←back to thread

300 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
prvc ◴[] No.44409178[source]
I assumed the article would be about orchestral musicians (for whom there is a high, and increasing skill threshold) or session musicians (whose work is increasingly being replaced by computer synthesis). Instead, we get a very long narrative about a rapper who is still struggling to "make it" as a recording artist. In the era of sound recordings (which began well over a century ago) there is little incentive for the consumer to choose one with middling appeal over the most popular options. This makes the task of becoming a star, but on a small scale, a difficult one. Instead, a prospective "middle-class musician" must find a niche of some kind, perhaps by focusing on the local market. For example, a busker could potentially make more (than his cited $250k in recording revenue) over a period of 9 years with sufficient dedication.
replies(1): >>44410550 #
wwweston ◴[] No.44410550[source]
~15-20 years ago, the popular wisdom was that we were entering the age of the long tail, where the open distribution opportunities of the internet combined with discovery technology would mean that it'd be easier for many artists to "make it" to a point where they had 10k fans. What happened?

We decimated recordings as a revenue stream (and literal decimation might be wildly generous, given that stream payouts frequently never add up to a single sale for many artists). We let people peddle the lie that artists can just find some other revenue source like merchandising or another job or anything else rather than paying for the thing people ostensibly value.

Minor league success was never an easy proposition but we had a chance to give it better margins. And we let Spotify and others eat those, and let too many people tell comforting lies to consumers along the way.

And without a major cultural shift, we will do the same thing for everyone eventually.

replies(3): >>44410578 #>>44410629 #>>44410974 #
chickenzzzzu ◴[] No.44410578[source]
Who is this "we" you speak of? There is no society. There is only individuals making decisions on how to spend their money, time, and comfort.

If hundreds of millions of people decide to use Spotify and Youtube to obtain their music, and if that means most artists are shafted in the process, no secret organization enacted some conspiracy to achieve that. Instead, technology enabled a new form of consumption, and producers faced a new level of competition.

replies(1): >>44410711 #
BrenBarn ◴[] No.44410711[source]
The "secret organization" is us, via the tyranny of small decisions. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.
replies(1): >>44410763 #
chickenzzzzu ◴[] No.44410763{3}[source]
There are no good or bad things. Only things that happen or don't happen. Anyone is welcome to fight the nature of reality.
replies(1): >>44411141 #
asdf6969[dead post] ◴[] No.44411141{4}[source]
[flagged]
1. chickenzzzzu ◴[] No.44413550{5}[source]
Nearly everyone would consider this a bad thing, but undoubtedly there are some who would not, for example those who really don't like me.
replies(1): >>44414123 #
2. asdf6969 ◴[] No.44414123[source]
Interesting perspective