Record companies are tracking download and search data to predict which new songs will be hits. This has been good for business—but is it bad for music?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/the-shazam-effect/382237/

 

The top 1 percent of bands and solo artists now earn 77 percent of all revenue from recorded music, media researchers report.

 

Related: https://mic.com/articles/107896/sci...-why-pop-music-all-sounds-the-same#.SFafvjlwW

 

One day POP will be chewed up and this flag will be hoisted at full staff.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2018

If music that sells well is what you use to evaluate the status of music, I guess it is bad for music. I don't know, as the article says our options have been get things promoted based on an executives gut feeling or do it based on what people's data profile paints as popular. If this data that people spend 90% of their time listening to music they've already heard before is accurate, that's what's wrong with the music industry. I don't know how you live in the age of the internet with the vast corners of music to explore and so much history to explore and spend 90% of your time listening to the same shit, but if that's how most people consume music it's not really surprising the rise of new artists is so difficult.

 

That law is universal. Anytime anyone does something that attracts attention other people will try to emulate. If you come out with a genious product idea and send it off to China for manufacturaing there will be legions of knockoffs. ..When the Beatles came out people suddenly stopped sounding like the Beach Boys etc..

 

You're the topic starter, so only fair you lead with an opinion, what do you think about it?

 

Most people don't know what POP is and start to hate it. Writing lyrics and training a voice is hard for most music makers, and instead of finding ways to tackle those problems, they prefer to leave the POP or any vocal realm (if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen). You can see this in "our music".

POP is word, vocal and just a bit instrumental music based on familiarity with the tradition and only a minute amount of freshness. POP doesn't require the cutting edge. In fact, the majority of the music that most listeners hear and enjoy is not marked by its novelty but by its fealty to convention. Listener's mind craves familiarity. Most record labels want it, because they want to sell music to all of those listeners who bought similar music from them in the past.

Knowing what people like isn't a bad thing in the music industry. In most cases, artists are thinking ideally and applying the title of "industry" for the music is the sword of Damocles for them. They should change their view. And having access to this DATA helps the artists to think better in their artistry and make a good connection with their fans.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2018

You wrote all that and I still don't know what you think. That's just you repeating yourself from those other threads. I'm not interested in what you imagine most people don't know and how they then start to hate it, or why you're trying to justify non commercial, contemporary or unpopular instrumentals with comment about the 'our music' section.

Here, I'll show you how it's done.

"Record companies are tracking download and search data to predict which new songs will be hits. This has been good for business—but is it bad for music?"

I guess, firstly from a business perspective, it makes sense in the modern age for labels to look on line for bands and artists with numbers of plays and followers. By comparison, in the old days it use to be at pub gigs, and those who drew a sizeable crowd and then got them going, were obviously at an advantage and made favourable impressions on a&r heads.

Analytically, again, it's the modern day equivalent of times past. Before, company people use to wait for record shop sale figures or pre orders to determine which act to push and promote further. Nowadays they look at download numbers and searches.

I don't think it has any effect on being good or bad for music. A good song that benefits from the tracking and make a small fortune is still a good song. Similarly, a good song that no one ever hears and makes nothing in a dollar value is still a good song.

If getting contracts were easy, we'd all have them, and we'd all be pro footballers and race drivers. It's tough, but cream always rises to the top. Don't look for excuses, seek a better hook instead.

Right, so what's your opinion?

*Just seen your extensive edit. The last paragraph is what you should have led with, the rest, which I disagree with, it's irrelevant to the topic, and I suspect, your current excuse for not being happy with your music or unhappy in the way it's received.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2018

I think you got this wrong:
Record companies are tracking download and search data to predict which new songs will be hits. This has been good for business—but is it bad for music?

That was a blurb about the article by the author himself not my view. If I was one of those executives, perhaps would do the same. They know the listeners' taste more than anyone. They've piloted lots of new and old ways and by dint of feedbacks from the listeners can make better decisions and give them what they want.

 

If you can find this documentary you maybe interested.

The Secret Science of Pop - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08gk664

It's less about the Science of pop and more about using AI to find the hit song.

I thought it quite interesting from a musicology perspective. Disco and Punk having a kind of symbiotic relationship. One was very quickly popular and then not. While the other remained fairly niche for a few years, yet matured and had much more musical influence on pop.

Ultimately the main conclusion is that the best pop song is actually the most average... Not so sure how they worked that one out.

The question I feel musicians should be asking, 'Is pop music dying ?'

In an age of individuality and a perceived loss of identity, where there are much more forms of entertainment available, is pop music really where it's at ???

 

There's an argument to suggest that when it comes to marketting music to the kids, the music itself isn't really the priority...

 

Instrumentalists, traditionalists and conservative dudes have always put the POP as a target for their outrageous calumnies. I don't think it helps to make a good connection between the artist and audiences.

 

I think that accusing them of culumnies, yep I had to look it up, is a little unfair.

A good connection between artist and audiences ? Isn't that exactly what the labels and marketting are doing? Otherwise why bother using AI to find the hit maker recipe or tracking d/l and search data ?

Technically that is business itslef. Is there a market ? Many very successful pop bands were thought of as marketting concotions, before the band we're even formed and songs even written!

 

hey foster,

just a reminder what pop actually means outside of your realitytunnel

popular (adj.)
early 15c., "public," from Middle French populier (Modern French populaire) and directly from Latin popularis "belonging to the people, general, common; devoted to or accepted by the people.

the goal is pretty simple If you want your music to be heard by alot of people

 

and you've been around.. since like always?

you have any idea what pop was.. in the 40's? 50's 60's 70's ? .. maybe barely 80's ?
then are you really qualified to tell everyone else about it...? I seriously doubt it kitty...

there were times when POP was actually quite good and well done... can't say the same since the early 90's

and don't worry so much, a lot of us here are aware of this, despite you feeling a need
to fulfill your mission to educate us all about the "realities" of music history, style, vocals, etc. etc.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2018

@Herr Durr Give it five minutes. I expect we shall all greatly benefit from an erudite (and no doubt lengthy) cut & paste entry soon enough.

 

That is the only thing in your first post. What else am I suppose to comment on? Simple solution to avoid misunderstandings is to stop trying to be a smart arse and actually post a clear opinion.
As it is I asked for your opinion later, so don't be playing that sort of game with me, Foster.
Regardless, to start a topic with just blurb, a link and none of your own content is disingenuous at best and quite dishonest.

You've become quite sad, my old mate.