3 ms·
Is an astoundingly extreme claim. First we have to accept the premise that live music is “dead”. Second it’s due to some orthogonal factor like a smoking ban as
by gretch 6y ago
Is an astoundingly extreme claim. First we have to accept the premise that live music is “dead”. Second it’s due to some orthogonal factor like a smoking ban as opposed to recorded music becoming way more accessible through technology.
It’s an extreme claim with very little rigor.
- bsder 6y ago> First we have to accept the premise that live music is “dead”. By almost all measures, it is. Number of artists, average age of artists, revenue, number of customers, etc. > as opposed to recorded music becoming way more accessible through technology. Except that by most measures the general public consumes VASTLY less music than they used to, so it isn't accessibility driving it. Now, you could suggest that it's because of a bunch of changes: video games, social media, etc. That would at least be plausible.
- simiones 6y ago> Except that by most measures the general public consumes VASTLY less music than they used to, so it isn't accessibility driving it. Compared to when? 1800? 1970? 2010?