3 ms·

> Anyway the jist of his view is that in the long term much of it actually isn't sustainable. Define "sustainable"...No, you (probably) aren't going to become

> Anyway the jist of his view is that in the long term much of it actually isn't sustainable. Define "sustainable"...No, you (probably) aren't going to become wealthy JUST creating/performing music. But saying that just because you're not wealthy means you do not have a sustainable way of life is incorrect at best. There are plenty of musicians who make a good living at music. They're not rolling in dough, but it's enough to live in a nice neighborhood and support a wife and children. To me, that's a textbook definition of "sustainable". Personally, if I can make enough money with my music to do that, I'll consider that a success.

wturner 12y ago
From what I remember of the talk he was saying that when musicians had royalties at least there was some kind of income in the backdrop so musicians didn't have to literally 'sing for every supper'. He then paralleled that with other digital goods, to contrast to where current trends are taking us. All this was mentioned coupled with his view that having a real middle class en mass means having a strong formal economy yet much of the informal economy is how many musicians ( and other creatives ) make their money. He topped it off with saying that the informal economy is what the "third world" is trying to get away from and basically that if we don't come up with a better structure we are headed in the wrong direction. So it isn't about just making money. It's about having structure to maintain social order. Basically the context of the talk was much broader and unless you see it for yourself my interpretation will not do it justice.