7 ms·
It seems to me like musicians have always been in a precarious relation to the economy, same as all other artists. The only difference is that for a brief time
by zwkrt 8y ago
It seems to me like musicians have always been in a precarious relation to the economy, same as all other artists. The only difference is that for a brief time in the 20th century the average person was willing to spend money on music, unlike every other time in human history.
Nothing will ever stop people from making music, and 99% of working musicians are making a meager living doing what they enjoy, just like always.
- tunesmith 8y agoThat strikes me as dismissing "progress" as a mere blip in human history. The reason the average person was more willing to spend money on music is because we improved matters having to do with copyright and licensing. Good copyright and patent law serves a useful purpose in encouraging people to create or innovate in a system that would otherwise discourage doing so.
- wolco 8y agoComplete nonsense. Physical media played a part. Before the walkman you had to share music with everyone in the room. The identity association that began in the 60s. The rise of popstars, the Beatles, cds, etc. Nothing to do with copyright.. more people were breaking copyright during this period. In fact the people who broke copyright spent the most on music. Everyone broke copyright by recording songs from the radio. The first mass market recording devices were everywhere.
- shmerl 8y agoThat's nonsense. What improved are means of communication and distribution. I.e. Internet. You can reach a lot more people. Copyright and patents have nothing to do with it.
- zwkrt 8y agoIt wasn't progress, it was change.
- wwweston 8y ago> Nothing will ever stop people from making music The funny thing is how true this statement is, and yet how often it's deployed as if that means nobody needs to further consider or negotiate the present economics. How would one establish the idea that average person wasn't willing to spend money on music before the 20th century? Because I'd expect as long as there's been instruments and money, there's been some form of economic participation. But let's say it's true -- does that really direct a normative discussion on current economics? Because a hell of a lot of things about human society after industrialization have only been true for a brief time in human history, and that's no clear indicator of whether or not they have value. Here's a better standard: how well does what we're doing support people who are in a position to make musical contributions that people value? Recording sales fared pretty well by that standard, although there was the problem of predatory middlemen. Streaming revenues seem to have the same problem, and don't fare anywhere near as well.
- analog31 8y agoBefore recorded music, there was sheet music. It was a big business with "superstar" composers like Scott Joplin. It was common for a middle class house to have a piano in the parlor. And as I understand it, even before the recording era, there were predatory middlemen exploiting the sheet music composers.
- JackFr 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Pan_Alley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Pan_Alley You dare not whistle a tune before it had been published, lest someone steal it.
- hannasanarion 8y agoThe great musicians of 5he 19th century and earlier didn't make a living selling recordings and concerts. The price that would get butts in seats wasn't enough to cover the cost of living for all the performers, the composers, and the house. Back then, musicians fed themselves using a system of funds that has popped back up again now that selling records isn't economically realistic anymore: patronage. Back then, musicians were patronized by monarchs, feudal lords, aristocrats, churches and schools. Nowadays it's media conglomerates, bourgeois philanthropists, and patreon users.
- Bud 8y agoThis statement reflects wearing a certain kind of blinders, where you think the current pop-music industry is what the word "music" means. I can assure you that people were spending plenty on going to operas in the 19th century, for instance. And in the 18th century. And of course world-class orchestras have been making money for a few centuries, as well.
- bluGill 8y agoYou are correct that there were those making money in music for the last few thousand years. However they were a minority: the vast majority of music was made by someone who did something else. You farmed all day, and when the day was done you made music.
- Bud 8y agoUm, well yeah, those doing music professionally have always been a minority and still are, which has no bearing on this post, or this thread, or what I was talking about. The thread is about professionals; those making money from music. Mr. Bach and Mr. Handel weren't farming all day, I can assure you.
- zwkrt 8y agoNo, they were getting wellfare from their government!
- loudtieblahblah 8y agoartists deserve to be paid more than technology companies that deliver us the art.
- scarface74 8y agoSpotify isn’t exactly rolling in money. They aren’t even making a profit.
- reaperducer 8y agounlike every other time in human history This is not true. People have paid for music for centuries. Before it was recorded on discs, tapes, wires, or cylinders, people bought and sold sheet music. It was a massive industry. Before everyone had an electronic music player there were pianos in almost every middle-class home. Pianos were a huge industry with some cities having a half-dozen local manufacturers. And before pianos became mass-market, people bought sheet music to... get this... sing! People would get together in each other's houses to sing. Companies had bands and choirs, and would compete against each other. Spending money on music is not something new.
- skookumchuck 8y agoBeing in a band, even a low level band, is a great way for young men to get laid, and hence they are highly motivated to do it. A friend of mine once had a conversation with the drummer of a nationally known band. The drummer was an ordinary looking fellow, who said he was a "high school loser never made it with a lady" type. After the band became known, he looked up and hooked up with every woman who'd rejected him in high school, including the married ones.
- ZoomZoomZoom 8y agoThat's completely anecdotal and isn't typical, at least in the current culture. More often than not this is just a myth that musicians themselves spread to boost their ego and perceived status. Although, there's of course some basis in reality.
- skookumchuck 8y agoRead a history of about any band and you'll see the same effect. For example, see "The Dirt" which is the history of Motley Crue. The lead singer was recruited from another band, explaining that the only reason he had joined the other band was to get laid.
- ZoomZoomZoom 8y ago1. This may be a case of Survivorship bias. The most successful bands really take all the girls and all less successful just say they get laid constantly to boost their status. 2. Mötley Crüe started almost 40 years ago! Come to any gig of a really loud local band playing their instruments with attitude (don't really want to say "Rock") today and estimate the gender proportion in the crowd.
- skookumchuck 8y agoAsk the drummer in the next local band you see live.
- rubyfan 8y agoThe thesis here is that more people are paying for music than in that golden age of music. Spotify in theory has enabled access to a diversity of music at a more tolerable price point which has grown the pool of music payers but not necessarily equated to more money for artists.