4 ms·

> but honestly hasn't much improved the lot of artists and musicians As a consumer of music, why is this my problem?

fullshark 4y ago
Potentially great music is not being made as a result of people not devoting time and energy to the craft I guess. Also just general empathy.
- civopsec 4y ago
  You guess? Music is like the last thing that will stop being made because people can’t professionalize their craft.
  - fullshark 4y ago
    You don't think it has any impact? Even on the margins? I think it's basically expected that musicians will give up some day and join the working world, in part because it's so hard to make a living in. If it's harder to make a living -> more people give up -> less music. If it's easier -> fewer people give up -> more music.
    - civopsec 4y ago
      It’s not a question of whether it has no impact or not because that’s irrelevant. You would actively have to punish people for making music in order for music not to be made—that’s how strong that force is. (Well heck, maybe more music would be made in that case, out of spite and rebellion.)
      - fullshark 4y ago
        No music at all is not the concern, music you like not being made by artists you admire is the concern. This is basically the entire premise of Patreon btw.
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        Yes, that is true. But there is quantity and there is quality. So surely there would be also some gifted people who happen to have the luxory to focus completely on the music they want to make, but those would be the exception.
iamacyborg 4y ago
This is a rhetorical question, right? If you consume music then surely, you want the artists and musicians you support to be paid fairly for their work.
- civopsec 4y ago
  Why is that “surely”?
  - iamacyborg 4y ago
    You're right, my bad, I assumed most folks would have a base level of empathy.
    - smolyeet 4y ago
      Well , it’s either I listen to it using this easy platform for us common folk, or I don’t listen to them at all. Or i pirate. It’s not that deep , you can get off your high horse.
      - e-v 4y ago
        There's no high horse. Your message doesn't answer the argument. The fact (A) that one wouldn't buy music if Spotify weren't available is not related to (B) not caring about how Spotify treats artists. Even if A is true, it doesn't imply that one has no empathy for artists.
- meltedcapacitor 4y ago
  Between dead artists and art-for-art-sake artists we're not gonna run out of stuff to listen to, even if intellectual property was abolished tomorrow morning (as it should be). It only works for the 1 percent at the top anyway (due to power law distribution).
- strken 4y ago
  Can you or jrm4 explain why Spotify's royalty system (a 70/30 split in favour of the rights holder) is unfair? If I had to guess I'd say it convinces artists to license their work for less money than they'd make if they stuck it on Bandcamp, but I'm not certain, and neither of you has explained it.

Potentially great music is not being made as a result of people not devoting time and energy to the craft I guess. Also just general empathy.

civopsec 4y ago
You guess? Music is like the last thing that will stop being made because people can’t professionalize their craft.
- fullshark 4y ago
  You don't think it has any impact? Even on the margins? I think it's basically expected that musicians will give up some day and join the working world, in part because it's so hard to make a living in. If it's harder to make a living -> more people give up -> less music. If it's easier -> fewer people give up -> more music.
  - civopsec 4y ago
    It’s not a question of whether it has no impact or not because that’s irrelevant. You would actively have to punish people for making music in order for music not to be made—that’s how strong that force is. (Well heck, maybe more music would be made in that case, out of spite and rebellion.)
    - fullshark 4y ago
      No music at all is not the concern, music you like not being made by artists you admire is the concern. This is basically the entire premise of Patreon btw.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      Yes, that is true. But there is quantity and there is quality. So surely there would be also some gifted people who happen to have the luxory to focus completely on the music they want to make, but those would be the exception.

iamacyborg 4y ago

This is a rhetorical question, right? If you consume music then surely, you want the artists and musicians you support to be paid fairly for their work.

civopsec 4y ago
Why is that “surely”?
- iamacyborg 4y ago
  You're right, my bad, I assumed most folks would have a base level of empathy.
  - smolyeet 4y ago
    Well , it’s either I listen to it using this easy platform for us common folk, or I don’t listen to them at all. Or i pirate. It’s not that deep , you can get off your high horse.
    - e-v 4y ago
      There's no high horse. Your message doesn't answer the argument. The fact (A) that one wouldn't buy music if Spotify weren't available is not related to (B) not caring about how Spotify treats artists. Even if A is true, it doesn't imply that one has no empathy for artists.
meltedcapacitor 4y ago
Between dead artists and art-for-art-sake artists we're not gonna run out of stuff to listen to, even if intellectual property was abolished tomorrow morning (as it should be). It only works for the 1 percent at the top anyway (due to power law distribution).
strken 4y ago
Can you or jrm4 explain why Spotify's royalty system (a 70/30 split in favour of the rights holder) is unfair? If I had to guess I'd say it convinces artists to license their work for less money than they'd make if they stuck it on Bandcamp, but I'm not certain, and neither of you has explained it.