It's a great start. Co-ops and non-profits can also be subverted and taken over. I hope you look ahead and plan very carefully.
For example, according to an (unverified) story someone told me, a vendor to US east coast food cooperatives now controls many of them; they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and disempowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for any legal struggle than any co-op member does.
Also, I remember in the news that a non-profit or limited-profit company in the IT industry, founded for the public good, is going to be turned into a for-profit. The board actually fired the person behind this plan, but that person came back and fired the board members.
> For example, according to an (unverified) story someone told me, a vendor to US east coast food cooperatives now controls many of them; they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and disempowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for any legal struggle than any co-op member does.
For anyone interested in learning more, this is a reference to the National Cooperative Grocers and the role of UNFI (a primary distributor for many food coops) and CDS (a cooperative grocery consulting firm). I've been pretty involved in my local grocery cooperative's governance over the past two decades. From my vantage point, there's some truth to this, but also some exaggeration (or more accurately, the pinning of other grievances, which themselves might be legitimate, on something that might not actually be related).
I don't endorse or necessarily agree with the views expressed on these two websites, but they might help give some background:
The public document - PLAN FOR THE ARTIST-OWNED INTERNET - zine subvert published yesterday has quite a bit of detail on the complexities and possibilities in the governance and benefit of the co-op. The team supposedly includes lawyers and economists.
It's not really a complaint about the project itself. I'm actually considering paying the $100 to be a member because I think they're attempting to address an important problem and I want to see how it goes and it would probably be more fun to do so as an owner.
But you've got to admit that its a peculiar rhetorical choice to explain at the landing page that your strategy doesn't involve coupling ownership/control of the platform with the ability to control tokens on a blockchain somewhere, without using the same space to explain what it does do instead.
I for one would stay away 100 feet from any project that remotely alludes to being vaguely interested in crypto/blockchain.
So not doing that is a huge green flag for me.
Haven’t yet seen and canola where this crypto distributed network actually had benefits and wasn’t just a giant grift - to be fair I did not look very hard though.
Smart contracts only affects on-chain stuff, and this deals with real-world things. No smart contract is going to help you if webmasters update website, or if a board decides to add a rule.
When I imagine using crypto for this problem, the on-chain portion is a registry of hashes (for the songs) which maps them to addresses which I can send money to and then the contract multiplexes the money out to the appropriate people. So if it's one dude with a guitar and a microphone, 100% goes to him. But if it's a remix of a remix of a remix, then maybe that money gets split 50 ways.
I don't know if I need a website or a board for that. Of course I'm not the one building this, so my imagined design doesn't matter. But the question is: if not that, then what? I'm curious, I'm just gonna sleep on it before I decide that I'm $100 curious.
Edit: I see I can get the zine digitally first before deciding to be an owner. I guess I have some reading to do.
That is so blockchain: a solution that does not work and users do not need.
Blockchain only sees hashes, so it has no way of knowing if that hash of a new song that was just uploaded is really a remix. But, if you solve this somehow (and I bet you can't in a way that can't be gamed), people can just distribute remixes outside of blockchain altogether. No blockchain is going to help you collect royalties from youtube stream.
Second, "money distribution for remixes without trusted parties" is not a very common problem. If contract participants want to cheat each other, they can do it easily by lying about number of listeners, they don't need to do something trivially detectable like messing with contract itself.
That's not how music gets paid out. You have the label, publisher and PRO/CMO. The actual amounts depend on both where the purchaser is at the time of purchase and where the payouts go to.
There's a reason there are so few players, it's complicated once you go international. I would suggest going after the massive corpus of laws, but most are the to protect artists... they just do it in very different ways, and often pre-date the Internet.
They create a new address and from it they publish a revocation of the old address. Then they re-register their content and associate it with payment patterns that pay out to the new address. Then they propagate the new address in-person. When fans trust the new address, their client notices the conflict and they're prompted to prune the old one (since the trust-score on the new one is higher).
If the artist-fan-trust-relationship is multi-hop, it may take a little while for the switch to propagate from fan-to-fan rather than from artist-to-fan, but when it does they'd be notified to consider making the same change.
Meanwhile, a timer has been going since the last time the artist collected funds from the account with the lost key. Once it gets suitably high, the pending payments into it are reversed back to the fans, and the pattern is altered to exclude the abandoned address and notify payers that they might be a better pattern to use, prompting them to find and use the new pattern.
It's not the simplest way, but it's the best I can do without having anybody on payroll, which means maximizing the amount received by the artists.
Besides, art is supposed to be transformative, not status-quo preserving. Even though 99% of artists don't have to worry about being censored directly, I think they're more likely to be interested in protecting the 1% who do. That means having both groups using the same payment rails, and they must be rails that don't respect the kind of bullies that freeze accounts based on content.
Finally, you can lean on this web of trust for the distribution of things like concert tickets, making life more difficult for scalpers (and you can identify the scaplers who have infiltrated your fan network, and explicitly distrust them for next time).
> Once it gets suitably high, the pending payments into it are reversed back to the fans
So basically: you're screwed.
> Besides, art is supposed to be transformative, not status-quo preserving.
Blah-blah-blah. I would really love to belong to a collective that puts my music right next to CSAM. Fans would really appreciate it. So now you have to have an enforcement mechanism, like voting. What if somebody hacks enough keys to take over the voting? Have even more privileged members?
That's the thing: the real-world complexity has to deal with all kinds of edge cases. And we have a legal system for that, with several thousand years of legacy in it.
What do you mean "next to"? You provide a file, the system gives you a way to pay the people who made it and a way to prove to others that you've done so. If you keep CSAM next to your music, that's on you.
So each musician has to keep track of everyone's else tracks? Including key changes? Or is there an organization that manages it?
What if an actor disappears and the timeout makes all the tracks unavailable until they are re-uploaded with a new key?
I can go on indefinitely. There's a reason "smart contracts" are now just another way of saying "scam", and why blockchain is only seriously pushed by scammers and criminals.
How to move around the content isn't really a problem I'm trying to address. As far as I can tell it's a solved one, has been since Napster. Different users like to manage their media differently, I'm not going to tell them how to do that.
Same thing for managing user identity. Whether you want to build an organization around that problem or slap together a CLI and let the users fend for themselves, again not something I'm trying to weigh in on.
These are app-level decisions, not a protocol ones. And neither of them really lend themselves to on-chain solutions.
The unsolved problem I see here is that you've got a community of users, all with identical copies of a file, and they want to build consensus on how that file should "cite its sources". In the case of music, that's a bunch of fans wanting to pay the musicians, but it's structurally the same as if you're trying to give feedback to authors of a paper or claim that researcher X found vulnerability Y in code Z: you're building consensus on a directed graph between datasets and actors such that other actors have something to reference when they communicate (or send payments) to each other about those things.
That's the only part of the problem that's likely to come under attack by incumbents, so it's the only part you need a ruleset and computational verification for. Everything else can be handled "the normal way", by appealing to the good behavior of the incumbents.
People (e.g. Sony) are going to try to get paid for music they never played. People are going to take credit for research they didn't do (or did poorly). People are going to try to misrepresent the trustworthiness of things that they built and want to charge you for.
You can't put that on AWS because nothing on AWS is more trustworthy than its least trustworthy admin. You can't leave it to the courts because only the powerful can use the courts to their advantage, for the rest of us they only serve as a system for mutually assured destruction.
Which people get credit for which data is too contentious of a topic to trust to the hands of people who have pinky promised not to use it in their power games. If it weren't, there'd be no reason for Subvert to exist in the first place. I hope they can manage it by just being very careful about how they allocate trust among their owners, but history has given us centuries worth of reasons to be skeptical.
Meanwhile, other data that the powerful would prefer to tamper with remains intact in the various blockchains that protect it. The rules continue to be followed. There are a lot of problems with that space, especially at the interface between the rules-governed parts and the pinky-promise parts, but we've only been chipping away at those problems for decades. They feel a lot more tractable than anything involving the insufficiencies of the law.
Care to name a few industries transformed by the blockchain?
And no, payments for ransomware don't count. Illicit payments for CSAM and drugs also are not an example I'm looking for. And no, international sanctions busting is not a good example either. The same goes for Ponzi schemes.
But it possible to host a website almost on blockchain (see TON Sites as example) and withdraw certain modification permissions once the contract in launched.
It seems to me that it is possible to implement fully decentralized bandcamp-like site.
