Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student
1–10 of 286 posts
Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student
#2I wonder if there is any artistic benefit by marrying the arts with a deeply capitalist system.
Obviously as this article mentions its not great for the artists themselves, but perhaps the cutthroat nature of the industry makes it so that only the best of the best rise to the top, even if it means it comes from an independently wealthy musician.
Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student
#3I wonder if there is any artistic benefit by marrying the arts with a deeply capitalist system. Obviously as this article mentions its not great for the artists themselves, but perhaps the cutthroat nature of the industry makes it so that only the best of the best rise to the top, even if it means it comes from an independently wealthy musician.
[deleted]
Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student
#4I wonder if there is any artistic benefit by marrying the arts with a deeply capitalist system. Obviously as this article mentions its not great for the artists themselves, but perhaps the cutthroat nature of the industry makes it so that only the best of the best rise to the top, even if it means it comes from an independently wealthy musician.
Music is a commodity. There's already more music available to let my playlist run for years without repeats. Plus it's never been easier for folk to create, and publish, new music. With endless supply comes diminishing unit value.
So, not to be brutal, but playing music is not an especially valuable thing, and so people really don't need to pay much for it. Ditto for writing books, making ceramics, pretty much anything artistic.
I say this not to be a dick, but simply to point out the economics. When a million other people can do what you do, and live in the same city, then don't expect to make much of a living at it.
Sure there are exceptions (hi Taylor) but that has less to do with actual music and more to do with other factors.
Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student
#5As someone who tried the music-or-nothing approach for several years after college and two years in ended up with semi-regular panic attacks, persistent existential dread, and crippling anxiety over finances, I can't recommend getting a day job enough. It saddens me to think of all the creative work I could be doing and all the artistic growth I could be seeing instead of developing marketing software, but at least I'm able to pay my bills, maintain a relationship, and generally live a life that consists of more than just obsessing over music. Less existential dread, too, which helps with focus when I do work on art after work and on the weekends.
Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student
#6FWIW the open source scene (at least in the US) can often have very similar dynamics. I believe it was Ashley Williams who put it best by saying that in the Rust community (where I am), one's influence is determined by one's free time. I've noticed over time that in certain areas it can very much be those with the least experience on a subject (but the most free time) who wield the most influence.
Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student
#7I wonder if there is any artistic benefit by marrying the arts with a deeply capitalist system. Obviously as this article mentions its not great for the artists themselves, but perhaps the cutthroat nature of the industry makes it so that only the best of the best rise to the top, even if it means it comes from an independently wealthy musician.
Music is a commodity. There's already more music available to let my playlist run for years without repeats. Plus it's never been easier for folk to create, and publish, new music. With endless supply comes diminishing unit value. So, not to be brutal, but playing music is not an especially valuable thing, and so people really don't need to pay much for it. Ditto for writing books, making ceramics, pretty much anythi…
No it's not. A commodity would mean that people are indifferent to the music of Metallica vs Taylor Swift vs your brother in law's blues band.
They aren't. So it's not a commodity. Because that's what commodity means.
You could let your playlist run for years, but you don't and nobody else does either because repetition and familiarity and quality are things people care about musically.
Playing music well in a way that is liked by millions is an unbelievably valuable thing. Playing music badly is utterly worthless from an economic standpoint.
Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Music is a commodity. There's already more music available to let my playlist run for years without repeats. Plus it's never been easier for folk to create, and publish, new music. With endless supply comes diminishing unit value. So, not to be brutal, but playing music is not an especially valuable thing, and so people really don't need to pay much for it. Ditto for writing books, making ceramics, pretty much anythi…
No it's not. A commodity would mean that people are indifferent to the music of Metallica vs Taylor Swift vs your brother in law's blues band. They aren't. So it's not a commodity. Because that's what commodity means. You could let your playlist run for years, but you don't and nobody else does either because repetition and familiarity and quality are things people care about musically. Playing music well in a way th…
I think you're underestimating the role marketing plays in demand generation. It's not that Taylor Swift is "better" than the local jazz guitarist, she's just more heavily marketed. Music labels know that the mass audience doesn't appreciate musical complexity so they market simple music with attractive performers. Then the Clear Channel/Ticketmaster... machine takes over and handles the promotion and distribution.
I'm actually a big fan of pop music, but that doesn't mean that non-pop is financially unsuccessful because it's "bad", it's just not put into the marketing machine because it very well may be too good.
Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student
#9As someone who has spent an amazing amount of time coding, it's not because someone was paying my rent. It's because I sacrificed things to be able to work on my art.
I have never had my rent paid for. I did not have a secret pile of cash or someone funding me.
"Everyone who made it when I couldn't was secretly wealthy" is an interesting take but it seems more like coping mechanism than reality.
Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student
#10FWIW the open source scene (at least in the US) can often have very similar dynamics. I believe it was Ashley Williams who put it best by saying that in the Rust community (where I am), one's influence is determined by one's free time. I've noticed over time that in certain areas it can very much be those with the least experience on a subject (but the most free time) who wield the most influence.
I'd love to work full time on my open source project (see profile) but I'll have to keep working for the man for now.
It works and is useful for me already, but without the time needed to polish it and add more content, won't be that useful to other people.
One can dream.