6 ms·

Are you claiming that music is a dying art form? Really? The music industry is at best a 100 year old historical anomaly compared to the at least 4000 year his

by apalmer 13y ago

Are you claiming that music is a dying art form? Really? The music industry is at best a 100 year old historical anomaly compared to the at least 4000 year history of music. The life of musician has pretty much always been extremely unlikely to be financially rewarding. Even at the height of the modern music industry maybe 1 in 1000 aspiring musicians ended up being signed to a major label. Musicians by and large have always made the bulk of their income based on in person performances. The only difference now is music companies now are losing out on record sales and starting to design contracts where artists have to split show and endorsement money with the label as well as record sales. Honestly its a moot point, the technology has changed, and the music industry has to change with it or die. The whole music industry was created by the technology of the record, and will change or die with the advent of easily copyable media.

hipsters_unite 13y ago
I don't think music is a dying art form, but the age of larger 'alternative' music having a look-in versus the lowest-common-denominator dross on the radio is definitely on its way out.
williamcotton 13y ago
Of course music will still be around. I'm saying that music as we know it, music that has been made as a result of the industry and technologies of the 20th century, is dying. Claims that it isn't are false and misinformed. What is ALWAYS missing from the "new solutions" is the investment in emerging artists. Sure, you see companies like Live Nation/Roc Nation setting up these 360 deals. There is definitely some promise to these new approaches, but the investment money is WAY lower than what it was. I don't know the figures, I can't find the numbers online, but I will talk to people I know in music to see if I can track down some facts and write an article on the subject. My point stands, however. The author of this article doesn't know what he's talking about and the data he presented is useless and doesn't contain enough information to come close to accurately representing the music industry. BTW, there is a great opportunity for "music venture capitalists".
- apalmer 13y ago
  Music as we know it? What does that even mean? Really I dont understand what you are getting at? This isnt snark I really want you to explain. Perhaps you mean the phenomenon of popular artists that are so big that they are household names across all demographics across the globe/nation. If so then your probably right. Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars. as far as the investment, really labels/mangement companies will continue to invest in whatever makes them money... the size of the investments will probably diminish, but realistically the breakdown of record label investment is 90% marketing/promotion. And realistically if your projected to sell 50% less you should cut your marketing budget appropriately, that has very little to do with the music as an art form at all.
  - route66 13y ago
    > Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars. This is being parroted around here for a while, but that does not make it more true. Big artists are less affected than small labels. See also: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/20/business/fi-cotown-indiemusic20 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/20/business/fi-cotown-i...
    - chc 13y ago
      This is kind of missing the point, which is that fewer artists will get to that level, not that artists already at that level will suddenly be forgotten.
  - williamcotton 13y ago
    Music as we know it. Rock and roll and popular music as an art form. Albums, 3 minute songs. Things that were designed to fit on to a plastic disc and be played on the radio between commercial breaks. This is what made up the "music industry". Touring was a loss-leader to sell plastic to people up until about 10 years ago. You had to go out and make your sales! Come to town, have the local paper and radio do your marketing for you, people maybe come to your show or maybe go buy your album at a record store. That is going away. Hence, the art form will die along with the changing media landscape, because well, you know, The Medium is the Message. I'm not crying about this, BTW, I'm merely pointing out that the death has started. For fucks sake, I don't even really LIKE making records as much as I like writing and performing music with a group of people, so personally I'm enjoying these transformations. The point I'm making is, is yes, the music industry is dying. Something else will come along and replace it. Music won't die, but whatever we've become accustomed to over the last 80 years is quickly disappearing. Again, claims that this isn't happening are misinformed.
mistercow 13y ago
Exactly. The music industry was never long for this world in the grand scheme of things. If you want to see a real threat to music as an art form, look to the trend we've seen over the decades of local governments trying to put a damper on busking. The good news is that technology will continue to create new ways for musicians to make a living.
codex 13y ago
Music will never die, and music is a form of mating display, so being a musician is good from a mating standpoint--it gets you laid. But the economics if the business have always been poor since the dawn of recorded music. If recorded music went away completely musicians would make a lot more from live shows.
- marquis 13y ago
  >music is a form of mating display Hm, then why did I start learning the piano at age 6? Music is a form of communication and expression, and humans just tend to gravitate to people who are good at stuff we like (which make for good mating displays).
  - makmanalp 13y ago
    I'm not sure about the mating display thing but you probably started learning the piano at age 6 because your parents thought it was a good idea.
    - marquis 13y ago
      In this case, very strongly my idea. No-one really knows why we play music - even musicians don't know. But I think it's about a form of expression, much like for many people they are compelled to enter conversation at least part of the day or week. I've yet to read a scientific or psychological explanation that fits but I have some pet theories that sound nice (that I wouldn't bet the bank on though).
      - coldtea 13y ago
        >In this case, very strongly my idea. No-one really knows why we play music - even musicians don't know. A lot of musicians I know, would not hesitate to mention "the opposite sex" as a major reason.
  - codex 13y ago
    Communication is a little iffy as many artists don't write be understood; their lyrics are intentionally opaque so as to seem mysterious, and allow the listener to project onto them. Agreed that music is a form of expression, but so is smiling; the question is, why do human express themselves through music in first place, or through smiling? Why not express themselves through cartwheeling instead? Darwin argued that both human song and bird song evolved as mating displays [1] [1] ftp://ftp.repec.org/RePEc/els/esrcls/draftfin.pdf
CWuestefeld 13y ago
Amplifying this point... Even the greatest of musicians through history have had to struggle to survive, it wasn't always about rock supergroups skipping across the world in private jets, screaming groupies ready to service their every desire. I'm reminded of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos, which are some of the greatest works by one of the greatest musicians that ever lived. These works were not a platinum hit at the top of Billboard's charts. Heck, Bach didn't even get paid for them! These compositions were sent on spec to the mayor of Brandenburg (hence the name) in the hope of stirring up some sponsorship so Bach could continue his work. If you're like me, you picture the hopeful rock star as struggling along, trying to supplement his income by giving guitar lessons to locals. This also describes Beethoven - he was frequently hunting for commissions to keep himself afloat, and had to earn money by giving piano lessons. The idea that musicians should somehow be above all this stuff is a modern invention. Most of the greatest works in history were not done by people enjoying easy financial prospects.
- camus 13y ago
  Slaves did not get paid for their work too , what's your point? are you ready to code for free ?
  - Flimm 13y ago
    The point is that people are so passionate about music that they will make it, even for free, and the results can be outstanding. The same can't be said about the type of jobs slaves used to get.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    Yeah, programmers never do work without getting paid. They would never think of working a job to support themselves financially but also do programming after work just because it's something they're passionate about. Every programmer is a rock star and will either make a billion dollars or go do something else. Open source and side projects don't exist in this world, of course.
whiddershins 13y ago
Yes. It is, just because the idea is unthinkable doesn't make it untrue. http://gralbumcollective.com/about.html http://gralbumcollective.com/about.html
coldtea 13y ago
>Are you claiming that music is a dying art form? Really? The music industry is at best a 100 year old historical anomaly compared to the at least 4000 year history of music. Well, we care about "popular recorded music" as last century knew it and that's a dying art form. I'm sure Gregorian Chants and Peruvian Flute Music will continue to be written. That's not what people complain about dying. People want Elvis, Beatles, Iggy Pop, Talking Heads, Madonna, Beastie Boys, Metallica etc -- with all the externalities that the way of them producing and selling music had.

