3 ms·

I think you've been reading too much online negativity. In the past even math and science was performed by either aristocrats or precocious folks at the behest

I think you've been reading too much online negativity. In the past even math and science was performed by either aristocrats or precocious folks at the behest of their patron. If anything, humanity has become better at guaranteeing employment for folks who don't directly and immediately move somebody's bottom line. Moreover the Western art scene until the '90s was also quite conservative with what it depicted and who it allowed to participate. Other art scenes (North and South Indian film, Yose entertainment in Japan, etc.) around the world had their own interesting niches, funding models, and lifestyles.

giantg2 5y ago
It seems harder to get a job today due to in-depth background checks. Until the pandemic employers were extremely picky. We're also sitting near record low labor participation rates. If it's so easy to get a job now, why were participation rates higher?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >If it's so easy to get a job now, why were participation rates higher An abundance of wealth and entertainment. A record number of people are able to eek out a minimal living without having to work in traditional markets. It is not a great life, but not desperate enough to enter the job market.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  This thread is scoped to the "creator economy" (see the title, the article, and the other toplevel threads.) I'm not talking about the economy as a whole, and even then we would need to scope that down to a place, a time period, etc etc. But if we're on the topic of creatives, just look at the pushback that the Jackson 5 received in America or that NWA had in the '90s. Yes it probably was easier to be a white, male artist in the '50s-'90s (like the Beatles), but the case was much murkier for anyone else. And it's not like the establishment went unscathed by technology change either. There's a song titled "Video Killed the Radio Star" after all...
  - giantg2 5y ago
    With the collapse of live music, I highly doubt this is true. You could get gigs at bars and stuff. Few places today have live music. Yes, minority artists might not have made it big in the past, but there was demand in the establishments that were run/supported/patronized by their respective group. If anything, technology has made success/wealth inequity worse by making music cheap and accessible, thus allowing people to have unlimited music (replays) for little money. This killed a lot of live music and funneled that money to the upper echelon on musicians.
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      Without numbers both you and I are just grasping at our feelings. That said, the technology to make music "cheap and accessible" enough to displace live music "thus allowing people to have unlimited music" has been around since at least the early 1900s with the creation and maturation of the record player/phonograph. I don't think this is a new phenomenon. This "killing of live music" would have happened long before the Beatles were even born. Further improvements in portable audio like the cassette tape, the CD, and eventually digital music only improved the portability of music for individuals but commercial settings have had the ability to replace live music at venues for a century. I don't think the root cause for the decline of live music was technical. I think cultural attitudes toward music changed, that's all.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        This has some information in it. It seems like cost is a major factor in the reduction of live music, allowing cheaper recorded music to take its place in some cases. I do see cultural attitudes playing a role too. My guess is they both play a part.
    - Kye 5y ago
      There's tons of live gigs at every scale. If you don't see it, you're not looking. It wasn't that long ago I joined everyone else in a coffee shop singing covers with the band.

giantg2 5y ago

It seems harder to get a job today due to in-depth background checks. Until the pandemic employers were extremely picky. We're also sitting near record low labor participation rates. If it's so easy to get a job now, why were participation rates higher?

s1artibartfast 5y ago
>If it's so easy to get a job now, why were participation rates higher An abundance of wealth and entertainment. A record number of people are able to eek out a minimal living without having to work in traditional markets. It is not a great life, but not desperate enough to enter the job market.
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
This thread is scoped to the "creator economy" (see the title, the article, and the other toplevel threads.) I'm not talking about the economy as a whole, and even then we would need to scope that down to a place, a time period, etc etc. But if we're on the topic of creatives, just look at the pushback that the Jackson 5 received in America or that NWA had in the '90s. Yes it probably was easier to be a white, male artist in the '50s-'90s (like the Beatles), but the case was much murkier for anyone else. And it's not like the establishment went unscathed by technology change either. There's a song titled "Video Killed the Radio Star" after all...
- giantg2 5y ago
  With the collapse of live music, I highly doubt this is true. You could get gigs at bars and stuff. Few places today have live music. Yes, minority artists might not have made it big in the past, but there was demand in the establishments that were run/supported/patronized by their respective group. If anything, technology has made success/wealth inequity worse by making music cheap and accessible, thus allowing people to have unlimited music (replays) for little money. This killed a lot of live music and funneled that money to the upper echelon on musicians.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    Without numbers both you and I are just grasping at our feelings. That said, the technology to make music "cheap and accessible" enough to displace live music "thus allowing people to have unlimited music" has been around since at least the early 1900s with the creation and maturation of the record player/phonograph. I don't think this is a new phenomenon. This "killing of live music" would have happened long before the Beatles were even born. Further improvements in portable audio like the cassette tape, the CD, and eventually digital music only improved the portability of music for individuals but commercial settings have had the ability to replace live music at venues for a century. I don't think the root cause for the decline of live music was technical. I think cultural attitudes toward music changed, that's all.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      This has some information in it. It seems like cost is a major factor in the reduction of live music, allowing cheaper recorded music to take its place in some cases. I do see cultural attitudes playing a role too. My guess is they both play a part.
  - Kye 5y ago
    There's tons of live gigs at every scale. If you don't see it, you're not looking. It wasn't that long ago I joined everyone else in a coffee shop singing covers with the band.