[skewart]

I'm not so sure that's true. Their key problem is that they didn't understand how much value there is in up-and-coming, amateur, and underground music. The record labels only have power when it comes to their catalogue. SoundCloud could have truly disrupted the labels by providing an alternative way to promote, monetize, and discover music. But they somehow got off that track.

[wolco]

And that is the big loss. Having a place where one could discover new music has so much value over being served the same songs by the same few artists

[vec]

Does it though?

I'd like this to be true, but in practice it seems like most people (me included) strongly prefer hearing songs they already know most of the time, enjoy songs more with repetition, at least up to a point, and are more than willing to learn to like almost anything with high enough production value.

Some people are music snobs as a hobby and most go on discovery quests from time to time, but it honestly seems like most people most of the time want music they don't have to think too much about or devote too much attention to. Indie-only channels can't really deliver that.

[jamescostian]

I think most people like variety. Yes, some people always listen to the same 50 songs, and some people never listen to the same song twice. But most people don't go their whole lives without expanding their musical tastes.

While iTunes and Google Play gave chart toppers the spotlight, SoundCloud turned amateurs into professionals. "Nobodies" could put their music on soundcloud and get them streamed millions of times, and that recognition could eventually get them a chance to sign on a dotted line

[lukaslalinsky]

Why do these two groups of people need to be served by the same service? Why couldn't there be a site for young producers to easily publish their music online and connect with the fans? If I make a song, I can't even imagine what would it take to get it to Spotify. I'd probably have to pay some agency. SoundCloud with its community is the perfect tool for this.

[skewart]

> ...most people most of the time want music they don't have to think too much about or devote toouch attention to.

I agree with that statement - dedicating significant energy to finding new music is a fairly niche hobby.

However, I don't think easy-to-find necessarily equals label-owned music.

I often listen to music for hours at a time in the background while I'm working or relaxing at home. I'll aim for an artist or mood and then I'm happy to let 'related tracks' from artists I've never heard of play indefinitely. If there's a track I really like I'll look at who the artist is and make note. I listen to a ton of "indy" music this way. Mostly, I never know who the artist is. Sometimes I discover new artists. All of this is very low effort on my part.

In fact, it would be significantly more effort to listen to megastar pop music or classics. I'd have to find a way to play the tracks - YouTube most likely, which means a ton of poorly thought out ads, or else paying for the songs directly, which usually is just slow and annoying.

I'd wager the biggest hours of music listening are for background music - at work, in stores and restaurants, while studying, while lounging around the house. I'm sure some people always want to listen to the same ten albums on repeat every day, but I suspect most people are driven more by ambiance. Indy music will do that job just fine.

Of course people will always want to play nostalgic hits. But I suspect that's a smaller driver of music consumption by hour of attention (or at least partial attention) than many people assume. That means the labels have way less power than people assume.

[dboreham]

If that were true then MP3.com would have been a stunning success 18 years ago.

[pessimizer]

Wasn't it? It was taken down by a lawsuit over my.mp3.com.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.co....

[nitrogen]

Everything was done by someone else before it was done in a way that people remember, sadly. Anybody remember Click-n-Run? No, just the App Store.

[jasonlaramburu]

Probably because they realized that path would not be sustainable. Most people don't want to pay for music, period. Few would pay a monthly fee for a service that only offered relatively unknown artists. While SoundCloud does have a unique UI compared to other streaming services, it's not enough of a differentiator to compete with Spotify.

[cupcakestand]

How should this work? Once somebody is trending on such platforms, labels will come, give them tons of money, a contract and take over. And take them away from these platforms as well.

[TheOtherHobbes]

They'll give them an advance as bait for an exploitative and crappy contract which may well be run in a dishonest way.

Given that most sales are downloads or streams now, the only thing big labels can bring to the table is a nuclear level of publicity. And by definition, that's going to be reserved for a tiny handful of multimillion-selling household names.

Today's smaller bands and artists - which will be the majority - get no particular benefit from signing to a big label.

They may get some smaller benefits from signing to a smaller niche label, but they certainly won't get a big pile of cash from that.

The situation is similar to book publishing, where a tiny handful of massively popular signed authors get most of the publicity and the cash, but there's a solid underclass of midlist writers who do better with self-publishing, because they earn more from direct sales and - ironically - have a more secure career too.

There was a massive opportunity for SoundCloud to become Amazon/Kindle for Musicians.

MySpace had that space for a while but lost it. BandCamp is close, but doesn't quite make it because the default artist pages suck, and it sees itself as a store, not so much as a marketing and PR outlet that also happens to sell downloads and physical media.

SoundCloud could have won that space, but apparently SoundCloud's management never understood that there's more money in hosting associated services - web pages, mailshots, blogs, and so on - than there is in providing hosting for audio files.

In fact YouTube seems to be quietly taking over for basic track hosting, with the added benefit of video. There's no reaction feature on the tracks, but I'm not convinced that was ever an essential USP on SoundCloud.

But I still think someone else with VC backing could win this space and clean up.

[drizzzler]

Yes. Someone please build this. Message me if you need a designer.

[jasonlaramburu]

Most musicians who can figure out how to record and upload their own music to SoundCloud could just as easily create a generic website with squarespace or something similar to host a blog. The only value in a comprehensive social network for musicians would be the audience it could bring. A large audience is very hard to build.

[ranidu]

Would love to chat! [e-mail]

[skewart]

Yes! This. SoundCloud should have focused on helping musicians promote themselves, connect with fans and monetize their music. And yeah, this space is pretty wide open right now. The ways people create and consume music are changing, and nobody is really taking advantage of it.

Man, now I really want to build what SoundCloud should have been.

[erikpukinskis]

Great. They leave, push their listeners over on the younger version of them.

It's like sailing... Every bit of air that hits your sail will end up behind you, dispersed. That doesn't mean your boat will stop. You travel by charting a course where you stay ahead of a pressure differential.

Same in music. You need to find a source of new artists that will continually replenish you as you lose artists to platforms that focus on the stage after you in maturity. The beauty of culture is it always replenishes.

[dilemma]

This is exactly why SoundCloud should be a publisher. To take advantage of the gems their platform unearths.

[drizzzler]

yes.

[dilemma]

SoundCloud should be a music publisher - a record label.

[nathancahill]

"track"