People still seem to be stuck quantifying the value of music (sales, streams, etc) against a time when there was less saturation and the actual cost of producing, marketing and distributing music was much higher.
When was that? Since at least the 1960s, music has been a winner-take-all hit driven industry. You’re either The Rolling Stones, Motley Crue, Madonna, or at best a one-hit-wonder. The vast majority of bands are (and always have been) local groups who play their town bars, occasionally go on tour, and have day jobs.
I’m not saying this is good, but it’s the way things have always been. There was never some “good, honest living” to be made for anyone who isn’t a household name.
This is bullshit. It used to be possible to make a living off of selling recorded music, whether records or cds, and people cared about, and bought albums, in large numbers. Now the only way to make money if you’re not nationally famous is gigging. Gigging used to be something you did to get people to buy your singles and albums. That was where the money was and that was how mid-list artists made a living. Now that’s gone. The midlist are people trying to make it, on the way out or being supported by daddy’s money.
Things are different now. Records and cds lead to more people being able to make a living making music.
> This is bullshit. It used to be possible to make a living off of selling recorded music, whether records or cds, and people cared about, and bought albums, in large numbers.
It still is. But let's break down the "bullshit." It used to be possible to make a living driving a horse drawn buggy. Then things changed. Fewer people wanted or needed this, the value went down accordingly.
A different mechanism but the same principle. The cost to produce and distribute recorded music is plummeted. There is a saturated markets for artists and recorded music. Is it a surprise that the value of a play has dropped accordingly?
Actually I’d like to see more live performances. If there’s so much talent in search of work then that should be possible. But people also only want to hear the stuff off the radio exactly as they heard it.
Well, one way to conceptualize human needs is maslow's hierarchy. the final, LOWEST priority need is self-fulfillment. so there are many more pressing problems before that to solve.
but:
It says nowhere that self-fulfillment must be in your job.
Who says that being a successful musician is "the" useful trait to develop ? reading about successful musicians, and knowing one, they don't seem particularly psychologically healthy. Same goes for probably many other talents.
And who says the "self" is the key thing to develop anyway ? if you ask spiritual people, peak human development looks quite different.
It's odd how this argument is applied to artists, but never to financiers, investors, and CEOs.
What if being insanely rich isn't "the" trait to develop? Reading about successful CEOs, and knowing one very distantly, they don't seem particularly healthy.
And who says creative expression is a thing to develop anyway? Why can't we just keep making already rich people even richer without complaining about it?
While in my personal version of a just world all artists would make a livable salary and I think this is what you mean, however if what I’m hearing from music industry friends is accurate, there are far more artists now making a modest but still livable income off music than there was in the late and very early 20th century.
Apparently almost no music artists could earn a living previously — the only musician who could were union symphony employees, studio musicians, and the very very few who cracked into the charts.
I suspect what we’re seeing in articles such as this are people who believe they should be traveling the world partying in castles with supermodels, and sadly I think for a small to mid popular group, this is just as unrealistic now as it has ever been.
My dad talks about him and his friend’s bands in their teens, 20s, and 30s and how playing their music actually cost them money when equipment, practice space, and traveling expenses were considered. Back then most would have killed to have a small middle class income to play music. Now it seems there are many tiny bands who between streaming, the audience they can generate online, and aggressive touring, they can make a modest living which unfortunately and fortunately, in our current iteration of capitalism is a win of some kind.
Do they control for economy? Is the definition of “fill time musician” the same?
I imagine full time musicians would be impacted by a faltering economy at least somewhat more than most careers and probably one of the last careers to bounce back.
Not doubting you as everything I mentioned was based on second hand information with no science other than “as a person in the industry, X seems to be true.”
As I said, I would love to see a world where even mediocre artists can make a livable wage.