Yes, it is true that Telegram can technically ignore who owns an NFT with a username, just like any platform can strip a user of their username.
However:
1. If someone approaches you and wants to buy your username, you can sell it without the need for trust in the buyer or a third party.
2. Consider this scenario: someone writes anonymously in a public channel and then Telegram removes the channel, and bans its username. If the author has an NFT associated with their username, they have a way to prove to the public that the new platform where they continue to post is indeed managed by the same person and not an impostor.
Therefore, there is additional value in using blockchain in this case.
1. You buy a username. Old owner contacts support and claims their computer was hacked and they didn't want to sell. Will you lose your new username? No matter what the answer is, you will have to trust Telegram LLC to honor that.
2. Or that person can get a website and advertise on channel. Or a Twitter/Mastodon/whatever account. Or if you want obscure tech, they can publish a public key (directly, without blockchain).
You can certainly plug blockchain in many places. Hey, you could hook up blockchain to your light switch and use L2 transactions to turn the light on!
The real question is: given the specific real problem, is blockchain the best solution? So far the answer is usually "no" (unless the question relates to avoiding laws)
You seem to be arguing that it was possible to implement auctions without blockchain, and that such an implementation would be even better. I provided my example in response to josephg, who did not include "using blockchain is the best way to build such a product" in the list of constraints in his question. Therefore, I have not optimized my example for that.
That’s fair. I see “bidding on a username” as fundamentally the same as using bitcoin to buy a pizza. An auction is a bit more complicated, but it’s still just commerce. Bitcoin as over complicated money.
But I didn’t exclude commerce in my post above. Thanks for replying.
It's been 16 years, I think by that time we can be pretty sure cryptocurrency is not going to transform anything other than ransomware payments, law evasion and financial speculation.
The steam engine was almost immediately useful. It may not be used for cars or trains, but it was the best solution for pumping water from some mines.
In the more recent comparison, I remeber using the web in early 1990's, when it was less then 5 years old. (Fun fact: the images thing were still new, I remember each image had a "download" link in case yser's browser did not support them). It was already used, and had no analogies, and most importantly, the pages I were used were _not_ related to web or even CS, it was some physics thing.
It's time to accept reality: we've spent dozens of years and billions of dollars, and the most useful application is avoidance of financial controls. There is not going to be anything more.
>the reason all crypto companies are scams and corrupt is just because the problem is so hard, not because of inherent flaws in the idea and the incompatibility of lofty goals with reality.
I’m all for decentralisation but blockchain ain’t it.
Certainly, but when the average org becomes corrupted, you just stop buying its project and let it die. This thing endeavors not to sell you a product, but to sell your product. If it's going to get buy-in from artists, I think it's going to need to make significant promises about not making them regret it. I'd love to see it succeed, but building enough social capital to back long term promises like that is a difficult thing.
Musicians want to accept credit card payments (you lose a lot of potential sales if you only take crypto), which requires a central party to handle payment processing.
>they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and dis-empowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for any legal struggle than any co-op member does.
Sounds like an opportunity for a binding arbitration clause, and hiring another co-op that performs binding arbitration.
For the record, I'm not affiliated with Subvert and in reading the docs I find their arguments about the "problem" with Bandcamp extremely weak/hypothetical and stated over and over again without any evidence. I am skeptical that they understand the economics of running a music retail site and think they might find that the cut Bandcamp takes is actually pretty fair for the value bands get. And I also don't really get how they plan to make this "collective ownership" actually work for real, but I also got really exhausted reading the doc and gave up, so maybe it's buried in there. The real reason I posted it here was hoping the HN hive mind would dissect and critique the actual plan for me. :)
The problem with Bandcamp is neither hypothetical or weak. The problem is that its been sold twice, and is now owned by a company who attempted to fire anyone who tried to unionise, which is a red flag. Will bandcamp be sold again? Yes, very very likely. So that is exactly the problem.
First of all, "attempted to fire anyone who tried to unionise" is entirely made up. They laid off fully half the company; it wasn't targeted at all. Second, the "very likely" part about it being sold is hypothetical, and the follow-on effect of that being bad for artists is doubly hypothetical. As of right now, the service is exactly as it was back when it was "the anti-spotify" that everyone was in love with. It was owned by someone trying to make money before and it's owned by someone trying to make money now. If this is the dread enshittification, please enshittify all over me. Or admit that this isn't enshittification, it's just a fear of what might happen.
I think this is great, but I do hope thought is being put into solving the hardest problem of all IMHO: Music Discovery
I have bought a lot on Bandcamp, but would have bought 10x more if I could just find stuff I liked. The existing system makes discovery nearly impossible unless you happen to like the stuff being mainly bought and curated or are in a lucky genre.
Discoverability is especially hard because 99% of the music people create sucks. This may not seem true if you mainly listen to "radio" and playlists, but if you ever get access to a large catalog of independent music, try picking stuff at pseudo-random and take notes. As much as I love good art (and I do), most art is not good art. You can't go on popularity because some of the great artists (especially on Bandcamp) are relatively unknown and therefore are not popular. For example, Thousand Needles in Red is a phenomenal band with great albums, and almost completely unknown. These Four Walls is similar (but at least they are on Youtube Music/Spotify/etc). I'd buy the crap out of similar albums, but discovering them is very challenging. I mainly found those two out of random luck.
Anyway I'm rambling, but I do hope you can figure out a good means for discovery. I think finding and grouping people with similar tastes is among the best ways, and also having artists that a person likes recommend other artists can be super valuable.
Band level doesn't quite work. Alas, it needs to be track level. There are a lot of bands where I like a track and that's it.
My favorite example is Seven Sirens And a Silver Tear from Sirenia, a Norwegian gothic metal band. There's no metal in that. It took me a long long time before I learned this but the track is a direct descendant of the Midlight Sonata. And I was hunting for similar songs and I now keep a playlist of them -- but if you started from Sirenia you would never find any of them.
This. There are many, many artists who I only own one or two tracks of - including some of the most-played tracks in my collection - because the vast majority of their other output is not my taste at all. If finding good music was as simple as just buying everything that a single artist put out, it would be much easier to build a collection.
The good news is that in the digital era you no longer need to fork over cash for an entire album or even an EP when you only care about one of the songs - which leaves more money available to buy music from other artists. I often wonder if in the long run it still balances out for artists, since the songs one person likes probably aren't the same as the songs another person likes, especially in niche genres.
If the track is known, then from the context of this and other things you like, you would still reach useful recommendations in not too many clicks. Track level would be interesting, but is also harder as data is a lot sparser making it harder to build reliable recommendations.
Some interesting suggestions. However, from a number of starting points I was pointed as "Songraes", a band that doesn't seem to rate it's own Wikipedia article. I wonder if this has been "fixed" somehow?
What is the approach, on a concrete, technical level, that you are taking to make recommendation N, based on the 3, 4...N-1 choices?
Do you think online NNMF collaborative filtering with Spotify bands with fewer than 100,000 monthly listeners is the answer? If you had infinite resources, what would you do?
I tried it before, and I just tried it again. It is great. I just came back from RecSys a large conference on recommender systems. Researchers and companies like Spotify, Amazon music, Deezer gave lots of presentation. However, nothing they showed were so immediately useful as this. Awesome service!
Wow. Simple user interface, fas and it gives interesting results! It did not find two of my favorite groups, gusgus and subgud, but I added a suggestion. Bookmarking this for later use!
Discoverability of anything outside of the main stream is always difficult.
I listen to a sub-sub-genre of an already niche sub-genre (raw black metal) where it takes A LOT of work to pick out the small amount of good from the large amount of bad. Many of these bands are NOT on any major platforms except for bandcamp.
There are a few review blogs that highlight some of the top stuff (although, most of the reviews are at the black metal level, not the sub-sub-genre), but I find my main source of discovery is bandcamp.
What I do is: 1) Follow LABELS on bandcamp that specialize solely in the music from bands I like, 2) follow other users that have a similar purchase history, 3) and of course follow your favorite bands for updates.
My biggest issue with bandcamp is that I find their notification system and wishlist to be quite lacking.
For notifications and discoverability, I take all the notification emails I get, filter them based on type (new release, new items [gear,stickers,vinyl], and general message updates) and move them into my RSS system (FreshRSS)[0]. I get new music updates every day of things I probably want to at least check out.
