Just what separates music from the tools used to make it, be it instruments, notation or a computer program is that thing that is still uniquely human which is our complex emotional response to it. That's something that a computer program no matter how well written either understands or is capable, as yet, or recreating.
I have trouble listening to a lot of the heavily compressed music that is popular today. It sounds very brittle to me, like nails on a chalkboard.
But obviously a lot of people like it and actually prefer it to a warmer sound.
I don't see music becoming any different. Tools are going to crop up every day to let the unskilled create music. But the music you can create with those tools will be limited by that very simplicity. You will be able to create some decent-sounding music, but it will be music that sounds like all the other music produced with that tool.
There are musicians who I think are so talented they should be doing music as their full-time activity. So I support the concept.
I'm just looking at what fans seem to want in music and how music has changed over the last 100 years or so. In my parents' generation, live music was a big band. Now there are acts (some of them popular enough to sell out very large venues/festivals) that consist of one guy and a computer.
I'm not making a judgment on which type of music is better. I'm just saying I am seeing popular music shifting to something that can come preprogrammed out of a box. I'm also seeing popular acts that don't actually have to have any musical skills. They lip synch and dance to prerecorded music that is the creation of a producer rather than themselves.
So I'm not sure fans/audiences base their interest on musical talent in a traditional sense. If the show entertains them, they will support it. I just read that a popular offering on the county fair circuit is racing school buses and having them crash into each other.
And of course there are all the reality TV stars who don't seem to have much in the way of talent but have still become popular.
So I can't be sure that income will be related to musical genius.
That's a bit unfair, as a smart phone isn't a "musical" device, or really even an "entertainment" device. It's primarily used for communications, or (lately) as a general-purpose computer.
Actually I do think a mobile device qualifies as everything: a phone, a mini-computer, a game player, a musical device, a musical player, an audio/video player, a camera.
So I think people are paying Apple and the like for the device to watch, listen, and create music. You buy the device and pay the monthly connectivity fees and then you have unlimited options with it.
We don't have direct evidence that spending is shifting from music to smart phones, but we do know recorded music buying is down, concert spending has been hit hard for Live Nation, and video game spending is down (even as social media games are doing well). This article suggests that electronics spending is eating into consumer spending on furniture and clothing. So I am speculating that people have been shifting what they might have spent in the past directly on music into gadgets that give more access to music and other forms of entertainment that they can get for free.
I was a huge fan of the Whole Earth Catalog. It was my reference for everything. Some of the books they recommended were truly self-published gems. You wouldn't necessarily get a bound book. Sometimes you'd get a chapter at a time held together with brads. I ordered several of those. One was the Owner Built Home. Another was a collection of recipes and other sorts of back-to-basics stuff.
These handmade books were truly helpful. Of course now you can find that sort of info online.
I've also followed along with quite a few discussions by writers on self-publishing. Very specific kinds of stuff like where to store your books so they won't mildew.
So I definitely appreciate the joys and limitations of putting out one's own book. I've also had experience with a traditional publisher. I was contracted by a book agent to write a business book, which was put out by a major publisher and then picked up by Fortune Book Club. I've also contributed to several other books, both trade and textbooks. And I did the equivalent of a self-published book by weekly uploading sections of it online. When I needed to give someone a print copy, I just printed out the pages myself from my computer and put them into a three ring binder. It was several hundred pages before I put the project aside and started working on something else.
If and when the economy improves, I think we'll see a resurgence of skilled musicians being able to make a living again.
I suppose I don't know what a skilled musician is anymore. Technology has become so incorporated into some performances that it's one person with a computer. At what point is the person unnecessary? Do we need to watch the person interact with the computer, or could a robot do it?
My faith in the democratization of music is that I know the person creating music will be pleased with himself.
I also believe people enjoy communal participatory experiences. So tapping into activities where everyone in the room contributes should be popular.
