4 ms·

Yes. Even among those who hope someday to make music their living, many will opt to forgo immediate profit for experience and exposure alone. My personal attit

Yes. Even among those who hope someday to make music their living, many will opt to forgo immediate profit for experience and exposure alone. My personal attitude (in general, I haven't contributed to this site) is that it's incredibly difficult and even soul-sucking to try and earn a decent living in music performance, let alone composition, so I don't even try. Instead, I have a day job - I work in IT for my alma mater - and in return for reduced time available for music, I get complete freedom to pursue the musical projects I want at my own pace. This way I can be sort of my own patron. Sure, getting paid for music would be nice, but I'm not going to insist on it for a given project unless that was the only way to make said project worthwhile to me, in which case I probably wouldn't undertake it in the first place. I suspect there are a good many freelance musicians nowadays who also take this approach.

abnry 7y ago
The thing that annoys me about people who complain that they can't make a living being a musician is that it is like complaining they can't start a business selling air. That's a bit harsh, but that point is that the supply is very high and the demand is low. Certainly the demand for music is high, but only a very tiny sliver of the music that is popular. There isn't a ton of demand for people to pay much for live small town performances. And as for the supply, there are tons and tons of people who want to be musicians. So the simple supply and demand economics has it that the people who are willing to sell their services for the lowest price (i.e. free) are the ones who will set the market price. It's a similar phenomenon to when I was in grad school and those around me would complain about the lack of pay for newly minted PhDs in academia. The pay for postdocs is very low. It's the same problem as musicians (though less severe). One of the thing that motivates grad students or musicians is the hope of making it big (getting a tenured position or selling out performances). That means people with a high risk tolerance are the ones who will participate in the market. Basically, you have to get yourself into the distinguished echelon of hot commodities, and in this respect, "exposure" is very important. There is no top billboard song that exists but for marketing. Life isn't going to be the way you want it and you have to adjust.
- munificent 7y ago
  You are making a moral argument whose basis is capitalistic supply and demand. But there is no reason to assume that laws of economics are a decent, humane basis for building a moral framework. Obviously, market economics has pragmatic usefulness, but it's a cruel thing to base your humanity on. > Life isn't going to be the way you want it and you have to adjust. Life is what we make it, and mutely accepting the parts of the world we don't like is what enables those misfeatures to persist. Personally, while I see a lot of value in capitalism, I also see value in striving for a world where more people are able to make a living and do what they love. If supply and demand means that musicians can't put food on their table, is that flaw in music, or the supply and demand system?
  - bcoates 7y ago
    You're not so much arguing that music shouldn't be capitalistic, but more capitalistic than it is today and also value (some?) musicians more. People aren't paying for music (which has been noted is about as rare as air) but control over music. If you want the money (either through licensing, fee-for-performance, or patronage) you're going to give up your control to the person who is paying the piper. If you want to keep the control, you're probably going to have to give up doing it as a day job. You can't produce non-alienated craft music like it was a pair of boots and expect people to want it anyway -- the entire value of music to others is in the alienation, the loss of control over the work ("playing to the crowd"), "supply and demand" isn't causing that and can't be reformed to change that. If the audience is you, that's fine, but why should society value that over any other private activity that makes you privately happy? We should subsidize it as much as we subsidize rock-climbing, marijuana, binge-watching Seinfeld, etc.

abnry 7y ago

The thing that annoys me about people who complain that they can't make a living being a musician is that it is like complaining they can't start a business selling air. That's a bit harsh, but that point is that the supply is very high and the demand is low. Certainly the demand for music is high, but only a very tiny sliver of the music that is popular. There isn't a ton of demand for people to pay much for live small town performances. And as for the supply, there are tons and tons of people who want to be musicians. So the simple supply and demand economics has it that the people who are willing to sell their services for the lowest price (i.e. free) are the ones who will set the market price. It's a similar phenomenon to when I was in grad school and those around me would complain about the lack of pay for newly minted PhDs in academia. The pay for postdocs is very low. It's the same problem as musicians (though less severe). One of the thing that motivates grad students or musicians is the hope of making it big (getting a tenured position or selling out performances). That means people with a high risk tolerance are the ones who will participate in the market. Basically, you have to get yourself into the distinguished echelon of hot commodities, and in this respect, "exposure" is very important. There is no top billboard song that exists but for marketing. Life isn't going to be the way you want it and you have to adjust.

munificent 7y ago
You are making a moral argument whose basis is capitalistic supply and demand. But there is no reason to assume that laws of economics are a decent, humane basis for building a moral framework. Obviously, market economics has pragmatic usefulness, but it's a cruel thing to base your humanity on. > Life isn't going to be the way you want it and you have to adjust. Life is what we make it, and mutely accepting the parts of the world we don't like is what enables those misfeatures to persist. Personally, while I see a lot of value in capitalism, I also see value in striving for a world where more people are able to make a living and do what they love. If supply and demand means that musicians can't put food on their table, is that flaw in music, or the supply and demand system?
- bcoates 7y ago
  You're not so much arguing that music shouldn't be capitalistic, but more capitalistic than it is today and also value (some?) musicians more. People aren't paying for music (which has been noted is about as rare as air) but control over music. If you want the money (either through licensing, fee-for-performance, or patronage) you're going to give up your control to the person who is paying the piper. If you want to keep the control, you're probably going to have to give up doing it as a day job. You can't produce non-alienated craft music like it was a pair of boots and expect people to want it anyway -- the entire value of music to others is in the alienation, the loss of control over the work ("playing to the crowd"), "supply and demand" isn't causing that and can't be reformed to change that. If the audience is you, that's fine, but why should society value that over any other private activity that makes you privately happy? We should subsidize it as much as we subsidize rock-climbing, marijuana, binge-watching Seinfeld, etc.