For wishlist management, I wrote a simple desktop app[1] that lets me rate, tag, comment, and listen to my albums from my bandcamp wishlist quickly. Anything I _might_ be interested in, I put in my wishlist, then use my app to keep track of if I like it or not. Stuff I don't like stays in my wishlist, but gets a low rating and filters to the bottom while stuff I want to purchase filters up to the top.
Don't get me wrong, you are still going to need to spend time exploring, as you aren't getting your weekly curated playlists.
a) Find good DJs playing music you like (YouTube is very helpful here, as is partying)
b) Listen to their sets
c) Shazam (or just trainspot) the tracks you like. (Shazam has a really nice integration with SPotify that dumps everything it IDs into a Spotify playlist)
I am a DJ and constantly on the hunt for new music, this is how I find most of it. No algorithms necessary!
But there are so many channels that specialize in that sort of thing, NPR Tiny Desk being the most mainstream online curator. Also lyrics sites, if the singer-songwriter isn't completely marketing shy.
Sorry for what's probably a stupid question, but how do you find DJs on Youtube? Do you literally just search for stuff like "Hard Rock DJ" and then start clicking through results?
It's a limited field of one person, but John Peel (BBC dj) sure introduced me to so much.
Never found anything like the show for making me realise how much music I was missing...so thought fuck it...can't listen to everything, so I won't bother trying.
I write my own music for me. It's on a yt channel (no images), so if anyone does discover it all....it's yours. And everyone elses.
That's interesting that you say discovery is hard on Bandcamp. I've actually found their blog content great at finding new artists. Their editorial staff seems to be really tuned in and articles like this make me very happy:
I wonder if they'd be better off creating a collectively-owned record label. Small independent labels do still exist, and I can imagine them leveraging the discovery mechanisms built into streaming platforms, etc., and also having a store front for merchandise / physical media (which would be great for co-promoting the bands in the co-op).
They discuss this in their blog post about how additional industries could be part of this co-op: like labels, studios, housing co-ops, vinyl pressing plants, venues, professional services, and credit unions.
I'm surprised at this. I find music discovery easy. Some tips:
On Bandcamp: in addition to obviously following artists I like, I follow several fan accounts of those artists, then I can see what they buy. I also try to sample the Bandcamp album of the day.
On NTS.live I have a bunch of favourite hosts and try to listen to every show they release, and note the track listing. Too many to ever get through.
Podcasts: NPR All Songs Considered, and Resident Advisor when I can.
On Apple Music there's the algorithm. Hit or miss.
Back in the heydays of music blogs I would find a lot of great stuff on Hype Machine, but alas, I think those days are gone.
Just with these few sources I find there is far too much great new music to get through in one lifetime. Godspeed!
> Discoverability is especially hard because 99% of the music people create sucks
This - as a listener, quality is the hard problem. It is encouraging that the proposal affirms the value of curative functions (like labels).
As an artist, I actually don’t really care about music’s commercial problems - I’m more annoyed by the constraints on musical art objects inherent in all music platforms.
Like, experiencing art objects in a gallery hits different vs scrolling through bandcamp. The internet is, already, the gallery but it’s like we replaced all of the paintings with tiny prints, eclipsed by the placards.
The thing I would really love is a music platform that feels like a hosting platform, not a marketplace. Where a user can simultaneously act as a listener, an artist, a curator or a critic.
I think I have seen folks use rateyourmusic.com to get partway there already...
> The thing I would really love is a music platform that feels like a hosting platform, not a marketplace. Where a user can simultaneously act as a listener, an artist, a curator or a critic.
This is what DJs and record labels are for. As I've pointed out many times before, the very understandable hostility of the public toward major labels that inflict inequitable terms on artists early in their career has been applied to dismiss all labels in favor of platforms. Small independent labels actually do a ton to support and build up artists outside of mainstream genres, while many (most?) platforms are as bad as major labels in their own way. Imagine if you went to the record store in the pre-internet days, and they were giving away singles or whole albums for free, but there were ads mixed in with the music and if you tried to move the needle/forward the cassette past them, they'd break your hifi.
Spotify has a few mechanisms for discovering music and I find that they largely work for me. I also listen to interviews with random artists to get exposed to music I am not aware of.
What's wrong with discovering good art out of random luck?
I have discovered at least as much good music on Bandcamp as I did in the early years of Beatport and before that in real-life record stores. You start with a genre you like, then just flick through all the new releases. If a cover or title catches your eye, pop it in and have a listen, if you don't like it, move on to the next. Maybe you missed a bunch of good stuff because it didn't catch your eye, but who cares? The point isn't to collect every amazing piece of music ever written, it's just to buy enough music that makes you happy.
After a while you might start to build up a mental map of which labels tend to release more stuff you like so you prioritize listening to their new releases over other labels. Or you find an artist you like and follow them onto different labels. Even indie artists who self-release everything often still do collabs with other artists, so you can find connected/related stuff that way too, or look at the way they self-describe and tag their own music then search round for those keywords too.
In my opinion it's much easier to discover music now than it was in the brick and mortar days primarily because of hyperlinks and search, but also because the new releases rack doesn't get cleaned out by the early birds, records aren't held behind the counter for favorite customers etc. Not to mention Discogs is still there for more mainstream stuff to drill down on aliases, guest appearances, producers etc. Every Bandcamp Friday I end up with a full cart and dozens of open tabs and it feels like an embarrassment of riches. I wouldn't know what to do with a recommendations engine on top of that.
I am thrilled with my music collection these days, it's got everything from janky noodlings by bedroom musicians who I was perhaps the only person who they ever got a sale from, to established artists with a couple decades of releases under their belts, to weird little microscenes centered around cities or countries I'll never visit. Sure, I dug through a ton of trash to get there, sometimes checking out reams of tracks by a promising artist only to find a single gem worth tossing over a few bucks for, but now I have it, and I treasure it! I love having a personalized collection that's entirely made up of tunes that I think are awesome. It's the fulfillment of teenage me's dream. I don't think discovering 10x as much music would make it any better - on the contrary, I wouldn't have time to really focus on and appreciate it all, in which case I might as well have just put a streaming playlist on in the background.
I really like the overall idea. Two thoughts I had while browsing.
From the main page:
> PURCHASE ZINE
Is the only way to get a copy of the manifesto, really to purchase it (or join as a member)? How is someone supposed to even know whether they want to be involved in the project, if they aren't allowed to read the document first?
and from the Docs:
> How is Subvert funded?
Unless I missed it, nothing in docs mentions the most obvious source of funding for a marketplace - a cut of revenue? Is there any plan for that?
If I were a member of such a collective, I'd rather give the collective a small cut of my revenue than have to deal with the complexity and risks (and potential loss of control) of dealing with outside investors.
> Is the only way to get a copy of the manifesto, really to purchase it (or join as a member)? How is someone supposed to even know whether they want to be involved in the project, if they aren't allowed to read the document first?
If the extremely minute “payment” of coming up with a throwaway email address to get it sent to is too much for you, I don’t know what to tell you. This is one step above complaining that you have to “pay” by expending the energy to click a hyperlink.
What exactly is meant by co-ownership in your case? What exact "Ability to influence platform policies and features" would I have and how are product/business decisions made? What is the organisation structure?
The phrase "Collective ownership" sounds romantic but it can mean many things, from very good to outright scam, depending on implementation.
It's structured as a multi-stakeholder cooperative, from what I understand.
"Building an artist-owned platform is a complex challenge, but it’s one we are uniquely positioned to solve. Our growing coalition includes founders of Ampled, a project that helped pioneer the concept of cooperative platforms, as well as artists, music industry professionals, and specialists in cooperative law and platform economics. "
I could see the economics working similar to OpenCollective, but different governance. I know OC announced a restructuring recently, but I don't think it's a co-op model.
I'm glad to see new concepts emerge like this that challenge the governance and benefit of platforms by shareholder corporations for their own self-interested purposes.
I joined as a "Founding Supporter" of the Subvert co-op last night when I saw a post on my Twitter (X) feed.
I really hope to see more tech cooperatives in the future. The dominant paradigm of neo-fiefdom tech platforms is both tired and uninspiring.
So, great, another place to host and sell your music. Love bandcamp. Nothing really that special about it. It rose to popularity because it didn't take that much of a cut of sales from the artists and was offering the easy ability to host all the digital files etc. What's different about this? The 'artists' will have a say on the cut that Subvert is taking? Shrug. All sounds fine and not really that complicated. It will all come down to traction and getting a lot of artists/labels to move there, and that is a crapshoot really. Especially since Bandcamp currently hasn't been impacted in any major way. That and the usual not-really-that-minor challenges of hosting/bandwidth/payment processing fees at scale.