But whether or not a person needs to pay to watch or listen to someone else create, I don't know. Certainly Lady Gaga is popular right now, so that over-the-top spectacle has fans. But what if we could create an experience that doesn't have a star? What if it was an art instillation that anyone could manipulate and use to generate a pleasing response? And what if it sat out in a park so that it was unattended, but average people could walk by and use it?
I see the concept of the musician and his/her fans as rather one-sided. Like I said before, I'd rather go into Wal-Mart, hand the greeter some sort of magical music box and have that person be the star of the moment.
I have many talented musician friends who range from local unsigned artists to multi-platinum major label artists. I certainly want them all to make a living at this. But if I step back away from what I want for my friends, and look at what gets me most excited about the future of music, it's those applications that let everyone make music. And if everyone creates, then everyone has music to give. The division between who makes good music and who makes average music might disappear with smart tech tools. Then it would be hard to say who's the professional.
Doesn't open source software work like that? Do you have stars, or does everyone just contribute as they can?
Since the recession began in 2007, spending on telephone equipment has increased 16.6%. So I think money that once might have gone to record labels or perhaps to directly to musicians may be going to smart phone makers.
Where Americans Are Spending More.."Right there up at the top is America's love affair with mobile devices, where spending has soared almost 17% since the recession started. Also supporting my thesis of a communications boom--spending on wired, wireless, and cable services have risen by 5%.
In addition, Americans still care about their pets, their children, their hair, and their guns."
I was just looking at this. Many consumers really don't have the money, so it has got to filter down into what they can and can't spend money on.
ROI: Is a Crash Coming? Ten Reasons to Be Cautious - WSJ.com: "6. The jobs picture is much worse than they're telling you. Forget the 'official' unemployment rate of 9.5%. Alternative measures? Try this: Just 61% of the adult population, age 20 or over, has any kind of job right now. That's the lowest since the early 1980s--when many women stayed at home through choice, driving the numbers down. Among men today, it's 66.9%. Back in the '50s, incidentally, that figure was around 85%, though allowances should be made for the higher number of elderly people alive today. And many of those still working right now can only find part-time work, so just 59% of men age 20 or over currently have a full-time job."
1. Technology is allowing far more people to create music, and upload it.
2. The world economy isn't doing so well.
3. We will have more music than ever, but less money to spend on it, so the average income per musician will go down.
4. I think it is far more likely that wealthy musicians will become middle class musicians than poor musicians will become middle class musicians. As the economy takes its hits, pricing pressure will drive down what musicians can charge, and I think even taking out the middlemen, there won't be enough money to support most musicians other than as a part-time endeavor.
5. Having people doing day jobs for income, and music as a hobby, is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it may turn out to be a very good thing because lots of people can do it.
I can see why you wouldn't want to get musicians' hopes up. But on the other hand, some people might interpret these trends as a "threat" to pro music, and your viewpoint seems to say they're right. I doubt that's your intent, of course, but that could be the message that some take away from your statements. I don't want pro musicians to see it that way - because they'd be wrong, in my opinion, and ultimately hurting themselves.
All of the musicians I have worked with are "pro" musicians. That's what they want to do for a living. They only take day jobs when they must.
But I have been at gigs with them where they are playing to maybe three people. One woman (the one who is making the most money in music as a DIY artist-- around $150,000 a year) would play that gig with respect, playing to those three people. She was always happy when anyone showed up, so she put on a damn fine show whether there were three people there or 1000.
Another artist (also very talented but never making enough money in music) would essentially give a very abbreviated show if only three people were there. Her impulse was to leave.
In order to make it this business long term you have to play your heart out even on the bad days. You have to play your heart out even if the bar owner screws you out of the money he promised you.
So I try to be very honest with musicians and tell them how little money they are likely to make, how touring may mean sleeping on floors and having your car break down in the middle of nowhere, etc.
The people who want to be full-time musicians, knowing full well that they may never make any money, will at least have in their heads that they want to keep going under the worst of circumstances.
All the talk of making a middle class living sounds great, and I'm sure lots of musicians think they can pull it off (just like lots of them used to think they could get record deals), but it's still extremely hard to make money in music.
