เกี่ยวกับตอนนี้
[^^Listen above, or read below (or both if you’re feeling crazy)^^]
Hello audio nerds! Edition three has arrived. For those of you who are new, Audio-First is an ongoing series looking at audio, airpods, voice, and music.
There’s also big news this week: your humble narrator has invested in some audio equipment, taking advantage of those Black Friday deals. With any luck, future editions will be heard in high-fidelity. In that vein, I’m trying to make the accompanying audio a worthy listen, and I’m finding it hard to speak aloud a pre-written work with gusto. This week, I’ll be giving it more love (and multiple takes).
Onward.
Software is eating music hardware
There’s an old chestnut in the tech industry that ‘software is eating the world.’ From snapping photos, to reading books, to watching movies, enjoying media once required a hefty investment. Obviously, breakthroughs in personal computing changed all that. After 10ish years with smartphones, we take software-based photos, publish directly online, and stream video from our couches. Software has ‘eaten’ all of this atom-world infrastructure and replaced them with the best business model ever made: near-zero marginal cost.
In terms of audio formats, the arc is just as easy to see. Recorded music began in 1860 by scribbling on glass and tinfoil, and iterated over a century into ever-smaller plastic discs until disappearing completely into the mp3.
What’s talked about less frequently is how this transformation is happening on the production side of things. As I’ve gotten more into bedroom music-making, I’ve learned software has eaten a ton of music hardware, much of it pretty recently.
Arguably, the biggest game-changer here was the rise of DAWs (digital audio workstation), which are versions of GarageBand on steroids such as Logic Pro X, Ableton, or Pro Tools. DAWs took all the buttons and doo-dads found in a recording studio and made them available to anyone with a laptop. Artists could finally edit, mix, and add effects, with far less hassle. Again, this was niche commercial software well into the 2000s. But now it’s everywhere. The same goes for the instruments. Can’t afford a $5,000 Mellotron (the early synthesizer made famous on ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’)? You can buy a software plugin that will turn your USB piano—or even your computer keyboard—into a near-replica. No moving van required.
Your favorite tunes are likely made with a mix of traditional instruments alongside dozens of software-based ones. And entire marketplaces exist to trade software instruments and samples. Lil Nas X famously made “Old Town Road” through BeatStars, which links up artists and producers to exchange beats without ever getting in the studio together. Right now, software-based tools and marketplaces are transforming the supply side of music.
The changing power law
So what happens when software ‘eats’ the tools powering art and media?
Now that everyone has Abbey Road Studios at their fingertips, there is a conundrum: financially and practically, the barriers to making music have never been lower. But now it takes more than ever to stand out from the crowd. There’s a similar saying in Silicon Valley: “it’s never been easier to start a startup, and it’s never been harder to scale one.” Or put another way, leveraging all these new tools and spitting out success has never been more complex.
For areas like movies, music, fashion, writing (and perhaps soon food with Cloud Kitchens), the now-cheaper delivery means we consume to the point of saturation. The obvious example here is Spotify, which delivers so much recorded music that we rely on algorithms just to remember what we enjoy. Over time, we begin to care a bit less who’s making the songs, deferring to playlists and curators. But we’re also listening to more than ever, so in aggregate there’s more consumption—and likely artistic inspiration—than ever. Anyone can indulge in it now. In certain cases, this has been the death knell of industries (for journalism it literally halved newsroom jobs). Elsewhere, in music, fashion, and video it’s completely reinvigorated them.
This summer, after going to a music festival, I was struck by how the pop artists seemed better than ever (even compared to the indie mainstays):
Thanks to the long-tail effects of the internet, ‘niche’ artists can amass huge followings. For most of my music-snob life, ‘pop’ music had a negative connotation. But the lines of ‘pop’ versus ‘indie’ have blurred so much it’s almost meaningless now. There is no gulf in artistic quality anymore. Any small genre can quickly become ‘pop’ if it gets enough clicks. And conversely, hyper-popular musicians like Arianna Grande are actually making great music now. (Sidenote: I’m still not sure if this effect benefits incumbents or newcomers more, but I think the whole pie is growing.)
