A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music • Hacker News Board

Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music

#231

Post by rcxdude » Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #208

jancsika wrote: post #129

Ok, so further down in the comments there is this: > Superficially there is some sense - the higher frequency signals are rendered less and less accurately, and nearer a binary on-off. Who knows what nuance and harmonics may be lost affecting what's heard at lower frequencies. It's true that at a given sampling rate, if you choose a sine wave with a frequency right below Nyquist it is composed of fewer samples per pe…

No idea of the technicals, other than sampling at double the audible frequency does- to this layman - seem logical it would give you a wave more diverged from reality as frequency increases - and at the absurd extreme a 22khz (inaudible to most) square wave if sampling at 44, 4 points to represent 11k etc. I don't see how it can be otherwise, just as interpolating and anti aliasing is often right but cannot always co…

> No idea of the technicals, other than sampling at double the audible frequency does- to this layman - seem logical it would give you a wave more diverged from reality as frequency increases - and at the absurd extreme a 22khz (inaudible to most) square wave if sampling at 44, 4 points to represent 11k etc. I don't see how it can be otherwise, just as interpolating and anti aliasing is often right but cannot always correctly insert missing pixels - see the attempts to use AI to make hires versions of Mario and other 8 bit assets, some work, many don't. It was only an idle conjecture after the main point, which was meant to be about mastering, so I'll expand that a little.

This is not correct. If the input signal is entirely below nyquist, the sampled values (ignoring quantisation of the levels, which is a different thing) exactly capture the signal, should you appropriately reconstruct it. Now, a perfect reconstruction (or antialias) filter does not exist, which is one of the reasons why we use 44kHz or 48kHz instead of the 'ideal' 40kHz, but this recreation is extremely accurate, to the point that modern digital approaches will outright outperform analogue techniques.

The same is true for images, incidentally, but most media does not exceed the limits of human vision yet (nor do most display mediums make for very good reconstruction filters).

I highly recommend watching the video, it demonstrates this very well.

Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music

#232

Post by snowwrestler » Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #6

For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. For a few hundred years, there was the patronage era, where if you were really good you could get a rich person to feed and clothe and house you while you made art. Or you traveled around giving performances for money or food or clothes or shelter. Then only in the last 100ish years ha…

It's gross to say that making a living by creating art that people love is an "aberration." It's not like recorded music is unpopular--it's more popular than ever. But for some reason, now people are bad for expecting to make money creating it?

To be clear, there is still scarcity: new music you like is scarce. That is universally true; new music doesn't just appear, it has to be made, and until it is made, you can't get it. That is the definition of scarcity: "the state of being in short supply."

Music in general is not scarce, but some music is more popular than others. Shouldn't a normally functioning economy account for that?

New recorded music from Daft Punk is in short supply; it is scarce. Are the members of Daft Punk an "aberration" (definition: an unwelcome deviation from normal) for wanting to be compensated for reducing that scarcity?

How is that different from a new video game being released? For all of human history, we've been making and playing games. Is it an "aberration" for people who make video games to want to get compensated for reducing the scarcity of new games?

If we want to play the "doing it for love" game, then let's be clear that you, and anyone else, is welcome to make music for free, play it for free, record and release it for free. There is nothing stopping people from doing it for "the love"; in fact it is easier than ever to make music for free.

But it is IMO abusive to then say, well doing it for free is the only acceptable norm, just because they like to do it. I like to work with computers, but guess what: I also get paid do it. I bet you do too! Why is that normal for you and me, but an aberration for musicians?

Usually when people talk about "scarcity being gone" they mean that digital files can be copied and distributed with almost no marginal cost. Well guess what: so can financial instruments. Should we stop charging for Apple stock just because Apple can create new stock at the click of a button?

Why do supposedly digitally-savvy folks get so hung up on the fact that music comes on digital files? Lots of things come on digital files, like your direct deposit salary payments. Does that mean money is not scarce anymore?

Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music

#233

Post by moate » Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 3:21 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #157

wwweston wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, music will always exist as a human form of expression. It's just more likely to exist in the same way your hobby projects compete with your full time job. Lots exist as concept only. Some are half-finished but never ship. Maybe some of them get done. What could you have done if people payed you to do what you cared about? Patronage is... a thing. Better than nothing. But obviously a weaker form of economic syst…

> do you want it to reliably tie outputs to inputs, or optionally tie outputs to inputs? if the input to music is money, i argue that the output is poor quality music. > Paying for things supports the enterprise that goes into providing them and thereby changing the goal of the enterprise from producing music, to producing money from music. Look at modern pop music today? They are pretty terrible at best. And yet, th…

>>Look at modern pop music today? They are pretty terrible at best.

That's a whole lot of opinion there affecting your theory.

Pop music makes money because, as the name implies, it's popular. That doesn't mean it has to be lyrically or musically devoid of complexity. There's high quality pop music.

Pop music makes money because 1-it tends to be formulaic in it's musical composition to hit sounds that people "like". 2- the stars are young and attractive and people respond to that for a myriad of reasons. 3- the people producing the music and marketing the industry have found that it's a stable and reliable market in a time when the industry as a whole collapsed.

As someone married to a professional artist, I would also like to point out that the starving artist who just LOVES producing their Art so much is a problematic ideal that people romanticize. The bottom line is, if you produce something of value, and someone wants to procure this thing, they should respect your time. The problem is that so many artists don't value their work or time in an economic framework, and thus they drive the market rates lower for the community as a whole.

Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music

#234

Post by snowwrestler » Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

buro9 wrote: post #223

buro9 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in the music industry for a decade and contributed to research to determine the value of music. Everything I learned said one thing: The value was high when scarcity was controlled, and scarcity was mostly controlled by distributors and those involved in distributing art would make the most money - not the artist. That the artist, and even the record label, make any money is a mere side effect and overspill…

Also the best way to summarise the research and the distribution angle was: The avg value a consumer expresses for: * listening on a radio in medium or high quality is near zero * downloading a track in medium quality is near zero. * buying an CD album in high quality is 75p per track. * buying a CD single in high quality is 25 per track. * buying sheet music in an abstract quality is £3 per track. * buying a midi fi…

I think it's incomplete to characterize the state of the industry today without discussing how those consumer perceptions of value were intentionally created. If you worked in the music industry for 10 years then your experience almost completely post-dates these efforts.

Starting even well before Napster, investors and technology companies saw the opportunity to change the allocation of value from artists and producers, to distribution. To be clear, that was not the allocation 30+ years ago. Record stores and radio stations did not make immensely more money than the labels and artists.

Tech companies and investors worked aggressively to "commoditize their complement"--that is, depress the value of art on their platforms, so that they could reallocate consumer spending to their products and services.

"Buy a computer and Internet connection and you can have all the music and movies you want for free" was explicitly advertised by technology companies--see for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAxtxPAUcwQ

I think this historical perspective is crucial for understanding how we got to today. Music files are small, so the music industry was attacked first. The large size of video files kept them safe for long enough for visual artists and producers to understand what was happening and counteract. That is why you see producer-owned distribution channels for video today (Hulu, HBO Go, Disney+, etc), but not label-owned distribution channels for music. This is why Netflix, Amazon, and now Apple have had to get into original video content. They were not able to beat the movie and TV producers before the producers could figure out the technology themselves.

Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music

#235

Post by kntoukakis » Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #6

For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. For a few hundred years, there was the patronage era, where if you were really good you could get a rich person to feed and clothe and house you while you made art. Or you traveled around giving performances for money or food or clothes or shelter. Then only in the last 100ish years ha…

I think this is historically inaccurate and tbh it's also a bit dangerous to think that, making money from your art is wrong because this wasn't always the case.

There’s nothing wrong with making money from your art. People weren’t making money from art in the past centuries because until a recent time in history there was no market for it or for almost anything else, and also no property rights.