At least now there are lots of ways to record cheaply and upload your music online, so if that feels like a music career to you, then it's attainable for virtually anyone who can record or mix some music. That's where it is today and there will only be more people doing it. And I think that's great. It makes everyone feel creative.
A lot of musicians saw their incomes disappear when DJs became popular alternative entertainment. It had nothing to do with major labels. I think music technology will transform the industry even more. A lot of audience members just want to have a good time. They don't necessarily need people playing instruments in front of them.
My dream is to create music/art instillations that cost very little to make or maintain which can be put in parks and public locations around the country so that every community, no matter how broke, will have a place for kids and their families to come together to make sounds, music, etc. I want kids who have no money and no chance at music education to still be able to be creative and to share it with their friends and their communities.
I don't think it is possible to give everyone who wants it a middle class income in the arts. But I do think it is possible to give everyone the opportunity to create. Just think of it. What if we could create nifty devices so that the 70-year-old Wal-Mart greeter can make music and call it her own? People are going to be broke as long as the world economy is down, but they can still be creative. If free music is a good thing, then let's create even more of it and let everyone participate.
It's statements like this that make me very cautious about projecting how much money is available for entertainment spending. Sure, the wealthy can support the arts. And I hope that they do. And the affluent should have enough money, but a lot of other people just don't.
If you envision a middle class musician being supported by middle class and wealthy patrons, yes, there will be some of that. But there are other musicians who don't tap into fans with any money.
Analysts Bullish on the Eve of Upfront Week: "Explained Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett: 'When the bottom 40 percent has [only] $100 to spend every month after shelter, food and transportation, the idea that it's OK to charge $80 for basic cable is very dangerous.'"
This is one area where Suzanne and myself disagree. Her thesis is that tools allowing the non-trained to make music, will eventually replace the demand for trained musicians. I believe it will create more demand.
I'm factoring in a recession which I think will be with us for awhile. So while I think people will continue to consume music (via streaming and YouTube), the money they will have to spend on music may be limited. There are endless ways for talented musicians to give away their music, but far fewer ways for them to sell their music-related services to consumers with little cash.
So my world is one where there are endless amounts of music but relatively little money changing hands for it. Will there be traveling musicians who play in exchange for a free meal, a place to stay, and enough gas to make it to the next town? Yes. Will there be musicians who work day jobs and then play in their neighborhoods for the joy of it? Yes. Will there be lots of people composing and remixing little ditties to upload on YouTube? Yes.
Music has always been around, even in the poorest neighborhoods. But having a big enough consumer base to support all the musicians who want to make a living at this seems unlikely in today's world. Therefore, I am trying to give people realistic expectations. Make music because you love it. But it may not pay your bills, even if you are talented, and clever. A lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck and they can't support you. In fact, you may need to give them your music to help them get through their lives, rather than them giving you money to help you get through yours.
You've read about this guy? For the average person who wants to write something sounding classical and be able to put his name on it, this would be enough. And if you have computers generating millions of programs, chances are something extraordinary would come out at least a few times.
SCIgen - An Automatic CS Paper Generator: "SCIgen is a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations. It uses a hand-written context-free grammar to form all elements of the papers. Our aim here is to maximize amusement, rather than coherence.
One useful purpose for such a program is to auto-generate submissions to conferences that you suspect might have very low submission standards. A prime example, which you may recognize from spam in your inbox, is SCI/IIIS and its dozens of co-located conferences (check out the very broad conference description on the WMSCI 2005 website). There's also a list of known bogus conferences. Using SCIgen to generate submissions for conferences like this gives us pleasure to no end. In fact, one of our papers was accepted to SCI 2005! See Examples for more details
Most of the people I know who have kids gave up their concert going, trading it in for activities they can do as a family.
So summer concerts that are local, family-friendly, and free are a great way for everyone to get out and enjoy themselves. Many times popular local bands are hired to play.
A step down from that is the street fair or block party. You have a group of people getting together to hang out. Music is likely to either be a local jam session or CDs on an inexpensive sound system. In that setting you might have local people selling food that they have made.
