5 ms·

> You’d think that the near implosion of the music industry would have been a clue though. Where there is demand and anti-consumer practices, there will be pira

by stfwn 9y ago

> You’d think that the near implosion of the music industry would have been a clue though. Where there is demand and anti-consumer practices, there will be piracy. Is it just that people making these decisions are ignorant, or emotional? Does anyone know? Wow. That is harsh. The current state of music is that artists need about 4 million Spotify plays per month to make minimum wage ($1160) [1]. That's assuming the artist does not have to share the revenue with anyone and not counting the time needed to break even on the initial investment (if you even manage to break even before the recording is 'old' and you're up for a new one). Realistically there is no money in recorded music anymore except for the John Mayers and Taylor Swifts, so nothing has been solved in that industry and there is no 'clue' to get. There was a legitimate source of income, then technology devaluated the product to oblivion. It's not worthy of damnation that those in an industry that is being levelled with the ground are caught off guard and attempt to fix their problems. It would do us good to empathise with the people in these industries, because there are going to be a heck of a lot of them in the coming years. If we value the product of their labor we should want to offer them an alternative source of income instead of berating them. [1]: https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-ar...

chx 9y ago
> Realistically there is no money in recorded music anymore except for the John Mayers and Taylor Swifts, so nothing has been solved in that industry and there is no 'clue' to get. Have you seen Patreon?
- stfwn 9y ago
  > Have you seen Patreon? Patreon, Bandcamp and Tunecore collectively pay out about $25 million per month [1]. That's minimum wage for 21 000 people, assuming each artist gets an equal share (which they obviously don't). This doesn't seem like a lot to me. [1]: http://musically.com/2015/02/16/what-are-musicians-making-from-patreon/ http://musically.com/2015/02/16/what-are-musicians-making-fr...
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    I call that a good start. Society is still learning about this kind of funding model; there will be growing pains[1]. I find it incredible that Patreon is already allowing funding talented niche artists[2], important "not advertiser safe" social/political commentary[3], and other projects that would never make it past the usual funding filters. Yes, it isn't a lot, but it's a good start that has already had some success. Hopefully it will continue to grow. [1] e.g. the recent drama with Patreon changing their payment model [2] https://www.youtube.com/user/oancitizen/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/oancitizen/videos [3] https://www.youtube.com/user/ContraPoints/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/ContraPoints/videos
  - alysdexia 9y ago
    Patreon, Bandcamp and Tunecore: "Patreon", "Bandcamp and Tunecore": Learn the rational Oxford comma. 21 000 = 0: Also learn the dictional English thousands comma.
cortesoft 9y ago
That is pretty misleading to reference 'minimum wage' in regards to how much money a band makes from streaming. A wage is determined by hours worked / revenue. Once the music is recorded, they aren't 'working' anymore hours, so how would you figure they need $1160 a month to make minimum wage? They aren't working any hours while that music is being streamed. If you wanted to figure out the wage, you would have to take the number of hours spend creating the music (writing, practicing, recording), then divide by (revenue from streaming - costs to record). Since that streaming revenue can keep going long after they are done recording, you are going to hit minimum wage if you wait long enough and people keep streaming your music. Artists deserve to be compensated for their work, but we should be thinking about it in terms of income per hour worked. No other job expects to be paid forever for work done years ago; if someone hires me to build a fence, I don't expect to keep being paid for every year that fence is up.
- stfwn 9y ago
  > Once the music is recorded, they aren't 'working' anymore hours, so how would you figure they need $1160 a month to make minimum wage? I completely agree. The minimum wage figure was just a reference point that aligns with the way we pay for it: monthly. It's ridiculous music has (been) moved into this area. The same problem is in the software industry now. More and more companies move to subscription business models simply because a pay-upfront model isn't viable anymore. Sure, it's great to support developers in their endeavours, but what if I just want to buy this exact version of the app and decide for myself if I want to pay for bug fixes and extra features later? Maybe this version is fine for me. But the new business reality doesn't allow for this. Anyways.. > No other job expects to be paid forever for work done years ago; if someone hires me to build a fence, I don't expect to keep being paid for every year that fence is up. The entire intellectual property licensing space works in this way, and that space is badly broken. I agree that there's no moral requirement to pay someone for work done years ago, and the reality is that most musicians really aren't. A quality recording takes a long time to make and its average lifespan is about a year (if that) before attention (if any) dies out. On top of that it requires a big investment to record, produce and promote an album (consider also a new website, logo and album art) and then after all you have to share the $0.00029 per song play with about five people and the label. You're lucky to break even at all.
mr_spothawk 9y ago
> 4 million Spotify plays per month to make minimum wage ($1160) I would (and do) advise an artist (and a friend, or a random person off the street) to have income from more than one revenue stream. > It would do us good to empathise with the people in these industries there's no reason to be empathetic towards the industry, even if we are entirely and wholly in support of artists, their work, and expression. to put a finer point on it: the fact that there is an "entertainment industry" frightens me. this is not to say we shouldn't find entertainment, and share artworks/creativity/etc... but that our need (or training) to be distracted from the horrors of modernity presents sufficient demand for An Industry of this scale is troubling. The existence of this Industry may be seen as an indicator that our civilizations are performing acts of violence upon ourselves and our homes that we would be better served by ending.
petra 9y ago
At least in the case of the music industry, the current state seems great in many respects: 1. Everyone could afford access to all the music in the world. 2. Tons of new music is being created. Creativity seems fine. Creators are still highly motivated to release their music and even without making a living through music there are still many benefits to being a musician. And yes, it's hard to make a living through music. So what ? Why is this a necessity ?
- nothrabannosir 9y ago
  Substitute “making music” for “programming” here, as a thought experiment. See how that reads. Just because people keep doing something doesn’t mean it’s all “fine”. People make music in spite of the hardship. All of society benefits from their irrational, self destructive drive for creation. We could show some empathy and at least acknowledge that. Maybe even help find a way to make this beautiful gift they bestow on us less painful? Currently it feels like we’re making them shit roses for us. Maybe let’s help trim the thorns :) Source : I know several musicians first hand, and it’s not “fine”. :/
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    Building things for people to use has always been valued. Making music just had a weird and brief period during which it could be monumentally lucrative. The circumstances have changed, and music is roughly back to being like any other art form in terms of average monetary reward. Music is only “special” because of physical recording creation and distribution. That has ended.
    - carapace 9y ago
      > Making music just had a weird and brief period during which it could be monumentally lucrative. As a programmer I sometimes reflect just how lucky I am to be born right at the historical moment when my abilities align with the economic demand. A few decades earlier or later and I'd be lucky to be an accountant or something.
  - orangecat 9y ago
k_sh 9y ago
While I agree with the sentiment that recorded music has been devalued to all hell, implying that an artist racking up 4M Spotify streams every month is living off of $1160 a month is a bit disingenuous. If you're pulling those numbers, and know what you're doing, you will almost always have opportunities to make (much) more money doing shows and placements. Additionally: while the distribution of musical success was and still is bimodal, thanks to the fragmentation of culture caused by the Internet there is a growing middle creative class.
Kalium 9y ago
I have a great deal of empathy and compassion for artists. These are people who pour out their hearts and souls and lives for the sake of us and our culture. They deserve to be met with a response that cares about them. You're completely right. They define us, and tell us who we are. Yet, what form should empathy and compassion take? Empathy isn't a policy prescription. It doesn't come with technical requirements. Artists have alternate sources of income available, but this often runs into the basic problem that they aren't structured like the album sales of yesteryear. Different skills and approaches are required. So what's an empathetic lover of music and culture to do? I only know that the previous system didn't work any better - Courtney Love doing the math made that clear.
- alysdexia 9y ago
  This is your fourth use of heart, all of which wrong. The heart has nothing to do with it; it pumps blood. The Hebrews were so primitive they had no word for mind so they used heart instead. If western culture were founded on Egyptian religion instead you'd say liver.

