Comment by dplgk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dplgk | Hacker News Reader

Article states that users generating content aren't interested in money. Wrong. Users have to sell through bandcamp because for some reason, SC hasn't provided a market place.

Article states how artists like Skrillex made a name for themselves but posting remixes of famous songs on SC. SC now removed remixes, citing copyright infringement, even on legal, commissioned remixes. SC flags your song if the title contains a famous artist's name or song title even if your song didn't actually sample the famous song. After 3 strikes, your account is banned, all fans and followers lost.

Smart artists are leaving SC in droves.

SC is hosting music from major labels. Users pay nothing to listen. How are they making money? The only users that pay are the artists uploading their own work. Yet those artists have no way to make money on SC. SC has sponsored tracks inserted into listeners feed. That doesn't pay the bills. Also, the promoted track is not based on the user's taste so they mostly hear songs they hate.

Exactly. Between solid tech and a massive userbase, Soundcloud once had the monumental opportunity suggested in the article. But they have played their cards quite poorly which means this article is ridiculous.

I've been on Soundcloud for a looong time and unlike Spotify , it never was a radio but some paid cloud hosting for mp3 with social features. So sound cloud relied on paid customers who uploaded their music on the platform for promotion purposes. I don't think they ever had any opportunity to turn into a Spotify competitor. That's not how people use Soundcloud.

I think however Beatport is trying to be the Spotify for IDM. not sure how it is working for them.

Beatport was "the shit" back then and made a LOT of money. The problem with Beatport is that it works as long as djs are compelled to renew their catalogue.

it became big thanks to "Electro", then Minimal techno , then it made Deadmau5 big, after Deadmau5 nothing really happened in the IDM world, so Beatport success kinda went down.

Neither Dubstep nor HipHop ever were best selling genres on Beatport. And today, MP3 sells don't bring much revenue even for big names. I'd be surprised if TOP 10 beatport artists sell more than a 1000 units per best selling track today.

It used to be different.

what does IDM stand for? The genres and artists you've mentioned are what I consider fads or the mainstream trends of electronic music for the past ~15ish years.

There is plenty of interesting things going on in electronic music, depending on your tastes. Trap sort of replaced dubstep as far as accessible popular and mainstream EDM. Deep house seems to be popular these days. Drum n bass is having a weird spate of popularity and soul-searching at the same time. Future bass seems to be a defined genre now.

*none of this post is offered in arrogance, merely stating my honest opinions which are devoid of value judgements.

> IDM

Sorry I meant EDM.

D'n'B is kinda dead except for the UK scene which has always existed.

First time I hear about Future Base , I checked some stuff and but to me it's just trap/dubstep again.

While you mentioned "fads" ,well that's what drive the business. Right now there is no real enthusiasm toward something fresh and new, aside from a few live acts but they don't qualify as EDM in my book.

IDM could also stand for "intelligent dance music"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_dance_music

lame term i think, but it exists!

Not quite so lame as "electronic body music", which is one of my preferred genres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_body_music

As a fan of the genre described by that term - I agree that it is a lame name. Really don't get it where that comes from tbh...

Are yoi talking about IDM (a specific leftfield genre, popular in mid-00s, but never mainstream?), EDM (which grew to mean a mixture of electrohouse, brostep and trap) or electronic dance music in general?

Also, are you talking about Beatport or Beatport Pro? They are very different services, targeted at different audiences.

Assuming you're talking about Pro, I doubt it's success depends on currently popular genres. It's targeted specifically for DJs, and sells not only mp3s, but uncompressed wavs, and more innovative formats like NIs remix decks and stems, which are only relevant to DJs. Who will always "compelled to renew their catalogue", of course. And most often, the only choice other than Beatport and Juno is to hunt down the vinyl on Discogs: most of releases never make it to torrent trackers, and are pressed in very small amounts, in low hundreds. And even more releases from small labels are digital-only. So, unless you want to play the same music as everyobody else, you have no other option than to pay.

They seem to be moving in the direction of attracting more big-name labels, which are often Flash DRM-protected.

This is the exact opposite of what I use Soundcloud for, but presumably they have numbers that disagree with my use...

Agreed, Very Wrong. I've been on SC for 4 years now, and never seen a dime. The original article is a fluff piece, fluffing up the "free exposure/audience building" falsehood.

Tc got the news wrong? Shocker there. Hn needs to ban tc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com