4 ms·
Wider distribution doesn't actually matter here if it doesn't result in linearly increasing economic benefit. For most modern music the majority of income is ma
by missedthecue 4y ago
Wider distribution doesn't actually matter here if it doesn't result in linearly increasing economic benefit. For most modern music the majority of income is made on tours doing live music. I imagine this effect is far more pronounced for orchestras because millions people bought Taylor Swift's last album, but not so many are paying money for the Berlin Philharmonic's release of Mendelssohn classics.
So if the orchestra's economic production is still only being realized when they perform live music, the baumol effect will absolutely still apply.
- tuatoru 4y ago> For most modern music the majority of income is made on tours doing live music. Now, yes: internet streaming killed recording as a viable profit center in the mid 2000s. When Baumol was writing, musical acts did live shows more or less at cost, or even at a loss (covered by their record companies), to promote their recordings, which were where the money was, then. The declining popularity of classical music is beside the point. Baumol intended classical music to stand in for performing arts in general. The size of the potential (and in many cases actual) audience and revenue has increased for performances of all kinds: popular music, stand-up comedy, baseball games, motor car races, spelling competitions, etc. At the same time, costs to an individual consumer have declined dramatically. Those things are the essence of productivity gain.