4 ms·

But the system is set up so that, more and more, they're competing for scraps. Shouldn't we incentivize making good art, rather than just becoming a superstar?

WalterBright 2y ago
> Shouldn't we incentivize making good art, rather than just becoming a superstar? The music I like is good, and the music I don't like is bad. Zero people share my opinions on which is which. Are you sure you aren't just unhappy that other people don't share your taste and prefer superstar music?
- uhoh-itsmaciek 2y ago
  Pretty sure. Tastes vary, but you're arguing that runaway commercial success is a prerequisite for artistic success? Not to mention that those superstars need to come from somewhere. If a career in music is basically like spending all your money on lottery tickets, society ends up poorer: many hard-working young musicians are going to see it for the exploitation machine that it is, and go sell advertising instead.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > but you're arguing that runaway commercial success is a prerequisite for artistic success? Why would you think otherwise? How do you explain people buying "bad" music with their own money? > many hard-working young musicians are going to see it for the exploitation machine that it is Reminds me of every person I know that was laid off was sure he was a superstar. I'm sure there are some overlooked gems, but remember Jimi Hendrix who came out of nowhere and went straight to the top. He was just that good.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Sure, however, "good" does not mean "commercial success"; a lot of "the arts" are subsidised, by e.g. governments, foundations, charities and donors, simply because it's not going to be a commercial success. Other parts of "the arts" are commissioned, like statues. They will be "good", but the problem with art is "good" is a very hazy goal. I mean. I can enjoy ambient eerie dream-themed wailing and blown brass instruments [0], but it's not for everyone. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jsvOcMXd0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jsvOcMXd0Q

WalterBright 2y ago

> Shouldn't we incentivize making good art, rather than just becoming a superstar? The music I like is good, and the music I don't like is bad. Zero people share my opinions on which is which. Are you sure you aren't just unhappy that other people don't share your taste and prefer superstar music?

uhoh-itsmaciek 2y ago
Pretty sure. Tastes vary, but you're arguing that runaway commercial success is a prerequisite for artistic success? Not to mention that those superstars need to come from somewhere. If a career in music is basically like spending all your money on lottery tickets, society ends up poorer: many hard-working young musicians are going to see it for the exploitation machine that it is, and go sell advertising instead.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > but you're arguing that runaway commercial success is a prerequisite for artistic success? Why would you think otherwise? How do you explain people buying "bad" music with their own money? > many hard-working young musicians are going to see it for the exploitation machine that it is Reminds me of every person I know that was laid off was sure he was a superstar. I'm sure there are some overlooked gems, but remember Jimi Hendrix who came out of nowhere and went straight to the top. He was just that good.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

Sure, however, "good" does not mean "commercial success"; a lot of "the arts" are subsidised, by e.g. governments, foundations, charities and donors, simply because it's not going to be a commercial success. Other parts of "the arts" are commissioned, like statues. They will be "good", but the problem with art is "good" is a very hazy goal. I mean. I can enjoy ambient eerie dream-themed wailing and blown brass instruments [0], but it's not for everyone. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jsvOcMXd0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jsvOcMXd0Q