2 ms·
> Alternative take - this might not actually be the worst thing for musicians, to have a low effort, steady paying gig creating music. I think this is a red he
by motorest 2y ago
> Alternative take - this might not actually be the worst thing for musicians, to have a low effort, steady paying gig creating music.
I think this is a red herring to try to convince people that it's in their best interests to be force-fed content produced by major labels behind the brand {INSERT_ARTIST_NAME}.
Which incidentally it's the business model from major labels.
I mean, check any major labels artist. Each and every single hit song they release has countless writers and producers claiming a stake, not to mention the fact that some major labels artists don't even try to hide the fact they buy all their content from third-parties to slap their name over it.
Is this the state of affairs that's being defended?
Give me a procedurally-generated playlist that I can listen all day long, and skip the content I'm not interested in.
- tuna74 2y ago"I mean, check any major labels artist. Each and every single hit song they release has countless writers and producers claiming a stake, not to mention the fact that some major labels artists don't even try to hide the fact they buy all their content from third-parties to slap their name over it." Do you think this is a bad thing?
- jfengel 2y agoIt's too bad that stardom still generally requires being promoted by one of a handful of corporations. It's not impossible to get there without them, but the result is that we still end up concentrating most of the wealth on a tiny number of artists, while a vast number of equal talents go under-used and under-compensated.
- motorest 2y ago> Do you think this is a bad thing? Yes obviously, if you're trying to complain about "ghost artists" by presenting these "artists" as the counterpoint when they are even faker.