And then a step down from that are the street vendors who sell burritos and tamales out of an ice chest. Some people might leverage that into full-time careers and buy carts or even start food manufacturing companies. But most will treat it as a way to bring in some extra cash.
It's interesting when we talk about music careers, we are envisioning middle class musicians making enough to make car payments, have a mortgage, and buy health insurance. We don't usually talk about music as the equivalent of a street vendor and yet in many respects that's more like the reality. It isn't really glamorous and the amount of money you bring in is relatively small. There's nothing shameful about being street vendor, and there's nothing shameful about being a weekend musician, and yet we suggest that musicians, if they have talent, work hard, and have business sense, will be grossing at least $50,000 to $100,000 a year.
So the only thing preventing a second grader from writing Beethoven's ninth Symphony is that the software isn't intuitive enough?
Yes, actually. It's been discussed over and over again in Techdirt that everyone borrows from the past. So if we program computers in the right way, they will creatively do the job for us.
OH, I get it, you are talking about 'the industry', where childish non-songs are the norm.
Yes, unfortunately. A lot of what is extremely popular right now can be cranked out pretty easily. People with little skill will be able to do a passable popular song on their iPhones.
People don't necessarily want "great" music. As the old American Bandstand line says, "Can you dance to it?"
Re: You can see the gambler-to-cobbler conversion happening in real life.
Of course, this is the way it is in corporations, with even bigger distances between what workers make and what CEOs make. The spread has gotten considerably greater over time.
The previous Techdirt post is this: "Why Waiting Until A New Business Model Is Proven Doesn't Work"
It makes me smile in that talking about the great middle class artist movement is already outdated, too. There have been people self-publishing books, putting out their own music, and producing their own movies for decades. (Warren Miller, for example, in 1949 began putting out ski movies himself and renting theaters to show them. It turned into a hugely successful business.) So for people to think now is the time for artists to jump on this means that the best opportunities have already passed.
That's why I am trying to tell everyone: "Push the envelope." To me, in music, that starts with iPhone and iPad technologies that make average people into music creators, and movie-making technologies that let people create short animations to upload onto YouTube. Start looking at ways to create technological tools so that the average second grader is creating art equal to or even better than what the industry is currently doing. The revolution is in the tools.
The difference between now and then is that you actually have an opportunity to make your own break, instead of waiting for some industry scout to think your band looks presentable.
I'm not sure anything has changed, really. People who want to make music make music without regard to waiting for a label deal. Local and touring bands have been putting out their own cassettes and CDs for as long as the technology has been available to them.
What I see happening now is that the dream of getting a label deal has been replaced by the dream of making a living without a label. It's still hard and there really aren't more opportunities than before. The average working musician has always needed to do things like teach lessons and play weddings and that hasn't changed. If anything, it has gotten harder for the average musician to make it than it was 30 years ago because bars don't pay guarantees so much anymore and lots of bars, weddings, and frat parties switched from using live bands to DJs.
I've been a professional writer for 30 years. I know what is happening in the industry.
Self-publishing isn't new. People have been doing it for a long time. And some people have done well enough with it. The reason more people haven't done it over the years is because it's a hassle to order a bunch of books and have them sitting in your garage while you sell them, either yourself, at bookstores, in alternative outlets, or a conferences where you speak.
My point about the vast increase in the number of books isn't that writers are making a living at this. It's how many people think they have a book in them. And even more will come into the market with ebooks.
The digital world -- in music, in books, in photography, in design -- has allowed and encouraged many more people to upload their creations. Many aren't of interest to most people, but some are quite good. I'm a fan of photography and I'm blown away by all the great photos I can find online these days.
I think there are going to be far, far more people putting out relatively small amounts of creative content, and very very few of them will make their living solely within creative fields. The model, I think, is that many people will be creative and also have day jobs which may have nothing to do with their creativity but will pay the bills.
