3 ms·

The audience for, e.g. ambient soundfields, is not at the Taylor Swift concert, and they never were. Neither are the bluegrass fans. Ditto for every other highl

The audience for, e.g. ambient soundfields, is not at the Taylor Swift concert, and they never were. Neither are the bluegrass fans. Ditto for every other highly developed genre. It used to be possible to make a modest living as a genre musician; accepting and adopting streaming has destroyed this for (almost) anyone not already established. My point is this: most people who want to be musicians will NEVER make a living from sales of anything related to their music. Not from streaming. Not from touring. Not from merchandise. So why settle for an absolute pittance from streaming sales, when you could instead adopt a strategy that accepts the (likely) limits of your success, but maybe gets you a couple of hundred dollars a month extra, at least some of the time ?

fragmede 3y ago
Because, like you said it's an absolute pittance. What's the difference between $50 from Bandcamp vs $1 from Spotify? You can't live off of that, you're not quitting your day job, regardless. So then it's about the music, and not about the money. If money is the only thing driving you to make music, that's fine, but that's a thing. There are those that need to make music, to express how they are and how they feel and the urge to create won't let them go. They need to share their gift, tell their story and just want people to listen. If you could get everyone in the world to listen to you for 3 minutes, what would you say or sing or play? Some people just know what their answer to that question is and have uploaded it to SoundCloud. Success would be nice, but if, instead, people have heard my music and appreciate it? Listen to it over and over again? I'd take that over beer money. Beer money would be nice though.
RussianCow 3y ago
> My point is this: most people who want to be musicians will NEVER make a living from sales of anything related to their music. Not from streaming. Not from touring. Not from merchandise. So, if I understand correctly, your point is that people shouldn't try to make a living off music, period. That's fine, but art has always been a difficult road for a career; the advent of streaming has little to do with this. > So why settle for an absolute pittance from streaming sales, when you could instead adopt a strategy that accepts the (likely) limits of your success, but maybe gets you a couple of hundred dollars a month extra, at least some of the time ? That's not unlike asking, "Why start a business when you could instead work a 9-5 and probably make more money?"
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > That's fine, but art has always been a difficult road for a career; the advent of streaming has little to do with this Oh, in the realm of recorded music, it absolutely has a LOT to do with it. From the early 1950s until the advent of streaming, record labels played an important role as cross-subsidy systems. You might not like Brittney Spears, but the cut of her album sales that went to her record company allowed her label to continue to work with many artists who were barely profitable (if at all). Streaming (and to a lesser extent, megastars forming their own vertically integrated corporations) has ended that model entirely. If you make "niche genre" music, you're going to be operating without any potential cross-subsidy from more popular music, which translates to either working without a record label at all, or working with a "niche genre" label that helps with marketing but also has extremely low cash flow. > That's not unlike asking, "Why start a business when you could instead work a 9-5 and probably make more money?" I see it as a very different question. I'm acknowledging the appeal of pursuing your artistic inclinations, and I think we should encourage as many folks as possible to do that. But I'm also saying "if you think you're going to make a living from this, you're almost certainly mistaken". There are plenty of things people keep doing in their lives without the prospect of making money from it. I'm suggesting that it would be better if more people understood that in 2023, music probably ought to be one of those things, rather than the basis of a dream way of making a living. It's more like "should you start a business based on your hobby, that almost certainly will not make enough to live on and stands a good chance of destroying your interest in the hobby, or should you accept that it's a side-gig that bring s you joy and occasionally a little bit of extra income?"
- bruce511 3y ago
  Well it's kinda like it, and kinda not. You can make a living with a job, or a small business. One will end up making more, but fundamentally both are viable approaches to living. Alas its not really possible to make a living from music. Sure some rounding error of people can, working terrible hours, always on the road, grinding away. It's a pretty bad lifestyle for pretty bad money. Yes there are successes, but the fact you can -name them- is a bad bad sign for an industry. If you like to play music, then do it got fun, not money. If you accumulate enough for a meal out, then great. Get a job, pay the bills, and enjoy making the music, even if no-one listens. Stream if you like, sell albums if you like, either way it's gonna be a pittence. Arguing over which is better is meaningless in the sense that they're both bad. Focus on the fun. Don't let the money rob you of the joy. Oh, and starting a record label? Good luck with that... but it's a daft idea.
brandonmenc 3y ago
> It used to be possible to make a modest living as a genre musician Really? I used to play in genre bands 20 years ago. No one made a living doing it. There are a lot of rose colored glasses being worn here. The reason musicians made money in the past is because there were so few of them. The barrier to entry - buying synths and studio time, distributing music, whatever - was so high that only a fraction of the people who wanted to make music, could afford make music. A lot of us just dreamed about having the money to even get started. The result was that the demand for music far outstripped the supply of people who had the means to produce it. Which is profoundly unfair. Now everyone can make great sounding music and distribute it globally for free. The result is a gazillion genre musicians. Sure, none of them can make a living selling songs (how quaint) but in the past they would have been completely denied the opportunity to make music at all, even for themselves. The current situation is much, much better: everyone has the opportunity to make music, and listeners have more music available than they could have ever imagined, and it's all essentially free.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > Now everyone can make great sounding music and distribute it globally for free. The result is a gazillion genre musicians. Entirely agreed, and a point I often find myself making in conversations about this stuff. However: > I used to play in genre bands 20 years ago. No one made a living doing it. There are a lot of rose colored glasses being worn here. I've never been a fan of spectacularly popular music. I used to have a collection of about 3000 vinyl albums, and of that, about 2/3 were by musicians I would characterize as "genre". Of that, I would guesstimate at least half of them used to make some sort of living from their recorded music (based on a quick mental survey of the musicians and what I knew/know about their lives). This is (was) particularly true of jazz, improvised music, electronic music. > The current situation is much, much better: everyone has the opportunity to make music, and listeners have more music available than they could have ever imagined, and it's all essentially free. I mostly agree with this, with the proviso that I'm not sure we really understand what the long term impact will be of "even less people than before can making a living from selling recordings of their music".
  - 3y ago

