Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

klangmag.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 286 posts

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#11

Post by ipsi »

Reminds me of a couple of married friends of mine. The wife played a classical musical instrument (e.g., not an electric guitar) and had her sights set on being a professional. While working towards that she did a lot of teaching/practising/etc, and her students would often say something along the lines of "I'm so envious of all this time you have to practice music! How are you able to do it?!" and her reply was always a bit of a let-down/reality check for them: "my husband works in tech."

Not quite independently wealthy, but I imagine there's a fair few artists out there in a similar position.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#12

Post by CPLX »

bluefishinit wrote: post #8
CPLX wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm probably not underestimating the role marketing plays in music. I'm the former head of digital at a major music agency, and I handled campaigns for multiple album of the year Grammy winners and household name artists, almost certainly including music and artists you consider important in your life.

It's not really about marketing. Everyone thinks that and they're wrong. You learn this instantly when you are actually in the business and see all the artists and projects that get the exact same amount of marketing effort as the massive hits and go literally fucking nowhere.

It's like home run batting, even the best in the world at picking and promoting music are lucky to have like a 10-20% success rate.

Audiences have a mind of their own, they like what they like. The problem people have with understanding this is usually that they don't like the same thing that mass audiences like, and they consider what they do like higher quality. So in their minds the masses are being duped, marketed to.

Which is true to a point, they are being marketed to. And having resources and labels and monopolies behind you can definitely expose you to more people. But it's not enough, at all, if people don't respond to it. And conversely, if you have no resources whatsoever it's way harder, but it's not impossible at all and stuff that really has wide appeal most of the time really does bubble up and catch attention pretty quickly.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#13

Post by swayvil »

tomdell wrote: post #5

As 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…

I was in art pretty heavy. And ya, instability and dread the norm.

And obsession. To fixate on the creation of the hour 24-7. To be master of my tiny creative walled paradise and let everything else go to hell.

Now I'm not doing that. I'm doing the opposite. I'm expanding. I like it.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#14

Post by alpark3 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #9

As 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.

Coding? Your art is one of the most directly financially valuable skills on the planet and you're comparing yourself to starving musicians?

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#15

Post by bluefishinit »

CPLX wrote: post #12
bluefishinit wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm probably not underestimating the role marketing plays in music. I'm the former head of digital at a major music agency, and I handled campaigns for multiple album of the year Grammy winners and household name artists, almost certainly including music and artists you consider important in your life. It's not really about marketing. Everyone thinks that and they're wrong. You learn this instantly when you are actua…

> It's like home run batting, even the best in the world at picking and promoting music are lucky to have like a 10-20% success rate.

Mass market success is basically a crap shoot and doesn't really reflect the quality of the musician. You said:

> Playing music badly is utterly worthless from an economic standpoint.

And that's not true at all, being a virtuoso is pretty much worthless from an economic standpoint. It's pointless to try to equate skill to economic success because in pop art they don't have anything to do with each other. It's all about marketing and distribution. Not to say that the studio musicians that make the pop music aren't virtuosos, but they're definitely playing simplified songs.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#16

Post by hospitalJail »

nomaxx117 wrote: post #6

FWIW 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 think that is what HN is getting out of this article.

Lots of us have side biz, or are working on something important to us, and we often think our product is better than the leaders of the industry. Heck, from a data/math point of view, mine is the best, without a question. I just don't have the charisma or connections to make it the number 1.

I know my output(science) is going to last beyond my lifetime, even if I'm not nationally popular. I have academics and international leaders reading my work. Good enough for me.

t. Dayjobber

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#17

Post by gonehome »

ipsi wrote: post #11

Reminds me of a couple of married friends of mine. The wife played a classical musical instrument (e.g., not an electric guitar) and had her sights set on being a professional. While working towards that she did a lot of teaching/practising/etc, and her students would often say something along the lines of "I'm so envious of all this time you have to practice music! How are you able to do it?!" and her reply was alwa…

Also pretty common with authors iirc - a spouse with an income that provides stability.

That said, also easy for people to use this as an excuse.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#18

Post by fallendev »

vorpalhex wrote: post #9

As 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.

Good for you if you have a day job outside of coding that pays your bills while you work on your coding craft. You're a dayjobber.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#19

Post by vorpalhex »

alpark3 wrote: post #14
vorpalhex wrote: post #9

As 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.

Coding? Your art is one of the most directly financially valuable skills on the planet and you're comparing yourself to starving musicians?

My coding wasn't valuable when I started, anymore than the beginner guitarist is Bon Jovi.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#20

Post by golergka »

Yes, that's the point of making money: so that your loved ones (probably kids) could do art or whatever else.

What's the point of it all if you can't invest in your loved ones? Are you a bad person for loving your kids more then some other random kid that they would be competing against? I fail to see anything bad about this.

Post reply on HN