3 ms·
Engineers and architects are paid up-front for their services. Musicians aren't. Do you have a suggestion for how they could be? It's true that musicians sort
by davmre 13y ago
Engineers and architects are paid up-front for their services. Musicians aren't. Do you have a suggestion for how they could be?
It's true that musicians sort of used to be paid up-front, in the traditional label model where a record company gave a musician a big advance to make an album, and then pocketed most of the actual profits from the sales of that the album (akin to hiring an engineer to build a bridge, then collecting tolls on that bridge). But that's no longer the model for most up-and-coming independent artists, and in any case, that just shifts the royalty-collecting burden to the record companies, who still need to be able to recoup their initial advances.
Another approach, which works well for bridge-building, is that the government just pays some engineers to build a bridge, then lets everyone use the bridge for free. This is like the really old school practice in which a wealthy prince commissions Beethoven to write a string quartet, and once complete that string quartet is then freely available for anyone to perform. As a model for music in the modern world, this would mean socializing the music production business, i.e., taxing everyone the price of a Spotify subscription and pumping that money into NEA grants for artists to record new music, which would then be free for everyone. On the bright side, this would eliminate all worries about piracy and chilling effects from anti-piracy enforcement. But there are also lots of drawbacks, e.g., in this model the decision as to what music should exist would be made, not by the market (as in the indie model), or a profit-oriented record company (as in the label model), but by government bureaucrats whose incentives come from the political process. Of course this could have some good effects (maybe they'd fund fewer Justin Biebers) but IMHO there are serious problems with a system in which an artist's viabilaity is contingent on their staying in the good graces of the government.
Also, just so you know, Pink Floyd is a band, not a person.
- Glyptodon 13y agoStaying in the good graces of government was certainly not easy for Egil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egill_Skallagr%C3%ADmsson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egill_Skallagr%C3%ADmsson), though his artistry also saved his head. In any case, I don't think it's clear that government needs to be involved at all. While patronage might have been the realm of elites in the middle ages, in the modern era any group with enough members can easily become a patron with small cost to each for the sake of supporting any artist deemed worthy (obv. crowdfunding, etc.). It might take government to tunnel under the English channel, but it doesn't take government for a bunch of neighbors to get together and pave their lane. And supporting artists is much more the later than the former.
- randomdata 13y agoA Kickstarter-like model seems like it should work quite well for music. When enough funding is earned, the album can be released to the public. Providing only some teasers or something along those lines to fuel interest in the meantime. It is pretty hard to pirate content that is not available to anyone, and once you feel you've made enough money to release it, it doesn't matter much much "piracy" happens beyond that point – you've already been paid.
- lessnonymous 13y agoIf you get hired to build a bridge, there's a fair chance people are going to be using it. If you get hired to create music, there's a fair chance nobody will ever hear it. (Other than your mum). I can't see how we could possibly pay musicians up front.