3 ms·

I think the point is not that musicians charge too much, but rather that music industry takes too much for themselves. The cost of infrastructure, amortized by

I think the point is not that musicians charge too much, but rather that music industry takes too much for themselves. The cost of infrastructure, amortized by the number of artists, is very low. It's nothing new, really. People have been singing about it since Pink Floyd.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Actually since the sheet music boom of the 19th century, which is how a lot of 19th century composers made money. (There's still some money in sheet music, but not much compared to other income sources.) What's changed over time are the economies of scale involved in distribution. Engraving, printing, distributing, and selling paper sheet music was fairly labour intensive. Pressing and distributing vinyl/CDs was also non-trivial, but the marketing leverage provided by radio made it a more profitable business. Streaming is a low overhead business in comparison. There's some up front cost for the infrastructure and UI, and small continuing costs for hosting, but it pretty much runs itself. As a de facto monopoly there's a limited need for marketing. Instead marketing costs have been outsourced to the artists - which is a fairly new thing. It's often said that it's never been easier to make and sell music. In fact it's never been harder to market music. Having a home studio is irrelevant if you can't create exposure and convert it into sales. The big record labels can do that, viral breakout artists can do it (but often not for long), but the big money still goes to artists with a mass media profile. (For example Kate Bush becoming a top seller again after placing a single on Stranger Things.)
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  Interesting piece of history. Thanks for sharing that. As for "selling music" - I believe that the very concept of it is archaic, akin to "selling software". Music can be copied like software, and every attempt to treat it like physical goods is doomed to fail. In order for musicians to take back control, a movement akin to Free Software is necessary. Radiohead was successful with BandCamp "pay what you want" approach. Perhaps if there was a P2P music sharing platform with microtransaction support (ala GNU Taler) where people could post their music and collect money directly from their listeners, then music could become somewhat profitable for the musicians again. Of course, they won't get huge money, but maybe the very idea of a "rockstar" is obsolete, and based on corporations selling the same kind of music to the whole world. Bones (the rapper) has been releasing his music for free for the last decade or so, and earns enough money through tours to have a big house with a pool and not to have to work.
  - havblue 4y ago
    I somewhat think of the example with Radiohead as being an exception though. While they aren't one of the top ten bands of the past 25 years in terms of popularity, they are probably one of the top ten in terms of critical acclaim. People would pay what they wanted to for Mozart. They wouldn't for Salieri.
    - paskozdilar 4y ago
      I'd argue that if some music doesn't bring enough pleasure for people to want to support the artist, then that music shouldn't be pair for at all. Seems to me like a much better alternative to the status quo of music industry manufacturing "artists", forcing them upon people through mass media, and extracting money whatever way they can.
  - _carbyau_ 4y ago
    > maybe the very idea of a "rockstar" is obsolete I think the idea of a "rockstar" will still continue. Just how they make their money is different. In pre-recording times musicians made money through direct appearance or a patron. Recordings come along and money is made on the duplication. Digital comes along and duplication is not an impressive feat anymore. So I think money will be made on the appearances again. I am curious about patrons though, will they be a thing again?

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

Actually since the sheet music boom of the 19th century, which is how a lot of 19th century composers made money. (There's still some money in sheet music, but not much compared to other income sources.) What's changed over time are the economies of scale involved in distribution. Engraving, printing, distributing, and selling paper sheet music was fairly labour intensive. Pressing and distributing vinyl/CDs was also non-trivial, but the marketing leverage provided by radio made it a more profitable business. Streaming is a low overhead business in comparison. There's some up front cost for the infrastructure and UI, and small continuing costs for hosting, but it pretty much runs itself. As a de facto monopoly there's a limited need for marketing. Instead marketing costs have been outsourced to the artists - which is a fairly new thing. It's often said that it's never been easier to make and sell music. In fact it's never been harder to market music. Having a home studio is irrelevant if you can't create exposure and convert it into sales. The big record labels can do that, viral breakout artists can do it (but often not for long), but the big money still goes to artists with a mass media profile. (For example Kate Bush becoming a top seller again after placing a single on Stranger Things.)

paskozdilar 4y ago
Interesting piece of history. Thanks for sharing that. As for "selling music" - I believe that the very concept of it is archaic, akin to "selling software". Music can be copied like software, and every attempt to treat it like physical goods is doomed to fail. In order for musicians to take back control, a movement akin to Free Software is necessary. Radiohead was successful with BandCamp "pay what you want" approach. Perhaps if there was a P2P music sharing platform with microtransaction support (ala GNU Taler) where people could post their music and collect money directly from their listeners, then music could become somewhat profitable for the musicians again. Of course, they won't get huge money, but maybe the very idea of a "rockstar" is obsolete, and based on corporations selling the same kind of music to the whole world. Bones (the rapper) has been releasing his music for free for the last decade or so, and earns enough money through tours to have a big house with a pool and not to have to work.
- havblue 4y ago
  I somewhat think of the example with Radiohead as being an exception though. While they aren't one of the top ten bands of the past 25 years in terms of popularity, they are probably one of the top ten in terms of critical acclaim. People would pay what they wanted to for Mozart. They wouldn't for Salieri.
  - paskozdilar 4y ago
    I'd argue that if some music doesn't bring enough pleasure for people to want to support the artist, then that music shouldn't be pair for at all. Seems to me like a much better alternative to the status quo of music industry manufacturing "artists", forcing them upon people through mass media, and extracting money whatever way they can.
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  > maybe the very idea of a "rockstar" is obsolete I think the idea of a "rockstar" will still continue. Just how they make their money is different. In pre-recording times musicians made money through direct appearance or a patron. Recordings come along and money is made on the duplication. Digital comes along and duplication is not an impressive feat anymore. So I think money will be made on the appearances again. I am curious about patrons though, will they be a thing again?