4 ms·

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, s

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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cwillu 2y ago
“ Then they take your money and, based on the Billboard charts, decide that statistically all of this money goes to Taylor Swift, regardless of what song you were actually playing. (They don't ask us what songs were actually played, and we couldn't really tell them if they did.) Unbelievably, ASCAP's slogan is "We Create Music". They do not create music, they create lawsuits. The only service they offer is, "You pay me whatever I ask, or I sue you". They provide the same service as in that Sopranos episode where Patsy and Burt try to extort a Starbucks. It's just a shakedown. It's just some wiseguy saying to you, "Here's your cigarette machine, there's going to be $500 a week in it, capisce?" […] You might wonder how they get to that number. Is it all just arbitrary capriciousness? Yes: BMI: They take your official fire department capacity and multiply it by the number of days you are open per week, and by some dollar amount. Actual attendance does not factor in. That dollar amount is higher if you ever charge admission, higher still if you have DJs, and even higher if you have live music! That's right, they charge you more when bands are playing their own songs. Oh, and of course there's the Footloose tax: it's even higher if you allow dancing. Or if you have a jukebox. (A jukebox!) ASCAP: I don't remember and I can't figure it out, but I think it is roughly the same nonsense that BMI does. SESAC: This one is based on capacity times days open per week, then multiplied by vibes. Also does not take attendance into account. GMR: This one is based on gross revenue times 0.15%. So if you play the same song at an event with a $10 ticket, and at one with a $30 ticket, sometimes that song is worth three times as much. […] Over in one corner: the entire streaming industry, paying nothing. And over in the other corner: small rooms like mine, providing that which is in actuality the only way for many bands to make any money at all, that is, by giving them a stage to play on in support of their t-shirt sales business. Because, yes, the way you make money as a band is to actually be a garment retailer. ” -- /backstage/log/2024/12/03.html on a site that doesn't like hn very much
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  from the comments: >It is indeed, as you say, purely a racket, as is - let's be honest - the whole industry. Not even the Ferengi could some up with something more extractive. If the Ferengi were real, the American musical performace rights system would be in their textbooks, I swear. Reply Dara 6 days ago at 12:46pm 7 (If anything, I feel like I'm being a little unfair to the Ferengi.)
dangus 2y ago
But you also have to admit that the concept of business leverage means that a lot of the people who aren't creating the value can steal the fruits of the labor of those who do create the value. It's not like every radio station, record label, and performance venue is owned by a wide array of competing companies in a free market. In reality it's a small handful of owners who will only put you in the spotlight if you accept unfair contracts. Check out how a lot of K-Pop contracts are structured. Imagine having a lifetime non-compete where your co-workers at Microsoft were never allowed to work on your team ever again, forever. That's how bad contracts can be in the music industry.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
> 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 But labels don't do that anymore. Bands do their own insta / youtube etc.
- csallen 2y ago
  Labels today do things like get their artists added to popular playlists and run major media campaigns. But the latter is definitely reserved for top tier artists. Ultimately it's a tough industry. The fact of the matter is technology has made it vastly easier for more people to become musicians and distribute their music. The result is way more competition, which has turned music into a commodity. More competition = lower prices, that's just how it works, unfortunately. Some artists succeed at making a living, but most don't. But the fact of the matter is that this is how it's always been. There wasn't a golden era of the past where millions of musicians were making a comfortable living. Even when artists got paid more-per-sale (because consumers were willing to pay more for physical copies of media), there were far fewer people able to become artists in the first place.

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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

cwillu 2y ago

“ Then they take your money and, based on the Billboard charts, decide that statistically all of this money goes to Taylor Swift, regardless of what song you were actually playing. (They don't ask us what songs were actually played, and we couldn't really tell them if they did.) Unbelievably, ASCAP's slogan is "We Create Music". They do not create music, they create lawsuits. The only service they offer is, "You pay me whatever I ask, or I sue you". They provide the same service as in that Sopranos episode where Patsy and Burt try to extort a Starbucks. It's just a shakedown. It's just some wiseguy saying to you, "Here's your cigarette machine, there's going to be $500 a week in it, capisce?" […] You might wonder how they get to that number. Is it all just arbitrary capriciousness? Yes: BMI: They take your official fire department capacity and multiply it by the number of days you are open per week, and by some dollar amount. Actual attendance does not factor in. That dollar amount is higher if you ever charge admission, higher still if you have DJs, and even higher if you have live music! That's right, they charge you more when bands are playing their own songs. Oh, and of course there's the Footloose tax: it's even higher if you allow dancing. Or if you have a jukebox. (A jukebox!) ASCAP: I don't remember and I can't figure it out, but I think it is roughly the same nonsense that BMI does. SESAC: This one is based on capacity times days open per week, then multiplied by vibes. Also does not take attendance into account. GMR: This one is based on gross revenue times 0.15%. So if you play the same song at an event with a $10 ticket, and at one with a $30 ticket, sometimes that song is worth three times as much. […] Over in one corner: the entire streaming industry, paying nothing. And over in the other corner: small rooms like mine, providing that which is in actuality the only way for many bands to make any money at all, that is, by giving them a stage to play on in support of their t-shirt sales business. Because, yes, the way you make money as a band is to actually be a garment retailer. ” -- /backstage/log/2024/12/03.html on a site that doesn't like hn very much

fuzzfactor 2y ago
from the comments: >It is indeed, as you say, purely a racket, as is - let's be honest - the whole industry. Not even the Ferengi could some up with something more extractive. If the Ferengi were real, the American musical performace rights system would be in their textbooks, I swear. Reply Dara 6 days ago at 12:46pm 7 (If anything, I feel like I'm being a little unfair to the Ferengi.)

dangus 2y ago

But you also have to admit that the concept of business leverage means that a lot of the people who aren't creating the value can steal the fruits of the labor of those who do create the value. It's not like every radio station, record label, and performance venue is owned by a wide array of competing companies in a free market. In reality it's a small handful of owners who will only put you in the spotlight if you accept unfair contracts. Check out how a lot of K-Pop contracts are structured. Imagine having a lifetime non-compete where your co-workers at Microsoft were never allowed to work on your team ever again, forever. That's how bad contracts can be in the music industry.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

> 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 But labels don't do that anymore. Bands do their own insta / youtube etc.

csallen 2y ago
Labels today do things like get their artists added to popular playlists and run major media campaigns. But the latter is definitely reserved for top tier artists. Ultimately it's a tough industry. The fact of the matter is technology has made it vastly easier for more people to become musicians and distribute their music. The result is way more competition, which has turned music into a commodity. More competition = lower prices, that's just how it works, unfortunately. Some artists succeed at making a living, but most don't. But the fact of the matter is that this is how it's always been. There wasn't a golden era of the past where millions of musicians were making a comfortable living. Even when artists got paid more-per-sale (because consumers were willing to pay more for physical copies of media), there were far fewer people able to become artists in the first place.