4 ms·

Of course music will still be around. I'm saying that music as we know it, music that has been made as a result of the industry and technologies of the 20th cen

Of course music will still be around. I'm saying that music as we know it, music that has been made as a result of the industry and technologies of the 20th century, is dying. Claims that it isn't are false and misinformed. What is ALWAYS missing from the "new solutions" is the investment in emerging artists. Sure, you see companies like Live Nation/Roc Nation setting up these 360 deals. There is definitely some promise to these new approaches, but the investment money is WAY lower than what it was. I don't know the figures, I can't find the numbers online, but I will talk to people I know in music to see if I can track down some facts and write an article on the subject. My point stands, however. The author of this article doesn't know what he's talking about and the data he presented is useless and doesn't contain enough information to come close to accurately representing the music industry. BTW, there is a great opportunity for "music venture capitalists".

apalmer 13y ago
Music as we know it? What does that even mean? Really I dont understand what you are getting at? This isnt snark I really want you to explain. Perhaps you mean the phenomenon of popular artists that are so big that they are household names across all demographics across the globe/nation. If so then your probably right. Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars. as far as the investment, really labels/mangement companies will continue to invest in whatever makes them money... the size of the investments will probably diminish, but realistically the breakdown of record label investment is 90% marketing/promotion. And realistically if your projected to sell 50% less you should cut your marketing budget appropriately, that has very little to do with the music as an art form at all.
- route66 13y ago
  > Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars. This is being parroted around here for a while, but that does not make it more true. Big artists are less affected than small labels. See also: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/20/business/fi-cotown-indiemusic20 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/20/business/fi-cotown-i...
  - chc 13y ago
    This is kind of missing the point, which is that fewer artists will get to that level, not that artists already at that level will suddenly be forgotten.
- williamcotton 13y ago
  Music as we know it. Rock and roll and popular music as an art form. Albums, 3 minute songs. Things that were designed to fit on to a plastic disc and be played on the radio between commercial breaks. This is what made up the "music industry". Touring was a loss-leader to sell plastic to people up until about 10 years ago. You had to go out and make your sales! Come to town, have the local paper and radio do your marketing for you, people maybe come to your show or maybe go buy your album at a record store. That is going away. Hence, the art form will die along with the changing media landscape, because well, you know, The Medium is the Message. I'm not crying about this, BTW, I'm merely pointing out that the death has started. For fucks sake, I don't even really LIKE making records as much as I like writing and performing music with a group of people, so personally I'm enjoying these transformations. The point I'm making is, is yes, the music industry is dying. Something else will come along and replace it. Music won't die, but whatever we've become accustomed to over the last 80 years is quickly disappearing. Again, claims that this isn't happening are misinformed.
  - kbutler 13y ago
    > a dying art form > music as we know it...is dying > the music industry is dying You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
    - chollida1 13y ago
      > You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Both you and hacker news would be better off if you read this article and then commented to the parent with your rebuttal rather than what you think is a witty one liner with no substance. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
      - kbutler 13y ago
        The rebuttal is obvious from the graph (the central point in the article, which was hyperbolically disputed above): Music isn't dying - the industry around it is evolving. That's what happens when new technology is introduced into an existing business model - the industry changes. Existing players may exit the market (some may even "die"), some struggle, some adapt to the change and thrive, and other new players enter. > a dying art form > music as we know it...is dying > the music industry is dying Music as an art form is largely unchanged, especially the more artistic, less "pop music"-focused forms. The music industry is refocusing on live performance and the long tail, and less on retail sales of pre-recorded physical media. Adapting, evolving, changing, transforming. Maybe declining, shrinking, endangered, troubled. Maybe broadening, renewing, refreshing. "Dying" doesn't describe it well at all. I don't think it means what you think it means.
- mattdawson 13y ago
  >> Perhaps you mean the phenomenon of popular artists that are so big that they are household names across all demographics across the globe/nation. If so then your probably right. Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars. No, the big artists will only get bigger, because those are the artists that can afford to tour and have the backing of their labels. It'll just be harder for smaller acts to become bigger acts.
- apalmer 13y ago
  let me clarify, justin timberlake, drake, and britney will be fine, but the next generation 'justin timberlake' wont get the kind of massive funding necessary to make him a superstar across all demographics, social classes, genres. as far the local/niche artists, i should clarify i don't think they will be doing 'better' than they do today. i am instead looking at it from a fans point of view, instead of 100 next gen justin fans, i think they will be say 40 gen justin fans, 10 next gen r&b fans, 10 next gen power ballad fans, 10 next gen lounge crooner, etc... I dont think the amount of music listened to is going to change, the margins for the companies and artists income will probably go down... but 'quality' of music will be the same as it always was
