4 ms·

> we didn't have a system that props up superstars. such a system does not exist. Superstardom is a natural phenomenon in the industry. Just like sports or re

by chii 2y ago

> we didn't have a system that props up superstars. such a system does not exist. Superstardom is a natural phenomenon in the industry. Just like sports or really, any mass entertainment. The only way to achieve the "thousands times as many artists making many thousands" is to have separate communities of music markets that do not overlap. I dont think that's feasible on the internet, and i certainly would not support any laws that tries to bring that into effect. There's nothing wrong with a tiny number of extremely famous, extremely successful artists.

roenxi 2y ago
Well, somewhat. A "natural phenomenon" in the sense that the natural economic equilibrium implies that huge amounts of money are spent on maintaining a system that props up superstars. I think Mr Mouse's point was that we should imagine for a moment that the natural order of things was upset and we instead had a system that was a bit more organic in promoting good musicians and the implications that would have. Ie, a counterfactual.
- chii 2y ago
  > huge amounts of money are spent on maintaining a system that props up superstars. i see no evidence that the profits of the superstardom is spent maintaining the "system". My point is that if a musician is good, they will earn money proportional to their success. If the argument that it's the promotion that makes them successful, then the argument is less correct today than ever before - the advent of the internet means there's no more strict radio slots etc, which is unavailable to an amateur or starting musician. Even if you reset today's system - for argument's sake, we make everybody forget all previous musicians, and start from scratch - what would happen is that those musicians that are "good", measured in popularity, will garner more and more audience and popularity, leading to what looks like today's system (but just with perhaps a different person). That's why my condition, if you wanted to equally distribute the profits of music making, is to segregate markets into small, non-overlapping segments. You will not be allowed to pay for or listen to music from another market segment. This way, no matter how good or popular a musician is, they only ever earn the maximal of their own (small) market. But i don't see why such a system is good, with the exception that some bad musicians gets to be the big fish in a small pond.
  - dbspin 2y ago
    There is absolutely zero evidence to support your assertion - "My point is that if a musician is good, they will earn money proportional to their success." In fact it's demonstrably wrong. Take any aspect of musical talent, from innovativeness to musicianship, and measure any top 100 chart musician against it. They'll do worse than a typical Berklee or Juliard Grad. Measure technical ability / virtuosity, and essentially no mainstream pop artist will rival the guitarist in one of a hundred thousand unknown speedmetal bands. You're working from the fallacy known as the 'just world' hypothesis rather than reality. We may be at point in post WW2 history where the lines of talent / ability and fame are most divergent in the music space. There absolutely are fantastic musicians with large audiences, but extremely few at the top of the industry. Meanwhile the production line of safe, marketable, utterly conventional pap - from Taylor Swift to K-Pop is operating at maximal efficiency. I don't have a solution to this problem (outside the wholesale destruction of consumer capitalism), but to pretend its not there is ludicrous.
    - CuriousSkeptic 2y ago
      Don think you need to destroy all of capitalism. Just abolishing copyright on music would be a surgical strike with pretty good effect I believe.
      - eru 2y ago
        That wouldn't make more people pay for music.
        CuriousSkeptic 2y ago
        It would not. It is not relevant either. Music is shaped into something you buy by wielders of copyright. Removing copyright as a weapon would leave them powerless to do so, allowing music to once again be some thing you primarily do.
        eru 2y ago
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> The only way to achieve the "thousands times as many artists making many thousands" is to have separate communities of music markets that do not overlap. This is not true. All you need is to have multiple buyers with different tastes and a functioning discovery system that allows each individual to find what they like. The latter is the opposite of what the industry provides. They promote what's popular, regardless of whether you'll like it. And then they make it difficult for anyone else to do otherwise, because artists who want to be The Rolling Stones sign the record contract thinking they'll get promoted, and then they don't get promoted but the record company owns their songs and charges prohibitively high fees for streaming so independents can't afford to play it and let listeners discover it. This is how they destroyed internet radio, for example. Before the industry lobbied to change the law law, there was a vibrant set of internet radio stations. Then the Kill Internet Radio Act passed and set the fees higher than most of the independent stations could afford without taking payola, and now "internet radio" is dominated by iHeart Radio, AKA Clear Channel, the same company that owns all the terrestrial radio stations that play the Top 40 on loop.
- satyrnein 2y ago
  So you want new artists to be promoted and you're willing for those artists to be paid less to make it happen? Spotify Discovery Mode seems to fit the bill. Artists agree to take a lower rate, and Spotify is incentivized to include their music more often in their algorithmic playlists and radio, so they can be discovered. Of course, this was not exactly uncontroversial!
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The premise of "artist get paid less" is that they get a higher percentage to make up for the fact that with better discovery the consumer's budget will be spread across a larger number of artists. "Discovery Mode" is a transparent attempt to pit artists against each other. The one that gives the middle man a bigger cut gets more sales. The flaw here is the lack of alternative means for new artists to get discovered without signing a one-sided deal, i.e. we don't have enough competition for distribution. This is mostly because of laws lobbied for by the industry.

