3 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
Before 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 ago
  https://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 ago
The 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.
- JackFr 8y ago
  > The great musicians of 5he 19th century and earlier didn't make a living selling recordings and concerts. Actually they did, certainly in the 19th century which was the era of the concert hall. Without recording technology, music had to be performed to be enjoyed. The market for live performances was much, much bigger. Because the market lacked the 'winner-take-all' aspect of today, the opportunity to make a living wage as a musician was easier than today.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    It's not a matter of whether musicians get paid, it's where the money comes from. Even in the golden age of concert halls, ticket sales barely paid the rent. Orchestras and composers were reliant on donors and patrons. Even Beethoven, superstar of his time, couldn't make a living on his own, he was reliant on Archduke Rudolph, Prince Kinsky, and Prince Lezkowitz to keep food on his table.
zwkrt 8y ago
> how well does what we're doing support people who are in a position to make musical contributions that people value? This is the best possible time to support an artist you enjoy. You can buy physical and digital copies of any artist in the world, artists can set up Patreon accounts, and you with a small amount of ingenuity can probably even mail your favorite artists a check directly. The issue is that people don't do this, because they don't value the music enough to do it. It is not a great argument to say that Apple Music is mistreating artists, the fans are mistreating artists. As a final point, the way most popular (not just pop) artists get popular is through marketing, advertising, venue promotion, radio deals, etc. The record company probably deserves the majority of the money produced by such enterprises because without their intervention no one would be that famous to begin with. Kanye West is a brand, just like Ford and Dockers.
- not2b 8y ago
  Only indie artists can do that. Record companies are now signing musicians and bands to what they call "360" accounts, meaning that the company controls every aspect of how the musician might make money, from digital presence to merch to advertising to touring. By staying independent, they can make their own deals, but then they have the problem that they can't get on the radio and have a hard time getting known.
  - amyjess 8y ago
    On the flip side, it's easier to be an indie artist now than it's ever been.
  - mikepurvis 8y ago
    Do those deals have expirations, or are they "for life"? I feel like once a musician is established, the label should have to justify their ongoing role in that musician's career, and certainly in the past lots of musicians have switched labels or started their own small labels later on in their career.
    - ZoomZoomZoom 8y ago

analog31 8y ago

Before 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 ago
https://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 ago

The 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.

JackFr 8y ago
> The great musicians of 5he 19th century and earlier didn't make a living selling recordings and concerts. Actually they did, certainly in the 19th century which was the era of the concert hall. Without recording technology, music had to be performed to be enjoyed. The market for live performances was much, much bigger. Because the market lacked the 'winner-take-all' aspect of today, the opportunity to make a living wage as a musician was easier than today.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  It's not a matter of whether musicians get paid, it's where the money comes from. Even in the golden age of concert halls, ticket sales barely paid the rent. Orchestras and composers were reliant on donors and patrons. Even Beethoven, superstar of his time, couldn't make a living on his own, he was reliant on Archduke Rudolph, Prince Kinsky, and Prince Lezkowitz to keep food on his table.

zwkrt 8y ago

> how well does what we're doing support people who are in a position to make musical contributions that people value? This is the best possible time to support an artist you enjoy. You can buy physical and digital copies of any artist in the world, artists can set up Patreon accounts, and you with a small amount of ingenuity can probably even mail your favorite artists a check directly. The issue is that people don't do this, because they don't value the music enough to do it. It is not a great argument to say that Apple Music is mistreating artists, the fans are mistreating artists. As a final point, the way most popular (not just pop) artists get popular is through marketing, advertising, venue promotion, radio deals, etc. The record company probably deserves the majority of the money produced by such enterprises because without their intervention no one would be that famous to begin with. Kanye West is a brand, just like Ford and Dockers.

not2b 8y ago
Only indie artists can do that. Record companies are now signing musicians and bands to what they call "360" accounts, meaning that the company controls every aspect of how the musician might make money, from digital presence to merch to advertising to touring. By staying independent, they can make their own deals, but then they have the problem that they can't get on the radio and have a hard time getting known.
- amyjess 8y ago
  On the flip side, it's easier to be an indie artist now than it's ever been.
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  Do those deals have expirations, or are they "for life"? I feel like once a musician is established, the label should have to justify their ongoing role in that musician's career, and certainly in the past lots of musicians have switched labels or started their own small labels later on in their career.
  - ZoomZoomZoom 8y ago