(no title)
parpfish | 6 days ago
After Napster, there was no going back from giving people immediate unlimited access to everything.
Streamers like Spotify learned that there’s a price point that is low enough for people to “round down” and forget it’s on their monthly credit card statement, but high enough that major label execs are happy. The trick is ignoring what the artists want.
eucyclos|6 days ago
gsinclair|6 days ago
k12sosse|6 days ago
These two equations are tied together. Before, the lucky artists were front-loaded their buckets of cash from the labels. But now the royalty cheques are measured in pennies and the live music enjoyers seem to be the equalization payments.
femto|6 days ago
https://www.facebook.com/groups/berowramonthlyjam/
$30 or "free" at Miss Celie's. If free, patrons are asked to buy a couple of drinks from the bar.
https://misscelies.com.au/
An import playing a stadium is eye-watering, but why bother?
cortesoft|6 days ago
I do think you might be right, though, that there is a causal relationship between diminished album revenue and more expensive tickets, it just isn’t because the artists need the money. Since most people can now listen to all the music they want for a flat fee, music lovers can now spend more of their hobby money on concert tickets, which increases price very directly since supply is limited.
thaumasiotes|6 days ago
> These two equations are tied together.
Not in the way you're trying to imply. No matter how rich performers already were in the past, they had no way to make tickets to their performances cheap, even if they wanted to. Cheap seats in the past reflect lack of demand. Expensive seats now reflect increased popularity.
jamboca|6 days ago
inigyou|6 days ago
[deleted]
TiredOfLife|6 days ago