SoldierofLove Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Today, with the cost of creating content being close to zero, people can share an incredible amount of content. This has sparked my curiosity about the concept of long shelf life versus short shelf life. While much of what we see and hear quickly becomes obsolete, there are timeless ideas or even pieces of music that can remain relevant for decades or even centuries. For example, we're witnessing a resurgence of Stoicism, with many of Marcus Aurelius's insights still resonating thousands of years later. This makes me wonder: what are the most unintuitive, yet enduring ideas that aren't frequently discussed today but might have a long shelf life? Also, what are we creating now that will still be valued and discussed hundreds or thousands of years from today? --- Is he right? Who is making music that quickly becomes obsolete as soon as they release it? 2
WhoWho Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Halsey, Ava Max, Bebe Rexha - their music becomes irrelevant the second it's out. not a fan of LG, Bey and TS, but their music has longevity that any artist should be jealous of (not every album tho). I believe that my faves Charli and Björk are also among some of the artists that release music, that keeps being very relevant for years, but not all of it (Charli's in the city for example was forgotten before it came out officials), and the audience is very niche. 1 2
PrettyHurts Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Quote Also, what are we creating now that will still be valued and discussed hundreds or thousands of years from today?
Aston Martin Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Quote Today, with the cost of creating content being close to zero This is really only true if you're using AI though. The cost of recording music and releasing it on Spotify is still pretty high (especially if you're a full-time recording artist) and even a podcast involves a pretty hefty initial investment (equipment) + time to edit it. And both fields are pretty oversaturated to the point that very few people in either space are able to constantly command attention for their work and make good money off of it. 3
Trent W Posted June 3 Posted June 3 If you are releasing music in a professional setting is still insanely expensive If he is talking about bedroom producers or bedroom content creators then I agree
elevate Posted June 3 Posted June 3 It speaks volumes that he uses the word "content" and not "art". 12 1
ATRL Moderator MissedTheTrain Posted June 3 ATRL Moderator Posted June 3 What "content" is he referring to? Because the cost of creating music is not close to 0. Even if you write, produce, mix/master and perform a song all by yourself, you likely spent money on software, plugins, equipment, and/or studio time. It's possible for someone to completely create a song in GarageBand on their own, sure, but not common. The outcome isn't going to be as good. 4
IBeMe Posted June 3 Posted June 3 14 minutes ago, MissedTheTrain said: What "content" is he referring to? Because the cost of creating music is not close to 0. Even if you write, produce, mix/master and perform a song all by yourself, you likely spent money on software, plugins, equipment, and/or studio time. It's possible for someone to completely create a song in GarageBand on their own, sure, but not common. The outcome isn't going to be as good. this. and also even time is a commodity. Time is money in of itself because you could be spending that time creating art to work and make money elsewhere so he is wrong. there's always a cost to creating. 6
Letemtalk Posted June 3 Posted June 3 1 hour ago, MissedTheTrain said: What "content" is he referring to? Because the cost of creating music is not close to 0. Even if you write, produce, mix/master and perform a song all by yourself, you likely spent money on software, plugins, equipment, and/or studio time. It's possible for someone to completely create a song in GarageBand on their own, sure, but not common. The outcome isn't going to be as good. My fave once said in an interview that she made her first album with cracked Pro Tools and cracked plugins. Quote "That's how we made the song that won the Grammy. It's literally cracked plugins." "We didn't pay for ProTools for like a year after that. 'We should start paying for this thing'. "Don't worry Pro Tools," she quickly added. "We pay now." OT - clearly you can't continue to make high quality content over a long music career like that. It worked for Pure Heroine, because it was a minimalist electronic album and Joel Little did a lot of work layering vocal tracks to substitute for the lack of real instruments. But no-one should be making every album the same way. Incorporating different sounds from natural/acoustic sources and travelling to work with different producers in different studios, who can create different sounds, isn't going to be cheap and certainly not free. 1
Wicked Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Making music can cost $0. I can pirate anything I need including **** like omnisphere for sounds but what it really comes down to most artists uploading music have no audience and see no return for it. Hundreds of thousands of songs are uploaded per day and get zero plays.
Gesamtkunstwerk Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Listening to music costs almost $0 today, unless you got a subscription, but you're no longer stuck with that one CD you bought for $20 you have to listen to over and over again. When you can listen to anything, whenever you want, people are bound to get bored easily Combined with being bombed with "content", not a lot sticks, and it has changed the way we listen to music 1
TROJAN Posted June 3 Posted June 3 3 hours ago, elevate said: It speaks volumes that he uses the word "content" and not "art". This!!!
QuanticXplosion Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Just wow. He is something else, can't believe you guys made him the millionaire he is now. I would never subscribe to Spotify premium.
The7thStranger Posted June 3 Posted June 3 I hate the way he phrased it, but he's not wrong. And I think it's a major reason why I don't enjoy a lot of mainstream pop music anymore. It bores me to tears because the vast majority of it is corporate, bland, and thoughtless.
Windy Day Posted June 3 Posted June 3 8 hours ago, Aston Martin said: This is really only true if you're using AI though. The cost of recording music and releasing it on Spotify is still pretty high (especially if you're a full-time recording artist) and even a podcast involves a pretty hefty initial investment (equipment) + time to edit it. And both fields are pretty oversaturated to the point that very few people in either space are able to constantly command attention for their work and make good money off of it. a lot of the viral music on tiktok that ends up having cult followings are made by young people in their rooms tho so no not only ai lol there's so many ways to create content for basically no cost in this day and age
Windy Day Posted June 3 Posted June 3 7 hours ago, elevate said: It speaks volumes that he uses the word "content" and not "art". because he's not only speaking about music? tweets that you upload are considered as content as well. it's not that hard to understand
Virgos Groove Posted June 3 Posted June 3 (edited) We need to abolish the word "content" and everything that comes with it. Music is ART. Cinema is ART. **** Netflix, Spotify, Disney and all the other behemoths trying to turn artistic expression into disposable fast food. Edited June 3 by Virgos Groove 2
XDNA Posted June 3 Posted June 3 I wonder how many of these side-effects affecting music today result from free streaming on Spotify. There's just no incentive for change.
KMO Posted June 3 Posted June 3 8 hours ago, MissedTheTrain said: What "content" is he referring to? Because the cost of creating music is not close to 0. Even if you write, produce, mix/master and perform a song all by yourself, you likely spent money on software, plugins, equipment, and/or studio time. It's possible for someone to completely create a song in GarageBand on their own, sure, but not common. The outcome isn't going to be as good. Plus the cost of your time. Instead of doing something else that makes money, or resting, you're spending time and resources making music. This guy should not be running Spotify, but maybe he should if they want to get away from a music focus lol 1
Recommended Posts