Maybe I was fooling myself, but I felt I was witnessing firsthand how the internet made things more efficient. 10 years ago, indie music was a cut above pop music. Now, it seems that Top 40 names organically bubble up with far more artistic integrity.
I’m still curious as to how tech disruption changes the “odds of success” in the music game and beyond. Especially because not long ago Spotify CEO Daniel Ek made the bold claim that the company’s long-term mission is to empower “1 million creators to live off their work.” Does the rising tide lift all boats equally? Does it favor incumbents over newcomers (or vice-versa)?
I dug around for some numbers here, and while this data includes a large cohort of designers, a stable share of the labor force are working artists (either as a primary or secondary job), growing slightly from 1.4% to 1.55%. Other fun fact: 34% of musicians pursue it as a second job, which is the highest rate of all creative fields.
Another big consideration here is the hits-driven nature of this world. I came across this excellent data science post by Michael Taulberg called Power Law in Popular Media that explored the competitive landscape of different media types. Surprisingly, the study found video game publishing is the most winner-take-all industry, followed by book publishing. Music, more middle of the pack, saw the top 20% of artists commanding 69.7% of the Billboard success. And newspapers were the least concentrated, with the top 20% seeing only 62% of the circulation.
So what can we expect from this recent democratization of music tools? Will gains still go to the big fish? Or will an influx of new artists translate to more success for the newcomers?
I couldn’t gather evidence that supports either view. Certainly, though, it stands to reason from long tail theory, that we can expect a nichification of “long tail” music to wrest away power from pop stars. Recent successes like Lil Nas X keep this dream alive for outsiders.
But is Lil Nas X part of a growing tide, or an exception to the rule? Or put differently, does being in a saturated, algorithm-driven musical renaissance increase the appetite for the small-time creators? My hunch is it’s never been better for the little guy. Theoretically, the tools are out there and the gatekeepers are less powerful than ever. In actuality, though, it’s not so cut and dry. There’s a strong possibility we prefer a certain ratio of hits-to-weird music in our lives.
As that data scientist Michael Taulberg wrote:
What is it about media that results in this concentration of success? … in our networked world people recommend books, movies, and games to each other. These titles will get more reviews, more shelf space, and ultimately, more attention. In this way, success breeds success. It’s a virtuous cycle, a positive feedback loop. The popularity of one work takes attention away from others. It crowds out other media just as giant trees crowds out smaller plants. This process is called preferential attachment and it is at the heart of power law.
Is our attention for unestablished creators expanding? Or is there a natural equilibrium that persists?
As a once-in-a-while DJ myself, there’s always a tension between playing bangers versus taking a chance on something edgier. Among DJs, there’s an apt and cynical saying here: “people want to hear 2 types of music—songs they’ve heard before and songs they’ve heard before.”
Liner notes
Holiday must-have: the AirPod carrying strap. The first-ever Spotify Awards will be held in Mexico City, which is apparently the world’s music streaming capital. Apple clapped back with its own event celebrating Billie Eilish. Travis Scott’s Jack Boys, coming soon. How UK garage producer Burial inspired Lana Wachowski. Grimes interviewing Lana Del Rey. A case for Tame Impala as artist of the decade.
If you enjoyed this newsletter, forward it to a friend. If you didn’t, forward it to an enemy.
Stay tuned and keep it locked,
Nick
NpappaG
PS - The audio market map is still on the way. Hofstadter’s law in action :)
Get on the email list at pappageorge.substack.com
Hello audio nerds! Edition three has arrived. For those of you who are new, Audio-First is an ongoing series looking at audio, airpods, voice, and music.
There’s also big news this week: your humble narrator has invested in some audio equipment, taking advantage of those Black Friday deals. With any luck, future editions will be heard in high-fidelity. In that vein, I’m trying to make the accompanying audio a worthy listen, and I’m finding it hard to speak aloud a pre-written work with gusto. This week, I’ll be giving it more love (and multiple takes).
Onward.
Software is eating music hardware
There’s an old chestnut in the tech industry that ‘software is eating the world.’ From snapping photos, to reading books, to watching movies, enjoying media once required a hefty investment. Obviously, breakthroughs in personal computing changed all that. After 10ish years with smartphones, we take software-based photos, publish directly online, and stream video from our couches. Software has ‘eaten’ all of this atom-world infrastructure and replaced them with the best business model ever made: near-zero marginal cost.
