5 ms·

And if you work at McDonalds 24 hours a day, seven days a week, you'll get more revenue than you probably would as an entry-level developer in many cities. The

by chc 13y ago

And if you work at McDonalds 24 hours a day, seven days a week, you'll get more revenue than you probably would as an entry-level developer in many cities. The problem is that it is radically more work and doesn't scale well at all. (You might think this is an unfair comparison, but touring does pretty much demand your whole life. Your effective wage from touring is typically not very high when you consider how many hours it consumes.)

alttab 13y ago
OK, so the entertainers of the future will work differently and make less due to the digitization of music. So instead of being famous and having millions of dollars and a huge tour train, you'll produce music on the cheap or electronically and sell it via you-tube, streaming deals, shows, and direct album sales for the super fans. Innovation always has its side effects good and bad, but those who want to entertain and be famous will still have all the motivation and incentive to be creative and strive for the spotlight. They won't be making off too bad for themselves, either.
- csallen 13y ago
  Agreed. Just because an industry hit a certain level of profitability doesn't mean it should be guaranteed to do the same indefinitely. If change comes to entertainment than change comes to entertainment.
- paulhauggis 13y ago
  You are right about innovation... It's side effects will also be increased automation, which means unions shouldn't use the government to inflate wages of jobs that could otherwise be automated with a machine.
- wwweston 13y ago
  > So instead of being famous and having millions of dollars and a huge tour train, you'll produce music on the cheap or electronically and sell it via you-tube, streaming deals, shows, and direct album sales for the super fans. This isn't a new model. Most artists already rely on both performance and recording revenues (some add licensing and/or merchandising). So we're essentially talking about the old model, except with the apparent proposal that we remove revenue from recordings. That's removing a leg from a stool that's already frequently shaky to begin with, except for mass-market pop acts that have already made it (Iron Maiden is, more or less, one such act). > Innovation always has its side effects good and bad Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs, eh? You can, of course, break eggs without making an omelete, and so far, it looks to me like the instructions for the recipe under discussion stops at cracking them open.
  - V-2 13y ago
    http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal
  - mcguire 13y ago
    "Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs, eh? "You can, of course, break eggs without making an omelete, and so far, it looks to me like the instructions for the recipe under discussion stops at cracking them open." Wrong question. The correct question is, "How much are you willing do distort the rest of your society in order to support one relatively minor, if wealthy, group of people?" Or possibly, "How much damage do you want to do to other, more important industries in order to protect a small one?"
    - wwweston 13y ago
      I've written elsewhere in this thread about how it seems some of the tech community has been reacting so strongly for so long to the content cartels insistence on copyright over everything that they often assume any defense of copyright/music sales is in service of a draconian tech-crippling regime. Sometimes they even arrive at the complete opposite (and equally incorrect) position that copyright and revenue from it is completely unimportant. I can only assume that's what's going on here, given that nothing I've proposed would reasonably prompt your questions. I suppose I'll respond anyway, though: > How much are you willing do distort the rest of your society in order to support one relatively minor, if wealthy, group of people? Wealthy? I suppose there are some pop acts that make it so big that they become pretty wealthy. These are indeed folks (like Iron Maiden) that could continue to enjoy good business even without much recording revenue at all, but they're no more a representative sample for the sake of discussion here than most hackers are (or ever will be) Mark Zuckerberg wealthy. As it happens, I am willing to distort society a little, in much the same way that the original copyright bargain does, for the same reasons. I think that the norm should remain that recordings are something people should pay for. That's it. No need for SOPA or DRM required everywhere by law or million dollar fines for vigorously prosecuted individual violations. Piracy still exists, and may even be often treated as discussed in the article, but people who do it know it for what it is and that the approved (and supportive) way to participate in getting recordings is to either purchase or download from where they're explicitly free. Probably wouldn't do terrible damage to other "more important" industries.
Oculus 13y ago
I imagine that entertainers enjoy touring/performing vs. viewing it as a chore/work.
- dhimes 13y ago
  That's true in every profession- but the entertainers I know consider/considered touring to be pretty grueling.
- chc 13y ago
  I enjoy programming, but I wouldn't want to spend 18 hours a day doing it for weeks on end for effectively $6 an hour.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Not really. Performing occasionally is fun, but many months of doing pretty much the same perfomance every night in different place - that's definitely a chore.
  - collyw 13y ago
    I am guessing you are not as popular with fans as Iron Maiden. I saw them numerous times as a teenager, and they certainly seemed to enjoy the response they got from the crowds. (Go on surprise me and prove me wrong - let me know you are in a band that is well known).
Dewie 13y ago
Touring scales by playing bigger venues. Do you know the mean wage per hour for an average artist for their album sale if you divide their profits from the studio time? In theory recording an album can be a fixed amount of up-front labor that then pays out like a passive income, but is that really what happens for all practical purposes?
- chii 13y ago
  touring doesn't scale not because you can't get a bigger venue, but because it's not a passive income stream. A scaling income stream is a passive income stream - e.g., selling a book, a CD/digital file, video etc.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    And I'm not so sure that recording albums really are a passive income stream in any meaningful sense. One would have to know how the album sales look for the average artist. If an artist uses 5 months to record an album, then it sells for 1 year until most of the fan base has bought it, than a little for the next year and then only pennies for the rest of the decade, then that album will not constitute any more passive income than me depositing some thousand dollars in the bank. Then that artist has to go back to recording a new album in a year or two to keep afloat.
    - Dewie 13y ago
      ...And that is assuming that the artist is so popular that he can sell enough albums to just live off of that for two or so years without any touring or such, which I think is unlikely.
ndesaulniers 13y ago
Maybe artists should be paid like teachers and teachers should be paid like rock stars.

