←back to thread

300 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | 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 #
1. troad ◴[] No.44410084[source]
I intuitively agree with this perspective, even if I'm unsure about the consequences, and would probably need to think more deeply about them.

Once, when criticising the toxic effects of advertising, I got a response to the effect of 'but how will streamers be able to support themselves?!'. Which I was really struck by, because it presumes that streamers should be able to support themselves by streaming. Should they? Is this actually a desirable outcome? Yes, the financial viability probably leads to more streaming, but what about the quality of the overall streaming? And what about the opportunity cost when someone gives up their job and puts their labours into the business of streaming?

There will always be some level of cultural output, since there will always be passionate people. But has making the arts an industry (through an ever expanding artifice of 'intellectual property', and the ever expanding criminalisation of its subversion) actually led to better arts? Would this be a better or worse world if people built bridges in their day job and played rock gigs at night, solely for the love of it?

I'm not trying to do a Socratic dialogue here, I genuinely don't know. But I suspect the answer is much more nuanced than 'more money = better art', and I am sceptical of certain legal or economic distortions based on that assumption (e.g. life + 70 copyright terms, surveillance advertising, surveillance DRM software, billion-dollar industries that subsist solely on 'IP', fines and prison terms for unauthorised sharing, or the reversing or bypassing of DRM, etc).