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

#71

Post by InitialLastName » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #16

MereInterest wrote: post #8

> However, with a sampling rate of 44,000 samples per second, there were overtones of sound now missing. Human hearing only goes up to 20 kHz when you are young, dropping to about 12 kHz at the age of 50. 44 kHz sampling gives a Nyquist frequency of 22 kHz, easily encompassing the full range of human hearing. Any overtones that are missing in the recording are overtones that didn't make it through the human ear in th…

This stuff again. I have several friends who are convinced that a $2,000 HDMI cable can produce "better" audio and video. I've grown so tired of these debates, that I just nod my head and move on when they start down these roads. Because of these arguments, I've been saving articles about them when I run across them. When I retire, I may make a web site devoted to debunking this nonsense forever. One good example was…

> it's just an EQ on the original recording

I'll be pedantic and say that it's actually not just an EQ, but a non-linear compression function. The needle has a different frequency response at different amplitudes, due to its mechanical properties. They used to master music specifically for that, but now they just cut the Spotify master into the record and hope everyone attributes the sound differences to "analog warmth".

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

#72

Post by koolba » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

philipov wrote: post #68

koolba wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. Before recorded music, a live band (or one man show!) was the only game in town. It was either that or silence. Everywhere that wanted to fill that silence had to hire musicians.

It was not "that" or silence. You're not considering that learning to play a musical instrument was itself more common. Performing music was a community activity people used to entertain themselves; the hiring of musicians was for the wealthy aristocracy.

Maybe hire is the wrong idea. I meant more generally, “provide a venue for...”.

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

#73

Post by Townley » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

A few weeks ago, one of my favorite artists came out with a new album. The day I tried it out, I played through it several times. My brain was invigorated, my blood was pumping, and I had an abnormally productive day of coding.

That day of productive coding produced tens of thousands of dollars of value for my company. That's value that, at least partially, wouldn't exist without the artist's new album.

My company will reap benefits in the form of added revenue. I'll reap benefits in the form of bonuses and promotions. But the artist, who produced this value as an externality, will only receive value if I decide to buy their CD out of gratitude.

The gap between artists producing value for society, and being rewarded for that value, is a shame, and we're worse off for it. I can't think of a solution, but I also can't shake the feeling that this disconnection of value is at the heart of the "making a living" issue.

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

#74

Post by onion2k » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:42 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…

The Romans in 500BC were buying decorative scupltures for their villas, medieval artists made gold jewellry for cash, renaissance painters employed entire studios of artists to churn out hundreds of paintings a year under a famous artist's 'brand'. I think the commercialization of art has been going on for at least a couple of thousand years.

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

#75

Post by libraryatnight » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

philipov wrote: post #68

koolba wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. Before recorded music, a live band (or one man show!) was the only game in town. It was either that or silence. Everywhere that wanted to fill that silence had to hire musicians.

It was not "that" or silence. You're not considering that learning to play a musical instrument was itself more common. Performing music was a community activity people used to entertain themselves; the hiring of musicians was for the wealthy aristocracy.

Indeed, you see examples of people singing in the parlor, or a guest or host playing an instrument for everyone else after dinner and at parties in many books and movies.

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

#76

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:52 PM UTC

Townley wrote: post #73

A few weeks ago, one of my favorite artists came out with a new album. The day I tried it out, I played through it several times. My brain was invigorated, my blood was pumping, and I had an abnormally productive day of coding. That day of productive coding produced tens of thousands of dollars of value for my company. That's value that, at least partially, wouldn't exist without the artist's new album. My company wi…

[deleted]

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

#77

Post by tehsauce » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 10:04 PM UTC

Wonderful article!

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

#78

Post by xkcd-sucks » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 10:08 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…

If you're interested the non consumption-oriented music tradition, you'll do well to check out the Clifftop ["old-time music"] Festival [0]. Basically it is a music festival in which the music is made by the attendees, and there are no formally booked or scheduled artists (kind of).

A few things that surprised me (I was totally naive going in, just giving a ride to a friend en route to somewhere else): - Old time music has become a little bit of a punk scene. It seems like the young people interested in making music socially are "crust punks", because it's rowdy and free and made for acoustic instruments/voice. "Old people"and "hillbillies" make up the other half of the stereotype categories. The dynamic is interesting because you have old-school christian cultists and dreadlocked/pierced crust kids teaching each other tunes, and (almost) nobody finds any reason for conflict. - I still have songs stuck in my head that I have not heard recorded or played for years and years. Many oral tradition songs are really fucking good, presumably only the most "viral" ones survived. Many of these songs do not have a recording that sounds "right", the only time it sounds the way it crystallizes in a place and time.

[0] http://www.wvculture.org/stringband/

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

#79

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 10:17 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…

This argument crops up on every discussion of this topic. Why is it always people who work in the arts always told their work isn't worthy of payment except when delivered under certain conditions? If you don't think artists should be paid, then neither should programmers.

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

#80

Post by lovehashbrowns » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

Townley wrote: post #73

A few weeks ago, one of my favorite artists came out with a new album. The day I tried it out, I played through it several times. My brain was invigorated, my blood was pumping, and I had an abnormally productive day of coding. That day of productive coding produced tens of thousands of dollars of value for my company. That's value that, at least partially, wouldn't exist without the artist's new album. My company wi…

Solutions already exist. Bandcamp allows artists to let users pick their price, and services like Patreon allow you to support the artist directly. So all of this would have actually been more difficult in the "good old days," and you now have more ways of supporting your favorite artist however much you want.