I continue to look for ways to push creativity down to the bottom levels, so that everyone participates. The recession is going to keep a lot of people from buying creative items, but with low cost tools they should still be able to create for themselves.
I want to see those free concerts in the park where it might be a local band playing, but the families come out with their kids and everyone has a good time. And I am looking at things like giving the kids bubbles so that they can run around and play and it's affordable for even the most hard hit towns.
It's a different world than promising every aspiring, talented artists/musician/designer/writer that they can make a living at this. No, most of them can't, in part because there's a worldwide recession that will likely stay with us a long time and people are cutting back on what they are spending.
And this will give you an indication of what is happening in book publishing. I added the bold.
Self-Published Titles Topped 764,000 in 2009 as Traditional Output Dipped: "A staggering 764,448 titles were produced in 2009 by self-publishers and micro-niche publishers, according to statistics released this morning by R.R. Bowker. The number of 'nontraditional' titles dwarfed that of traditional books whose output slipped to 288,355 last year from 289,729 in 2008. Taken together, total book output rose 87% last year, to over 1 million books."
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re:
I have trouble listening to a lot of the heavily compressed music that is popular today. It sounds very brittle to me, like nails on a chalkboard.
But obviously a lot of people like it and actually prefer it to a warmer sound.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nitpicking
There are musicians who I think are so talented they should be doing music as their full-time activity. So I support the concept.
I'm just looking at what fans seem to want in music and how music has changed over the last 100 years or so. In my parents' generation, live music was a big band. Now there are acts (some of them popular enough to sell out very large venues/festivals) that consist of one guy and a computer.
I'm not making a judgment on which type of music is better. I'm just saying I am seeing popular music shifting to something that can come preprogrammed out of a box. I'm also seeing popular acts that don't actually have to have any musical skills. They lip synch and dance to prerecorded music that is the creation of a producer rather than themselves.
So I'm not sure fans/audiences base their interest on musical talent in a traditional sense. If the show entertains them, they will support it. I just read that a popular offering on the county fair circuit is racing school buses and having them crash into each other.
And of course there are all the reality TV stars who don't seem to have much in the way of talent but have still become popular.
So I can't be sure that income will be related to musical genius.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Where the consumer spending is going
Actually I do think a mobile device qualifies as everything: a phone, a mini-computer, a game player, a musical device, a musical player, an audio/video player, a camera.
So I think people are paying Apple and the like for the device to watch, listen, and create music. You buy the device and pay the monthly connectivity fees and then you have unlimited options with it.
We don't have direct evidence that spending is shifting from music to smart phones, but we do know recorded music buying is down, concert spending has been hit hard for Live Nation, and video game spending is down (even as social media games are doing well). This article suggests that electronics spending is eating into consumer spending on furniture and clothing. So I am speculating that people have been shifting what they might have spent in the past directly on music into gadgets that give more access to music and other forms of entertainment that they can get for free.
Tech Gadgets Steal Sales From Appliances, Clothes - WSJ.com
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re: What Is Happening In Book Publishing.
These handmade books were truly helpful. Of course now you can find that sort of info online.
I've also followed along with quite a few discussions by writers on self-publishing. Very specific kinds of stuff like where to store your books so they won't mildew.
So I definitely appreciate the joys and limitations of putting out one's own book. I've also had experience with a traditional publisher. I was contracted by a book agent to write a business book, which was put out by a major publisher and then picked up by Fortune Book Club. I've also contributed to several other books, both trade and textbooks. And I did the equivalent of a self-published book by weekly uploading sections of it online. When I needed to give someone a print copy, I just printed out the pages myself from my computer and put them into a three ring binder. It was several hundred pages before I put the project aside and started working on something else.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nitpicking
I suppose I don't know what a skilled musician is anymore. Technology has become so incorporated into some performances that it's one person with a computer. At what point is the person unnecessary? Do we need to watch the person interact with the computer, or could a robot do it?
My faith in the democratization of music is that I know the person creating music will be pleased with himself.
I also believe people enjoy communal participatory experiences. So tapping into activities where everyone in the room contributes should be popular.
