That seems really high and really low at the same time.
https://newsroom.spotify.com/company-info/#:~:text=over%2010...
There is nothing by eg The Blues Brothers outside the two movies and their debut album. Nothing by Spocks Beard prior to Neal Morse leaving the band. Other albums are stripped of specific songs because a guest artist wasnt part of the overall deal.
There are probably countless other examples as well, and as artists are moving away from physical media completely I fear that entire artist will disappear in the future because they happened to be pulled from streaming services.
Uh... That's off by an order of magnitude. 100 million tracks according to https://newsroom.spotify.com/company-info/
/s
Same HN user: That’s wrong, the distance is an order of magnitude greater than that (read: 1050 times)
[0] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en-GB
It's very odd to not see the similarity between the two claims and how one exists as a critique of the other.
Don't know what you mean by rythm.
Did you ever played by notes and as such learned to read them?
A-B-C is very different than A~~~------B-C~, for example, even if it's still the same three notes in the same order.
But in the end the only thing that enforces any rule/ownership/law is violence, we just often do not have to go so far as we know it is not worth it.
>Don't get Gypped.
>A slave is worth 3/5 of a normal person.
There is a reason the pen is considered mightier than the sword.
A blade kills an enemy while it's wielder is alive, fit, and wielding it in anger.
The pen shapes the very thinking of entire generations. Anyone who says the space of violence is disjunct from the space of words is a downright fool. Hell, politics is just violence in it's Sunday/Friday/Saturday best.
As individuals, most of us are not that impressive, or as you say, we are downright pathetic. But our power is in our societal organization, and our inherited culture.
I don't know what you mean by responsibility here. In the current system fisherman are incentivized to catch fish by the prophet from selling them, which they pay taxes on. You need incentives because picking people and forcing them to be responsible for fishing would be slavery
"profit" is a different incentive than divine revelation although both have worked in human history.
The idea that, for example, any person claiming sole ownership/usufruct of a piece of land owes to the public a rent for the value of the undeveloped land is called Georgism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism).
If I had to pick a "best-of" reading list, I'd say the 9th-century "Musica Enchiriadis", Berno's "Prologus in Tonarum", and Boethius's "De Institutione Musica". These all assume a familiarity with Platonic music theory, so at least skim through Plato's "Timaeus" first. There will also be more references to astronomy than will make sense to somebody in the modern age, because music and astronomy were believed to be essentially the same thing. Also more recent research has found that actual musicians of the time seem to have completely ignored the theorists. Some things never change.
In the 18th Century Presbyterian Church, they only sang Biblical psalms set to simple (but distinct) tunes and without any musical accompaniment. This was known as exclusive psalmody.
The psalms weren't the prose-style you'll find in any print Bible though, they were their own translation called the Metrical Psalms. Its 1650 edition proved very long lasting.
Many of these psalms were set to common metre, meaning that if you found such a psalter and tried singing it to some well-known tune it will very likely 'fit' the lyrics. You could try Psalm 23 set to the tune of The British Grenadiers, or Amazing Grace, or even The Star-Spangled Banner: https://thewestminsterstandard.org/psalm-23/
This was actually how the psalms were practised by congregations in my home country. The psalm lyrics were considered too sacred for practice, so they set the same tunes to other (sometimes comical) lyrics and practised those during the week. Then on Sunday the minister would say something like 'we will now sing Psalm xx to the tune of lilies', and the congregation would know the tune even if they hadn't memorised the psalm lyrics.
The closest mention I can find is this [1]:
> Early monastic rules say little about how time was determined, though the Rule of the Master notes that pairs of monks took turns, in weekly shifts, trying to stay awake while the others slept in order to awaken the abbot on time. Several possibilities for deter- mining that time are likely, however, including the use of calibrated candles or lamps of oil, [...] the recitation of a certain number of psalms, [etc]
However, here is it only mentioned as a possibility, not an actuality, and no sources are provided.
There appear to have been several orders who practiced 24-hour prayer by taking shifts, see for example the Acoemetae [2]. Here we do have Monks staying up all night reciting psalms but I can't find any indication that the prayers themselves were used to keep track of time.
The only reference to prayer-as-timekeeping that I can find seems to be in Medieval recipe books [3], which apparently would say things like boil this fish for as long as it takes to recite the lords prayer three times. Dead-reckoning works well on such short time-scales!
Even as early as the 500s there appear to have been timekeeping methods accurate enough to tell that dawn was approaching. When the skies are clear you can read this from the stars and accurate-enough water clocks have been in Europe since ~ the 500s. So there doesn't seem to be a need to perfect the act of spending hours reciting psalms at the right tempo.
[1]: https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/M_Helms_Before_2004.pdf [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoemetae [3]: http://the-history-girls.blogspot.com/2017/08/cooking-on-pra...
But using the defence that a melody is public domain surely also invalidates your own copyright?
Plus, I assume that major studios have already been using stastical-based software for decades to help craft songs to fit the current vogue. There's a reason why many songwriters and producers write songs for Kpop and state those songs could never be released in the U.S.
I worked in the business for 15+ years and was involved in a lot of campaigns for artists and music you’ve heard a lot.
