If all of western society downsizes its eco-footprint by massive media consumption and the state subsidizes this (panem at circensis) by lawlessness - im okay with it. Sorry, its hard on everyones dreams, mine was to life from game-design- wont happen.
Nobody will live from music anymore. Thats just the way it is- your dream is your hobby.
But that hobby keeps a lot of people sitting in front of a glowing rock, like meditating monks, instead of buying useless tanksized cars and overdimensioned houses.
Worth it.
A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music
31–40 of 248 posts
Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music
#32For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. For a few hundred years, there was the patronage era, where if you were really good you could get a rich person to feed and clothe and house you while you made art. Or you traveled around giving performances for money or food or clothes or shelter. Then only in the last 100ish years ha…
I don’t know of anyone who has made any worthwhile music who did it to make money. You’d be an idiot to do it for the money, even in the golden age of music labels. The vast majority of musicians made nothing and a few got super wealthy. You had to practice for years, putting aside any other career in order for a small chance to get discovered. Now once you’re discovered and you have a career, you might continue to d…
You think Brittany Spears made music because she loves music? Or the Backstreet Boys? Or pretty much any K-Pop band these days? They're all out there because a record person wanted to sell personas.
Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music
#33The author's basic premise is false and his article is riddled with basic factual errors.
The vast majority of artists never made a significant proportion of their income from recorded music, due to the extremely shady accounting practices used by the industry to deprive artists of royalties. For detail on this, see Steve Albini's notorious essay The Problem With Music.
https://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17
The internet has hugely undermined the value of recorded music, but it has greatly increased the marketability of live music, which is and always has been the most reliable source of income for musicians. If you've got a mailing list with a few thousand people who'll pay to see you perform, you've got a career. You don't need a record contract, you don't need a booking agent, you don't need radio airplay, you just need 40 or 50 towns with enough fans to sell out a small venue.
Prior to the internet, building that mailing list almost always involved a record deal, because there was no other way to reach the public; a few independent artists made it through 'zines and word-of-mouth and tenacious effort, but most didn't. If you didn't get on a radio playlist, nobody got to hear your music and nobody came to your shows. Today, the equation is completely different. There are a thousand different niche acts with absolutely no recognition among the general public, who nonetheless make a respectable living from touring because they can connect directly with fans.
Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music
#34this feels very 'old man yells at cloud.'
People still make money making music (and other art,) but it's changed. That's true, but this person has an outsized view of his own impact if he thinks that hustling to move 100k copies of his own record changed anything for better or worse.
Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music
#35For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. For a few hundred years, there was the patronage era, where if you were really good you could get a rich person to feed and clothe and house you while you made art. Or you traveled around giving performances for money or food or clothes or shelter. Then only in the last 100ish years ha…
> For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money.
I would challenge you almost precisely the opposite. The vast majority of the "great art" was in fact done for money.
For example, walk through the Parthenon and its museum, most of the art was commissioned.
Look at the wall murals of Pompeii--again, done for hire.
I can go on and on and on.
Art not done for hire is almost exclusively a very new thing brought about by industrialization giving us enough surplus that people have enough spare time to specialize in something other than their job.
Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music
#36Sounds like sour grapes to me. "I'm done arguing about it, but analog sounded better" as if he has any evidence to back up his claim. Not all of us can tolerate music with an assload of white noise splattered all over it. I've yet to listen to a vinyl without the experience being ruined by analog hiss.
My daughter got an inexpensive record player (Audio Technica) and some records for Christmas and I was shocked by how great it sounds. I remember playing records 30 years ago and just accepting pops and hisses and skips. Plus I owned a lot of crappy records (anybody remember K-Tel?)
Going to the record store with her has gotten me back into buying music as well. She shops the vinyl section and I buy CDs. I think CDs sound better and I like not having to flip the disc, but there's something very satisfying about handling a large grooved record where you can "see" the music and the accompanying booklet or sleeve with lyrics and artwork.
Something I didn't expect is how cheap CDs are now. I've bought lots of stuff for $6-$8.
Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music
#37The lifelong plight of the artist. I don't think it will every change. The community tends to only respect the artist once they are long gone.
Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music
#38For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. For a few hundred years, there was the patronage era, where if you were really good you could get a rich person to feed and clothe and house you while you made art. Or you traveled around giving performances for money or food or clothes or shelter. Then only in the last 100ish years ha…
> For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. This seems wildly improbable to me? People didn't get paid for art until a few hundred years ago? Are you suggesting artisans weren't a thing? That all the art produced globally outside of the past few hundred years was done just for love of doing?
> Are you suggesting artisans weren't a thing?
Historically, anyone who made something by hand was an artisan, so the hammer maker and the sword maker. I suppose you could consider that art, but when I say I art I'm talking music, paining, sculpture, etc. Things that only have aesthetic use, not functional use.
And I don't believe there are any examples of people making aesthetic works as their only source of income before recent times, other than through patronage.
I've only studied art history briefly though, someone who has studied it more could probably chime in here.
Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music
#39For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. For a few hundred years, there was the patronage era, where if you were really good you could get a rich person to feed and clothe and house you while you made art. Or you traveled around giving performances for money or food or clothes or shelter. Then only in the last 100ish years ha…
It wasn't all through patronage though. I just finished listening to a biography of Leonardo da Vinci, and he was taught in a workshop, essentially as an apprentice. They would do independent commissions for people - portraits, statues etc. It's true that the great artists would get patronage once they were great, but it seemed that there were a bunch of these workshops with apprentices that copied the master's paintings, worked on commissions with them etc. Just thinking about it now as I write, and the Patronage is like the "made-it" moment where an artist gets rich, but I bet there were a multitude of apprentices that toiled away in workshops just making money for food.
Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music
#40This article reeks of blaming new technology for killing an industry (it didn't), and resistance to change (i.e. things were so much better when I was young). He actually (sort-of) acknowledges this in the last paragraph when he mentions theatre taking a hit when films came about, but music hasn't been replaced like theatre has so the comparison is moot. > Now everybody can make a record – and maybe that’s not a good…
As much as I hate sifting through the mountain of music that should probably have not been released, I couldn't agree more. It's relatively inexpensive to setup a home studio that yields excellent results. You still need technical skills, of course. But, assuming you have them, a computer, a DAW, and a basic audio interface can go a long way.