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

31–40 of 286 posts

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

#31

Post by bluefishinit »

CPLX wrote: post #21
bluefishinit wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

> But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on.

I agree. Part of that is that economically successful music also isn't "better", it's just making money. I like Madonna but she's an objectively crap singer. Just because something is popular, it doesn't make it good. That's like saying Coke is the best drink in the world because it makes the most money. Commercial success is due to marketing, distribution and luck.

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

#32

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

There are a lot more jobs for programmers than musicians, at higher median pay (but a lower mean, because the pay for musicians is much more concentrated in a small cadre of very high earners.)

Very different markets.

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes272042.htm

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151251.htm

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

#33

Post by itake »

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.

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

#34

Post by CPLX »

bluefishinit wrote: post #31
CPLX wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on. I agree. Part of that is that economically successful music also isn't "better", it's just making money. I like Madonna but she's an objectively crap singer. Just because something is popular, it doesn't make it good. That's like saying Coke is the best drink in the world because it makes the most money. Commercial success…

> 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.

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

#35

Post by tinycombinator »

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.

The article does shoot some shots at "Richy Rich" characters, but I think it's mainly to convince/uplift the reader to stop comparing their own success with other people's success if their upbringings never made it a fair comparison in the first place.

Your worldly achievements and accomplishments in code should not be compared to a version of you who indeed had a secret pile of cash or someone funding them and never had to sacrifice things for their art, who might have achieved more worldly things.

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

#36

Post by Floegipoky »

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).

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

#37

Post by bluefishinit »

CPLX wrote: post #34
bluefishinit wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on. I agree. Part of that is that economically successful music also isn't "better", it's just making money. I like Madonna but she's an objectively crap singer. Just because something is popular, it doesn't make it good. That's like saying Coke is the best drink in the world because it makes the most money. Commercial success…

> 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 demographics). They, like you say, have roughly a 1 in 10 chance of success with this model (like vcs). Most bands will never know if their music will be popular because the won't get signed to find out.

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

#38

Post by JSavageOne »

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…

> but playing music is not an especially valuable thing

Sure if your definition of value is "income generated".

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

#39

Post by JSavageOne »

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.

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

#40

Post by rjmunro »

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…

> the exact same amount of marketing effort

It's not really about the quantity of marketing effort, it's a butterfly effect. Of all the marketing effort that is put in, it might be the tiniest thing that makes the difference, it's not a linear relationship.

Post reply on HN