3 ms·
That would mean that there's no value in creating the music. Only in reproducing it. People would have even less incentive to create new stuff instead of redo
by wccrawford 5y ago
That would mean that there's no value in creating the music. Only in reproducing it. People would have even less incentive to create new stuff instead of redoing old stuff. That is definitely not what I, as a listener, want.
- WalterBright 5y agoExcept that people create music all the time despite their knowledge that they won't get paid for it. There will also always be a paying market for composing, say, the soundtrack to a movie where it has to reflect the narrative and events in the film. For example, the Bugs Bunny cartoon music was performed while projecting the cartoon on a screen, so the musicians could match the timing. The music was very much customized to the cartoon.
- BeFlatXIII 5y agoThere already exist multiple lifetimes of existing music. The world won't be worse off if that rate of growth slowed down significantly.
- ramblenode 5y agoMost musicians don't make music for its monetary value, but because of personal fulfillment. All but the most successful 1% of musicians would find greater monetary value doing something else for the amount of work it takes to get to that level. > People would have even less incentive to create new stuff instead of redoing old stuff. In fact, I speculate the opposite might be true. How many big pop artists go into semi-retirement by their mid-30s once they've dropped off the charts? Why keep making music when you can comfortably collect off all your past hits? Certainly there's no economic incentive to keep working once you can collect sizeable rents.