3 ms·
> ” I’m merely claiming that they have less cultural impact than at almost any point in modern history. To operate on the fringe is almost akin to wearing an in
by soneca 4y ago
> ” I’m merely claiming that they have less cultural impact than at almost any point in modern history. To operate on the fringe is almost akin to wearing an invisibility cloak from one of those Harry Potter stories.”
Despite this being the central claim of the article, the author doesn’t make any effort to defend, explain, or even list examples of that claim. They state it as a fact. And I disagree with that central foundation, so the article is kind of useless to me. I learned nothing from it. I still think the long tail of creators and artists have more influence in the society than they had in the 2000s and before.
The article is a long effort to brag that the author was right about something a long time ago. But, without the premise above, I think they are wrong. The blockbuster being dead prediction was grossly wrong, but that along doesn’t support the claim above. Neither noticing that Amazon, Netflix, and Spotify earn more money from the big things. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the small creator earns less money. The article also ignore about small creators earning money and reach from Substack, Patreon, Kickstarter, Twitch, YouTube, etc.
- ghaff 4y ago>I still think the long tail of creators and artists have more influence in the society than they had in the 2000s and before. Yes, even if discovery of things in the long tail, much less creators profiting from it, is difficult, it's hard to accept the claim that it's more fringe today than it was 25 years ago when it might not have been created at all or would only have been shared with a small, local audience.