There's already some existing co-operative music store/bandcamp alternative projects that are selling music and accepting new artists.
https://jam.coop is the one we are building. We launched last year in response to the sale of bandcamp and the uncertainty we felt in our communities of musicians who depend on Bandcamp for some or part of their living. In contrast to subvert we've decided to take an incremental approach. We're incubating jam inside an existing worker co-operative, building the features that our users need, and working towards an "exit to community" where jam will become a multi-stakeholder co-op owned by artists and workers.
I'm also familiar with mirlo and ampwall who are working on similar projects.
Mondragon is a great model demonstrating the greater possibilities within complementary-industry cooperative economy. Mondragon is partnership between and across industries.
I could see the regional distribution of industry across/within geography, as applied within Mondragon, mapping well to genre distribution across/within industry production tooling/technologies for Subvert.
Listeners want the convenience of Spotify and don’t care about artists or even know what Bandcamp is, let alone something after Bandcamp. I’m an indie artist and I want things to be different but until you convince people to give up convenience for principles, projects like this won’t mean much.
Let the shit music exist on Spotify, if you value your take control of it, throwing it into the void and prostrating yourself on social media begging people to listen to it is not doing yourself or your art justice!
The tools are out there to allow you to advertise, sell and distribute your music (I'm not talking about the distribution platforms like distrokid etc, fuck streaming, fuck social media and fuck making content whilst we're at it), why give away control over your art?
My model is this:
* Make some awesome music
* Self host it. Provide means for people to download your music (there are so many methods).
* Allow donations via reputable method
* Crowd fund for big events like creating physical releases, paying for studio time if you need to.
* Play as many gigs as you can/want to do
* Again fuck social media
You have to be dogged and self determined to work hard in order to for your art to be good, once you put the work in and get yourself out there people will want to hear more after seeing your shows.
Most people do not have the means to self-host it. A platform is just make an account, upload the files and cover, set the title, done. The platform might help with getting an audience as well. To self-host you need to have both the technical ability for it and pre-existing audience to use your self-hosted platform.
Most people should try harder. Whats the point of even making music if you're gonna pay all these platforms for no one to even to listen to your music.
And then you have to compete with the major labels who are buying streams to get their artists in the big playlists.
Its a really cleaver system, you have all these services that you pay upfront and then if you actually do get any streams you get like 0.0001% of a cent.
Its a con, the only people getting paid are the platforms.
If you have to use any platform stick your music on youtube using the lowest quality mp3's and then link back to your own website.
I make music and would be the main contact for several artists, but I'm not a label per se. Would I join separately for each, or will there be a way for each artist to be added under my account or on separate accounts? Thanks!
A successor to bandcamp would be really nice. I think it is hard to determine if a site will become one, because it is largely about network effect—Bandcamp had enough users (customers and artists) that it was, like, worthwhile to give them your credit card info…
Totally tangential and probably revealing that I have absolutely no understanding of the music creation ecosystem and process, but is there room for, like, an online collaboration system? Like a Unity asset store for samples or something? Allow people to remix and then handle the pay out automatically when songs get bought?
It's geared more towards collaboration and there is some system to share any income that gets derived (not sure how it worked). You find someone's song page, download the existing tracks (stems) and work on your own, uploading to the collection when you are finished. I collaborated with some artists and it was fun and I met some folks. They set up payments but I never expected anything to come from that. I thought finding projects that are interesting to collaborate on was difficult. It's just a big pile of music of varying quality and genres.
Bandcamp didn't even accept people's credit card info (maybe it's changed in recent years and they have more payment options now). They outsourced payment processing to PayPal.
Most small shopping sites in USA don't handle their own payments due to regulations.
But the licensing doesn't do pay outs, with sampling you pay once and its yours to use as you see fit. As it should be, we don't need anyone else sticking their hands out.
In general, imo, if somebody contributes usefully to a project they should get paid in line with their contribution.
The flat rate makes sense from an era when tracking that sort of stuff was difficult, but I dunno, it seems like it ought to be possible to track this sort of stuff automatically nowadays.
How is Bandcamp doing nowadays? I know the backstory of it being bought by Epic, then Epic realizing they have no use for a music store and selling it off to Songtradr who immediately gutted it by firing half of the staff, but I don't use it enough to know if enshittification has set in yet.
I’ve got both artist and fan accounts. I’ve not noticed any significant change in service or tools in this whole period of change. The one thing that’s new is “listening parties”, but that seems fairly “on-beand” to me. BC was profitable for years prior to the first sale. Why mess with something that works?
I haven't notice any degradation so far. Recently they even announced a Bandcamp Friday - a day when a Bandcamp commission is 0 and all income from sales goes to the artists. Doesn't look like they try to squeeze as much profits as possible and slowly kill the platform in doing so.
I think that's been going on since early 2020. And yeah, I can't really tell a difference between Bandcamp before it was sold and today. It's a shame that they not only sold to Epic of all companies but then fired so many people.
Maybe. It's really hard to say because you don't know what it took to build Bandcamp up to what it is today. We also don't know if things are falling apart or if the people still working there have twice their normal work.
How in the world is it enshittification if there's no noticeable change to users? Nothing got shittier, so doesn't that by definition mean it's not enshittification?
It's a great start. Co-ops and non-profits can also be subverted and taken over. I hope you look ahead and plan very carefully.
For example, according to an (unverified) story someone told me, a vendor to US east coast food cooperatives now controls many of them; they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and disempowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for any legal struggle than any co-op member does.
Also, I remember in the news that a non-profit or limited-profit company in the IT industry, founded for the public good, is going to be turned into a for-profit. The board actually fired the person behind this plan, but that person came back and fired the board members.
> For example, according to an (unverified) story someone told me, a vendor to US east coast food cooperatives now controls many of them; they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and disempowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for any legal struggle than any co-op member does.
For anyone interested in learning more, this is a reference to the National Cooperative Grocers and the role of UNFI (a primary distributor for many food coops) and CDS (a cooperative grocery consulting firm). I've been pretty involved in my local grocery cooperative's governance over the past two decades. From my vantage point, there's some truth to this, but also some exaggeration (or more accurately, the pinning of other grievances, which themselves might be legitimate, on something that might not actually be related).
I don't endorse or necessarily agree with the views expressed on these two websites, but they might help give some background:
https://organizing.work/2019/04/why-do-coops-hate-unions/
http://web.archive.org/web/20210213141044/http://www.takebac...
The public document - PLAN FOR THE ARTIST-OWNED INTERNET - zine subvert published yesterday has quite a bit of detail on the complexities and possibilities in the governance and benefit of the co-op. The team supposedly includes lawyers and economists.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1znV0Q8_jjxFTiKeT_FETTZieiXl...
The FAQ has:
> Is this a crypto thing?
>> No.
I realize that crypto is a bad word for some people, but I think that the above answer has a corollary:
> Does it have a single point of control that will attract corruption if enough of us start using it?
>> Yes
Certainly plenty of poorly designed crypto things also have that point of control, but a well designed crypto thing at least has a shot at resilience.
> Does it have a single point of control that will attract corruption if enough of us start using it?
By opposition to crypto, which attracts distributed corruption when enough people use the project?
I'm being glib, but complaining that a project not using crypto makes it inherently unsafe is pretty rich.
It's not really a complaint about the project itself. I'm actually considering paying the $100 to be a member because I think they're attempting to address an important problem and I want to see how it goes and it would probably be more fun to do so as an owner.
But you've got to admit that its a peculiar rhetorical choice to explain at the landing page that your strategy doesn't involve coupling ownership/control of the platform with the ability to control tokens on a blockchain somewhere, without using the same space to explain what it does do instead.
It does the normal thing instead: using a legal system to define and enforce ownership and control.
There's no "legal system", there's a huge bunch of local legal systems, most of them slightly broken in various ways.
I for one would stay away 100 feet from any project that remotely alludes to being vaguely interested in crypto/blockchain. So not doing that is a huge green flag for me.
Haven’t yet seen and canola where this crypto distributed network actually had benefits and wasn’t just a giant grift - to be fair I did not look very hard though.
Smart contracts only affects on-chain stuff, and this deals with real-world things. No smart contract is going to help you if webmasters update website, or if a board decides to add a rule.
See also: NFT delisting.
