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

201–210 of 286 posts

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

#201

Post by tnecniv »

bruce511 wrote: post #4
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.

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…

Yeah it’s supply and demand. There’s a lot more people that would love to be concert pianists than there are concert pianist jobs.

I feel like these conversations often ignore the middle class of musicians that make a decent living gigging, touring, doing studio work, publishing with small labels, etc., but are not making huge money pumping out top 40 hits and filling stadiums.

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

#202

Post by solarmist »

WalterBright wrote: post #196
solarmist wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but "you'll know it when you see it" and "if you have to ask, you'll never know aren't" don't mean much to me. Tell me what standard of conduct do you ascribe to if fairness or equity aren't included? It sounds like you have an unrealistically strict definition of honor if those aren't included.

> Tell me what standard of conduct do you ascribe to if fairness or equity aren't included? I never said that being honorable was the only thing I aspire to. Fairness and equity are different topics. It shares some aspects with morality, but is not interchangeable with morality. Honor is things like keeping your word. Not taking things from others that aren't yours. Not trying to trick or force others into doing thin…

I don't view keeping your word or not cheating against a unilateral agreement as a virtue.

Doing the moral thing in many of those situations requires going against the laws or rules of those unjust systems. In other words, it requires cheating for the purpose of changing the system.

Civil rights disobedience, Gandhi's fight for independence in India, fighting against monopolies, and unionizing all require rejecting others' rules or laws which you feel are immoral.

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

#203

Post by tiffanyg »

devonkim wrote: post #122
jiggywiggy wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a bunch of classical musicians, and while they study and work hard they all have steady gigs for one or more ensembles & orchestra's. From the outside it feels somewhat more doable to be a pro , then a band or solo-artist, since there are quite a few orchestra's around that hire people on a stable basis. Spots are limited, but it's not super hard.

I studied and played classical into college during my engineering degree and have some insight into the realities of the profession - it's much harder than that and the pay for those stable gigs are oftentimes less than $300 / month. You're looking at one of the classic professional survivorship bias that I thought even the layman understood very well. Firstly, orchestras are in dire straights currently where program…

I think you've captured and analogized it very well. Very good points, never tied it together this way myself, thanks!

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

#204

Post by nradov »

barbazoo wrote: post #175
nradov wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way UBI will become the norm. I'm certainly not willing to pay higher taxes so that other people can pursue their passions. They can get a job like the rest of us.

A.k.a "I'm miserable so others should be, too".

Who is miserable? Not me. Being forced to pay higher taxes so that others can goof around creating crappy art would make me miserable, though.

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

#205

Post by nradov »

npteljes wrote: post #86
aodonnell2536 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? A big motivating factor to be successful for most people is to set themselves apart financially from the masses. Edit: And of course, what would be the motivating factor for someone to give their best possible work, if the other 12 guys in their position get paid the same for less quality work?

1. "How so?" UBI doesn't mean you can't earn more, this is not communism. 2. "what would be the motivating factor" They don't, UBI is not communism. And what you say is already true at many places, and the world is still turning. The motivating factor, with UBI, is the same without it: to achieve more. UBI would just let you not fall into homelessness and / or under the poverty threshold.

How much would taxes have to increase in order to provide a UBI that would keep everyone above the poverty threshold? Have you actually done the math on this?

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

#206

Post by CPLX »

solarmist wrote: post #183
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…

It's a commodity in the same way as fashion is. Each piece is unique, and people become attached, but something equivalent would take its place in its absence. I don't know a term for that other than commodity, but sure, it's not the strict definition in economics. Please suggest an alternative word if you know it.

> It's a commodity in the same way as fashion is.

Which is to say, it's not.

That's the point.

There's no fashion choices in West Texas Crude or Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil. Those are commodities. Each producer of the product produces an indistinguishable result from each other producer. You are producer indifferent. Most of the time you don't even have a way of knowing who produced the commodity you're consuming.

Fashion, music, cars, hotels, laptops, and many other things aren't that.

You care if it's Chanel, BMW, Hilton, Apple, or Taylor Swift, versus H&M, Honda, Motel 6, HP, or Metallica.

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

#207

Post by WalterBright »

solarmist wrote: post #199
WalterBright wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cheating just means not following the rules When you agree to follow the rules, and then cheat, that is dishonorable. Even if everyone else does it (the Lance Armstrong defense). What's your word worth to you?

Wow, that is an extreme point of view. How could you even square that view with something like the civil disobedience of Gandhi or MLK Jr.? When I'm in a situation where one party is able to make demands unilaterally, then my word is worthless. And I will gleefully disregard portions of these agreements. On the other hand, when all parties have at least some consideration, my word is worth its weight in gold.

> Wow, that is an extreme point of view.

That's a pretty sad thing to say.

> How could you even square that view with something like the civil disobedience of Gandhi or MLK Jr.?

Did they break rules they freely agreed to? I don't think so.

It's not dishonorable to do things forced to do at gunpoint.

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

#208

Post by solarmist »

CPLX wrote: post #206
solarmist wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a commodity in the same way as fashion is. Each piece is unique, and people become attached, but something equivalent would take its place in its absence. I don't know a term for that other than commodity, but sure, it's not the strict definition in economics. Please suggest an alternative word if you know it.

> It's a commodity in the same way as fashion is. Which is to say, it's not. That's the point. There's no fashion choices in West Texas Crude or Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil. Those are commodities. Each producer of the product produces an indistinguishable result from each other producer. You are producer indifferent. Most of the time you don't even have a way of knowing who produced the commodity you're consum…

I'm not asking what it's not. I'm asking what it is.

If an option were removed, something (not a random substitution, but eventually a substitute would be found) else would take its place and fulfill the same function even though it isn't the same it's close enough to fulfill the purpose.

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

#209

Post by Hermitian909 »

CPLX wrote: post #169
dxbydt wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. OP is needlessly beating the horse to death. I have enough graduate microecon credits under my belt to happily declare music is a commodity. You don't have to tick off every single i and t from the microecon literature to meet the standard definition of commodity. Its the intent. I have a curated playlist in the 10s of 1000s, probably way more than the average music listener. I'm listening to music pret…

I have a degree in economics. Recorded music just like isn't a commodity. It's not close. In fact, if you took a spectrum of all mass consumer products and ranked them from most like a commodity to least like a commodity recorded music would probably be on the side of least like a commodity. It's not really an argument. Recorded music is not "kind of like" a commodity. There are tens of millions of recorded songs and…

> literally every different iteration is wildly different

We have a basic disagreement on facts here. My experience of the world is that very few songs have any substantial difference from the world as 1,000 other songs. With a small number of songs having the properties you describe. They are different in the way the patterns on the skin of an apple are different. Utterly unique, but not in a way that matters to consumers.

Diamonds are, perhaps, a good analogy here. Diamonds below a certain carat size are a commodity. They're ground up by the ton and sold for use in a variety of products at a cheap price (category 1 songs). Larger diamonds are not a commodity - a 45 carat diamond might be considered a national treasure (category 2 songs).

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

#210

Post by Clubber »

verall wrote: post #157
jujube3 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teachers can afford to raise children.

This really depends on the state, but in many areas in the south, they cannot. ((Assuming we're talking about the US))

Both my parents were teachers in the South and I had everything I needed and a lot of what I wanted, including computers when they were really expensive. I even grew up in a house.

A lot of (rural) areas in the South are so poor, teachers are among the higher pay scale because they have a steady paycheck with health insurance. My area was a city though, so teachers were on the lower end.

Post reply on HN