The blog post argues against the common narrative that the Beatles single-handedly killed the careers of numerous 1950s and early 1960s rock and pop artists. It contends that many factors contributed to the shifting musical landscape, including changing audience tastes, the emergence of other influential bands, and the natural evolution of popular music. While acknowledging the Beatles' immense impact, the author emphasizes that artists like Fabian and Frankie Avalon were already fading in popularity before Beatlemania hit, and others, like Elvis, successfully adapted. The post concludes that attributing widespread career destruction solely to the Beatles is an oversimplification of a complex cultural shift.
Liz Pelly's "The Ghosts in the Machine" exposes the shadowy world of "fake artists" on Spotify. These aren't AI-generated music makers, but real musicians, often session musicians or composers, creating generic, mood-based music under pseudonyms or ambiguous artist names. These tracks are often pushed by Spotify's own playlists, generating substantial revenue for the music libraries or labels behind them while offering minimal compensation to the actual creators. This practice, enabled by Spotify's opaque algorithms and playlist curation, dilutes the streaming landscape with inoffensive background music, crowding out independent artists and contributing to a devaluation of music overall. Pelly argues this system ultimately benefits Spotify and large music corporations at the expense of genuine artistic expression.
HN commenters discuss the increasing prevalence of "ghost artists" or "fake artists" on Spotify, with many expressing cynicism about the platform's business practices. Some argue that Spotify incentivizes this behavior by prioritizing quantity over quality, allowing these artists to game the algorithm and generate revenue through playlist placements, often at the expense of legitimate musicians. Others point out the difficulty in verifying artist identities and the lack of transparency in Spotify's royalty distribution. Several comments also mention the proliferation of AI-generated music and the potential for it to exacerbate this issue in the future, blurring the lines between real and fabricated artists even further. The broader impact on music discovery and the devaluation of genuine artistic expression are also raised as significant concerns. A few commenters suggest unionization or alternative platforms as potential solutions for artists to regain control.
Summary of Comments ( 166 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43373765
HN commenters largely debated the premise of the linked article, which argues the Beatles stifled the careers of many other artists. Some agreed, pointing to the overwhelming popularity of the Beatles and the difficulty other bands had getting attention. Others argued that the Beatles' influence was positive, inspiring countless musicians and expanding the possibilities of popular music. Several commenters brought up the cyclical nature of popular music, suggesting that the Beatles' rise coincided with a natural shift in the music scene, and that other artists would have been supplanted regardless. The idea of a limited "attention budget" was also discussed, with some arguing the Beatles consumed the majority of it. Finally, several commenters pointed to specific artists, like The Zombies and Gerry and the Pacemakers, as potential examples of bands negatively impacted by the Beatles' dominance.
The Hacker News post "How many artists' careers did the Beatles kill?" with the link to the article "How many artists did the Beatles kill?" generated a moderate number of comments, most of which challenged the central premise of the linked article. There's a general consensus among commenters that the article's argument is flawed and oversimplified.
Several commenters pointed out the difficulty in proving causation between the Beatles' success and the decline of other artists' careers. They argue that correlating the Beatles' rise with other artists' fall doesn't necessarily imply causation. Other factors, like changing musical tastes, the evolution of the music industry, and the individual artists' own choices and trajectories, could have played a significant role. One commenter specifically mentions that many of the artists cited in the article had already peaked or were on their way down before the Beatles reached peak popularity.
Some commenters suggest that instead of "killing" careers, the Beatles, along with other British Invasion bands, invigorated the music scene and influenced a new generation of artists. They argue the Beatles' impact was more about changing the landscape rather than eliminating competition. One commenter even proposes that the Beatles' success may have inadvertently helped some artists by expanding the overall market for popular music.
A few commenters discuss specific artists mentioned in the article, offering counter-arguments about their career trajectories. For instance, regarding the claim about Gerry and the Pacemakers, a commenter points out that the band's popularity was already waning, and their decline was likely due to internal factors rather than external competition.
While some comments acknowledge that the Beatles' immense popularity undoubtedly had an impact on the music scene, they reject the notion that they single-handedly "killed" other artists' careers. The overall sentiment leans towards a more nuanced understanding of the dynamic music industry of the 1960s, where numerous factors contributed to artists' success and failure. The comments generally find the article's thesis too simplistic and lacking in sufficient evidence.