When I imagine using crypto for this problem, the on-chain portion is a registry of hashes (for the songs) which maps them to addresses which I can send money to and then the contract multiplexes the money out to the appropriate people. So if it's one dude with a guitar and a microphone, 100% goes to him. But if it's a remix of a remix of a remix, then maybe that money gets split 50 ways.
I don't know if I need a website or a board for that. Of course I'm not the one building this, so my imagined design doesn't matter. But the question is: if not that, then what? I'm curious, I'm just gonna sleep on it before I decide that I'm $100 curious.
Edit: I see I can get the zine digitally first before deciding to be an owner. I guess I have some reading to do.
That is so blockchain: a solution that does not work and users do not need.
Blockchain only sees hashes, so it has no way of knowing if that hash of a new song that was just uploaded is really a remix. But, if you solve this somehow (and I bet you can't in a way that can't be gamed), people can just distribute remixes outside of blockchain altogether. No blockchain is going to help you collect royalties from youtube stream.
Second, "money distribution for remixes without trusted parties" is not a very common problem. If contract participants want to cheat each other, they can do it easily by lying about number of listeners, they don't need to do something trivially detectable like messing with contract itself.
That's not how music gets paid out. You have the label, publisher and PRO/CMO. The actual amounts depend on both where the purchaser is at the time of purchase and where the payouts go to.
There's a reason there are so few players, it's complicated once you go international. I would suggest going after the massive corpus of laws, but most are the to protect artists... they just do it in very different ways, and often pre-date the Internet.
What would happen if somebody forgets or loses the key?
Reality: there's nothing that blockchain does better than an Excel sheet.
They create a new address and from it they publish a revocation of the old address. Then they re-register their content and associate it with payment patterns that pay out to the new address. Then they propagate the new address in-person. When fans trust the new address, their client notices the conflict and they're prompted to prune the old one (since the trust-score on the new one is higher).
If the artist-fan-trust-relationship is multi-hop, it may take a little while for the switch to propagate from fan-to-fan rather than from artist-to-fan, but when it does they'd be notified to consider making the same change.
Meanwhile, a timer has been going since the last time the artist collected funds from the account with the lost key. Once it gets suitably high, the pending payments into it are reversed back to the fans, and the pattern is altered to exclude the abandoned address and notify payers that they might be a better pattern to use, prompting them to find and use the new pattern.
It's not the simplest way, but it's the best I can do without having anybody on payroll, which means maximizing the amount received by the artists.
Besides, art is supposed to be transformative, not status-quo preserving. Even though 99% of artists don't have to worry about being censored directly, I think they're more likely to be interested in protecting the 1% who do. That means having both groups using the same payment rails, and they must be rails that don't respect the kind of bullies that freeze accounts based on content.
Finally, you can lean on this web of trust for the distribution of things like concert tickets, making life more difficult for scalpers (and you can identify the scaplers who have infiltrated your fan network, and explicitly distrust them for next time).
> Once it gets suitably high, the pending payments into it are reversed back to the fans
So basically: you're screwed.
> Besides, art is supposed to be transformative, not status-quo preserving.
Blah-blah-blah. I would really love to belong to a collective that puts my music right next to CSAM. Fans would really appreciate it. So now you have to have an enforcement mechanism, like voting. What if somebody hacks enough keys to take over the voting? Have even more privileged members?
That's the thing: the real-world complexity has to deal with all kinds of edge cases. And we have a legal system for that, with several thousand years of legacy in it.
What do you mean "next to"? You provide a file, the system gives you a way to pay the people who made it and a way to prove to others that you've done so. If you keep CSAM next to your music, that's on you.
So each musician has to keep track of everyone's else tracks? Including key changes? Or is there an organization that manages it?
What if an actor disappears and the timeout makes all the tracks unavailable until they are re-uploaded with a new key?
I can go on indefinitely. There's a reason "smart contracts" are now just another way of saying "scam", and why blockchain is only seriously pushed by scammers and criminals.
How to move around the content isn't really a problem I'm trying to address. As far as I can tell it's a solved one, has been since Napster. Different users like to manage their media differently, I'm not going to tell them how to do that.
Same thing for managing user identity. Whether you want to build an organization around that problem or slap together a CLI and let the users fend for themselves, again not something I'm trying to weigh in on.
These are app-level decisions, not a protocol ones. And neither of them really lend themselves to on-chain solutions.
The unsolved problem I see here is that you've got a community of users, all with identical copies of a file, and they want to build consensus on how that file should "cite its sources". In the case of music, that's a bunch of fans wanting to pay the musicians, but it's structurally the same as if you're trying to give feedback to authors of a paper or claim that researcher X found vulnerability Y in code Z: you're building consensus on a directed graph between datasets and actors such that other actors have something to reference when they communicate (or send payments) to each other about those things.
That's the only part of the problem that's likely to come under attack by incumbents, so it's the only part you need a ruleset and computational verification for. Everything else can be handled "the normal way", by appealing to the good behavior of the incumbents.
People (e.g. Sony) are going to try to get paid for music they never played. People are going to take credit for research they didn't do (or did poorly). People are going to try to misrepresent the trustworthiness of things that they built and want to charge you for.
You can't put that on AWS because nothing on AWS is more trustworthy than its least trustworthy admin. You can't leave it to the courts because only the powerful can use the courts to their advantage, for the rest of us they only serve as a system for mutually assured destruction.
Which people get credit for which data is too contentious of a topic to trust to the hands of people who have pinky promised not to use it in their power games. If it weren't, there'd be no reason for Subvert to exist in the first place. I hope they can manage it by just being very careful about how they allocate trust among their owners, but history has given us centuries worth of reasons to be skeptical.
Meanwhile, other data that the powerful would prefer to tamper with remains intact in the various blockchains that protect it. The rules continue to be followed. There are a lot of problems with that space, especially at the interface between the rules-governed parts and the pinky-promise parts, but we've only been chipping away at those problems for decades. They feel a lot more tractable than anything involving the insufficiencies of the law.
Saying something is "reality" doesn't make it so.
Care to name a few industries transformed by the blockchain?
And no, payments for ransomware don't count. Illicit payments for CSAM and drugs also are not an example I'm looking for. And no, international sanctions busting is not a good example either. The same goes for Ponzi schemes.
But it possible to host a website almost on blockchain (see TON Sites as example) and withdraw certain modification permissions once the contract in launched.
It seems to me that it is possible to implement fully decentralized bandcamp-like site.
I’ve yet to see any useful product built on top of crypto. Can you name any?
(Not including things that just make early adopters rich or simply provide services to other crypto related projects).
How about auctions for telegram usernames? It helps to distribute limited resource.
Telegram usernames are fully centralized - you have to trust Telegram FZ LLC to ensure auction results are respected.
Which means there is no extra trust from blockchain, it's just a gimmick.
Yes, it is true that Telegram can technically ignore who owns an NFT with a username, just like any platform can strip a user of their username.
However:
1. If someone approaches you and wants to buy your username, you can sell it without the need for trust in the buyer or a third party.
2. Consider this scenario: someone writes anonymously in a public channel and then Telegram removes the channel, and bans its username. If the author has an NFT associated with their username, they have a way to prove to the public that the new platform where they continue to post is indeed managed by the same person and not an impostor.
Therefore, there is additional value in using blockchain in this case.
Is there?
1. You buy a username. Old owner contacts support and claims their computer was hacked and they didn't want to sell. Will you lose your new username? No matter what the answer is, you will have to trust Telegram LLC to honor that.
2. Or that person can get a website and advertise on channel. Or a Twitter/Mastodon/whatever account. Or if you want obscure tech, they can publish a public key (directly, without blockchain).
You can certainly plug blockchain in many places. Hey, you could hook up blockchain to your light switch and use L2 transactions to turn the light on!
The real question is: given the specific real problem, is blockchain the best solution? So far the answer is usually "no" (unless the question relates to avoiding laws)
You seem to be arguing that it was possible to implement auctions without blockchain, and that such an implementation would be even better. I provided my example in response to josephg, who did not include "using blockchain is the best way to build such a product" in the list of constraints in his question. Therefore, I have not optimized my example for that.
So I'd rather stop argument here.
That’s fair. I see “bidding on a username” as fundamentally the same as using bitcoin to buy a pizza. An auction is a bit more complicated, but it’s still just commerce. Bitcoin as over complicated money.
But I didn’t exclude commerce in my post above. Thanks for replying.
Any day now!
