2 ms·

The musical monolith is no doubt dead at this point. Much improved distribution of music in the last decade means now people can listen to what they like, not w

The musical monolith is no doubt dead at this point. Much improved distribution of music in the last decade means now people can listen to what they like, not what the radio DJ happens to like. Which means it is much less likely that the population will converge on a shared music experience.

bsder 3y ago
> Which means it is much less likely that the population will converge on a shared music experience. Is that true? All of the music writing I see seems to contradict that. The general consensus seems to be that the mega winners are not as big as yesteryear in terms of numbers, but, contrariwise, they are MUCH bigger in terms of percentage. ie. the market has shrunk but the remaining market is now dominated by a very few players.
- randomdata 3y ago
  I don't see the contradiction. A market requires music to have value. Most music is worthless. Historically, there was no practical way for the average Joe to find and obtain worthless music. Only well connected hardcore music geeks had a chance, and even they often would fall short. Now it is right there at everyone's fingertips, every bit as easy to listen to as Taylor Swift, and recommended to them by algorithms. Of what music that has been able to find value, it stands to reason that segment is shrinking with people now finding and listening to more and more worthless music. It also stands to reason that with more and more time spent listening to worthless music, it has become more and more difficult for music with potential value to find its place, thus leaving a market ripe for monopolization. But the rise of worthless music has broken down the monolith. We're not stuck all listening to the same 1,000 valuable songs. Now we have 1,000,000,000 worthless songs that divides up the attention and some remaining segment paying for 100 songs that rose above being worthless.

bsder 3y ago

> Which means it is much less likely that the population will converge on a shared music experience. Is that true? All of the music writing I see seems to contradict that. The general consensus seems to be that the mega winners are not as big as yesteryear in terms of numbers, but, contrariwise, they are MUCH bigger in terms of percentage. ie. the market has shrunk but the remaining market is now dominated by a very few players.

randomdata 3y ago
I don't see the contradiction. A market requires music to have value. Most music is worthless. Historically, there was no practical way for the average Joe to find and obtain worthless music. Only well connected hardcore music geeks had a chance, and even they often would fall short. Now it is right there at everyone's fingertips, every bit as easy to listen to as Taylor Swift, and recommended to them by algorithms. Of what music that has been able to find value, it stands to reason that segment is shrinking with people now finding and listening to more and more worthless music. It also stands to reason that with more and more time spent listening to worthless music, it has become more and more difficult for music with potential value to find its place, thus leaving a market ripe for monopolization. But the rise of worthless music has broken down the monolith. We're not stuck all listening to the same 1,000 valuable songs. Now we have 1,000,000,000 worthless songs that divides up the attention and some remaining segment paying for 100 songs that rose above being worthless.