11 ms·

We've probably made it easier for people to have "half a career" in music -- getting paid a modest amount of money on weekends, evenings, etc. to do what they l

by GCA10 4y ago

We've probably made it easier for people to have "half a career" in music -- getting paid a modest amount of money on weekends, evenings, etc. to do what they love. In my own circle, I've got friends who earn $5,000 to $30,000 a year playing live music -- and then round out their earnings doing some amount of teaching, bookkeeping or whatever. Ditto for actors, writers, semi-pro athletes, etc. The more I think about these tradeoffs, the harder it is to see them as unilaterally good or evil. It's a second-best solution for dealing with the gap between what people love to do, and what pays the bills. Not sure if there is a first-best solution. Some countries have created "artists' cartels," which provide subsidized higher incomes for people in the club. That does make it easier to make a living as an approved artist. But the jockeying about who gets into the club, who pays the subsidies and what it takes to stay in -- argh! it all gets really protracted and ugly.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
It’s not a silver bullet, but an expanded social safety net would make it significantly less risky to pursue art (or open source software or whatever) as more than just a “nights and weekends” thing.
- robocat 4y ago
  > an expanded social safety net would make it significantly less risky to pursue art Paraphrased: workers should be taxed so that we can 100% subsidise some other people’s dreams. Fuck that. I accept our society should subsidise some: art (I do like the BBC, especially so because I don’t pay for it), or music (I like CreativeNZ videos), or sports, or hobbies (HAM radio spectrum), or open source (yayyy), or even subsidise sitting around doing nothing (society should not demand all our time just for us to survive). But the idea that society should subsidise everyone to follow their dreams is simply unworkable. And if you want to start ranking which dreams are worthwhile, well, society ends up with systems such as we already have.
  - kiba 4y ago
    Some of our greatest scientific achievement come from aristocratic or independently wealthy folks who don't need to earn a living. So I wouldn't knock these subsidies. I think we could rearrange society to provide such subsidies on a sustainable basis if we choose to.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    That’s not an accurate paraphrasing; many social programs actually cost less than the alternative. Sounds like you live in the UK, so maybe you take the NHS for granted. It would be a vast improvement from what we have in the US, where we have amongst the most expensive health care system in the world with far from the best outcomes. Group insurance is generally negotiated by employers; access to affordable healthcare is a huge obstacle to pursuing anything other than a traditional job. Even loftier goals like ending homelessness don’t turn out to require the financial tradeoffs you’re talking about. Study after study, we’ve seen that simply giving people homes is costs less than shelters, police raids and a Kafkaesque system of requirements to prevent people who Don’t Deserve Help from getting it. Consider that US workers are taxed in order to subsidize the dreams of the second wealthiest man in the world, for not one but two of his businesses. Would SpaceX or Tesla have succeeded without government handouts? We’re never asked to question that, but as soon as we suggest that people be able to make art without worrying about medical bankruptcy or homelessness, people start looking at the balance sheet with a magnifying glass.
    - AussieWog93 4y ago
      [dead]
    - robocat 4y ago
      You appear to be introducing three new tangential topics, and I don’t think you are addressing the point you originally raised. Your original comment says that we should take a system that is there to provide insurance for the unfortunate (social safety net) and use that system to fund people’s desires (art, open source, or whatever). I very strongly disagree with that idea: different systems have different purposes and commingling a safety net with creative goals will likely lead to very unfair outcomes.
- kiba 4y ago
  That just mean that you don't make a living making art since the safety net provide a living for you.
- akiselev 4y ago
  So much so that it's actually kind of a trope in the UK music industry [1]. A lot of the most famous British musicians from the 70s and 80s were "on the dole" receiving welfare before they made it big. [1] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/horace-trubridge/class-and-the-arts_b_8647352.html https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/horace-trubridge/class-and-...
cik2e 4y ago
Probably, UBI is the best first solution. In the sense that it acts as a collective bargaining system for all citizens who are forced to trade their time for income.
harimau777 4y ago
This is of course not scientific, but my observation has been just the opposite. It seems like in the past it was possible to be an artist who supported themselves working 9 to 5 as a waiter. I don't see how that would be possible with the skyrocketing cost of living even before the inflation spike. Lots of people have multiple jobs just to make ends meet.
- asdff 4y ago
  Some popular artists over the years have funded their initial studio time with some ill gotten gains.
analog31 4y ago
I'm one of those musicians, though my day job as a scientist has produced an ever increasing share of my income. I'm a double bassist, and I play mostly jazz. Even full time musicians need multiple income streams. Teaching classical music to children is not a half bad occupation, but you have to enjoy it and live in a fairly affluent town. A violin teacher makes more per hour than I make playing gigs. There are things that you can't do if you're not full time, such as traveling to perform. I'm pretty much limited to a 40 mile radius around my home. Recording is possible of course, but I don't do it. It's not something that I really enjoy, and it's not easy or free even with modern tools. And getting paid for it is difficult. The musicians I know who actually make money from their recordings, sell CD's at their performances. I think part of the situation with music is that we face competition from non musical forms of entertainment, that are extremely sophisticated. Perhaps at the top of the food chain is televised sports. It's very hard to put together a musical performance that's as exciting or entertaining as a major league sports broadcast. What live musicians depend on is the audience that's actually interested in the experience of live music per se. And it's no longer the music of their youth. The jazz era is 100 years old. The majority of the jazz audience grew up listening to rock 'n' roll.