> Certainly plenty of poorly designed crypto things also have that point of control,
They all have. They just claim they can work against social dynamics with technology but that's a fool errand.
Several technologies have managed it. The printing press, the vaccine, the nuclear bomb. It's even crazier to not try.
It's been 16 years, I think by that time we can be pretty sure cryptocurrency is not going to transform anything other than ransomware payments, law evasion and financial speculation.
It took the steam engine 100 years, I think the jury is still out.
The steam engine was almost immediately useful. It may not be used for cars or trains, but it was the best solution for pumping water from some mines.
In the more recent comparison, I remeber using the web in early 1990's, when it was less then 5 years old. (Fun fact: the images thing were still new, I remember each image had a "download" link in case yser's browser did not support them). It was already used, and had no analogies, and most importantly, the pages I were used were _not_ related to web or even CS, it was some physics thing.
It's time to accept reality: we've spent dozens of years and billions of dollars, and the most useful application is avoidance of financial controls. There is not going to be anything more.
Wait, what? Are you comparing cryptocrap with vaccines?!?
I think the failure rate for crypto organizations is much higher than the average org.
centralization is easy
>the reason all crypto companies are scams and corrupt is just because the problem is so hard, not because of inherent flaws in the idea and the incompatibility of lofty goals with reality.
I’m all for decentralisation but blockchain ain’t it.
Certainly, but when the average org becomes corrupted, you just stop buying its project and let it die. This thing endeavors not to sell you a product, but to sell your product. If it's going to get buy-in from artists, I think it's going to need to make significant promises about not making them regret it. I'd love to see it succeed, but building enough social capital to back long term promises like that is a difficult thing.
Musicians want to accept credit card payments (you lose a lot of potential sales if you only take crypto), which requires a central party to handle payment processing.
>they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and dis-empowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for any legal struggle than any co-op member does.
Sounds like an opportunity for a binding arbitration clause, and hiring another co-op that performs binding arbitration.
For the record, I'm not affiliated with Subvert and in reading the docs I find their arguments about the "problem" with Bandcamp extremely weak/hypothetical and stated over and over again without any evidence. I am skeptical that they understand the economics of running a music retail site and think they might find that the cut Bandcamp takes is actually pretty fair for the value bands get. And I also don't really get how they plan to make this "collective ownership" actually work for real, but I also got really exhausted reading the doc and gave up, so maybe it's buried in there. The real reason I posted it here was hoping the HN hive mind would dissect and critique the actual plan for me. :)
The problem with Bandcamp is neither hypothetical or weak. The problem is that its been sold twice, and is now owned by a company who attempted to fire anyone who tried to unionise, which is a red flag. Will bandcamp be sold again? Yes, very very likely. So that is exactly the problem.
First of all, "attempted to fire anyone who tried to unionise" is entirely made up. They laid off fully half the company; it wasn't targeted at all. Second, the "very likely" part about it being sold is hypothetical, and the follow-on effect of that being bad for artists is doubly hypothetical. As of right now, the service is exactly as it was back when it was "the anti-spotify" that everyone was in love with. It was owned by someone trying to make money before and it's owned by someone trying to make money now. If this is the dread enshittification, please enshittify all over me. Or admit that this isn't enshittification, it's just a fear of what might happen.
Sounds like the key for this entire venture succeeding is the quality of their legal counsel.
I think this is great, but I do hope thought is being put into solving the hardest problem of all IMHO: Music Discovery
I have bought a lot on Bandcamp, but would have bought 10x more if I could just find stuff I liked. The existing system makes discovery nearly impossible unless you happen to like the stuff being mainly bought and curated or are in a lucky genre.
Discoverability is especially hard because 99% of the music people create sucks. This may not seem true if you mainly listen to "radio" and playlists, but if you ever get access to a large catalog of independent music, try picking stuff at pseudo-random and take notes. As much as I love good art (and I do), most art is not good art. You can't go on popularity because some of the great artists (especially on Bandcamp) are relatively unknown and therefore are not popular. For example, Thousand Needles in Red is a phenomenal band with great albums, and almost completely unknown. These Four Walls is similar (but at least they are on Youtube Music/Spotify/etc). I'd buy the crap out of similar albums, but discovering them is very challenging. I mainly found those two out of random luck.
Anyway I'm rambling, but I do hope you can figure out a good means for discovery. I think finding and grouping people with similar tastes is among the best ways, and also having artists that a person likes recommend other artists can be super valuable.
I run a self-learning music discovery engine called Gnoosic:
https://www.gnoosic.com
I can confirm that when you suggest a random band to a random user, they will dislike it with over 90% probability.
I'd be interested to hear how well Gnoosic works for your musical taste.
Band level doesn't quite work. Alas, it needs to be track level. There are a lot of bands where I like a track and that's it.
My favorite example is Seven Sirens And a Silver Tear from Sirenia, a Norwegian gothic metal band. There's no metal in that. It took me a long long time before I learned this but the track is a direct descendant of the Midlight Sonata. And I was hunting for similar songs and I now keep a playlist of them -- but if you started from Sirenia you would never find any of them.
This. There are many, many artists who I only own one or two tracks of - including some of the most-played tracks in my collection - because the vast majority of their other output is not my taste at all. If finding good music was as simple as just buying everything that a single artist put out, it would be much easier to build a collection.
The good news is that in the digital era you no longer need to fork over cash for an entire album or even an EP when you only care about one of the songs - which leaves more money available to buy music from other artists. I often wonder if in the long run it still balances out for artists, since the songs one person likes probably aren't the same as the songs another person likes, especially in niche genres.
If the track is known, then from the context of this and other things you like, you would still reach useful recommendations in not too many clicks. Track level would be interesting, but is also harder as data is a lot sparser making it harder to build reliable recommendations.
Some interesting suggestions. However, from a number of starting points I was pointed as "Songraes", a band that doesn't seem to rate it's own Wikipedia article. I wonder if this has been "fixed" somehow?
What is the approach, on a concrete, technical level, that you are taking to make recommendation N, based on the 3, 4...N-1 choices?
Do you think online NNMF collaborative filtering with Spotify bands with fewer than 100,000 monthly listeners is the answer? If you had infinite resources, what would you do?
This is incredible!
I wish I could give it more bands, and see the distance (I imagine it computes one?) between each band I provided and the ones it suggests.
I tried it before, and I just tried it again. It is great. I just came back from RecSys a large conference on recommender systems. Researchers and companies like Spotify, Amazon music, Deezer gave lots of presentation. However, nothing they showed were so immediately useful as this. Awesome service!
Did you install malware on my computer ;) How did it manage to predict so much of what in my collection with just 3 names ?
Neat, thank you! I'll definitely give it a shot and see how it goes.
Wow. Simple user interface, fas and it gives interesting results! It did not find two of my favorite groups, gusgus and subgud, but I added a suggestion. Bookmarking this for later use!
Discoverability of anything outside of the main stream is always difficult.
I listen to a sub-sub-genre of an already niche sub-genre (raw black metal) where it takes A LOT of work to pick out the small amount of good from the large amount of bad. Many of these bands are NOT on any major platforms except for bandcamp.
There are a few review blogs that highlight some of the top stuff (although, most of the reviews are at the black metal level, not the sub-sub-genre), but I find my main source of discovery is bandcamp.
What I do is: 1) Follow LABELS on bandcamp that specialize solely in the music from bands I like, 2) follow other users that have a similar purchase history, 3) and of course follow your favorite bands for updates.
My biggest issue with bandcamp is that I find their notification system and wishlist to be quite lacking.
For notifications and discoverability, I take all the notification emails I get, filter them based on type (new release, new items [gear,stickers,vinyl], and general message updates) and move them into my RSS system (FreshRSS)[0]. I get new music updates every day of things I probably want to at least check out.
For wishlist management, I wrote a simple desktop app[1] that lets me rate, tag, comment, and listen to my albums from my bandcamp wishlist quickly. Anything I _might_ be interested in, I put in my wishlist, then use my app to keep track of if I like it or not. Stuff I don't like stays in my wishlist, but gets a low rating and filters to the bottom while stuff I want to purchase filters up to the top.
Don't get me wrong, you are still going to need to spend time exploring, as you aren't getting your weekly curated playlists.
That's very simple...
a) Find good DJs playing music you like (YouTube is very helpful here, as is partying)
b) Listen to their sets
c) Shazam (or just trainspot) the tracks you like. (Shazam has a really nice integration with SPotify that dumps everything it IDs into a Spotify playlist)
I am a DJ and constantly on the hunt for new music, this is how I find most of it. No algorithms necessary!
