3 ms·

I'll counter your poor analogy with my own poor analogy: for most of human history, we existed without the use of oil or its byproducts. Then we got plastics. I

I'll counter your poor analogy with my own poor analogy: for most of human history, we existed without the use of oil or its byproducts. Then we got plastics. I don't want to back to a world without plastics. Or we could review the argument on its own merits. For a short period of time, circumstances prevailed in which a small number of artists (skills ranging from acceptable through excellent) were able to make an outsize profit from their work. This looks like its coming to an end. The era of multi-dozen million dollar making artists like Michael Jackson, U2 and Madonna is giving way to an era where artists make a good, but not GDP comparable income, like Amanda Palmer and OK Go.

mattmaroon 16y ago
It wasn't an argument that Mick Jagger made though, so there's nothing to review based on merits. It was a simple statement of fact. Any argument is by implication (ie. that because it was not always this way, it should not be that way). There was no discussion of how much artists should make at all, and any implication of such is suffering from the logical fallacy that because things have always been a certain way, that is the way they should be in the future.
- alanthonyc 16y ago
  Sorry, I left out the part where you discussed how much artists should make: "I like music, and as such would like to see artists remain profitable, even after the demise of the CD." Separate from that, the logical fallacy to which you refer is true, but equally applies to the business model that has existed for the past 50 years on which the record labels have relied. To wit: just because it's been the case in our lifetime, doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't change. And no, musicians will not go hungry because of it as you imply, although lawyers might have to find a new line of work.
WiseWeasel 16y ago
At the core of the "problem", we have a fractured marketplace ever since the death of radio and MTV as popular methods for young people to discover music, replaced with social internet services catering to increasingly diverse tastes. There are fewer focal points where an artist can hope to reach such a wide audience as Madonna or Michael Jackson were able to exploit. Sure, you can pay CNN or Fox to do a "news" story on you and get some media coverage, or you can pay Clear Channel to get some FM radio play, but that's not exactly reaching the right demographic, and they're simply not trusted sources of information for current music trends. The old model of pumping up super stars by buying exposure is pretty much bust.

mattmaroon 16y ago

It wasn't an argument that Mick Jagger made though, so there's nothing to review based on merits. It was a simple statement of fact. Any argument is by implication (ie. that because it was not always this way, it should not be that way). There was no discussion of how much artists should make at all, and any implication of such is suffering from the logical fallacy that because things have always been a certain way, that is the way they should be in the future.

alanthonyc 16y ago
Sorry, I left out the part where you discussed how much artists should make: "I like music, and as such would like to see artists remain profitable, even after the demise of the CD." Separate from that, the logical fallacy to which you refer is true, but equally applies to the business model that has existed for the past 50 years on which the record labels have relied. To wit: just because it's been the case in our lifetime, doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't change. And no, musicians will not go hungry because of it as you imply, although lawyers might have to find a new line of work.

WiseWeasel 16y ago

At the core of the "problem", we have a fractured marketplace ever since the death of radio and MTV as popular methods for young people to discover music, replaced with social internet services catering to increasingly diverse tastes. There are fewer focal points where an artist can hope to reach such a wide audience as Madonna or Michael Jackson were able to exploit. Sure, you can pay CNN or Fox to do a "news" story on you and get some media coverage, or you can pay Clear Channel to get some FM radio play, but that's not exactly reaching the right demographic, and they're simply not trusted sources of information for current music trends. The old model of pumping up super stars by buying exposure is pretty much bust.