2 ms·

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". M

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 Of course, they won't get huge money, but maybe the very idea of a "rockstar" is obsolete, and based on corporations selling the same kind of music to the whole world.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 maybe the very idea of a "rockstar" is obsolete I think the idea of a "rockstar" will still continue.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?

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?