Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mbeswetherick 5302 days ago
Making money in music today's music industry is absurd. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if major record labels vanished in the next 100 years.

You'd imagine a band that's put out a record on a successful label and toured the world multiple times would be covered in wealth. That's not the case at all. In fact, most touring bands don't even make enough money to be in the black. At the end of the day, past the flights, cost of gas, and cheap meals lies an elastic state of negative to mediocre profit.

Why then do small acts still tour? Well, it's fun and it's probably been a dream of theirs for some time now. I for one am extremely thankful that bands continue to put out amazing music with only enough money to barely support themselves.

Here's the thing: bands don't need major labels anymore. That's because it's basically level playing field now: you can make an amazing album on your laptop in a barn in rural Massachusetts and still have the ability to compete with the major labels. No longer are people sucked into the radio aggregate of the 90's when all you could discover were boy bands. Now we have these amazing things like Bandcamp and Spotify that allow you to stream virtually anything! That's pretty amazing, but what's the use if everyone is listening to the demands of a major label?

So with that being the case, couldn't this problem be solved? All it will take is a push for bands to stay away from huge labels and for listeners to find that music. That's where Spotify should come in.

What's interesting about this entire thing is that a long tail company like Spotify is potentially able to shift the power from the shit that most major labels produce to better and more meaningful music. If Spotify can find a way to direct people's tastes away from most major label garbage, they might be able to solve this issue.

Maybe Spotify will push for more independent artists and incorporate musicians on Bandcamp into their catalog.

Although I'm pretty sure that musicians who put their music directly on Spotify only receive a pretty small cut, Spotify should be able to overcome their major label woes by putting a focus on smaller more niche based music.

It is my hope that musicians stay away from large labels. And no, I am not some indie purist, I just think that major labels are diluting the quality and diversity of music and that we have the power to change that.

3 comments

Obligatory link to "The Problem With Music" by Steve Albini: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
"So with that being the case, couldn't this problem be solved? All it will take is a push for bands to stay away from huge labels and for listeners to find that music. That's where Spotify should come in. What's interesting about this entire thing is that a long tail company like Spotify is potentially able to shift the power from the shit that most major labels produce to better and more meaningful music. If Spotify can find a way to direct people's tastes away from most major label garbage, they might be able to solve this issue."

In response to this there was an older article posted here about some of the numbers behind Spotify: http://pansentient.com/2011/04/spotify-technology-some-stats... One quote in particular speaks to your point, interestingly in a section called "The Short Tail?":

"During a week-long analysis of all music played via Spotify: 88% of track accesses were for the most popular 12% of all tracks on Spotify. 79% of server requests were for the most popular 21% of all tracks on Spotify."

While it might be a nice idea that Spotify could somehow shift user taste towards more independent artists, the numbers here seem to say that people go to Spotify for mainly popular, culturally relevant tracks. I think a company attempting more of what you're saying is the YC company Earbits with their model focusing on discovery of smaller artists. Personally I'd rather listen to popular music I know on Spotify, and I think most people feel the same way. I just wish there was a viable business model there. Music is a very tough vertical.

> "During a week-long analysis of all music played via Spotify: 88% of track accesses were for the most popular 12% of all tracks on Spotify. 79% of server requests were for the most popular 21% of all tracks on Spotify."

It also says that only 60% was ever played: 79% of plays are for 35% of the played catalogue. There are some numbers missing, but I would expect those 35% to represent a far greater selection of music than what was available in even the largest record shops in the 90s - and totally eclipsing the combined play lists on the radio at any one place at any one time.

Also, Spotify is available anywhere, not just to those living in big cities with many radio stations and big record shops. Oh, and then there's the 21% of plays for the other 65% of the catalogue.

Sounds a lot like the long tail to me.

Also, Spotify is available anywhere, not just to those living in big cities with many radio stations and big record shops. Oh, and then there's the 21% of plays for the other 65% of the catalogue.

I think you overestimate the reach of broadband internet. There is certainly a lot more rural radio access than there is high speed internet.

* No longer are people sucked into the radio aggregate of the 90's when all you could discover were boy bands.*

Don't be so sure about that. Labels still offer what they always excelled in- marketing. Bands that self-promote often have no idea what they're doing, and even when they do they are up against thousands of other bands making their best efforts at self-promotion.

Accessible music production + the internet != your music reaching it's audience. It's still a massive uphill climb. And most people are still listening to the radio and discovering boy bands.

Very true, untog. I just feel like Spotify should try and make that uphill climb.