by stfwn 9y ago

chx 9y ago

> Realistically there is no money in recorded music anymore except for the John Mayers and Taylor Swifts, so nothing has been solved in that industry and there is no 'clue' to get. Have you seen Patreon?

stfwn 9y ago
> Have you seen Patreon? Patreon, Bandcamp and Tunecore collectively pay out about $25 million per month [1]. That's minimum wage for 21 000 people, assuming each artist gets an equal share (which they obviously don't). This doesn't seem like a lot to me. [1]: http://musically.com/2015/02/16/what-are-musicians-making-from-patreon/ http://musically.com/2015/02/16/what-are-musicians-making-fr...
- pdkl95 9y ago
  I call that a good start. Society is still learning about this kind of funding model; there will be growing pains[1]. I find it incredible that Patreon is already allowing funding talented niche artists[2], important "not advertiser safe" social/political commentary[3], and other projects that would never make it past the usual funding filters. Yes, it isn't a lot, but it's a good start that has already had some success. Hopefully it will continue to grow. [1] e.g. the recent drama with Patreon changing their payment model [2] https://www.youtube.com/user/oancitizen/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/oancitizen/videos [3] https://www.youtube.com/user/ContraPoints/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/ContraPoints/videos
- alysdexia 9y ago
  Patreon, Bandcamp and Tunecore: "Patreon", "Bandcamp and Tunecore": Learn the rational Oxford comma. 21 000 = 0: Also learn the dictional English thousands comma.

cortesoft 9y ago

That is pretty misleading to reference 'minimum wage' in regards to how much money a band makes from streaming. A wage is determined by hours worked / revenue. Once the music is recorded, they aren't 'working' anymore hours, so how would you figure they need $1160 a month to make minimum wage? They aren't working any hours while that music is being streamed. If you wanted to figure out the wage, you would have to take the number of hours spend creating the music (writing, practicing, recording), then divide by (revenue from streaming - costs to record). Since that streaming revenue can keep going long after they are done recording, you are going to hit minimum wage if you wait long enough and people keep streaming your music. Artists deserve to be compensated for their work, but we should be thinking about it in terms of income per hour worked. No other job expects to be paid forever for work done years ago; if someone hires me to build a fence, I don't expect to keep being paid for every year that fence is up.

