Hacker News Reader

Comment by apalmer | Hacker News Reader

Music as we know it? What does that even mean? Really I dont understand what you are getting at? This isnt snark I really want you to explain.

Perhaps you mean the phenomenon of popular artists that are so big that they are household names across all demographics across the globe/nation. If so then your probably right. Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars.

as far as the investment, really labels/mangement companies will continue to invest in whatever makes them money... the size of the investments will probably diminish, but realistically the breakdown of record label investment is 90% marketing/promotion. And realistically if your projected to sell 50% less you should cut your marketing budget appropriately, that has very little to do with the music as an art form at all.

View on HN

Music as we know it. Rock and roll and popular music as an art form. Albums, 3 minute songs. Things that were designed to fit on to a plastic disc and be played on the radio between commercial breaks. This is what made up the "music industry". Touring was a loss-leader to sell plastic to people up until about 10 years ago. You had to go out and make your sales! Come to town, have the local paper and radio do your marketing for you, people maybe come to your show or maybe go buy your album at a record store. That is going away. Hence, the art form will die along with the changing media landscape, because well, you know, The Medium is the Message.

I'm not crying about this, BTW, I'm merely pointing out that the death has started. For fucks sake, I don't even really LIKE making records as much as I like writing and performing music with a group of people, so personally I'm enjoying these transformations.

The point I'm making is, is yes, the music industry is dying. Something else will come along and replace it. Music won't die, but whatever we've become accustomed to over the last 80 years is quickly disappearing.

Again, claims that this isn't happening are misinformed.

> a dying art form

> music as we know it...is dying

> the music industry is dying

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Both you and hacker news would be better off if you read this article and then commented to the parent with your rebuttal rather than what you think is a witty one liner with no substance.

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

The rebuttal is obvious from the graph (the central point in the article, which was hyperbolically disputed above): Music isn't dying - the industry around it is evolving.

That's what happens when new technology is introduced into an existing business model - the industry changes. Existing players may exit the market (some may even "die"), some struggle, some adapt to the change and thrive, and other new players enter.

> a dying art form > music as we know it...is dying > the music industry is dying

Music as an art form is largely unchanged, especially the more artistic, less "pop music"-focused forms.

The music industry is refocusing on live performance and the long tail, and less on retail sales of pre-recorded physical media.

Adapting, evolving, changing, transforming.

Maybe declining, shrinking, endangered, troubled.

Maybe broadening, renewing, refreshing.

"Dying" doesn't describe it well at all. I don't think it means what you think it means.

All of your examples have to do with minor minutia of the day to day life of a musician, but you give no examples of how the actual landscape of music has changed. And I find it baffling if the point is that the focus and work required by an artist today is more different compared to one 10 years ago than it was for that artist compared to one 50 years ago. Television, music videos, global marketing, magazine specialization. These things didn't alter a musicians life more than the current decline in retail sales?

Please expand and explain, because Albums, 3 minute songs, radio play with commercial breaks and touring are all very very similar to 10 years ago from a consumer perspective despite the proliferation of other choices and the changing landscape.

Dude, we haven't seen the landscape change yet because no one knows what the fuck is going on.

Let me put it this way. Should I make my art in the form a 180 minute long atonal sound collage that can only be heard by buying a custom piece of machinery that is installed in your house OR should I make my art form 55 minutes of music that can fit on a Compact Disc?

Think of shipping containers. Should I make my own custom shipping container or should I go with the modern, modular standard?

The medium affects the kind of art that is made. The reason we even ended up with the three minute single and the LP have more to do with the physical limitations of vinyl than anything else. An entire industry and culture sprung up around this. It is prohibitively difficult for a musician to go outside of the well established path of the current industry to make and share their music.

Music isn't about 3 minute songs, it isn't about albums, or anything of the sort. It conforms to the momentum of culture and technology as much as it inspires the technology and culture.

It will survive, but the current culture and industry will of course go away, and with it, the entire art form.

Think about that phrase. ART FORM. Roll it around in your mouth, taste it on your tongue. Art will always be made, but it's shape is constantly in motion.

