Should we really be incentivizing making music as a career? And besides, I don't think the bulk of music is being created by people being compensated for it.
Somewhere out there, there exists an alternate universe where musicians ponder nonchalantly whether people should be compensated for software. "Can't they just sell software logo t-shirts?"
There's a ton of people giving away very useful software and all the files and tools to easily read and modify it. There's a handful of musicians giving away music too, but I don't know of many giving away the files and tools to read and modify it.
The importance of music and the importance of software is worlds apart. Not to mention there's enough music already made to cover everyone's need. Software is nowhere near that.
>Should we really be incentivizing making music as a career?
Of course not. There is an enormous glut of cultural works, and people's quality of life would not be meaningfully harmed if all commercial production stopped. See:
> Should we really be incentivizing making music as a career?
Instrument practice, sound engineering are a crazy amount of work in order to get to a professional level. It's so bizarre to hear people say things like that, they have 0 consideration for the amount of effort put into the former, just because they can download 1 millions tracks on the internet in one click...
There are probably a hundred times more professional-level guitarists than professional guitarists. It’s a ton of work, but it’s a ton of work that a lot of people already put in just for fun.
Professional production is very hard, but it’s also kind of a moving target. A lot of production is trying to hit trends set by other producers so that your music sounds professional itself. It’s largely competitive rather than artistically significant, and there’s some great production that doesn’t sound professional but still works.
Yes, we should. If you want things done well, you want people to be able to make a living doing them. I'd love to see any sources on your claims regarding to music creation - certainly, a huge portion of quality artwork is the result of people being paid for it/creating with the expection that they'll be able to sell it. This has been true for centuries.
rectang|7 years ago
kgwxd|7 years ago
Salgat|7 years ago
darpa_escapee|7 years ago
forapurpose|7 years ago
moetech|7 years ago
mrob|7 years ago
Of course not. There is an enormous glut of cultural works, and people's quality of life would not be meaningfully harmed if all commercial production stopped. See:
https://www.gwern.net/Culture-is-not-about-Esthetics
aikah|7 years ago
Instrument practice, sound engineering are a crazy amount of work in order to get to a professional level. It's so bizarre to hear people say things like that, they have 0 consideration for the amount of effort put into the former, just because they can download 1 millions tracks on the internet in one click...
veridies|7 years ago
Professional production is very hard, but it’s also kind of a moving target. A lot of production is trying to hit trends set by other producers so that your music sounds professional itself. It’s largely competitive rather than artistically significant, and there’s some great production that doesn’t sound professional but still works.
moetech|7 years ago
Arainach|7 years ago
aqme28|7 years ago
Sure, why not?
> And besides, I don't think the bulk of music is being created by people being compensated for it.
Most of the money goes to the few at the top, it's true. How does that change things?
moetech|7 years ago
The point is that there won't be a shortage of new music even if everyone stops being paid to make music.