5 ms·

I didn't ignore the point. I was countering it. Today's amateurs have access to far better tools and distribution than yesterday's indies. Those that love ma

by beloch 13y ago

I didn't ignore the point. I was countering it. Today's amateurs have access to far better tools and distribution than yesterday's indies. Those that love making music will find real jobs and do it on an amateur basis, quite possibly achieving better results. Those who were only in it for the money will quit. As the barriers to producing music continue to be lowered by technology, masses of amateurs will start making music and more than compensate for the loss of indies. For every indie band that cranks out the same record with different lyrics a half dozen times before fading into obscurity we'll hear music from hundreds of eager amateurs, each bringing a wildly different sound to the world. That's a big win for culture, albeit not necessarily for the in-it-for-the-money indies.

snowwrestler 13y ago
There's still no magic technology that replaces the #1 biggest expense in writing and recording original music: time. And not just the time it takes to make one album (which is more than people think unless they've done it themselves). Even more important is the time it takes to mature as an artist--years and years of doing nothing but writing and playing.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- thenomad 13y ago
  Definitely. I've watched friends struggle to make art part-time, and I've seen the huge - breakthrough - difference that going full-time on the same art makes.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  But there are plenty of popular musicians who spend very little time on their music. For some reason many people here have a god fearly approach to music. Music is fantastic, it can feel like a whole other world, it can emote feelings, it can communicate, it can be a channel for it's generation. But music isn't some magical unobtainable skill anymore than programming, design and so on. And it's not the actual skill of the musicians or composers that make music popular. It's a much larger discussion.
bsullivan01 13y ago
>> Those that love making music will find real jobs and do it on an amateur basis, quite possibly achieving better results. Those who were only in it for the money will quit. What's wrong with wanting to get paid for your time and talent? >> That's a big win for culture, albeit not necessarily for the in-it-for-the-money indies. There's music and then there's music. For example, you can go to your friend's house and sing along or to a Rolling Stones concert. Different tastes for different folks.
- mike_esspe 13y ago
  It's wrong to get paid by force, not by voluntary exchange.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    Anecdote: No musician has come to my house and put a gun to my head. Now if I downloaded a song that they spent their time, money and (used their) talent to create it, why shouldn't they get paid for it? No one forced me to download their song.
    - netcan 13y ago
      No one forced them to make it either. The reality of recording and distributing music in 2013 did make it available to anyone for free. They recorded it anyway.
      - bsullivan01 13y ago
        No one forced them to make the software program either. The reality of making and distributing software in 2013 did make it available to anyone for free. They made it anyway.
        splawn 13y ago
        Yes, and so what? Thats been a "problem" with software decades before the same applied to music. Im sure its debatable, but I don't think its had much negative impact.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Those that love making music will find real jobs and do it on an amateur basis I reject your implication that making music is 'not a real job.' Is graphic design a real job? How about journalism? Playing sports at a professional level? Do you consider musicians unworthy of payment because they seem to be having too much fun? Those who were only in it for the money will quit. This is not how it actually works in the real world, where unlicensed sampling and ghost producing have become the norm. I suggest you look beyond your model and consider some empirical data. I agree that the means of production are cheaper than ever (also true of cinema) but that doesn't mean production is effortless by any means - mastery of instruments takes as long as it ever did, marketing and publicity still cost quite a bit of money. in-it-for-the-money indies I don't know what this is suppsoed to mean/ 'Indie' is short for 'independent' and describes labels that are not affiliated with one of the large global music publishers (and to a lesser extent, bands signed with said labels.' why you equate this with 'in it for the money' is beyond me. I'm getting the impression that you don't know anyone who actually works in this sector, but are speaking purely as a consumer.

by beloch 13y ago

snowwrestler 13y ago

There's still no magic technology that replaces the #1 biggest expense in writing and recording original music: time. And not just the time it takes to make one album (which is more than people think unless they've done it themselves). Even more important is the time it takes to mature as an artist--years and years of doing nothing but writing and playing.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
thenomad 13y ago
Definitely. I've watched friends struggle to make art part-time, and I've seen the huge - breakthrough - difference that going full-time on the same art makes.
ThomPete 13y ago
But there are plenty of popular musicians who spend very little time on their music. For some reason many people here have a god fearly approach to music. Music is fantastic, it can feel like a whole other world, it can emote feelings, it can communicate, it can be a channel for it's generation. But music isn't some magical unobtainable skill anymore than programming, design and so on. And it's not the actual skill of the musicians or composers that make music popular. It's a much larger discussion.

bsullivan01 13y ago

>> Those that love making music will find real jobs and do it on an amateur basis, quite possibly achieving better results. Those who were only in it for the money will quit. What's wrong with wanting to get paid for your time and talent? >> That's a big win for culture, albeit not necessarily for the in-it-for-the-money indies. There's music and then there's music. For example, you can go to your friend's house and sing along or to a Rolling Stones concert. Different tastes for different folks.

mike_esspe 13y ago
It's wrong to get paid by force, not by voluntary exchange.
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  Anecdote: No musician has come to my house and put a gun to my head. Now if I downloaded a song that they spent their time, money and (used their) talent to create it, why shouldn't they get paid for it? No one forced me to download their song.
  - netcan 13y ago
    No one forced them to make it either. The reality of recording and distributing music in 2013 did make it available to anyone for free. They recorded it anyway.
    - bsullivan01 13y ago
      No one forced them to make the software program either. The reality of making and distributing software in 2013 did make it available to anyone for free. They made it anyway.
      - splawn 13y ago
        Yes, and so what? Thats been a "problem" with software decades before the same applied to music. Im sure its debatable, but I don't think its had much negative impact.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Those that love making music will find real jobs and do it on an amateur basis I reject your implication that making music is 'not a real job.' Is graphic design a real job? How about journalism? Playing sports at a professional level? Do you consider musicians unworthy of payment because they seem to be having too much fun? Those who were only in it for the money will quit. This is not how it actually works in the real world, where unlicensed sampling and ghost producing have become the norm. I suggest you look beyond your model and consider some empirical data. I agree that the means of production are cheaper than ever (also true of cinema) but that doesn't mean production is effortless by any means - mastery of instruments takes as long as it ever did, marketing and publicity still cost quite a bit of money. in-it-for-the-money indies I don't know what this is suppsoed to mean/ 'Indie' is short for 'independent' and describes labels that are not affiliated with one of the large global music publishers (and to a lesser extent, bands signed with said labels.' why you equate this with 'in it for the money' is beyond me. I'm getting the impression that you don't know anyone who actually works in this sector, but are speaking purely as a consumer.