by GCA10 4y ago

jakelazaroff 4y ago

It’s not a silver bullet, but an expanded social safety net would make it significantly less risky to pursue art (or open source software or whatever) as more than just a “nights and weekends” thing.

robocat 4y ago
> an expanded social safety net would make it significantly less risky to pursue art Paraphrased: workers should be taxed so that we can 100% subsidise some other people’s dreams. Fuck that. I accept our society should subsidise some: art (I do like the BBC, especially so because I don’t pay for it), or music (I like CreativeNZ videos), or sports, or hobbies (HAM radio spectrum), or open source (yayyy), or even subsidise sitting around doing nothing (society should not demand all our time just for us to survive). But the idea that society should subsidise everyone to follow their dreams is simply unworkable. And if you want to start ranking which dreams are worthwhile, well, society ends up with systems such as we already have.
- kiba 4y ago
  Some of our greatest scientific achievement come from aristocratic or independently wealthy folks who don't need to earn a living. So I wouldn't knock these subsidies. I think we could rearrange society to provide such subsidies on a sustainable basis if we choose to.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  That’s not an accurate paraphrasing; many social programs actually cost less than the alternative. Sounds like you live in the UK, so maybe you take the NHS for granted. It would be a vast improvement from what we have in the US, where we have amongst the most expensive health care system in the world with far from the best outcomes. Group insurance is generally negotiated by employers; access to affordable healthcare is a huge obstacle to pursuing anything other than a traditional job. Even loftier goals like ending homelessness don’t turn out to require the financial tradeoffs you’re talking about. Study after study, we’ve seen that simply giving people homes is costs less than shelters, police raids and a Kafkaesque system of requirements to prevent people who Don’t Deserve Help from getting it. Consider that US workers are taxed in order to subsidize the dreams of the second wealthiest man in the world, for not one but two of his businesses. Would SpaceX or Tesla have succeeded without government handouts? We’re never asked to question that, but as soon as we suggest that people be able to make art without worrying about medical bankruptcy or homelessness, people start looking at the balance sheet with a magnifying glass.
  - AussieWog93 4y ago
    [dead]
  - robocat 4y ago
    You appear to be introducing three new tangential topics, and I don’t think you are addressing the point you originally raised. Your original comment says that we should take a system that is there to provide insurance for the unfortunate (social safety net) and use that system to fund people’s desires (art, open source, or whatever). I very strongly disagree with that idea: different systems have different purposes and commingling a safety net with creative goals will likely lead to very unfair outcomes.
kiba 4y ago
That just mean that you don't make a living making art since the safety net provide a living for you.
akiselev 4y ago
So much so that it's actually kind of a trope in the UK music industry [1]. A lot of the most famous British musicians from the 70s and 80s were "on the dole" receiving welfare before they made it big. [1] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/horace-trubridge/class-and-the-arts_b_8647352.html https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/horace-trubridge/class-and-...

cik2e 4y ago

Probably, UBI is the best first solution. In the sense that it acts as a collective bargaining system for all citizens who are forced to trade their time for income.

harimau777 4y ago

This is of course not scientific, but my observation has been just the opposite. It seems like in the past it was possible to be an artist who supported themselves working 9 to 5 as a waiter. I don't see how that would be possible with the skyrocketing cost of living even before the inflation spike. Lots of people have multiple jobs just to make ends meet.

asdff 4y ago
Some popular artists over the years have funded their initial studio time with some ill gotten gains.

analog31 4y ago

I'm one of those musicians, though my day job as a scientist has produced an ever increasing share of my income. I'm a double bassist, and I play mostly jazz. Even full time musicians need multiple income streams. Teaching classical music to children is not a half bad occupation, but you have to enjoy it and live in a fairly affluent town. A violin teacher makes more per hour than I make playing gigs. There are things that you can't do if you're not full time, such as traveling to perform. I'm pretty much limited to a 40 mile radius around my home. Recording is possible of course, but I don't do it. It's not something that I really enjoy, and it's not easy or free even with modern tools. And getting paid for it is difficult. The musicians I know who actually make money from their recordings, sell CD's at their performances. I think part of the situation with music is that we face competition from non musical forms of entertainment, that are extremely sophisticated. Perhaps at the top of the food chain is televised sports. It's very hard to put together a musical performance that's as exciting or entertaining as a major league sports broadcast. What live musicians depend on is the audience that's actually interested in the experience of live music per se. And it's no longer the music of their youth. The jazz era is 100 years old. The majority of the jazz audience grew up listening to rock 'n' roll.