3 ms·
I believe the point is that artists have been making (music|sculpture|paintings|dances) for thousands of years. The great majority who've made money have done s
by smcnally 13y ago
I believe the point is that artists have been making (music|sculpture|paintings|dances) for thousands of years. The great majority who've made money have done so only because of industry changes within the last 100 years.
Artists are unlikely to quit making art even in the absence of direct economic benefit to doing so. We'd lose some great art; we won't lose all of it.
- benologist 13y agoNone of our jobs existed 100 years ago forcing our historical counterparts to design, create and make in other mediums and for (much) lesser reward, or just get other jobs. But I sure am glad only musicians are asked to forfeit the benefits those 100 years brought us all.
- smcnally 13y agoI'm likely missing your point. "Only musicians are asked?" Several fields are having their creation, promotion and distribution status quo challenged. I work for an outfit who made their money in traditional print publishing. No one's asked them, but the expectation is there's more forfiture of previous benefits to come. To sustain a business, we'll need to figure out new services and revenue streams to take place of at least some of what's been going away for some time.
- benologist 13y agoThose fields became obsolete - that's very different to what the internet has done to music.
- klez 13y agoThe internet did nothing to music itself. It made something to the business of music. And, as you said, rendered some of it obsolete.