That only works for a subset of music. It works well for electronica. It works less well for singer songwriters.
But there are so many channels that specialize in that sort of thing, NPR Tiny Desk being the most mainstream online curator. Also lyrics sites, if the singer-songwriter isn't completely marketing shy.
Sorry for what's probably a stupid question, but how do you find DJs on Youtube? Do you literally just search for stuff like "Hard Rock DJ" and then start clicking through results?
It's a limited field of one person, but John Peel (BBC dj) sure introduced me to so much. Never found anything like the show for making me realise how much music I was missing...so thought fuck it...can't listen to everything, so I won't bother trying. I write my own music for me. It's on a yt channel (no images), so if anyone does discover it all....it's yours. And everyone elses.
That's interesting that you say discovery is hard on Bandcamp. I've actually found their blog content great at finding new artists. Their editorial staff seems to be really tuned in and articles like this make me very happy:
https://daily.bandcamp.com/lists/aphex-twin-selected-ambient...
I wonder if they'd be better off creating a collectively-owned record label. Small independent labels do still exist, and I can imagine them leveraging the discovery mechanisms built into streaming platforms, etc., and also having a store front for merchandise / physical media (which would be great for co-promoting the bands in the co-op).
They discuss this in their blog post about how additional industries could be part of this co-op: like labels, studios, housing co-ops, vinyl pressing plants, venues, professional services, and credit unions.
https://subvert.fm/blog/our-50-year-roadmap-the-mondragon-of...
I assume there will be some energy within the cooperative to establish some shared means of production. It seems probable.
I'm surprised at this. I find music discovery easy. Some tips:
On Bandcamp: in addition to obviously following artists I like, I follow several fan accounts of those artists, then I can see what they buy. I also try to sample the Bandcamp album of the day.
On NTS.live I have a bunch of favourite hosts and try to listen to every show they release, and note the track listing. Too many to ever get through.
Podcasts: NPR All Songs Considered, and Resident Advisor when I can.
On Apple Music there's the algorithm. Hit or miss.
Back in the heydays of music blogs I would find a lot of great stuff on Hype Machine, but alas, I think those days are gone.
Just with these few sources I find there is far too much great new music to get through in one lifetime. Godspeed!
> Discoverability is especially hard because 99% of the music people create sucks
This - as a listener, quality is the hard problem. It is encouraging that the proposal affirms the value of curative functions (like labels).
As an artist, I actually don’t really care about music’s commercial problems - I’m more annoyed by the constraints on musical art objects inherent in all music platforms.
Like, experiencing art objects in a gallery hits different vs scrolling through bandcamp. The internet is, already, the gallery but it’s like we replaced all of the paintings with tiny prints, eclipsed by the placards.
The thing I would really love is a music platform that feels like a hosting platform, not a marketplace. Where a user can simultaneously act as a listener, an artist, a curator or a critic.
I think I have seen folks use rateyourmusic.com to get partway there already...
> The thing I would really love is a music platform that feels like a hosting platform, not a marketplace. Where a user can simultaneously act as a listener, an artist, a curator or a critic.
This is what DJs and record labels are for. As I've pointed out many times before, the very understandable hostility of the public toward major labels that inflict inequitable terms on artists early in their career has been applied to dismiss all labels in favor of platforms. Small independent labels actually do a ton to support and build up artists outside of mainstream genres, while many (most?) platforms are as bad as major labels in their own way. Imagine if you went to the record store in the pre-internet days, and they were giving away singles or whole albums for free, but there were ads mixed in with the music and if you tried to move the needle/forward the cassette past them, they'd break your hifi.
Spotify has a few mechanisms for discovering music and I find that they largely work for me. I also listen to interviews with random artists to get exposed to music I am not aware of.
Both those bands go hard and I'd never heard of either. In the spirit of your last paragraph, if you have any other favorites, I'd love to hear them!
Here AI might be useful, I am not saying maroofy is perfect but it's worth a try. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34635352
It's one of the few uses where if the AI is wrong? oh well.
> As much as I love good art (and I do), most art is not good art.
Are you sure you're talking about "good art" and not merely "professionally mixed and mastered recordings?"
What's wrong with discovering good art out of random luck?
I have discovered at least as much good music on Bandcamp as I did in the early years of Beatport and before that in real-life record stores. You start with a genre you like, then just flick through all the new releases. If a cover or title catches your eye, pop it in and have a listen, if you don't like it, move on to the next. Maybe you missed a bunch of good stuff because it didn't catch your eye, but who cares? The point isn't to collect every amazing piece of music ever written, it's just to buy enough music that makes you happy.
After a while you might start to build up a mental map of which labels tend to release more stuff you like so you prioritize listening to their new releases over other labels. Or you find an artist you like and follow them onto different labels. Even indie artists who self-release everything often still do collabs with other artists, so you can find connected/related stuff that way too, or look at the way they self-describe and tag their own music then search round for those keywords too.
In my opinion it's much easier to discover music now than it was in the brick and mortar days primarily because of hyperlinks and search, but also because the new releases rack doesn't get cleaned out by the early birds, records aren't held behind the counter for favorite customers etc. Not to mention Discogs is still there for more mainstream stuff to drill down on aliases, guest appearances, producers etc. Every Bandcamp Friday I end up with a full cart and dozens of open tabs and it feels like an embarrassment of riches. I wouldn't know what to do with a recommendations engine on top of that.
I am thrilled with my music collection these days, it's got everything from janky noodlings by bedroom musicians who I was perhaps the only person who they ever got a sale from, to established artists with a couple decades of releases under their belts, to weird little microscenes centered around cities or countries I'll never visit. Sure, I dug through a ton of trash to get there, sometimes checking out reams of tracks by a promising artist only to find a single gem worth tossing over a few bucks for, but now I have it, and I treasure it! I love having a personalized collection that's entirely made up of tunes that I think are awesome. It's the fulfillment of teenage me's dream. I don't think discovering 10x as much music would make it any better - on the contrary, I wouldn't have time to really focus on and appreciate it all, in which case I might as well have just put a streaming playlist on in the background.
Edit: it's been pointed out to me that the zine actually is publicly available for free - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ra6r2zSkw7NCYNTAqP9923ValZi...
I really like the overall idea. Two thoughts I had while browsing.
From the main page:
> PURCHASE ZINE
Is the only way to get a copy of the manifesto, really to purchase it (or join as a member)? How is someone supposed to even know whether they want to be involved in the project, if they aren't allowed to read the document first?
and from the Docs:
> How is Subvert funded?
Unless I missed it, nothing in docs mentions the most obvious source of funding for a marketplace - a cut of revenue? Is there any plan for that?
If I were a member of such a collective, I'd rather give the collective a small cut of my revenue than have to deal with the complexity and risks (and potential loss of control) of dealing with outside investors.
> > PURCHASE ZINE
> Is the only way to get a copy of the manifesto, really to purchase it (or join as a member)? How is someone supposed to even know whether they want to be involved in the project, if they aren't allowed to read the document first?
The ZINE is publicly available: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ra6r2zSkw7NCYNTAqP9923ValZi...
FAQ: "Can I read the zine first?" has an email input box.
So you at least need to pay with personal information before you even know about the cause you are paying to.
If the extremely minute “payment” of coming up with a throwaway email address to get it sent to is too much for you, I don’t know what to tell you. This is one step above complaining that you have to “pay” by expending the energy to click a hyperlink.
What exactly is meant by co-ownership in your case? What exact "Ability to influence platform policies and features" would I have and how are product/business decisions made? What is the organisation structure?
The phrase "Collective ownership" sounds romantic but it can mean many things, from very good to outright scam, depending on implementation.
It's structured as a multi-stakeholder cooperative, from what I understand.
"Building an artist-owned platform is a complex challenge, but it’s one we are uniquely positioned to solve. Our growing coalition includes founders of Ampled, a project that helped pioneer the concept of cooperative platforms, as well as artists, music industry professionals, and specialists in cooperative law and platform economics. "
From a introductory blog post.
https://subvert.fm/blog/a-collectively-owned-bandcamp-succes...
More on the co-op model in the FAQ.
https://subvert.fm/docs/what-does-it-mean-to-join-the-co-op/
would this be like open-collective for musicians?
I could see the economics working similar to OpenCollective, but different governance. I know OC announced a restructuring recently, but I don't think it's a co-op model.