  - camus 13y ago
    There will always be money for the justin timberlakes, drakes, and britneys. But none for the Nirvanas , Pearl Jams or radioheads.
    - adamdavis 13y ago
      Is this sarcasm? I see no shortage of non-mainstream pop bands achieving more than their fair amount of success. edit: a quick example off hand, The Arcade Fire
    - angusangus 13y ago
      Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Radiohead made some of their best music without any major label deals or marketing budgets. Extraordinary music does not require or benefit from commercial-scale budgets. It's always been made, and always will be, regardless of the economics.
  - dobbsbob 13y ago
    Die Antwoord was a band nobody wanted or heard of until they uploaded this video to youtube http://youtu.be/cegdR0GiJl4 http://youtu.be/cegdR0GiJl4 10 years ago they would've remained in obscurity in South Africa unable to tour because nobody would've backed them. Now they are playing stadiums. Being successful has nothing to do with funding anymore. Radio is gone, no longer need to grease the palms of every radio DJ in the US to get popular or bribe MTV.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  What's the driving factor for local stars? I'd think that, as in many industries, big will get bigger. If you become a regional star, you'll probably go multi-regional. I'd be surprised if there'd be any major decline in huge pop stars. Even if they start off indie, one they gain enough traction, they'll be able to out-market others. There's no reason e.g. YouTube couldn't have music competitions and new huge stars every year.
Retric 13y ago
Please explain what exactly musicians need significant investment money for? Studio time is a small fraction of what it used to be and simply practicing as a band is really cheap. You can argue that advertizing is still expencive but quality band can get the word out far more cheaply now than they used to. The real issue for most band is there is a huge catalog of great music out there so standing out is simply harder now than ever before.
- sauce 13y ago
  > Please explain what exactly musicians need significant investment money for? Studio time is a small fraction of what it used to be and simply practicing as a band is really cheap. How about rent? Also food, gas money to get to shows, merchandise (t-shirts/posters/hoodies/whatever), CDs (yes, you do still need to have these.. telling someone at a show who saw you for the first time ever and wants to hear more to "go look us up on facebook/soundcloud/twitter" isn't gonna cut it), gear (and gear repairs), advertising (including things like printing flyers out to promote shows), etc. Stepping it up a bit, if you're serious about touring, you'll need to bring additional crew besides the band itself, such as sound/lighting/merch people, roadies, etc. all of whom need to be paid, fed, and transported. Even being able to practice as a band can get pretty expensive, if you consider that many neighborhoods/cities have really strict noise ordinance laws these days. So if you're trying to start even a moderately loud rock band, your options are a) try to practice in someone's house/garage and risk having to deal with $350+ noise violations on a weekly basis every time one of the neighbors gets cranky, or b) rent a practice space somewhere, which most places I know of start at $400/month upwards. Also note that in smaller towns where there isn't an abundance of unused commercial property, these spaces are either non-existent or have waitlists over a year and a half long. Most musicians/bands out there don't have label support and get by paying for these things out of pocket (to a point, most bands are seriously skimping in one or more of these areas because they simply don't have the money or the manpower to make it happen). Not saying its impossible, but it certainly is extremely difficult to make it to the level of world-class musicians when the majority of your productive hours have to be spent in an unrelated field for the sole purpose of paying the bills.
fowkswe 13y ago
To williamcotton's point, the business behind music promotion is alive. The business of music as a product is what is dying. The fact that there is no product left to monetize the music means that there will be fewer musicians being funded. Only a few musicians will be chosen to promote and this will selectively be done such that they have a huge reach. The mass marketed products like JT, Kanye (barf), Miley, etc will continue to be a part of the music business, as they always have, But the Luna's, Feelies, Grizzly Bear's (http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/features/grizzly-bear-2012-10/ http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/features/grizzly-bear-2012-10...), and myriad of other, small appeal bands are going to have a hard time sustaining themselves for the longterm with out a product to keep them afloat. The live performance is the product now, but the problem is, is that this is actually hard work. This is why you see EDM musicians having a good time in the new music economy (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/09/30/130930fa_fact_eells http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/09/30/130930fa_fact_... - paywal) - they are able to put on a show with minimal effort, to large crowds (i.e. big $$$). I've seen so many awesome musician friends throw in the towel after a few years because they can't keep justifying theier profession. It's sad, but unfortunately the way its going to be. Edit - this was the Grizzly Bear link I meant to use: http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/grizzly-bear-shields.html http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/grizzly-bear-shields.html

