their occupation was no longer relevant? Indeed I wouldn't
IAmGraydon 4y ago
>Is there any data to support this? I would be shocked if this were true outside of the COVID years. There's certainly more music readily available to people now than at any point in history. It’s hyperbolic BS, as per usual when it comes to emotionally charged arguments with no basis in reality. According to every statistic I can find, live entertainment and concert ticket sales have been on a steady uptrend until (as you mentioned) 2020. Here’s one source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/306065/concert-ticket-sales-revenue-in-north-america/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/306065/concert-ticket-sa...
- Retric 4y ago
  Concert tickets represent a small slice of the music scene. Parties, bars, etc don’t pay that well, but there are vastly more people at the bottom of the music pyramid making near minimum wage than superstars.
- stemlord 4y ago
  To be fair the modern concert experience can be very not-live
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    If they're dancing, they're lib-syncing.
- asdff 4y ago
  Are these statistics considering what the musician gets payed or what ticketmaster gets payed? I wonder if it takes a larger show to make the same inflation adjusted take today as it did 25 years ago.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
>Musicians who refuse to adapt won't succeed, and those who do thrive. tautological - anyone who is thriving has adapted, if they aren't thriving obviously they have refused to adapt. Probably more likely that many have adapted to the situation but still making less money than they would under the old system, perhaps to the point of not being able to have music be their primary employment.

by mjr00 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago

fooooobarbaz 4y ago

> And yet it's never been easier for a musician to share their music on Soundcloud, use Bandcamp for album sales, put their music on Spotify/Beatport/etc and collect streaming royalties, and set up a Patreon to get recurring revenue from fans. People love to say stuff like this, but having gone through that grind myself, it's not nearly as easy or accessible as you describe. These platforms also make it easier than ever for artists to face things like copyright strikes and takedowns, which people are more than happy to abuse. Additionally, streaming royalties pay peanuts for the vast, vast majority of artists and they get to determine how artists are paid based on calculations they determine. For example, Spotify pays artists by calculating their "stream-share", not a fixed amount per stream.[0] Sure, it's easier to platform your music, but that doesn't necessarily make it any easier to generate meaningful income, particularly when you need the service to be priced as cheaply as possible in order to get reach. In the long run, I think this is going to further incentivize entertainment that is created passively and augmented by things like AI, which I'm personally not that excited about. 0: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2022/10/22/how-much-per-spotify-stream/8094437001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2022/10/22/how-much-per-...

post-it 4y ago
> For example, Spotify pays artists by calculating their "stream-share", not a fixed amount per stream. Well, obviously. I don't pay Spotify per stream, I pay them per month. So my $10 must get split up across every song I've listened to that month. No other model is possible given a monthly subscription.
- bjelkeman-again 4y ago
  Your money goes to the most played music on that platform. The artist you played may get nothing. > The Pro Rata model, currently used by all major streaming platforms, means that monthly revenue from premium subscription costs and advertisement revenues is collected into one pool of money. Spotify takes 30% of that revenue and distributes the rest based on artist’s total listening numbers, rather than the listening times of individual users. Meaning that, even if a user never listens to the most streamed artists on the platform, a percentage of the money they pay will be given to the most streamed artists. https://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2019/10/a-breakdown-of-music-streaming-monetization-flow.html https://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2019/10/a-breakdown-of-music...
  - amelius 4y ago
    This is outrageous.
  - Chinjut 4y ago
    What's the difference between whether my money is individually given to the artists I personally listened to and similarly for all other subscribers, or whether all subscribers' money is pooled and then re-apportioned out based on the cumulative listening tallies of all subscribers? Aren't these the same results in the end?
    - jefftk 4y ago
      Imagine we are the only two subscribers: * You spend an hour a day listening to A during your commute * I spend 9 hours a day, my whole workday, listening to B. In the current system, B gets 90% and A gets 10%, but some people would prefer to see a system in which they each get 50%. Additionally, I believe they use total streaming time and not total streaming time for paid subscribers. So an artist who is popular among paid subscribers doesn't earn any more than an artist who is popular only among free subscribers.