by apalmer 13y ago

hipsters_unite 13y ago

I don't think music is a dying art form, but the age of larger 'alternative' music having a look-in versus the lowest-common-denominator dross on the radio is definitely on its way out.

williamcotton 13y ago

Of course music will still be around. I'm saying that music as we know it, music that has been made as a result of the industry and technologies of the 20th century, is dying. Claims that it isn't are false and misinformed. What is ALWAYS missing from the "new solutions" is the investment in emerging artists. Sure, you see companies like Live Nation/Roc Nation setting up these 360 deals. There is definitely some promise to these new approaches, but the investment money is WAY lower than what it was. I don't know the figures, I can't find the numbers online, but I will talk to people I know in music to see if I can track down some facts and write an article on the subject. My point stands, however. The author of this article doesn't know what he's talking about and the data he presented is useless and doesn't contain enough information to come close to accurately representing the music industry. BTW, there is a great opportunity for "music venture capitalists".

apalmer 13y ago
Music as we know it? What does that even mean? Really I dont understand what you are getting at? This isnt snark I really want you to explain. Perhaps you mean the phenomenon of popular artists that are so big that they are household names across all demographics across the globe/nation. If so then your probably right. Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars. as far as the investment, really labels/mangement companies will continue to invest in whatever makes them money... the size of the investments will probably diminish, but realistically the breakdown of record label investment is 90% marketing/promotion. And realistically if your projected to sell 50% less you should cut your marketing budget appropriately, that has very little to do with the music as an art form at all.
- route66 13y ago
  > Probably we will see less new justin timberlakes/drakes/britney spears level superstars, and more local/regional/niche stars. This is being parroted around here for a while, but that does not make it more true. Big artists are less affected than small labels. See also: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/20/business/fi-cotown-indiemusic20 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/20/business/fi-cotown-i...
  - chc 13y ago
    This is kind of missing the point, which is that fewer artists will get to that level, not that artists already at that level will suddenly be forgotten.
- williamcotton 13y ago
  Music as we know it. Rock and roll and popular music as an art form. Albums, 3 minute songs. Things that were designed to fit on to a plastic disc and be played on the radio between commercial breaks. This is what made up the "music industry". Touring was a loss-leader to sell plastic to people up until about 10 years ago. You had to go out and make your sales! Come to town, have the local paper and radio do your marketing for you, people maybe come to your show or maybe go buy your album at a record store. That is going away. Hence, the art form will die along with the changing media landscape, because well, you know, The Medium is the Message. I'm not crying about this, BTW, I'm merely pointing out that the death has started. For fucks sake, I don't even really LIKE making records as much as I like writing and performing music with a group of people, so personally I'm enjoying these transformations. The point I'm making is, is yes, the music industry is dying. Something else will come along and replace it. Music won't die, but whatever we've become accustomed to over the last 80 years is quickly disappearing. Again, claims that this isn't happening are misinformed.