apalmer 13y ago

Music as we know it? What does that even mean? Really I dont understand what you are getting at? This isnt snark I really want you to explain. Perhaps you mean the phenomenon of popular artists that are so big that they are household names across all demographics across the globe/nation. If so then your probably right. Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars. as far as the investment, really labels/mangement companies will continue to invest in whatever makes them money... the size of the investments will probably diminish, but realistically the breakdown of record label investment is 90% marketing/promotion. And realistically if your projected to sell 50% less you should cut your marketing budget appropriately, that has very little to do with the music as an art form at all.

route66 13y ago
> Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars. This is being parroted around here for a while, but that does not make it more true. Big artists are less affected than small labels. See also: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/20/business/fi-cotown-indiemusic20 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/20/business/fi-cotown-i...
- chc 13y ago
  This is kind of missing the point, which is that fewer artists will get to that level, not that artists already at that level will suddenly be forgotten.
williamcotton 13y ago
Music as we know it. Rock and roll and popular music as an art form. Albums, 3 minute songs. Things that were designed to fit on to a plastic disc and be played on the radio between commercial breaks. This is what made up the "music industry". Touring was a loss-leader to sell plastic to people up until about 10 years ago. You had to go out and make your sales! Come to town, have the local paper and radio do your marketing for you, people maybe come to your show or maybe go buy your album at a record store. That is going away. Hence, the art form will die along with the changing media landscape, because well, you know, The Medium is the Message. I'm not crying about this, BTW, I'm merely pointing out that the death has started. For fucks sake, I don't even really LIKE making records as much as I like writing and performing music with a group of people, so personally I'm enjoying these transformations. The point I'm making is, is yes, the music industry is dying. Something else will come along and replace it. Music won't die, but whatever we've become accustomed to over the last 80 years is quickly disappearing. Again, claims that this isn't happening are misinformed.
- kbutler 13y ago
  > a dying art form > music as we know it...is dying > the music industry is dying You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  - chollida1 13y ago
    > You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Both you and hacker news would be better off if you read this article and then commented to the parent with your rebuttal rather than what you think is a witty one liner with no substance. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
    - kbutler 13y ago
      The rebuttal is obvious from the graph (the central point in the article, which was hyperbolically disputed above): Music isn't dying - the industry around it is evolving. That's what happens when new technology is introduced into an existing business model - the industry changes. Existing players may exit the market (some may even "die"), some struggle, some adapt to the change and thrive, and other new players enter. > a dying art form > music as we know it...is dying > the music industry is dying Music as an art form is largely unchanged, especially the more artistic, less "pop music"-focused forms. The music industry is refocusing on live performance and the long tail, and less on retail sales of pre-recorded physical media. Adapting, evolving, changing, transforming. Maybe declining, shrinking, endangered, troubled. Maybe broadening, renewing, refreshing. "Dying" doesn't describe it well at all. I don't think it means what you think it means.
mattdawson 13y ago
>> Perhaps you mean the phenomenon of popular artists that are so big that they are household names across all demographics across the globe/nation. If so then your probably right. Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars. No, the big artists will only get bigger, because those are the artists that can afford to tour and have the backing of their labels. It'll just be harder for smaller acts to become bigger acts.
apalmer 13y ago
let me clarify, justin timberlake, drake, and britney will be fine, but the next generation 'justin timberlake' wont get the kind of massive funding necessary to make him a superstar across all demographics, social classes, genres. as far the local/niche artists, i should clarify i don't think they will be doing 'better' than they do today. i am instead looking at it from a fans point of view, instead of 100 next gen justin fans, i think they will be say 40 gen justin fans, 10 next gen r&b fans, 10 next gen power ballad fans, 10 next gen lounge crooner, etc... I dont think the amount of music listened to is going to change, the margins for the companies and artists income will probably go down... but 'quality' of music will be the same as it always was
- camus 13y ago
  There will always be money for the justin timberlakes, drakes, and britneys. But none for the Nirvanas , Pearl Jams or radioheads.
  - adamdavis 13y ago
    Is this sarcasm? I see no shortage of non-mainstream pop bands achieving more than their fair amount of success. edit: a quick example off hand, The Arcade Fire
  - angusangus 13y ago
    Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Radiohead made some of their best music without any major label deals or marketing budgets. Extraordinary music does not require or benefit from commercial-scale budgets. It's always been made, and always will be, regardless of the economics.
- dobbsbob 13y ago
  Die Antwoord was a band nobody wanted or heard of until they uploaded this video to youtube http://youtu.be/cegdR0GiJl4 http://youtu.be/cegdR0GiJl4 10 years ago they would've remained in obscurity in South Africa unable to tour because nobody would've backed them. Now they are playing stadiums. Being successful has nothing to do with funding anymore. Radio is gone, no longer need to grease the palms of every radio DJ in the US to get popular or bribe MTV.
MichaelGG 13y ago
What's the driving factor for local stars? I'd think that, as in many industries, big will get bigger. If you become a regional star, you'll probably go multi-regional. I'd be surprised if there'd be any major decline in huge pop stars. Even if they start off indie, one they gain enough traction, they'll be able to out-market others. There's no reason e.g. YouTube couldn't have music competitions and new huge stars every year.

