3 ms·

> The music we make today is valuable, and it’s time for the industry to treat it that way and invest in working musicians by paying fair royalties for streams.

> The music we make today is valuable, and it’s time for the industry to treat it that way and invest in working musicians by paying fair royalties for streams. They do treat it that way. They use the economies of scale and their skill at exploitation to steal it without paying a fair amount for it. By "fair", I mean an amount that would be paid if the industry were collectively owned by musicians. But the key here is that in global capitalism, an amount of money is not proportional to the value you bring to others any more. Instead, it is proportional to how effective you are at growing the existing power structure itself, which is an emergent phenomenon of global, high tech capitalism. Studios are akin to large corporations who extract raw materials for cheap from economically-poor countries. They exploit and short change the people who live there for enormous profits. Extracting "raw materials" as music is much the same phenomenon. Therefore, in order to truly solve this problem, large corporations such as music industries must be taken down, and not negotiated with. So, my advice to musicians is not to negotiate, but to create and sell your music directly. Start a Patreon and take orders yourself.

csallen 2y ago
I get your point, but I think this is overly cynical. The fact of the matter is that simply creating a product/service (or in this case, a song) is valuable, sure, but is typically only of limited value. Millions of people sing and write songs every year that nobody listens to or pays for. That fact predates evil executives and greedy companies. In fact, it's been the case for the entirety of mankind's history. The ability to take a song, popularize it enough for consumers to want more of it, package it in a way that consumers will pay for it, and distribute it widely enough that a large number of consumers will pay for it, is very difficult. And very valuable. It's the difference between the 0.01% of music that makes money and the 99.99% of music that doesn't. Of course the people who are skilled at doing that are going to be able to demand and extract large fees. This is true in every industry, not just art/music/etc. For example, lots of people make software and games. But improving it to the point of wide desirability, packaging it up, marketing it, and selling it on a marketplace where it successfully out-competes with other software and games is very difficult. The difference is that in most industries, the creators of the products themselves have taken on the responsibility for packaging, marketing, and selling their creations. Artists have largely outsourced this work to others. You may argue that they've been collectively hoodwinked, and I would partially agree. But it's also true that some of the richest and most powerful businesspeople of our generation are successful musicians (Taylor Swift, Jay-Z, Rihanna, Dr. Dre, Madonna, Beyonce, Paul McCartney, Lady Gaga, Drake, etc.)
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > The ability take a song, popularize it enough for consumers to want more of it, package it in a way that consumers will pay for it, and distribute it widely enough that a large number of consumers will pay for it, is very difficult. And very valuable. It's the difference between the 0.01% of music that makes money and the 99.99% of music that doesn't. Well, I believe that beyond a certain point, we should not have the capability to reach such a large audience in the first place. The entire phenomenon of globalization reduces meaning for the individual and is not a societal improvement.
  - csallen 2y ago
    I disagree. Participation is optional. There is always the option to move to the woods, live in a small cabin or group of likeminded people, and keep to yourself. There is always the option to listen to the music you want. If that isn't enough for you, then your goal must extend beyond wanting to control your own experience and into wanting to shape society, which means shaping the experiences of others. Others who are doing just fine following their own preferences and don't particularly need you to limit their options to conform to your preferences. Meaning is purpose, purpose is reason, reason is intention, and intention is by definition an artifact of the mind. The only one who can reduce your meaning is you. If the fact that music spreads far and wide to many people whose taste doesn't match you reduces your meaning, then that's because you choose to reduce your own meaning.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      Capitalists shape society beyond what they want too. They work to make optional technology mandatory. Don't tell me about shaping the world. Everyone does that, only they use lower-level mechanisms. Most others aren't doing just fine, though, and many probably would like a better world. All people try and shape society: right, left, anarchists, greens, etc. There is nobody that does not.
      - csallen 2y ago
        I have no qualms with wanting to shape the world when it comes to trying to put your own creations, opinions, etc, into the world for others to have the option to consume. But I'm not a fan of wanting to shape the world by stopping people from doing things.

csallen 2y ago

I get your point, but I think this is overly cynical. The fact of the matter is that simply creating a product/service (or in this case, a song) is valuable, sure, but is typically only of limited value. Millions of people sing and write songs every year that nobody listens to or pays for. That fact predates evil executives and greedy companies. In fact, it's been the case for the entirety of mankind's history. The ability to take a song, popularize it enough for consumers to want more of it, package it in a way that consumers will pay for it, and distribute it widely enough that a large number of consumers will pay for it, is very difficult. And very valuable. It's the difference between the 0.01% of music that makes money and the 99.99% of music that doesn't. Of course the people who are skilled at doing that are going to be able to demand and extract large fees. This is true in every industry, not just art/music/etc. For example, lots of people make software and games. But improving it to the point of wide desirability, packaging it up, marketing it, and selling it on a marketplace where it successfully out-competes with other software and games is very difficult. The difference is that in most industries, the creators of the products themselves have taken on the responsibility for packaging, marketing, and selling their creations. Artists have largely outsourced this work to others. You may argue that they've been collectively hoodwinked, and I would partially agree. But it's also true that some of the richest and most powerful businesspeople of our generation are successful musicians (Taylor Swift, Jay-Z, Rihanna, Dr. Dre, Madonna, Beyonce, Paul McCartney, Lady Gaga, Drake, etc.)

vouaobrasil 2y ago
> The ability take a song, popularize it enough for consumers to want more of it, package it in a way that consumers will pay for it, and distribute it widely enough that a large number of consumers will pay for it, is very difficult. And very valuable. It's the difference between the 0.01% of music that makes money and the 99.99% of music that doesn't. Well, I believe that beyond a certain point, we should not have the capability to reach such a large audience in the first place. The entire phenomenon of globalization reduces meaning for the individual and is not a societal improvement.
- csallen 2y ago
  I disagree. Participation is optional. There is always the option to move to the woods, live in a small cabin or group of likeminded people, and keep to yourself. There is always the option to listen to the music you want. If that isn't enough for you, then your goal must extend beyond wanting to control your own experience and into wanting to shape society, which means shaping the experiences of others. Others who are doing just fine following their own preferences and don't particularly need you to limit their options to conform to your preferences. Meaning is purpose, purpose is reason, reason is intention, and intention is by definition an artifact of the mind. The only one who can reduce your meaning is you. If the fact that music spreads far and wide to many people whose taste doesn't match you reduces your meaning, then that's because you choose to reduce your own meaning.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    Capitalists shape society beyond what they want too. They work to make optional technology mandatory. Don't tell me about shaping the world. Everyone does that, only they use lower-level mechanisms. Most others aren't doing just fine, though, and many probably would like a better world. All people try and shape society: right, left, anarchists, greens, etc. There is nobody that does not.
    - csallen 2y ago
      I have no qualms with wanting to shape the world when it comes to trying to put your own creations, opinions, etc, into the world for others to have the option to consume. But I'm not a fan of wanting to shape the world by stopping people from doing things.