by chii 2y ago

roenxi 2y ago

Well, somewhat. A "natural phenomenon" in the sense that the natural economic equilibrium implies that huge amounts of money are spent on maintaining a system that props up superstars. I think Mr Mouse's point was that we should imagine for a moment that the natural order of things was upset and we instead had a system that was a bit more organic in promoting good musicians and the implications that would have. Ie, a counterfactual.

chii 2y ago
> huge amounts of money are spent on maintaining a system that props up superstars. i see no evidence that the profits of the superstardom is spent maintaining the "system". My point is that if a musician is good, they will earn money proportional to their success. If the argument that it's the promotion that makes them successful, then the argument is less correct today than ever before - the advent of the internet means there's no more strict radio slots etc, which is unavailable to an amateur or starting musician. Even if you reset today's system - for argument's sake, we make everybody forget all previous musicians, and start from scratch - what would happen is that those musicians that are "good", measured in popularity, will garner more and more audience and popularity, leading to what looks like today's system (but just with perhaps a different person). That's why my condition, if you wanted to equally distribute the profits of music making, is to segregate markets into small, non-overlapping segments. You will not be allowed to pay for or listen to music from another market segment. This way, no matter how good or popular a musician is, they only ever earn the maximal of their own (small) market. But i don't see why such a system is good, with the exception that some bad musicians gets to be the big fish in a small pond.
- dbspin 2y ago
  There is absolutely zero evidence to support your assertion - "My point is that if a musician is good, they will earn money proportional to their success." In fact it's demonstrably wrong. Take any aspect of musical talent, from innovativeness to musicianship, and measure any top 100 chart musician against it. They'll do worse than a typical Berklee or Juliard Grad. Measure technical ability / virtuosity, and essentially no mainstream pop artist will rival the guitarist in one of a hundred thousand unknown speedmetal bands. You're working from the fallacy known as the 'just world' hypothesis rather than reality. We may be at point in post WW2 history where the lines of talent / ability and fame are most divergent in the music space. There absolutely are fantastic musicians with large audiences, but extremely few at the top of the industry. Meanwhile the production line of safe, marketable, utterly conventional pap - from Taylor Swift to K-Pop is operating at maximal efficiency. I don't have a solution to this problem (outside the wholesale destruction of consumer capitalism), but to pretend its not there is ludicrous.
  - CuriousSkeptic 2y ago
    Don think you need to destroy all of capitalism. Just abolishing copyright on music would be a surgical strike with pretty good effect I believe.
    - eru 2y ago
      That wouldn't make more people pay for music.
      - CuriousSkeptic 2y ago
        It would not. It is not relevant either. Music is shaped into something you buy by wielders of copyright. Removing copyright as a weapon would leave them powerless to do so, allowing music to once again be some thing you primarily do.
        eru 2y ago

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> The only way to achieve the "thousands times as many artists making many thousands" is to have separate communities of music markets that do not overlap. This is not true. All you need is to have multiple buyers with different tastes and a functioning discovery system that allows each individual to find what they like. The latter is the opposite of what the industry provides. They promote what's popular, regardless of whether you'll like it. And then they make it difficult for anyone else to do otherwise, because artists who want to be The Rolling Stones sign the record contract thinking they'll get promoted, and then they don't get promoted but the record company owns their songs and charges prohibitively high fees for streaming so independents can't afford to play it and let listeners discover it. This is how they destroyed internet radio, for example. Before the industry lobbied to change the law law, there was a vibrant set of internet radio stations. Then the Kill Internet Radio Act passed and set the fees higher than most of the independent stations could afford without taking payola, and now "internet radio" is dominated by iHeart Radio, AKA Clear Channel, the same company that owns all the terrestrial radio stations that play the Top 40 on loop.

satyrnein 2y ago
So you want new artists to be promoted and you're willing for those artists to be paid less to make it happen? Spotify Discovery Mode seems to fit the bill. Artists agree to take a lower rate, and Spotify is incentivized to include their music more often in their algorithmic playlists and radio, so they can be discovered. Of course, this was not exactly uncontroversial!
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  The premise of "artist get paid less" is that they get a higher percentage to make up for the fact that with better discovery the consumer's budget will be spread across a larger number of artists. "Discovery Mode" is a transparent attempt to pit artists against each other. The one that gives the middle man a bigger cut gets more sales. The flaw here is the lack of alternative means for new artists to get discovered without signing a one-sided deal, i.e. we don't have enough competition for distribution. This is mostly because of laws lobbied for by the industry.