2 ms·
No, I clicked the adjust for inflation button. You do have a point re: population growth -- the per-capita spend on music is smaller than it was. But regarding
by morsch 3y ago
No, I clicked the adjust for inflation button. You do have a point re: population growth -- the per-capita spend on music is smaller than it was.
But regarding artists, you're sort of making my point: there are certainly more artists around that address essentially the whole world, as opposed to just themselves or their local area. Playing an instrument hasn't gotten easier (even that is arguable), but mastering music (at a mediocre level, maybe) has gotten easier, and distributing music has gotten way easier (presumably eventually that should affect the revenue split between labels and artists). And yes, all those artists of today are in competition with the artists of the past.
So there's certainly less money for each individual artist today, and there is more music available to me today, and I still don't have more time available to listen to much more of it.
But you do have a point regarding population growth.
- carlosjobim 3y ago> No, I clicked the adjust for inflation button. Generally we have to adjust much more for inflation, as official inflation numbers are mostly fraudulent. I agree with you on the cost of producing and distributing music going down, and I think it's fair to say that the creative part is easier and cheaper as well. But don't people have more time to listen to music today when it is accessible everywhere?
- morsch 3y agoI guess that's probably true. Though the Walkman and its descendants have been popular since the 80s, and music radio was very accessible and routinely running in the background in situations where people now listen to Spotify.