by chc 13y ago

alttab 13y ago

OK, so the entertainers of the future will work differently and make less due to the digitization of music. So instead of being famous and having millions of dollars and a huge tour train, you'll produce music on the cheap or electronically and sell it via you-tube, streaming deals, shows, and direct album sales for the super fans. Innovation always has its side effects good and bad, but those who want to entertain and be famous will still have all the motivation and incentive to be creative and strive for the spotlight. They won't be making off too bad for themselves, either.

csallen 13y ago
Agreed. Just because an industry hit a certain level of profitability doesn't mean it should be guaranteed to do the same indefinitely. If change comes to entertainment than change comes to entertainment.
paulhauggis 13y ago
You are right about innovation... It's side effects will also be increased automation, which means unions shouldn't use the government to inflate wages of jobs that could otherwise be automated with a machine.
wwweston 13y ago
> So instead of being famous and having millions of dollars and a huge tour train, you'll produce music on the cheap or electronically and sell it via you-tube, streaming deals, shows, and direct album sales for the super fans. This isn't a new model. Most artists already rely on both performance and recording revenues (some add licensing and/or merchandising). So we're essentially talking about the old model, except with the apparent proposal that we remove revenue from recordings. That's removing a leg from a stool that's already frequently shaky to begin with, except for mass-market pop acts that have already made it (Iron Maiden is, more or less, one such act). > Innovation always has its side effects good and bad Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs, eh? You can, of course, break eggs without making an omelete, and so far, it looks to me like the instructions for the recipe under discussion stops at cracking them open.
- V-2 13y ago
  http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal
- mcguire 13y ago
  "Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs, eh? "You can, of course, break eggs without making an omelete, and so far, it looks to me like the instructions for the recipe under discussion stops at cracking them open." Wrong question. The correct question is, "How much are you willing do distort the rest of your society in order to support one relatively minor, if wealthy, group of people?" Or possibly, "How much damage do you want to do to other, more important industries in order to protect a small one?"
  - wwweston 13y ago
    I've written elsewhere in this thread about how it seems some of the tech community has been reacting so strongly for so long to the content cartels insistence on copyright over everything that they often assume any defense of copyright/music sales is in service of a draconian tech-crippling regime. Sometimes they even arrive at the complete opposite (and equally incorrect) position that copyright and revenue from it is completely unimportant. I can only assume that's what's going on here, given that nothing I've proposed would reasonably prompt your questions. I suppose I'll respond anyway, though: > How much are you willing do distort the rest of your society in order to support one relatively minor, if wealthy, group of people? Wealthy? I suppose there are some pop acts that make it so big that they become pretty wealthy. These are indeed folks (like Iron Maiden) that could continue to enjoy good business even without much recording revenue at all, but they're no more a representative sample for the sake of discussion here than most hackers are (or ever will be) Mark Zuckerberg wealthy. As it happens, I am willing to distort society a little, in much the same way that the original copyright bargain does, for the same reasons. I think that the norm should remain that recordings are something people should pay for. That's it. No need for SOPA or DRM required everywhere by law or million dollar fines for vigorously prosecuted individual violations. Piracy still exists, and may even be often treated as discussed in the article, but people who do it know it for what it is and that the approved (and supportive) way to participate in getting recordings is to either purchase or download from where they're explicitly free. Probably wouldn't do terrible damage to other "more important" industries.

Oculus 13y ago

I imagine that entertainers enjoy touring/performing vs. viewing it as a chore/work.

dhimes 13y ago
That's true in every profession- but the entertainers I know consider/considered touring to be pretty grueling.
chc 13y ago
I enjoy programming, but I wouldn't want to spend 18 hours a day doing it for weeks on end for effectively $6 an hour.
PeterisP 13y ago
Not really. Performing occasionally is fun, but many months of doing pretty much the same perfomance every night in different place - that's definitely a chore.
- collyw 13y ago
  I am guessing you are not as popular with fans as Iron Maiden. I saw them numerous times as a teenager, and they certainly seemed to enjoy the response they got from the crowds. (Go on surprise me and prove me wrong - let me know you are in a band that is well known).

Dewie 13y ago

Touring scales by playing bigger venues. Do you know the mean wage per hour for an average artist for their album sale if you divide their profits from the studio time? In theory recording an album can be a fixed amount of up-front labor that then pays out like a passive income, but is that really what happens for all practical purposes?

chii 13y ago
touring doesn't scale not because you can't get a bigger venue, but because it's not a passive income stream. A scaling income stream is a passive income stream - e.g., selling a book, a CD/digital file, video etc.
- Dewie 13y ago
  And I'm not so sure that recording albums really are a passive income stream in any meaningful sense. One would have to know how the album sales look for the average artist. If an artist uses 5 months to record an album, then it sells for 1 year until most of the fan base has bought it, than a little for the next year and then only pennies for the rest of the decade, then that album will not constitute any more passive income than me depositing some thousand dollars in the bank. Then that artist has to go back to recording a new album in a year or two to keep afloat.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    ...And that is assuming that the artist is so popular that he can sell enough albums to just live off of that for two or so years without any touring or such, which I think is unlikely.

ndesaulniers 13y ago

Maybe artists should be paid like teachers and teachers should be paid like rock stars.