mistercow 13y ago

Exactly. The music industry was never long for this world in the grand scheme of things. If you want to see a real threat to music as an art form, look to the trend we've seen over the decades of local governments trying to put a damper on busking. The good news is that technology will continue to create new ways for musicians to make a living.

codex 13y ago

Music will never die, and music is a form of mating display, so being a musician is good from a mating standpoint--it gets you laid. But the economics if the business have always been poor since the dawn of recorded music. If recorded music went away completely musicians would make a lot more from live shows.

marquis 13y ago
>music is a form of mating display Hm, then why did I start learning the piano at age 6? Music is a form of communication and expression, and humans just tend to gravitate to people who are good at stuff we like (which make for good mating displays).
- makmanalp 13y ago
  I'm not sure about the mating display thing but you probably started learning the piano at age 6 because your parents thought it was a good idea.
  - marquis 13y ago
    In this case, very strongly my idea. No-one really knows why we play music - even musicians don't know. But I think it's about a form of expression, much like for many people they are compelled to enter conversation at least part of the day or week. I've yet to read a scientific or psychological explanation that fits but I have some pet theories that sound nice (that I wouldn't bet the bank on though).
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >In this case, very strongly my idea. No-one really knows why we play music - even musicians don't know. A lot of musicians I know, would not hesitate to mention "the opposite sex" as a major reason.
- codex 13y ago
  Communication is a little iffy as many artists don't write be understood; their lyrics are intentionally opaque so as to seem mysterious, and allow the listener to project onto them. Agreed that music is a form of expression, but so is smiling; the question is, why do human express themselves through music in first place, or through smiling? Why not express themselves through cartwheeling instead? Darwin argued that both human song and bird song evolved as mating displays [1] [1] ftp://ftp.repec.org/RePEc/els/esrcls/draftfin.pdf

CWuestefeld 13y ago

Amplifying this point... Even the greatest of musicians through history have had to struggle to survive, it wasn't always about rock supergroups skipping across the world in private jets, screaming groupies ready to service their every desire. I'm reminded of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos, which are some of the greatest works by one of the greatest musicians that ever lived. These works were not a platinum hit at the top of Billboard's charts. Heck, Bach didn't even get paid for them! These compositions were sent on spec to the mayor of Brandenburg (hence the name) in the hope of stirring up some sponsorship so Bach could continue his work. If you're like me, you picture the hopeful rock star as struggling along, trying to supplement his income by giving guitar lessons to locals. This also describes Beethoven - he was frequently hunting for commissions to keep himself afloat, and had to earn money by giving piano lessons. The idea that musicians should somehow be above all this stuff is a modern invention. Most of the greatest works in history were not done by people enjoying easy financial prospects.

camus 13y ago
Slaves did not get paid for their work too , what's your point? are you ready to code for free ?
- Flimm 13y ago
  The point is that people are so passionate about music that they will make it, even for free, and the results can be outstanding. The same can't be said about the type of jobs slaves used to get.
- freehunter 13y ago
  Yeah, programmers never do work without getting paid. They would never think of working a job to support themselves financially but also do programming after work just because it's something they're passionate about. Every programmer is a rock star and will either make a billion dollars or go do something else. Open source and side projects don't exist in this world, of course.

whiddershins 13y ago

Yes. It is, just because the idea is unthinkable doesn't make it untrue. http://gralbumcollective.com/about.html http://gralbumcollective.com/about.html

coldtea 13y ago

>Are you claiming that music is a dying art form? Really? The music industry is at best a 100 year old historical anomaly compared to the at least 4000 year history of music. Well, we care about "popular recorded music" as last century knew it and that's a dying art form. I'm sure Gregorian Chants and Peruvian Flute Music will continue to be written. That's not what people complain about dying. People want Elvis, Beatles, Iggy Pop, Talking Heads, Madonna, Beastie Boys, Metallica etc -- with all the externalities that the way of them producing and selling music had.