15 ms·
The financial costs a young artist or group incurs to bring one or a few albums into the world are slim, but the cost in time is great, especially if they're al
by gglitch 12y ago
The financial costs a young artist or group incurs to bring one or a few albums into the world are slim, but the cost in time is great, especially if they're also trying to keep food in their bellies by touring. But here's the thing - who can afford to do that for their whole careers? I think part of the costs parent is describing have to do with making art as a viable lifetime career, meaning, providing for healthcare and retirement. Sure, it's easier than ever for college-age people to put out some records, but if anyone is to make art a viable profession, money has to come from somewhere, and enough of it to make it viable as a living.
- api 12y agoThat's exactly what I meant: a viable profession. I also disagree with the OP about cost vs. quality. The key difference comes later when you're managing the artist. If the artist has talent then they also have a certain amount of leverage in the relationship. If you make them feel like a slave then they have an ultimate trump card: turning off the juice. (The "Atlas Shrugged" maneuver?) A talentless piece of meat plus auto tune gives you total leverage, which means risk mitigation and a more controllable product. Right now the environment in the music industry is one of extreme risk aversion, which is something you see when the bottom falls out of an industry. You've arguably seen a much more risk-averse tech industry since the 2001 crash. I think my points about piracy fit into a broader critique of the concept of "free" that I've been thinking about and that I've heard others talking about. Unlike previous critiques it's more of a liberal/progressive critique.