An Excellent New Read: "A Brief History Of Why Artists Are No Longer Making A Living..."


Posted March 14th, 2019 by Ian Tamblyn. "A Brief History Of Why Artists Are No Longer Making A Living Making Music".

https://www.rootsmusic.ca/2019/03/14/a-brief-history-of-why-artists-are-no-longer-making-a-living-ma...


128x128ivan_nosnibor

Showing 3 responses by simao

Actually, the author DOES support that analog is superior to digital- and that digital had to recreate itself through added warmth, etc.

I think his most salient point is now that the record label hierarchy has crumbled and that the under-30 generation feels no need to pay for music, that the idea of an artist being able to be a full-time professional has itself become an outdated schema. If that artist still adheres to physical media and traditional distribution.

Here's an interesting take on what artists get paid for each play on the streaming services.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/01/16/streaming-music-services-pay-2018/
The most popular streaming service for Gen Z is Youtube, and to them the idea of buying a cd is just as archaic but not as hipster as vinyl. Like beer, music is now rented, not bought, and yet playlists are more esoteric for this generation than anything the Baby Boomers or Gen X had in their mixtapes.
@n80 - I mean, my great aunt and uncle were the founders of Angel Records, and the latter was the Chair of the Met. They spearheaded classical recording, classical fidelity, and identification of and signing of classical artists. This was, of course, in that "golden age" the author mentioned - the 40's-60's, when there WAS no other rival for consumer audio: no Xbox; no Youtube; no cable or satellite; no Netflix.
Then again, how many of these artists dictate their prices vs. having a set fee and the venue dictating the prices to recoup that fee plus expenses?