Oddbean

It’s easy to blame Spotify for the music industry’s woes and Daniel Elk is a cunt for sure but I’d also add 98% of humans don’t value music either. Folks who only contribute £9.99 per month are essentially rent seeking on musicians time. Maybe this justifies nuclear war? It’s all very Broadstairs. :Nuclear:

Spotify is a good place to seek out new artists, but I try to buy albums direct from the artists I find .. none of the digital stuff, actual physical CDs/vinyl/merch I even know people who listen to a song or two by a particular artist and have never experienced those songs in context with the full album, as it was meant to be heard .. savages! 🤙🏼

Indeed! I still love albums, my favourites all put me in that world for 40 or so minutes. Some songs stand up well alone but it’s always nice to hear where the artist was at in that time and space. Interestingly, a lot of young musicians are focused on making the best 1 minute video now as that’s what drives engagement.

I'm one of those weirdos who still buys and downloads MP3 files when available. Granted, I do use YouTube to find music I want to buy, but they're putting their music there. Wouldn't it be their fault for choosing a career with such an allegedly small market? They're the ones giving into the DRM shit and streaming services. And if they're only doing it because it's the only way to get paid to make music then what is the complaint exactly? If there is no alternative really then I don't see how that makes anyone servicing the industry a dick. There is an alternative though. People used to value music more because they actually had to go buy it I think. Now, I have to go out of my way to find people who will actually sell me their music instead of whatever streaming platform they're on. But I'm not interested in "buying" music on some platform that can just take it back either. I think DRM is part of the problem. I don't want to go and buy stuff I may not actually be able to keep. So renting it is the next logical option for me, and that sort of model lends itself to something like Spotify. In my case, YouTube Premium to avoid ads, but I use it for stuff other than music. You can't lock your music down and then tell people they're rent seeking for getting your music the way you've incentivized them to get it.

I agree but i think the reason is music in the streaming age has lost cultural significance. All funded music is forced to bend to the rules of the few to the point where all we are left with is meaningless muzak. Bitcoin and Nostr fix this and Im here to be a part of that cultural revolution! 🔥

Agreed about cultural significance, I’ve avoided arts council funding for the reasons you set out (although have years experience working with people in funded groups, mental health, young people etc). I certainly believe this is one of the most DIY spaces available in this era and I’m a big believer in that. Whether we’re right or not only time will tell…

we are right. the question is whether us being motivated by that vision is enough on its own to bring about change or whether it inspires others to do the same, either way it's exciting and either way the outcome doesn't matter.

It’s funny, right now I’m trying to find value in what I do, I’m an odd chap and whilst some of my skills may be transferable, I’m so used to being in and around music the thought of pivoting scares me. Independence is important to me and I’m searching for something. Not quite sure where I’m going with this but I’ll crack on regardless. I think the right path will reveal itself.

Hmm I’m not so sure. In the 80s/90s that $10 would’ve bought that one record. You want to listen to another? You buy that as well. X that over a 1 year period, the average person would’ve spent way more… and that money was worth more too. If artists got the significant part of that $10 it would help but it still wouldn’t be the same. Musicians need to make music worth that streaming fee. One note should cover it.

Just to quote Jeff Booth, prices fall to the marginal cost of production. It’s much cheaper to produce an album today than the 80s. Any bedroom artist can put out a high quality track with minimal gear, granted they have the extra skills. Also, when buying a $10 album, you’re paying for all the songs on the album, even if you only listen to a few. Streaming basically bypasses that, which cuts a significant amount of revenue from B-sides. I do think it’s much harder to be a middle class musician than before. Much more work and skill sets are required, along with fierce “competition”

To add on. What is not accounted for is TIME. For example Dark Side If The Moon was made during a 6 month lock out for the whole of Abbey Road Studio 2. Lock out means the studio is available at all hours in that time. Essentially the band own that space. Say those facilities now exist in a laptop (they don’t really). Then it still takes the musician TIME. Ironically a big tune on that album was also labelled time. For streaming revenue, the average musician should be submitting short test tones until the situation improves.

I blame the record companies. I subscribe streaming for the old content I have owned, supported by going to concerts and buying their merch direct, and discovering new from across the globe exploring of ways to support them

Nice, you could be onto something there. What about when these LLMs start catching feelings? Who will pick up the pieces then… LLMs phoning the head of Sony at 4am calling them a cunt. That’s when we know they’ve got it.