stfwn 9y ago
> Once the music is recorded, they aren't 'working' anymore hours, so how would you figure they need $1160 a month to make minimum wage? I completely agree. The minimum wage figure was just a reference point that aligns with the way we pay for it: monthly. It's ridiculous music has (been) moved into this area. The same problem is in the software industry now. More and more companies move to subscription business models simply because a pay-upfront model isn't viable anymore. Sure, it's great to support developers in their endeavours, but what if I just want to buy this exact version of the app and decide for myself if I want to pay for bug fixes and extra features later? Maybe this version is fine for me. But the new business reality doesn't allow for this. Anyways.. > No other job expects to be paid forever for work done years ago; if someone hires me to build a fence, I don't expect to keep being paid for every year that fence is up. The entire intellectual property licensing space works in this way, and that space is badly broken. I agree that there's no moral requirement to pay someone for work done years ago, and the reality is that most musicians really aren't. A quality recording takes a long time to make and its average lifespan is about a year (if that) before attention (if any) dies out. On top of that it requires a big investment to record, produce and promote an album (consider also a new website, logo and album art) and then after all you have to share the $0.00029 per song play with about five people and the label. You're lucky to break even at all.

mr_spothawk 9y ago

> 4 million Spotify plays per month to make minimum wage ($1160) I would (and do) advise an artist (and a friend, or a random person off the street) to have income from more than one revenue stream. > It would do us good to empathise with the people in these industries there's no reason to be empathetic towards the industry, even if we are entirely and wholly in support of artists, their work, and expression. to put a finer point on it: the fact that there is an "entertainment industry" frightens me. this is not to say we shouldn't find entertainment, and share artworks/creativity/etc... but that our need (or training) to be distracted from the horrors of modernity presents sufficient demand for An Industry of this scale is troubling. The existence of this Industry may be seen as an indicator that our civilizations are performing acts of violence upon ourselves and our homes that we would be better served by ending.

petra 9y ago

At least in the case of the music industry, the current state seems great in many respects: 1. Everyone could afford access to all the music in the world. 2. Tons of new music is being created. Creativity seems fine. Creators are still highly motivated to release their music and even without making a living through music there are still many benefits to being a musician. And yes, it's hard to make a living through music. So what ? Why is this a necessity ?

nothrabannosir 9y ago
Substitute “making music” for “programming” here, as a thought experiment. See how that reads. Just because people keep doing something doesn’t mean it’s all “fine”. People make music in spite of the hardship. All of society benefits from their irrational, self destructive drive for creation. We could show some empathy and at least acknowledge that. Maybe even help find a way to make this beautiful gift they bestow on us less painful? Currently it feels like we’re making them shit roses for us. Maybe let’s help trim the thorns :) Source : I know several musicians first hand, and it’s not “fine”. :/
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Building things for people to use has always been valued. Making music just had a weird and brief period during which it could be monumentally lucrative. The circumstances have changed, and music is roughly back to being like any other art form in terms of average monetary reward. Music is only “special” because of physical recording creation and distribution. That has ended.
  - carapace 9y ago
    > Making music just had a weird and brief period during which it could be monumentally lucrative. As a programmer I sometimes reflect just how lucky I am to be born right at the historical moment when my abilities align with the economic demand. A few decades earlier or later and I'd be lucky to be an accountant or something.
- orangecat 9y ago

k_sh 9y ago

While I agree with the sentiment that recorded music has been devalued to all hell, implying that an artist racking up 4M Spotify streams every month is living off of $1160 a month is a bit disingenuous. If you're pulling those numbers, and know what you're doing, you will almost always have opportunities to make (much) more money doing shows and placements. Additionally: while the distribution of musical success was and still is bimodal, thanks to the fragmentation of culture caused by the Internet there is a growing middle creative class.

Kalium 9y ago

I have a great deal of empathy and compassion for artists. These are people who pour out their hearts and souls and lives for the sake of us and our culture. They deserve to be met with a response that cares about them. You're completely right. They define us, and tell us who we are. Yet, what form should empathy and compassion take? Empathy isn't a policy prescription. It doesn't come with technical requirements. Artists have alternate sources of income available, but this often runs into the basic problem that they aren't structured like the album sales of yesteryear. Different skills and approaches are required. So what's an empathetic lover of music and culture to do? I only know that the previous system didn't work any better - Courtney Love doing the math made that clear.

alysdexia 9y ago
This is your fourth use of heart, all of which wrong. The heart has nothing to do with it; it pumps blood. The Hebrews were so primitive they had no word for mind so they used heart instead. If western culture were founded on Egyptian religion instead you'd say liver.