4 ms·

Yes we are agreeing with one another here. I was strictly talking about sustainability.

• 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Nah, I think sustainability is a non-sequitur when talking about recorded material, whether physical, digital, or streaming revenue. Would I like for it to be different? Sure! But going back to the Bards who had to go from town to town, singing their songs for food and shelter, it's unreasonable to expect the synthetic protection of copyright to put more than peanuts on the table. It's either make something, embrace the income potential, and keep creating, or whine with whisky an die in the gutter, figuratively speaking.
  • username223 11y ago
    How much is Spotify even helping in this case? Is the "exposure" worth more than what you could get as a minstrel or a court bard?
    • 6stringmerc 11y ago
      Until one can identify the markets for which there may be demand, e.g. foreign countries out of reach otherwise, then being a minstrel or court bard means being anchored to one location. Look, my perspective is that music is supposed to be made for two reasons: 1. the personal compulsion to create something that reflects the individual, and 2. sharing those products with a limited expectation of fiscal reward. This is not to downplay the desire to make a living from art, but an informed historical perspective doesn't infer that technology and modern business has changed the nature of the relationship between artists and consumers very much.