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

21–30 of 286 posts

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

#21

Post by CPLX »

bluefishinit wrote: post #15
CPLX wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I never said being a virtuoso was worth anything, that's a new discussion.

My point is just that some music is incredibly valuable economically, and most is not worth anything at all.

Which is clearly true.

As such, music is not an interchangeable commodity it's an extremely idiosyncratic and heterogenous market.

I've heard the argument about how nobody cares about "better" music and so on my whole life. It's like the thing people like to talk about. But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on.

For example I think Pitbull fucking sucks, deeply and profoundly, and objectively. When he rhymes Kodak with Kodak in the song "Give Me Everything" I want to throw rocks or other durable objects at whatever speaker is subjecting me to that fucking song. Somehow, 12 years after its release, this is still happening to me on a regular basis, usually within the first 2-4 hours after entering the state of Florida.

But people seem to like it. So that's the only actually objective way to determine the value of music. All the other ways are just people talking.

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

#22

Post by toast0 »

CPLX wrote: post #7
bruce511 wrote: post #4

Earlier 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…

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 about a career in music, realistic goals are going to be in education, maybe session musician, live music at entertainment venues (theme parks, cruise ships), maybe symphony; maybe something in support of music like a sound tech at a venue, etc. Being a headlining act is a career, but not a lot of people get to do that.

> 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.

I mean, I typically listen to a specific internet radio station and it feels like they have let their playlists stagnate, but I still listen to it. So I wouldn't say nobody does. They've been down for the last two days though, currently listening to a local radio station with similar tastes (but they're constantly adding new music to their catalog).

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

#23

Post by tel »

CPLX wrote: post #7
bruce511 wrote: post #4

Earlier 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…

With respect to your experience cited in your other comment, a lot of my music experience time is a continuous stream of random tracks on Apple's "Made for You" feature.

I'm not particularly partial to what comes up. There's obviously a degree of quality that I'm expecting in order to keep the experience smooth and a set of genre and musical conventions I'm expecting.

I wouldn't say that's exactly commodified, no, but I definitely feel like my engagement with the difference between Taylor Swift and some other well-produced halfway reasonable pop artist is pretty minimal. At least in that act of listening.

I used to care a lot more about this. I used to keep up with my favorite artists and look forward to their releases excitedly. Now, I feel everything is such a continuous stream of mild-novelty that I'm less attuned to these differences.

So in that sense, I think I agree with the grandparent in that something feels interchangeable and indifferent about music. I don't want to pay a ton for it, even as someone who used to love buying albums. Or, at least, the times when I engage with music in that way seem fewer and further apart.

Music seems to serve two purposes. The majority of my listening is unintentional, background listening. Much more rarely am I more engaged in the experience. Only in those latter times do I feel all that attuned to a difference in quality.

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

#24

Post by x3iv130f »

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…

The exceptions are such because they are able to sell themselves as a "lifestyle brand" with a musical act associated.

Something many musicians don't understand is that music is not primarily artistic nor technical but cultural.

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

#25

Post by ericmay »

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…

> semi-regular panic attacks, persistent existential dread

Ha - I’ve known a number of friends who have had this same problem working a “useless 9-5” job and missing out over what they’re passionate about.

It’s all about trade-offs.

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

#26

Post by dehrmann »

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…

And TayTay's where she's at because her father supported her in it.

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

#27

Post by platyp »

vorpalhex wrote: post #19
alpark3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The distinction is that working on your "art" is a direct pathway to thousands of salaried jobs with benefits. If you are a reasonably strong programmer and software engineer, you have to actively choose not to accept one of those jobs to struggle. It is not comparable at all to the struggles of someone in the fine arts.

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

#29

Post by CPLX »

toast0 wrote: post #22
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…

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 voice of Kermit the Frog.

Some products are commodities. Some aren't. The word has an actual substantive meaning.

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

#30

Post by sonicshadow »

vorpalhex wrote: post #19
alpark3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The difference is that a bottom 20% developer can make 6 figures after a few years of experience, while even a top 10% musician can barely make rent in a major city
Post reply on HN