Hey man, shameless but on-topic plug. I believe I am on to the solution.

http://gralbumcollective.com/about.html

Mmmmmm 180 minutes of atonal 'sound collage' hell, otherwise known as complete and utter self-absorbed wank. 99% of the music listening public aren't interested in hearing it.

There are plenty of examples of the non-3 minute song and generally they've been done by masters of their art, the reason songs are 3 minutes long is because that's our attention span for average music.

Records, your plastic limiter, haven't been popular for decades, eons in pop music time, entire generations of teenagers have gone and past, and yet most songs are still 3 minutes long.

So there's your pet theory out of the window.

My point with the "sound collage" wasn't with the CONTENT, rather the MEDIUM. It makes more sense for me to ship a stereo recording across an established channel like a Compact Disc instead of coming up with my own proprietary medium. If I make an art form known as an "album" and I make it available on Compact Disc, I can plug in to an existing industrial infrastructure. Sound engineers, mixing engineers, networks of distribution, journalism, marketing... EVERYTHING has been built on top of the little plastic disc. If I forgo the little plastic disc, the album, well, I can't tap in to this industry. You literally can't get someone to review or promote your work as a musician unless you have a little plastic disc.

If you're interested in my "pet theory" of the medium being the message, I highly recommend you check out Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan.

>There are plenty of examples of the non-3 minute song and generally they've been done by masters of their art, the reason songs are 3 minutes long is because that's our attention span for average music.

That might be your attention span, as you have been conditioned into, all your life.

Plently of cultures cherish much larger popular music forms.

So long there is a commercial need for 3 minute songs, there will be 3 minute songs.

Piracy as the article talks about is non-commercial p2p kind of piracy. That means when a theater group want a song, or a company producing advertisements, or a movie, or a game, or a bar or any other commercial entity want a short song, they will have to buy one. With commercial interest, musicians will produce music to full fill said demand, and 3 minute songs get produced. It might be a smaller market than the one during the 80s, but a smaller market is still more than none at all.

> Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars.

This is being parroted around here for a while, but that does not make it more true. Big artists are less affected than small labels. See also: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/20/business/fi-cotown-i...

This is kind of missing the point, which is that fewer artists will get to that level, not that artists already at that level will suddenly be forgotten.

>> Perhaps you mean the phenomenon of popular artists that are so big that they are household names across all demographics across the globe/nation. If so then your probably right. Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars.

No, the big artists will only get bigger, because those are the artists that can afford to tour and have the backing of their labels. It'll just be harder for smaller acts to become bigger acts.

let me clarify, justin timberlake, drake, and britney will be fine, but the next generation 'justin timberlake' wont get the kind of massive funding necessary to make him a superstar across all demographics, social classes, genres.

as far the local/niche artists, i should clarify i don't think they will be doing 'better' than they do today.

i am instead looking at it from a fans point of view, instead of 100 next gen justin fans, i think they will be say 40 gen justin fans, 10 next gen r&b fans, 10 next gen power ballad fans, 10 next gen lounge crooner, etc...

I dont think the amount of music listened to is going to change, the margins for the companies and artists income will probably go down... but 'quality' of music will be the same as it always was

There will always be money for the justin timberlakes, drakes, and britneys. But none for the Nirvanas , Pearl Jams or radioheads.

Is this sarcasm? I see no shortage of non-mainstream pop bands achieving more than their fair amount of success.

edit: a quick example off hand, The Arcade Fire

Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Radiohead made some of their best music without any major label deals or marketing budgets.

Extraordinary music does not require or benefit from commercial-scale budgets. It's always been made, and always will be, regardless of the economics.

Die Antwoord was a band nobody wanted or heard of until they uploaded this video to youtube http://youtu.be/cegdR0GiJl4

10 years ago they would've remained in obscurity in South Africa unable to tour because nobody would've backed them. Now they are playing stadiums. Being successful has nothing to do with funding anymore. Radio is gone, no longer need to grease the palms of every radio DJ in the US to get popular or bribe MTV.

What's the driving factor for local stars? I'd think that, as in many industries, big will get bigger. If you become a regional star, you'll probably go multi-regional. I'd be surprised if there'd be any major decline in huge pop stars. Even if they start off indie, one they gain enough traction, they'll be able to out-market others.

There's no reason e.g. YouTube couldn't have music competitions and new huge stars every year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com