The only market there was after the fall of the Roman Empire and until the end of feudalism, was church commissioning some art and construction.

Also, I don't understand the argument about artificial scarcity. Original art has inherent scarcity, and this is the foundation of the art market. And a digital album that can be copied by anyone with a tape recorder, CD drive or computer didn't prevent bands from making serious money, even in an environment of abundance.

Finally, markets are not that easy. There is a market for art as there is a market for SaaS, or services. And most SaaS companies fail, just like most consulting agencies and most artists that don't become commercially successful.

Artists choose to seek patronage in order to minimise risk, and we are lucky that contrary to the past, they can do so without giving up their rights to opportunity, as it used to be the case.

Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music

#236

Post by clairity » Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 4:04 PM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #119

clairity wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

art and music do require skill, and people will pay for good art/music no matter the availability. take pop music (of all sorts) for example. the money that pours into it is puzzling if you consider the music on its own merits. the melodies are catchy and the lyrics too, but no one really considers it high art. any barroom crooner could sing and play it. (in fact singing is probably the most accessible and widely dis…

> no one really considers it high art. any barroom crooner could sing and play it Um, no. I say this as a holder of season tickets to the opera and as a trained operatic tenor myself. Many, many pop singers are incredibly good and far outstrip the skills of most barroom singers I have experienced.

sure, some pop artists have great skill, but that's beside the point.

my point was that singing entertainment (e.g., pop) is widely available (someone sitting near you right now can probably sing well enough to be entertaining), so not scarce. you can find millions of decent takes on pop songs on youtube.

and further, the level of passable entertainment is low, both because plenty of people can sing passably, and because enjoyment of the music comes not from admiring the skill but mostly from other factors.

Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music

#237

Post by clairity » Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

felipemnoa wrote: post #130

clairity wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

by the way, livenation and ticketmaster are the same company (headquartered in LA).

Honest question, why has nobody gone after them for monopolistic practices?

hard to say, as i haven't dug into it at all. on the face of it, using their stronghold in venues/marketing (livenation) to get their way on ticketing (ticketmaster), or vice versa, seems like it would be ripe for abuse as well as regulatory scrutiny.

Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music

#238

Post by buro9 » Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #234

buro9 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the best way to summarise the research and the distribution angle was: The avg value a consumer expresses for: * listening on a radio in medium or high quality is near zero * downloading a track in medium quality is near zero. * buying an CD album in high quality is 75p per track. * buying a CD single in high quality is 25 per track. * buying sheet music in an abstract quality is £3 per track. * buying a midi fi…

I think it's incomplete to characterize the state of the industry today without discussing how those consumer perceptions of value were intentionally created. If you worked in the music industry for 10 years then your experience almost completely post-dates these efforts. Starting even well before Napster, investors and technology companies saw the opportunity to change the allocation of value from artists and produc…

I did not say the 10 years was to now, I've been in tech for the last 20, my time spanned late 1980s to late 1990s... the time you speak of.

Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music

#239

Post by snowwrestler » Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 4:47 PM UTC

buro9 wrote: post #238

snowwrestler wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's incomplete to characterize the state of the industry today without discussing how those consumer perceptions of value were intentionally created. If you worked in the music industry for 10 years then your experience almost completely post-dates these efforts. Starting even well before Napster, investors and technology companies saw the opportunity to change the allocation of value from artists and produc…

I did not say the 10 years was to now, I've been in tech for the last 20, my time spanned late 1980s to late 1990s... the time you speak of.

Got it--bad assumption on my part. Interested in your thoughts on my comment.

Re: A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music

#240

Post by Mediterraneo10 » Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 5:10 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #228

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are an artifact, a side effect, of the way human hearing works, they are not actually present on a recording medium (only the frequencies that produce the effect in the human ear are).

And they weren't actually present at the time of recording either, they're a product of waves adding together. Those same waves are still added together when it plays from your speakers.

> Those same waves are still added together when it plays from your speakers.

Not if the bitrate used to encode the digital audio is low and drops any of the higher frequencies from the lot.