I've read the Docs https://subvert.fm/docs/, co-op bylaws draft https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zbobfJY4a7-dVdrgk6bSJh89AI7... and roadmap https://subvert.fm/roadmap/ and got answers to all the questions above.
I'm glad to see new concepts emerge like this that challenge the governance and benefit of platforms by shareholder corporations for their own self-interested purposes.
I joined as a "Founding Supporter" of the Subvert co-op last night when I saw a post on my Twitter (X) feed.
I really hope to see more tech cooperatives in the future. The dominant paradigm of neo-fiefdom tech platforms is both tired and uninspiring.
Recent and related:
A Collectively Owned Bandcamp Successor - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41309217 - Aug 2024 (2 comments)
So, great, another place to host and sell your music. Love bandcamp. Nothing really that special about it. It rose to popularity because it didn't take that much of a cut of sales from the artists and was offering the easy ability to host all the digital files etc. What's different about this? The 'artists' will have a say on the cut that Subvert is taking? Shrug. All sounds fine and not really that complicated. It will all come down to traction and getting a lot of artists/labels to move there, and that is a crapshoot really. Especially since Bandcamp currently hasn't been impacted in any major way. That and the usual not-really-that-minor challenges of hosting/bandwidth/payment processing fees at scale.
The real problem with the platform I think is discoverability, and that will get affected more and more with corporate clutches.
However I do agree with your point overall, I'm struggling to see how this will not go the same path in a few years.
You might underestimate the power games that are artist royalties agreements and the current domination by large corporates.
Really exciting to see this manifesto.
There's already some existing co-operative music store/bandcamp alternative projects that are selling music and accepting new artists.
https://jam.coop is the one we are building. We launched last year in response to the sale of bandcamp and the uncertainty we felt in our communities of musicians who depend on Bandcamp for some or part of their living. In contrast to subvert we've decided to take an incremental approach. We're incubating jam inside an existing worker co-operative, building the features that our users need, and working towards an "exit to community" where jam will become a multi-stakeholder co-op owned by artists and workers.
I'm also familiar with mirlo and ampwall who are working on similar projects.
The most recent blog post they have up is titled "The Mondragon of Music" which, frankly, is all I needed to see.
https://subvert.fm/blog/our-50-year-roadmap-the-mondragon-of...
The article mentions the highlights, but a deeper drive into the Mondragon Corp can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
Mondragon is a great model demonstrating the greater possibilities within complementary-industry cooperative economy. Mondragon is partnership between and across industries.
I could see the regional distribution of industry across/within geography, as applied within Mondragon, mapping well to genre distribution across/within industry production tooling/technologies for Subvert.
Mondragon Corp sounds incredible, thanks for sharing. I joined Subvert as an artist, looking forward to releasing remastered music on there next year.
This is so awesome. Not because it will necessarily work or be incorruptible, but because it can be replicated.
They're being very open about the legal structuring too, with open source legal docs and agreements.
https://subvert.fm/changelog/
Ampwall is also a thing, a public benefit company - https://ampwall.com/
Listeners want the convenience of Spotify and don’t care about artists or even know what Bandcamp is, let alone something after Bandcamp. I’m an indie artist and I want things to be different but until you convince people to give up convenience for principles, projects like this won’t mean much.
Let the shit music exist on Spotify, if you value your take control of it, throwing it into the void and prostrating yourself on social media begging people to listen to it is not doing yourself or your art justice!
Fair enough. Genuinely asking, how do people who have never heard of you find your music if not through Spotify or social media?
Play shows, build a scene
Ah…so real work then :)
Yeah and unfortunately it's brutal and pays very little, essentially you make more money from selling merch.
So essentially your music is just advertising for you to be able to sell merch LOL!
The burning question I have is:
Why do artists feel the need for a platform?
The tools are out there to allow you to advertise, sell and distribute your music (I'm not talking about the distribution platforms like distrokid etc, fuck streaming, fuck social media and fuck making content whilst we're at it), why give away control over your art?
My model is this:
* Make some awesome music
* Self host it. Provide means for people to download your music (there are so many methods).
* Allow donations via reputable method
* Crowd fund for big events like creating physical releases, paying for studio time if you need to.
* Play as many gigs as you can/want to do
* Again fuck social media
You have to be dogged and self determined to work hard in order to for your art to be good, once you put the work in and get yourself out there people will want to hear more after seeing your shows.
Most people do not have the means to self-host it. A platform is just make an account, upload the files and cover, set the title, done. The platform might help with getting an audience as well. To self-host you need to have both the technical ability for it and pre-existing audience to use your self-hosted platform.
Most people should try harder. Whats the point of even making music if you're gonna pay all these platforms for no one to even to listen to your music.
And then you have to compete with the major labels who are buying streams to get their artists in the big playlists.
Its a really cleaver system, you have all these services that you pay upfront and then if you actually do get any streams you get like 0.0001% of a cent.
Its a con, the only people getting paid are the platforms.
If you have to use any platform stick your music on youtube using the lowest quality mp3's and then link back to your own website.
I make music and would be the main contact for several artists, but I'm not a label per se. Would I join separately for each, or will there be a way for each artist to be added under my account or on separate accounts? Thanks!
A successor to bandcamp would be really nice. I think it is hard to determine if a site will become one, because it is largely about network effect—Bandcamp had enough users (customers and artists) that it was, like, worthwhile to give them your credit card info…
Totally tangential and probably revealing that I have absolutely no understanding of the music creation ecosystem and process, but is there room for, like, an online collaboration system? Like a Unity asset store for samples or something? Allow people to remix and then handle the pay out automatically when songs get bought?
There is this: https://www.kompoz.com/
It's geared more towards collaboration and there is some system to share any income that gets derived (not sure how it worked). You find someone's song page, download the existing tracks (stems) and work on your own, uploading to the collection when you are finished. I collaborated with some artists and it was fun and I met some folks. They set up payments but I never expected anything to come from that. I thought finding projects that are interesting to collaborate on was difficult. It's just a big pile of music of varying quality and genres.
> worthwhile to give them your credit card info
Bandcamp didn't even accept people's credit card info (maybe it's changed in recent years and they have more payment options now). They outsourced payment processing to PayPal.
Most small shopping sites in USA don't handle their own payments due to regulations.
I bought stuff from Bandcamp and I don’t have an active PayPal account, they must have added some options.
The "Unity Asset Store" is effectively Splice
But the licensing doesn't do pay outs, with sampling you pay once and its yours to use as you see fit. As it should be, we don't need anyone else sticking their hands out.
In general, imo, if somebody contributes usefully to a project they should get paid in line with their contribution.
The flat rate makes sense from an era when tracking that sort of stuff was difficult, but I dunno, it seems like it ought to be possible to track this sort of stuff automatically nowadays.
How is Bandcamp doing nowadays? I know the backstory of it being bought by Epic, then Epic realizing they have no use for a music store and selling it off to Songtradr who immediately gutted it by firing half of the staff, but I don't use it enough to know if enshittification has set in yet.
I’ve got both artist and fan accounts. I’ve not noticed any significant change in service or tools in this whole period of change. The one thing that’s new is “listening parties”, but that seems fairly “on-beand” to me. BC was profitable for years prior to the first sale. Why mess with something that works?
I haven't notice any degradation so far. Recently they even announced a Bandcamp Friday - a day when a Bandcamp commission is 0 and all income from sales goes to the artists. Doesn't look like they try to squeeze as much profits as possible and slowly kill the platform in doing so.
I think that's been going on since early 2020. And yeah, I can't really tell a difference between Bandcamp before it was sold and today. It's a shame that they not only sold to Epic of all companies but then fired so many people.
> fired so many people.
If there's no degradation, it should have been done long ago. Those salaries come out of musicians' pockets.
Maybe. It's really hard to say because you don't know what it took to build Bandcamp up to what it is today. We also don't know if things are falling apart or if the people still working there have twice their normal work.
This sounds like enshittification itself, in its own way. Rotating hands to the highest bidder.
How in the world is it enshittification if there's no noticeable change to users? Nothing got shittier, so doesn't that by definition mean it's not enshittification?
Finally, a website that convinced me to write my own CSS overrides.
I like it! Why aren't there more creator owned platforms?
I think silicon valley actually LIKES founder fiefdoms. Not really the same spirit as worker cooperatives. The cap table is the game.
hard for investors to get paid for other people's work when the workers own their profits :(