fragmede 3y ago

Because, like you said it's an absolute pittance. What's the difference between $50 from Bandcamp vs $1 from Spotify? You can't live off of that, you're not quitting your day job, regardless. So then it's about the music, and not about the money. If money is the only thing driving you to make music, that's fine, but that's a thing. There are those that need to make music, to express how they are and how they feel and the urge to create won't let them go. They need to share their gift, tell their story and just want people to listen. If you could get everyone in the world to listen to you for 3 minutes, what would you say or sing or play? Some people just know what their answer to that question is and have uploaded it to SoundCloud. Success would be nice, but if, instead, people have heard my music and appreciate it? Listen to it over and over again? I'd take that over beer money. Beer money would be nice though.

RussianCow 3y ago

> My point is this: most people who want to be musicians will NEVER make a living from sales of anything related to their music. Not from streaming. Not from touring. Not from merchandise. So, if I understand correctly, your point is that people shouldn't try to make a living off music, period. That's fine, but art has always been a difficult road for a career; the advent of streaming has little to do with this. > So why settle for an absolute pittance from streaming sales, when you could instead adopt a strategy that accepts the (likely) limits of your success, but maybe gets you a couple of hundred dollars a month extra, at least some of the time ? That's not unlike asking, "Why start a business when you could instead work a 9-5 and probably make more money?"

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> That's fine, but art has always been a difficult road for a career; the advent of streaming has little to do with this Oh, in the realm of recorded music, it absolutely has a LOT to do with it. From the early 1950s until the advent of streaming, record labels played an important role as cross-subsidy systems. You might not like Brittney Spears, but the cut of her album sales that went to her record company allowed her label to continue to work with many artists who were barely profitable (if at all). Streaming (and to a lesser extent, megastars forming their own vertically integrated corporations) has ended that model entirely. If you make "niche genre" music, you're going to be operating without any potential cross-subsidy from more popular music, which translates to either working without a record label at all, or working with a "niche genre" label that helps with marketing but also has extremely low cash flow. > That's not unlike asking, "Why start a business when you could instead work a 9-5 and probably make more money?" I see it as a very different question. I'm acknowledging the appeal of pursuing your artistic inclinations, and I think we should encourage as many folks as possible to do that. But I'm also saying "if you think you're going to make a living from this, you're almost certainly mistaken". There are plenty of things people keep doing in their lives without the prospect of making money from it. I'm suggesting that it would be better if more people understood that in 2023, music probably ought to be one of those things, rather than the basis of a dream way of making a living. It's more like "should you start a business based on your hobby, that almost certainly will not make enough to live on and stands a good chance of destroying your interest in the hobby, or should you accept that it's a side-gig that bring s you joy and occasionally a little bit of extra income?"
bruce511 3y ago
Well it's kinda like it, and kinda not. You can make a living with a job, or a small business. One will end up making more, but fundamentally both are viable approaches to living. Alas its not really possible to make a living from music. Sure some rounding error of people can, working terrible hours, always on the road, grinding away. It's a pretty bad lifestyle for pretty bad money. Yes there are successes, but the fact you can -name them- is a bad bad sign for an industry. If you like to play music, then do it got fun, not money. If you accumulate enough for a meal out, then great. Get a job, pay the bills, and enjoy making the music, even if no-one listens. Stream if you like, sell albums if you like, either way it's gonna be a pittence. Arguing over which is better is meaningless in the sense that they're both bad. Focus on the fun. Don't let the money rob you of the joy. Oh, and starting a record label? Good luck with that... but it's a daft idea.

brandonmenc 3y ago

> It used to be possible to make a modest living as a genre musician Really? I used to play in genre bands 20 years ago. No one made a living doing it. There are a lot of rose colored glasses being worn here. The reason musicians made money in the past is because there were so few of them. The barrier to entry - buying synths and studio time, distributing music, whatever - was so high that only a fraction of the people who wanted to make music, could afford make music. A lot of us just dreamed about having the money to even get started. The result was that the demand for music far outstripped the supply of people who had the means to produce it. Which is profoundly unfair. Now everyone can make great sounding music and distribute it globally for free. The result is a gazillion genre musicians. Sure, none of them can make a living selling songs (how quaint) but in the past they would have been completely denied the opportunity to make music at all, even for themselves. The current situation is much, much better: everyone has the opportunity to make music, and listeners have more music available than they could have ever imagined, and it's all essentially free.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> Now everyone can make great sounding music and distribute it globally for free. The result is a gazillion genre musicians. Entirely agreed, and a point I often find myself making in conversations about this stuff. However: > I used to play in genre bands 20 years ago. No one made a living doing it. There are a lot of rose colored glasses being worn here. I've never been a fan of spectacularly popular music. I used to have a collection of about 3000 vinyl albums, and of that, about 2/3 were by musicians I would characterize as "genre". Of that, I would guesstimate at least half of them used to make some sort of living from their recorded music (based on a quick mental survey of the musicians and what I knew/know about their lives). This is (was) particularly true of jazz, improvised music, electronic music. > The current situation is much, much better: everyone has the opportunity to make music, and listeners have more music available than they could have ever imagined, and it's all essentially free. I mostly agree with this, with the proviso that I'm not sure we really understand what the long term impact will be of "even less people than before can making a living from selling recordings of their music".
- 3y ago