Hacker News Reader

Comment by fpgeek | Hacker News Reader

Interesting counterpoint: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5878603/taylor-swift-doesnt-unde...

Interesting article indeed. Although it lost me a bit with this near the end:

> We all know that bootleg DVD stands are doing something illegal, but the internet literally went black to protest SOPA, a law designed to crack down on digital bootleggers.

That paragraph completely misses the point about the SOPA protests.

Considering the author, I'm not entirely surprised. He often misses the point on a lot of things.

I'm curious what kinds of solutions are in the works in a post scarce music industry? I'm skeptical of the authors solutions. I'm also ignorant of the music industry but if I understand correctly, things like Spotify and Youtube are a broken model, usually only paying out the label and disregarding the artist or paying them in change. What kind of business model can/will focus on the artist, or are artists and their fans on their own in the future?

The model that runs the internet: advertising. Fans and followers will make one an artist, not art. It has already happened. T. Swift is one of its greatest beneficiaries.

Paul Graham's nightmare scenario...the entire adult world becomes a high school popularity contest, forever.

The notion that Taylor Swift is not an artist is demonstrably absurd. She may be an artist whose art is overoptimized for commercial success, but that is irrelevant.

Let's talk semantics. Who is an artist?

An artist is a person engaged in one or more of any of a broad spectrum of activities related to creating art, practicing the arts, and/or demonstrating an art. -Wiki

And what is art?

"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination,... to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:" - New Oxford American Dictionary

So then one could say that art is simply the human expression of beauty.

So, if someone doesn't find any beauty if the work of Taylor Swift, perhaps she's not an artist to them. Not that absurd considering beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Ah, a careless omission on my part. What I meant to say was:

Fans and followers will make one an artist, not art alone.

The creation of art is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement to becoming a successful modern artist. For that, you need art and fans, both of which TSwift has in abundance.

Spotify already tells me on an artist page when they're playing my city next. The next step may be actively pushing shows on you the way they push music that you're algorithmically likely to enjoy?

Ignoring blips like Google's current bender of destruction of advertising revenue streams for small labels, I can see larger labels becoming a thing of the past. What is the purpose of a label in the digital age, now that it can no longer include physical manufacturing and physical distribution in its value proposition? To consumers, it's quickly becoming no more than a guarantee that associated artists are curated and are of "high enough" quality to the ears and eyes of some hidden tastemaker. And to producers, they're increasingly a glorified PR firm. The largest labels' business models don't match up with these value propositions; they function as gatekeepers in an age where unlocked gates are plentiful. This is not to say that all labels will disappear; smaller, niche labels such as Monstercat, Neon Gold, and even Roadrunner Records (in the 90s) function[ed] like well-branded aggregators, exactly meeting those needs and having a well-defined target audience. Perhaps we'll see small labels turn to subscription models, allowing access to exclusive content from their members? Imagine iTunes with tons of small label-run channels one could subscribe to for a monthly fee, and get access to all the music within? Lots of chicken-egg problems here, but it's interesting to think about.

Labels are useful for recording,, mixing and marketing. They are not just factories of CDs. Artists may manage without them but it is quite complicated as it costs a lot.

When it comes to a lot of electronic music, there is no recording necessary and the artist is the person who mixes/masters. No need for money there

Side ramble: I've never understood why people paint "real" bands as being lo-fi, guttural, punk and romantic. It's a goddamn privelege to afford all that equipment. Here's your true punk: pirate Ableton and upload a tune to YouTube for free.

Back to the point, for a lot of styles, the only point of a label is marketing. But this can be a very useful tool -- even just acting as a quality filter is useful.

You are wrong on the fact that musicians doing electro do the mix/master.

I know people doing electro, and they pay people to do this job. It is really hard to do it correctly.

Even people like DeadMau5 and Daft Punk do not do the mix/master by themselves. They just monitor the people doing it (look at some of their interviews).

> Imagine iTunes with tons of small label-run channels one could subscribe to for a monthly fee, and get access to all the music within?

This is happening on Bandcamp already. A smaller label called Jade Tree put their entire catalog up there and as a fan of the label it was awesome to see them do this.

Back to your point with labels, they do benefit the artist despite it seeming like they don't. While 360 deals may be worse for the artist the labels provide them with a recording studio, mixer, producer, distribution, endless supply of industry contacts, merchandising companies, etc.

I would maybe say he missed the point. Her point isn't one about economics. It's about how many fans, it's about what your fans will do for you.

Taylor Swift doesn't understand music.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com