Retric 13y ago

Please explain what exactly musicians need significant investment money for? Studio time is a small fraction of what it used to be and simply practicing as a band is really cheap. You can argue that advertizing is still expencive but quality band can get the word out far more cheaply now than they used to. The real issue for most band is there is a huge catalog of great music out there so standing out is simply harder now than ever before.

sauce 13y ago
> Please explain what exactly musicians need significant investment money for? Studio time is a small fraction of what it used to be and simply practicing as a band is really cheap. How about rent? Also food, gas money to get to shows, merchandise (t-shirts/posters/hoodies/whatever), CDs (yes, you do still need to have these.. telling someone at a show who saw you for the first time ever and wants to hear more to "go look us up on facebook/soundcloud/twitter" isn't gonna cut it), gear (and gear repairs), advertising (including things like printing flyers out to promote shows), etc. Stepping it up a bit, if you're serious about touring, you'll need to bring additional crew besides the band itself, such as sound/lighting/merch people, roadies, etc. all of whom need to be paid, fed, and transported. Even being able to practice as a band can get pretty expensive, if you consider that many neighborhoods/cities have really strict noise ordinance laws these days. So if you're trying to start even a moderately loud rock band, your options are a) try to practice in someone's house/garage and risk having to deal with $350+ noise violations on a weekly basis every time one of the neighbors gets cranky, or b) rent a practice space somewhere, which most places I know of start at $400/month upwards. Also note that in smaller towns where there isn't an abundance of unused commercial property, these spaces are either non-existent or have waitlists over a year and a half long. Most musicians/bands out there don't have label support and get by paying for these things out of pocket (to a point, most bands are seriously skimping in one or more of these areas because they simply don't have the money or the manpower to make it happen). Not saying its impossible, but it certainly is extremely difficult to make it to the level of world-class musicians when the majority of your productive hours have to be spent in an unrelated field for the sole purpose of paying the bills.

fowkswe 13y ago

To williamcotton's point, the business behind music promotion is alive. The business of music as a product is what is dying. The fact that there is no product left to monetize the music means that there will be fewer musicians being funded. Only a few musicians will be chosen to promote and this will selectively be done such that they have a huge reach. The mass marketed products like JT, Kanye (barf), Miley, etc will continue to be a part of the music business, as they always have, But the Luna's, Feelies, Grizzly Bear's (http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/features/grizzly-bear-2012-10/ http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/features/grizzly-bear-2012-10...), and myriad of other, small appeal bands are going to have a hard time sustaining themselves for the longterm with out a product to keep them afloat. The live performance is the product now, but the problem is, is that this is actually hard work. This is why you see EDM musicians having a good time in the new music economy (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/09/30/130930fa_fact_eells http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/09/30/130930fa_fact_... - paywal) - they are able to put on a show with minimal effort, to large crowds (i.e. big $$$). I've seen so many awesome musician friends throw in the towel after a few years because they can't keep justifying theier profession. It's sad, but unfortunately the way its going to be. Edit - this was the Grizzly Bear link I meant to use: http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/grizzly-bear-shields.html http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/grizzly-bear-shields.html