pleb_nz 4y ago

But I would hazard to say that the quality of well written likable music that will stand the test of time and keeps people interested has nose dived with the progression you outlined. Or at least, what is popular doesn't highlight the good music any longer. Being easier to write, produce and release didn't seem to have made music better from what I can see and what I have read. I'm sure there is still good stuff being produced, but by Jebs, it's very hard to find now. Edit. Quality isn't just my measure. As mentioned, I've read about the topic a few times as well articles and studies showing what music gets listened to the most, the complexity of music, how the simpler music gets the less it remains in listenership for long periods etc etc etc. Even playlists show that music pre 2010s, maybe 2000s can't remember now, is preferred by even people in their 20 to 30 year olds with some questioned stating new music is too simple or is rubbish. And by no means does it mean all modern pop music is bad, this is not a blanket statement. There is still good stuff, it's probably just getting drowned out by the weekly flavour changes.

slyall 4y ago
Unlike the great music that was produced when you were aged between 12 and 22 ?
- pleb_nz 4y ago
  Personally I like music regardless of when it was made. If it sounds good then I like it. Time has nothing to do with it. And I can't remember exactly what dates the studies focused on as there have been a few I've read. One was over the last 60 years of music if I remember right and across all age brackets in 2022
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Except that autotuned singing is inferior.
jakelazaroff 4y ago
How do you measure “quality”, though? To my ear there’s a ton of great new music being made today, rivaling music from basically any point in recording history. As for whether it will stand the test of time, well, only time can tell that. But most people are forever stuck waiting for more music that sounds like it did when they were in high school and college, which is a mindset destined for disappointment.

nuc1e0n 4y ago

Rubbish. I have many friends who play instruments. Paying to hear certain sounds is the aberration of history.

cik2e 4y ago
What exactly are you even saying? What is "rubbish" and what do you mean by "certain sounds"? People have been paying for live performances of music, i.e., "certain sounds", throughout all of recorded history. So it's the opposite of an aberration. "Paying to hear certain sounds" is a time-honored human tradition. If we broaden our definition of "paying" to include barter, I would guess it goes back to the invention of musical instruments.
- nuc1e0n 4y ago
  I meant that the idea there is little live music any more. Historically people have paid for the time of musicians, not for music. If you want to hear more live music, pay for someone to play at your venue. If you want to be heard as a musician yourself, take your instrument down the pub or onto the street and just start playing.

nuc1e0n 4y ago

>Would you feel bad for a software developer who learned Visual FoxPro in the 90s, refused to learn any new tools, then complained that their occupation was no longer relevant? Indeed I wouldn't

IAmGraydon 4y ago

>Is there any data to support this? I would be shocked if this were true outside of the COVID years. There's certainly more music readily available to people now than at any point in history. It’s hyperbolic BS, as per usual when it comes to emotionally charged arguments with no basis in reality. According to every statistic I can find, live entertainment and concert ticket sales have been on a steady uptrend until (as you mentioned) 2020. Here’s one source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/306065/concert-ticket-sales-revenue-in-north-america/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/306065/concert-ticket-sa...

Retric 4y ago
Concert tickets represent a small slice of the music scene. Parties, bars, etc don’t pay that well, but there are vastly more people at the bottom of the music pyramid making near minimum wage than superstars.
stemlord 4y ago
To be fair the modern concert experience can be very not-live
- WalterBright 4y ago
  If they're dancing, they're lib-syncing.
asdff 4y ago
Are these statistics considering what the musician gets payed or what ticketmaster gets payed? I wonder if it takes a larger show to make the same inflation adjusted take today as it did 25 years ago.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

>Musicians who refuse to adapt won't succeed, and those who do thrive. tautological - anyone who is thriving has adapted, if they aren't thriving obviously they have refused to adapt. Probably more likely that many have adapted to the situation but still making less money than they would under the old system, perhaps to the point of not being able to have music be their primary employment.