3 ms·

> It's like home run batting, even the best in the world at picking and promoting music are lucky to have like a 10-20% success rate. Mass market success is ba

> It's like home run batting, even the best in the world at picking and promoting music are lucky to have like a 10-20% success rate. Mass market success is basically a crap shoot and doesn't really reflect the quality of the musician. You said: > Playing music badly is utterly worthless from an economic standpoint. And that's not true at all, being a virtuoso is pretty much worthless from an economic standpoint. It's pointless to try to equate skill to economic success because in pop art they don't have anything to do with each other. It's all about marketing and distribution. Not to say that the studio musicians that make the pop music aren't virtuosos, but they're definitely playing simplified songs.

CPLX 3y ago
I never said being a virtuoso was worth anything, that's a new discussion. My point is just that some music is incredibly valuable economically, and most is not worth anything at all. Which is clearly true. As such, music is not an interchangeable commodity it's an extremely idiosyncratic and heterogenous market. I've heard the argument about how nobody cares about "better" music and so on my whole life. It's like the thing people like to talk about. But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on. For example I think Pitbull fucking sucks, deeply and profoundly, and objectively. When he rhymes Kodak with Kodak in the song "Give Me Everything" I want to throw rocks or other durable objects at whatever speaker is subjecting me to that fucking song. Somehow, 12 years after its release, this is still happening to me on a regular basis, usually within the first 2-4 hours after entering the state of Florida. But people seem to like it. So that's the only actually objective way to determine the value of music. All the other ways are just people talking.
- bluefishinit 3y ago
  > But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on. I agree. Part of that is that economically successful music also isn't "better", it's just making money. I like Madonna but she's an objectively crap singer. Just because something is popular, it doesn't make it good. That's like saying Coke is the best drink in the world because it makes the most money. Commercial success is due to marketing, distribution and luck.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    > Commercial success is due to marketing, distribution and luck. But we're back here. I still disagree with this, it's a poor analysis of what's actually happening. In music, commercial success, more than any other factor, comes from making music that is liked by large numbers of people. If you can make music like that you'll probably have commercial success.
    - bluefishinit 3y ago
      > In music, commercial success, more than any other factor, comes from making music that is liked by large numbers of people. Most bands never have a chance to see if their music is liked by a large number of people because they don't have that kind of distribution. Through the 20th century the labels created a distribution network into which they pump hand selected artists (that match their marketing channels demographics). They, like you say, have roughly a 1 in 10 chance of success with this model (like vcs). Most bands will never know if their music will be popular because the won't get signed to find out.
      - CPLX 3y ago
        Well see the thing is that all music that is liked by large numbers of people is also liked by small numbers of people. If you get my drift. Most bands never get signed because nobody likes them. They play a gig to fifty people in March and when they play the same place in June twenty people show up. By fall it's just girlfriends and siblings and by the following year they're working as a roofer or something. Artists make demos of their music and send them to people and those people don't like them, and don't play them over and over and don't share them with friends, and it never reaches the ears of people with influence because nobody cares, because it has no real connection or mass appeal. Conversely, artists that do have mass appeal get attention very very quickly. I've been around awhile, I started working professionaly in the music business in the late 1980's. So much has changed, back then it was true that distribution mattered a lot more. In the 90's corporate radio mattered a lot more. In the 2010's you had a much clearer shot via Youtube or similar. So yeah there's substantial change in how it all works. The basic core part is the same though. Most music doesn't even have a small chance of being genuinely popular. Because it's the kind of music that isn't really liked by mass audiences. You're saying this: > Most bands will never know if their music will be popular because the won't get signed to find out. That's not true. Those bands do know that their music will not be popular. They just don't know why.

CPLX 3y ago

I never said being a virtuoso was worth anything, that's a new discussion. My point is just that some music is incredibly valuable economically, and most is not worth anything at all. Which is clearly true. As such, music is not an interchangeable commodity it's an extremely idiosyncratic and heterogenous market. I've heard the argument about how nobody cares about "better" music and so on my whole life. It's like the thing people like to talk about. But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on. For example I think Pitbull fucking sucks, deeply and profoundly, and objectively. When he rhymes Kodak with Kodak in the song "Give Me Everything" I want to throw rocks or other durable objects at whatever speaker is subjecting me to that fucking song. Somehow, 12 years after its release, this is still happening to me on a regular basis, usually within the first 2-4 hours after entering the state of Florida. But people seem to like it. So that's the only actually objective way to determine the value of music. All the other ways are just people talking.

bluefishinit 3y ago
> But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on. I agree. Part of that is that economically successful music also isn't "better", it's just making money. I like Madonna but she's an objectively crap singer. Just because something is popular, it doesn't make it good. That's like saying Coke is the best drink in the world because it makes the most money. Commercial success is due to marketing, distribution and luck.
- CPLX 3y ago
  > Commercial success is due to marketing, distribution and luck. But we're back here. I still disagree with this, it's a poor analysis of what's actually happening. In music, commercial success, more than any other factor, comes from making music that is liked by large numbers of people. If you can make music like that you'll probably have commercial success.
  - bluefishinit 3y ago
    > In music, commercial success, more than any other factor, comes from making music that is liked by large numbers of people. Most bands never have a chance to see if their music is liked by a large number of people because they don't have that kind of distribution. Through the 20th century the labels created a distribution network into which they pump hand selected artists (that match their marketing channels demographics). They, like you say, have roughly a 1 in 10 chance of success with this model (like vcs). Most bands will never know if their music will be popular because the won't get signed to find out.
    - CPLX 3y ago
      Well see the thing is that all music that is liked by large numbers of people is also liked by small numbers of people. If you get my drift. Most bands never get signed because nobody likes them. They play a gig to fifty people in March and when they play the same place in June twenty people show up. By fall it's just girlfriends and siblings and by the following year they're working as a roofer or something. Artists make demos of their music and send them to people and those people don't like them, and don't play them over and over and don't share them with friends, and it never reaches the ears of people with influence because nobody cares, because it has no real connection or mass appeal. Conversely, artists that do have mass appeal get attention very very quickly. I've been around awhile, I started working professionaly in the music business in the late 1980's. So much has changed, back then it was true that distribution mattered a lot more. In the 90's corporate radio mattered a lot more. In the 2010's you had a much clearer shot via Youtube or similar. So yeah there's substantial change in how it all works. The basic core part is the same though. Most music doesn't even have a small chance of being genuinely popular. Because it's the kind of music that isn't really liked by mass audiences. You're saying this: > Most bands will never know if their music will be popular because the won't get signed to find out. That's not true. Those bands do know that their music will not be popular. They just don't know why.