Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fallingfrog 1987 days ago
The whole premise of the way streaming music is marketed and sold is all wrong. In the long term if you want good music to be created you have to put a little thought into how you’re nurturing the community of musicians on the local level who are doing the hard work of creating the product that Spotify and iTunes are selling.

From the point of view of a streaming service, it looks like this:

1) music is generated from bands via spontaneous generation

2) we throw that music up on a streaming site without context or support unless paid by major labels

3) profit

That’s not how it works. Good music is usually developed in some context- a community of musicians will develop in some major city in a location where the rent is not too high. They go to each other’s shows, they support each other, they learn from each other, they imitate each other and develop new sounds. Once in a while one group becomes popular enough that people outside of that community start to hear about them.

But, just as Facebook has become a news aggregator and should probably take that responsibility seriously, iTunes should take its responsibility seriously to the musical community that generates the product it sells. It could start recommending to people bands that are local to them- who they could go see live. It could tie in promoting live experiences of the bands a user is listening to. They could redistribute the streaming profits a little to give some financial support to smaller artists instead of the top 10 bands who play on a loop at Applebee’s. There are lots of ways that they could foster the growth of musical communities, and they aren’t doing it.

One good thing about the old music industry was that they would at least somewhat do this for struggling bands- they would identify talent, and develop and promote it. iTunes doesn’t do that. Spotify doesn’t do that. A lot of talent is going to wither on the vine without support.

3 comments

As with food delivery and "ghost kitchens" the next step for streaming services seems to be "ghost bands"[1] that produce unobjectionable music meant to fill playlists for smaller royalties than a "normal" band.

Both of these trends put traditionally local restaurants and small bands under increased pressure to compete with the likes of VC-funded Spotify or DoorDash. The pessimist in me sees a future where these local business are largely gone, kind of like how Walmart and other big box stores replaced many small, local retailers.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15961416/spotify-fake-art...

Spotify is already starting a promotion service where artists get boosted by giving spotify a cut of the already minuscule royalties. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/nov/03/spotify-a...
Spotify also has a relationship with Sony's Flow Machines AI music project.

Shall we try to guess why?

I agree. For a small artist, With streaming coming in with tens of thousands of songs per day [1] but the proceeds go not from me who is paying to the artist I play songs from, but to some average calculated where the money goes to the big artists, I don’t see this being much better than the piracy that went before it.

[1] https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/nearly-40000-tracks-a...

Conversely, a kid in a basement with a laptop can for $20 via distrokid be listed on Spotify and be discovered within non-geographic communities.

It’s not all bad, but these are cool ideas.

I don't have hard data, but from listening to interviews with musicians it seems to me like the difference is that the power distribution has become even more skewed. For every star discovered on Spotify you used to have 10 bands that could at least eke out a middle class living in their city/state touring and selling albums.
I suppose, economically this might be an example of an externality? Seems like a lot of industries are piling up externalities right now in terms of their effects on society, wages, political discourse, the environment, etc..