In terms of audio formats, the arc is just as easy to see. Recorded music began in 1860 by scribbling on glass and tinfoil, and iterated over a century into ever-smaller plastic discs until disappearing completely into the mp3.
What’s talked about less frequently is how this transformation is happening on the production side of things. As I’ve gotten more into bedroom music-making, I’ve learned software has eaten a ton of music hardware, much of it pretty recently.
Arguably, the biggest game-changer here was the rise of DAWs (digital audio workstation), which are versions of GarageBand on steroids such as Logic Pro X, Ableton, or Pro Tools. DAWs took all the buttons and doo-dads found in a recording studio and made them available to anyone with a laptop. Artists could finally edit, mix, and add effects, with far less hassle. Again, this was niche commercial software well into the 2000s. But now it’s everywhere. The same goes for the instruments. Can’t afford a $5,000 Mellotron (the early synthesizer made famous on ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’)? You can buy a software plugin that will turn your USB piano—or even your computer keyboard—into a near-replica. No moving van required.
Your favorite tunes are likely made with a mix of traditional instruments alongside dozens of software-based ones. And entire marketplaces exist to trade software instruments and samples. Lil Nas X famously made “Old Town Road” through BeatStars, which links up artists and producers to exchange beats without ever getting in the studio together. Right now, software-based tools and marketplaces are transforming the supply side of music.
The changing power law
So what happens when software ‘eats’ the tools powering art and media?
Now that everyone has Abbey Road Studios at their fingertips, there is a conundrum: financially and practically, the barriers to making music have never been lower. But now it takes more than ever to stand out from the crowd. There’s a similar saying in Silicon Valley: “it’s never been easier to start a startup, and it’s never been harder to scale one.” Or put another way, leveraging all these new tools and spitting out success has never been more complex.
For areas like movies, music, fashion, writing (and perhaps soon food with Cloud Kitchens), the now-cheaper delivery means we consume to the point of saturation. The obvious example here is Spotify, which delivers so much recorded music that we rely on algorithms just to remember what we enjoy. Over time, we begin to care a bit less who’s making the songs, deferring to playlists and curators. But we’re also listening to more than ever, so in aggregate there’s more consumption—and likely artistic inspiration—than ever. Anyone can indulge in it now. In certain cases, this has been the death knell of industries (for journalism it literally halved newsroom jobs). Elsewhere, in music, fashion, and video it’s completely reinvigorated them.
This summer, after going to a music festival, I was struck by how the pop artists seemed better than ever (even compared to the indie mainstays):
Thanks to the long-tail effects of the internet, ‘niche’ artists can amass huge followings. For most of my music-snob life, ‘pop’ music had a negative connotation. But the lines of ‘pop’ versus ‘indie’ have blurred so much it’s almost meaningless now. There is no gulf in artistic quality anymore. Any small genre can quickly become ‘pop’ if it gets enough clicks. And conversely, hyper-popular musicians like Arianna Grande are actually making great music now. (Sidenote: I’m still not sure if this effect benefits incumbents or newcomers more, but I think the whole pie is growing.)
Maybe I was fooling myself, but I felt I was witnessing firsthand how the internet made things more efficient. 10 years ago, indie music was a cut above pop music. Now, it seems that Top 40 names organically bubble up with far more artistic integrity.
I’m still curious as to how tech disruption changes the “odds of success” in the music game and beyond. Especially because not long ago Spotify CEO Daniel Ek made the bold claim that the company’s long-term mission is to empower “1 million creators to live off their work.” Does the rising tide lift all boats equally? Does it favor incumbents over newcomers (or vice-versa)?
I dug around for some numbers here, and while this data includes a large cohort of designers, a stable share of the labor force are working artists (either as a primary or secondary job), growing slightly from 1.4% to 1.55%. Other fun fact: 34% of musicians pursue it as a second job, which is the highest rate of all creative fields.
