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

41–50 of 286 posts

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

#41

Post by CPLX »

bluefishinit wrote: post #37
CPLX wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Commercial success is due to marketing, distribution and luck. But we're back here. I still disagree with this, it's a poor analysis of what's actually happening. In music, commercial success, more than any other factor, comes from making music that is liked by large numbers of people . If you can make music like that you'll probably have commercial success.

> In music, commercial success, more than any other factor, comes from making music that is liked by large numbers of people. Most bands never have a chance to see if their music is liked by a large number of people because they don't have that kind of distribution. Through the 20th century the labels created a distribution network into which they pump hand selected artists (that match their marketing channels demogr…

Well see the thing is that all music that is liked by large numbers of people is also liked by small numbers of people. If you get my drift.

Most bands never get signed because nobody likes them. They play a gig to fifty people in March and when they play the same place in June twenty people show up. By fall it's just girlfriends and siblings and by the following year they're working as a roofer or something.

Artists make demos of their music and send them to people and those people don't like them, and don't play them over and over and don't share them with friends, and it never reaches the ears of people with influence because nobody cares, because it has no real connection or mass appeal.

Conversely, artists that do have mass appeal get attention very very quickly. I've been around awhile, I started working professionaly in the music business in the late 1980's. So much has changed, back then it was true that distribution mattered a lot more. In the 90's corporate radio mattered a lot more. In the 2010's you had a much clearer shot via Youtube or similar. So yeah there's substantial change in how it all works.

The basic core part is the same though. Most music doesn't even have a small chance of being genuinely popular. Because it's the kind of music that isn't really liked by mass audiences.

You're saying this:

> Most bands will never know if their music will be popular because the won't get signed to find out.

That's not true. Those bands do know that their music will not be popular. They just don't know why.

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

#42

Post by elzbardico »

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…

Grammy winners are generally not that great musicians, they are great products.

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

#43

Post by mirror_neuron »

itake wrote: post #33
golergka wrote: post #20

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.

From an ethical society stand point, yes. In the US, we agreed that we need to support everyone’s children and so we pay taxes so other people’s children can attend school. If you refuse to help other people’s children get an education, you’re evading taxes and that is unethical.

It's a matter of the degree of support. Would it be wrong, in your view, for a wealthy tax-paying parent to invest in their own child above and beyond what their taxes provide for society's children?

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

#44

Post by westernpopular »

wude935 wrote: post #2

I 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.

This is just "capitalism breeds innovation" with extra steps, and the answer remains No.

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

#45

Post by elzbardico »

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.

You should not stop reading as soon as you get to a point in the text where you get horribly offended and then comment as if you had read the whole thing.

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

#46

Post by hguant »

JSavageOne wrote: post #39

Great, practical advice. I do think however that by 2030, UBI will be the norm in many wealthy countries, and thus more people will be able to pursue their passions rather than having to sell their soul as dayjobbers to make money for corporations and rich people.

In 7 years? I think the current crop of pilot tests for UBI are set to finish up in 7 years. No way meaningful UBI gets well enough established in 7 years to be considered "a norm."

UBI is this generation's fusion - it's going to be 10 years away until the late 2070s, if at all.

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

#47

Post by bluefishinit »

CPLX wrote: post #41
bluefishinit wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In music, commercial success, more than any other factor, comes from making music that is liked by large numbers of people. Most bands never have a chance to see if their music is liked by a large number of people because they don't have that kind of distribution. Through the 20th century the labels created a distribution network into which they pump hand selected artists (that match their marketing channels demogr…

Well see the thing is that all music that is liked by large numbers of people is also liked by small numbers of people. If you get my drift. Most bands never get signed because nobody likes them. They play a gig to fifty people in March and when they play the same place in June twenty people show up. By fall it's just girlfriends and siblings and by the following year they're working as a roofer or something. Artists…

I think we have opposing views on how effective A&R is at talent discovery. Like you say, they only have a 1 in 10 record of success. That looks like they have no clue what people want and what people don't want.

I've been to tons of packed clubs with unsigned bands. I've seen absolutely amazing musicians who don't even play live, just give lessons...

The "band as a brand" is a 20th century anachronism that equates commercial success with "goodness".

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

#48

Post by westernpopular »

Floegipoky wrote: post #36
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.

Having studied both CS and music, IMO the skill threshold where you can get paid to code is a lot lower than where you can get paid to music (unless you get very, very lucky and get paid to music because of celebrity rather than skill).

I second that. The time it took me from when I started to learn programming to getting paid for a project was just a little over year, and three years to steady pay (i.e. employment).

In contrast, I've been making music for over ten years of my life and have gotten paid a handful of times.

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

#49

Post by toast0 »

CPLX wrote: post #29
toast0 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fruit is a commodity, but there's many types of fruit. And when you drill down, there's a tons of types of apples or whatever, but they're pretty much commodities. Some are more valuable or desirable than others, but if you want fruit and you can't get what you want, you substitute with something else. Music has a lot more variety than fruit, and some varieties are much more valuable, but still. If you're thinking ab…

You're not understanding what commodities are. An apple (or type of apple, to be specific) can be a commodity because I don't care or who which orchard made the apple, and I am completely indifferent to the apples of various orchards when I go to the supermarket. Recorded music isn't like that, at all. I care if the song is Fly Me To The Moon sung by Frank Sinatra or Stairway to Heaven sung by Frank Oz using the voic…

> You're not understanding what commodities are.

You're not understanding how some people use music. Does the supermarket care who the artist is? Not really. Do I care who the artist is? Not really, I just need dance music to keep part of my mind occupied so I can get into the zone easier; saccharine vocals help too, no substance please.

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

#50

Post by dragonwriter »

JSavageOne wrote: post #39

Great, practical advice. I do think however that by 2030, UBI will be the norm in many wealthy countries, and thus more people will be able to pursue their passions rather than having to sell their soul as dayjobbers to make money for corporations and rich people.

> I do think however that by 2030, UBI will be the norm in many wealthy countries, and thus more people will be able to pursue their passions rather than having to sell their soul as dayjobbers to make money for corporations and rich people.

2030 is much too soon for UBI to be an established norm, and even more much to soon for economies to support it at a level which would radically change this dynamic rather than just mitigating perverse incentives that exist at the edges of means-tested poverty support programs.

Post reply on HN