Everyone says this but once you get in the actual music business you end up seeing the vast amount of stuff that gets the exact same amount of marketing, checks all the boxes, has all the right people and money behind it, and goes absolutely fucking nowhere.
You realize very quickly it’s not really about the marketing. People get to decide what music they like, and do.
That doesn’t mean bad music doesn’t get popular. It does. You just don’t like the taste of the massive number of people that enjoy it.
I get it I can’t fucking explain Pitbull either. I want it to be a conspiracy.
What percentage of non-marketed artists hit it big? If equal to the marketed artists, why spend the money marketing?
1. Product gotta be good enough to compete with other similar products 2. Price low-price, middle or premium, but it needs to fit the category 3. Place make it easy to find and purchase 4. Promotion tell the people who need this thing, all about it
If any of these are wrong you don't get market success.
But there are a lot of non-linearities. Old Marketing joke: "I know half of my budget is not working, I just don't know which half"
I am not convinced. And it isn't about a conspiracy. These are sort of emergent phenomena and statistics. It doesn't mean every single pop song marketed in the same way will be a success. But I guarantee that there is correlation between major studios and their marketing and the average success of their songs. There's also other aspects such as paid advertising occurring in a song's lyrics and music videos, and this happens in movies as well. See: https://www.mic.com/articles/118974/pop-music-is-more-about-.... And that was several years ago. I imagine that's even worse these days. It certainly is for movies, but I don't listen to enough popular music to know.
A lot of this is about catching waves of sentiment and taste. The same thing happens in other industries, like fashion or furniture. For example, right now, you'll find a lot of furniture items coming in this sort of dusty rose pink. It feels like it came out of nowhere. So there's a snowball effect to how tastes change but then who can ride that and market towards where it's headed. I think that is as much as a part of a song's success than it's songwriting. Then there's a self-sustaining aspect of it, like that found in Max Martin's work. He's the goto guy, so artists go to him, so then people listen to his music, and then he remains the goto guy. His main talent, more so than his songwriting and production skills, is his ability to ride these waves of sentiment I mentioned. Couple that with the self-sustaining aspect, and you get his career.
I have watched several interviews of Kpop producers, many of which are western. They explicitly state that the songs they sell to the Kpop industry would not get bought and marketed in the U.S. by studios and artists. Yet, there are plenty of people who love Kpop music, and when people are introduced to it, they love it. So I believe those songs could be liked in the U.S. by western artists, but they aren't marketed.
It takes a lot of work to find good music that you like, and it almost never is on the figurative radio.
Some deep concepts right there. Would the same thing apply to any sequence of things? The AACS cryptographic key? The words in a book? Is there some breakpoint in number of permutations where human creativity and memorable history allow for copyright?
It's like interpreting Shakespeare. You can emphasis this sentence over that one, and this word over that one. It is still Shakespeare.
In short copying from the public domain does not make one's whole work public domain.
This maybe helps against specious claims?
It may be useful to consider how Pantone's copyright on shades of colour relates; they don't get to sue people for using those colours (in general).
The notes C-D#-G-D are a totally different melody with each note varied between 32nd and whole note, with rests between them, and using triplets.
I don't disagree with the point; independent constriction and collision are inevitable. But the math underestimates the space.
There are also a number of things that change the expression but not the melody. eg Hallelujah vs Zombie:
- have different melodies but use the same chords
- can be sliced and diced both with various rests and palm mutes and arpeggios and strumming yet still have them individually identifiable (and sometimes very close, possibly even overlapping in some sections, but that's perfectly normal and how one does a good mashup)
Even the time signature doesn't mean much, one could play Zombie on a blues shuffle and it would still be distinctively Zombie-esque.
Throw in music theory and keys and I IV V and chords and whatnot which I still don't master but I get the idea, it severely reduces what one ought to do to compose something enjoyable.
With that you can mathematically reduce you problem space to some extent.
In any case it's all completely moot because fundamentally the creation process is a) ingest ideas, b) digest, c) excrete ideas, which ultimately come from a mixture of a). Everything new looks like something else to some extent, and there's a fundamental reason why artists are told (or themselves tell) they're "influenced by" this or that other artist.
If we were to truly strictly enforce copyright nothing would ever get created anymore. So I don't know if copyright itself is right or wrong, but I feel copyright enforcement is truly fucked up these days (and not just in music)
As a beginner composing in my living room I'm truly scared (on top of fear of inadequacy) to push something out there I put my heart and soul into and get sued to oblivion (or at the very least have it destroyed and claimed by some entity that is not even involved in creation)
Perhaps OP meant to include a time period, like 100,000 tracks per month or something?
So they generated all of them, as MIDI sequences, and stored them on a hard drive.[1][2] Arguably, all those are now public domain
That was back in 2016. If you applied machine learning to pop music, you could probably establish a classifier for melodies that don't sound awful, and get that number down into the millions. Spotify has about 100,000 uploaded tracks. The space of listenable pop music may become fully populated. It would be amusing to have something that classifies songs as "Standard melody #67426564".
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/whats... [2] https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/a...