Another big consideration here is the hits-driven nature of this world. I came across this excellent data science post by Michael Taulberg called Power Law in Popular Media that explored the competitive landscape of different media types. Surprisingly, the study found video game publishing is the most winner-take-all industry, followed by book publishing. Music, more middle of the pack, saw the top 20% of artists commanding 69.7% of the Billboard success. And newspapers were the least concentrated, with the top 20% seeing only 62% of the circulation.
So what can we expect from this recent democratization of music tools? Will gains still go to the big fish? Or will an influx of new artists translate to more success for the newcomers?
I couldn’t gather evidence that supports either view. Certainly, though, it stands to reason from long tail theory, that we can expect a nichification of “long tail” music to wrest away power from pop stars. Recent successes like Lil Nas X keep this dream alive for outsiders.
But is Lil Nas X part of a growing tide, or an exception to the rule? Or put differently, does being in a saturated, algorithm-driven musical renaissance increase the appetite for the small-time creators? My hunch is it’s never been better for the little guy. Theoretically, the tools are out there and the gatekeepers are less powerful than ever. In actuality, though, it’s not so cut and dry. There’s a strong possibility we prefer a certain ratio of hits-to-weird music in our lives.
As that data scientist Michael Taulberg wrote:
What is it about media that results in this concentration of success? … in our networked world people recommend books, movies, and games to each other. These titles will get more reviews, more shelf space, and ultimately, more attention. In this way, success breeds success. It’s a virtuous cycle, a positive feedback loop. The popularity of one work takes attention away from others. It crowds out other media just as giant trees crowds out smaller plants. This process is called preferential attachment and it is at the heart of power law.
Is our attention for unestablished creators expanding? Or is there a natural equilibrium that persists?
As a once-in-a-while DJ myself, there’s always a tension between playing bangers versus taking a chance on something edgier. Among DJs, there’s an apt and cynical saying here: “people want to hear 2 types of music—songs they’ve heard before and songs they’ve heard before.”
Liner notes
Holiday must-have: the AirPod carrying strap. The first-ever Spotify Awards will be held in Mexico City, which is apparently the world’s music streaming capital. Apple clapped back with its own event celebrating Billie Eilish. Travis Scott’s Jack Boys, coming soon. How UK garage producer Burial inspired Lana Wachowski. Grimes interviewing Lana Del Rey. A case for Tame Impala as artist of the decade.
If you enjoyed this newsletter, forward it to a friend. If you didn’t, forward it to an enemy.
Stay tuned and keep it locked,
Nick
NpappaG
PS - The audio market map is still on the way. Hofstadter’s law in action :)
Get on the email list at pappageorge.substack.com
ภาษาอังกฤษ
สหรัฐอเมริกา
ในตอนนี้
สำเนาบทสนทนา 🔗
Are you the producer of this podcast?
Add a podcast transcript
Need Audio-to-Text?
Transcribe with Listen411 in Just 60 Seconds
ตอนอื่นๆ ใน PODCAST นี้
My inaugural interview guest is Drew Austin, (AKA Kneeling Bus). Drew regularly produces some of the most thought-provoking essays about tech and urban planning. I encourage you to check out his weekly newsletter. We dive into everything AirPods, audio, AR, and urban planning.Some audio-related ide…
[^listen above or read below^]Hello audio nerds! Thanks for tuning into the inaugural edition of Audio-First. In this series, I plan on exploring all of the dynamism happening across audio and music.It’s no secret that for startups and creators riding this wave there’s an unprecedented opportunity.…
[^^Listen above, or read below (or both if you’re feeling crazy)^^]My dear audio nerds, Happy New Year. If you’re new here, read The Charter. We’ve got a ton to talk about. First, my apologies for the holiday hiatus. This won’t be your typical 3-and-done podcast/newsletter, so worry not. After some…
Hello again, audio nerds! Welcome to the second installment. Lots to cover today. First, it seems like the accompanying audio is a hit. However, it seems like reading the newsletter word-for-word is not. When I was recording the audio for Episode 1, it became clear that I speak very differently tha…
ข้อสงวนสิทธิ์: พอดแคสต์และอาร์ตเวิร์คที่ฝังอยู่ในหน้านี้มาจาก Nick Pappageorge ซึ่งเป็นทรัพย์สินของเจ้าของและไม่มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องหรือรับรองโดย Listen Notes, Inc.
