long post warning! multiple quotes alert!
Backjob said:
Since forever, musicians have also earned money from live performance. Since the days of the mass media there is also the possibility of earning money from licensing (for TV , movies or ads).
but musicians make nothing from live performance. gigging pays next to NOWT, unless you're *huge* (madonna, U2-style huge). the cost of getting a band around the country/world is enormous; most ticket costs barely cover overheads. it's long been a truism that the only way bands make money on tour is through merchandise such as T-shirts etc. tours exist to promote the product - ie the record - not to make money themselves.
as for licensing etc: this, for good or for bad, has always been seen as "selling out". many bands simply don't want to do it: and why should they have to? if i'd ever managed to get any of my own music out there, i'd have wanted it to be bought and enjoyed as a self-contained entity, not as the soundtrack to a pair of fucking jeans
Backjob said:
So, surely, just as the advent of recorded music didn't kill live music, why should the (potential) death of recorded music as a revenue stream kill recorded music? And if there is a shift away from an emphasis on recorded music to an emphasis on live music, is that even a bad thing?
of course it is. very few people go to gigs. hell, not *that* many people buy records these days (cf ringtones outselling singles); even fewer bother to leave the house and experience a band. if they do, it's some time-served spectacle such as, er, madonna or u2. live music is not a viable way for rock bands to earn a living. hard-working solo artists might just about scrape a crust on, say, the folk circuit ... but even in more "specialist" markets like that, the chances of making a living wage are negligible.
Backjob said:
In the sense that we're always saying technological change in music is neither a good nor a bad thing e.g. effect of laptops on djs, effect of drum machines on drummers etc. then surely economic change in the music industry is also 'neutral'.
?!
what: taking away someone's revenue, their livelihood, is
neutral?
Backjob said:
It seems unlikely that due to mp3s people will suddenly start hating music. So if we assume humans will still love music and therefore (in a consumer society) still want to spend money on it, it follows that musicians will still be able to make a living.
people don't hate music: they just don't like paying for it. i'm a deeply strange person, which is why (qv previous post) i've gone out and bought records i've already had copies of: because i feel guilty about enjoying that music without paying for it. i'm not setting myself up as some paragon of virtue, but come on: very few people do that kind of thing. most people don't think about music; if they find a way of getting it for free, they just think, top, and consume as much of it as possible.
Backjob said:
Furthermore a shift from ownership of physical items, and spending on physical items, to a seeking after experiences and spending on experiences would only put music in line with broader economic trends.
er, such as? what, has material capitalism been replaced by spiritual capitalism? i'm sorry: from where i'm sitting (glasgow, uk), i see people stocking up on physical items like there's no tomorrow. houses, mostly. the pricks.
sorry. got sidetracked.
plain and simple truth: musicians might do it for the love, but if they're not getting paid, they're not going to carry on. end of story.
still: interesting viewpoint. i look forward to reading your reply.