←back to thread

300 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.455s | source
Show context
parpfish ◴[] No.44408859[source]
How many financially self-sustaining musicians should there be? Streaming has caused the number to fall, but recorded music before that likely made it fall as well.

Should we stop thinking about music as a job and start thinking about it as a hobbyist art form? Nobody is out there lamenting that you can’t make a living off of landscape painting. It’s a fun form of self expression that people will do regardless of the economics, so maybe the problem was ever thinking you could make a profession out of it?

replies(22): >>44408928 #>>44408966 #>>44409045 #>>44409157 #>>44409254 #>>44409270 #>>44409551 #>>44409842 #>>44409919 #>>44410084 #>>44410086 #>>44410122 #>>44410201 #>>44410210 #>>44410229 #>>44410260 #>>44410292 #>>44410623 #>>44410719 #>>44411539 #>>44412762 #>>44421135 #
lapcat ◴[] No.44409157[source]
The question we should be asking, as consumers of music, is how many musical options do we want?

If musicians can't make a living, then both the quantity and quality of our musical options go down. Yes, hobbyists will always make music for themselves, but hobbyists won't necessarily record music for us or tour around the country for us to see in live venues. The issue is not that musicians inherently deserve to make a living; the issue is, what kind of musical market is available for consumers?

replies(1): >>44409468 #
DennisP ◴[] No.44409468[source]
Plenty of hobbyists record their music. A lot of the music I listen to is from youtubers with a handful of views.
replies(2): >>44409573 #>>44410168 #
1. lapcat ◴[] No.44409573[source]
> Plenty of hobbyists record their music.

That's not contrary to what I said, which was "hobbyists won't necessarily [emphasis added] record music for us". And of course you didn't respond to my point about touring.

In any case, the music and recordings of hobbyists are likely to be inferior to the music and recordings of professionals, because in general, professionals are better than hobbyists at almost everything, music being only one example.

> A lot of the music I listen to is from youtubers with a handful of views.

If that's the future you want, then I guess you're in luck.

replies(1): >>44416198 #
2. DennisP ◴[] No.44416198[source]
Generally if a comment makes multiple points, I don't feel I have to refrain from replying if I only have a response to one of them. I'm not here to prove you wrong, just to make whatever point I have.

There's plenty of music available even if only some hobbyists record. In terms of musical options, I'd say we're in a golden age. Used to be, we could only listen to whatever some record label was willing to fund. Before that, just local musicians. Now we can pull up all sorts of obscure musicians all over the world. Recently I went down a rabbit hole of famous rock songs played in medieval style on period instruments; that's not something I'd be likely to find at a record store.

Recording isn't the barrier it used to be, and it'll keep getting easier to make good mixes as the software improves.

Meanwhile, it's likely that the power law will continue to apply, and plenty of especially talented musicians will hit the big time and do live touring. In fact, as more music is generated by AI, I expect people seeking authenticity will develop more interest in live music.