But whether or not a person needs to pay to watch or listen to someone else create, I don't know. Certainly Lady Gaga is popular right now, so that over-the-top spectacle has fans. But what if we could create an experience that doesn't have a star? What if it was an art instillation that anyone could manipulate and use to generate a pleasing response? And what if it sat out in a park so that it was unattended, but average people could walk by and use it?
I see the concept of the musician and his/her fans as rather one-sided. Like I said before, I'd rather go into Wal-Mart, hand the greeter some sort of magical music box and have that person be the star of the moment.
I have many talented musician friends who range from local unsigned artists to multi-platinum major label artists. I certainly want them all to make a living at this. But if I step back away from what I want for my friends, and look at what gets me most excited about the future of music, it's those applications that let everyone make music. And if everyone creates, then everyone has music to give. The division between who makes good music and who makes average music might disappear with smart tech tools. Then it would be hard to say who's the professional.
Doesn't open source software work like that? Do you have stars, or does everyone just contribute as they can?
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Where the consumer spending is going
Where Americans Are Spending More.."Right there up at the top is America's love affair with mobile devices, where spending has soared almost 17% since the recession started. Also supporting my thesis of a communications boom--spending on wired, wireless, and cable services have risen by 5%.
In addition, Americans still care about their pets, their children, their hair, and their guns."
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ROI: Is a Crash Coming? Ten Reasons to Be Cautious - WSJ.com: "6. The jobs picture is much worse than they're telling you. Forget the 'official' unemployment rate of 9.5%. Alternative measures? Try this: Just 61% of the adult population, age 20 or over, has any kind of job right now. That's the lowest since the early 1980s--when many women stayed at home through choice, driving the numbers down. Among men today, it's 66.9%. Back in the '50s, incidentally, that figure was around 85%, though allowances should be made for the higher number of elderly people alive today. And many of those still working right now can only find part-time work, so just 59% of men age 20 or over currently have a full-time job."
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can point you to an article that says the price paid for photography is going down.
I can point you to an article that says the number of designers is exploding and crowdsourcing is driving down the price being paid to them.
I can point you to an article that says the low end of the live music market in the UK is shrinking (the biggest acts are making most of the money).
I was just looking at some info that says entertainment spending in the US is going down.
Are you a musician yourself? If so, how are you doing?
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nitpicking
1. Technology is allowing far more people to create music, and upload it.
2. The world economy isn't doing so well.
3. We will have more music than ever, but less money to spend on it, so the average income per musician will go down.
4. I think it is far more likely that wealthy musicians will become middle class musicians than poor musicians will become middle class musicians. As the economy takes its hits, pricing pressure will drive down what musicians can charge, and I think even taking out the middlemen, there won't be enough money to support most musicians other than as a part-time endeavor.
5. Having people doing day jobs for income, and music as a hobby, is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it may turn out to be a very good thing because lots of people can do it.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re: Nitpicking
All of the musicians I have worked with are "pro" musicians. That's what they want to do for a living. They only take day jobs when they must.
But I have been at gigs with them where they are playing to maybe three people. One woman (the one who is making the most money in music as a DIY artist-- around $150,000 a year) would play that gig with respect, playing to those three people. She was always happy when anyone showed up, so she put on a damn fine show whether there were three people there or 1000.
Another artist (also very talented but never making enough money in music) would essentially give a very abbreviated show if only three people were there. Her impulse was to leave.
In order to make it this business long term you have to play your heart out even on the bad days. You have to play your heart out even if the bar owner screws you out of the money he promised you.
So I try to be very honest with musicians and tell them how little money they are likely to make, how touring may mean sleeping on floors and having your car break down in the middle of nowhere, etc.
The people who want to be full-time musicians, knowing full well that they may never make any money, will at least have in their heads that they want to keep going under the worst of circumstances.
All the talk of making a middle class living sounds great, and I'm sure lots of musicians think they can pull it off (just like lots of them used to think they could get record deals), but it's still extremely hard to make money in music.
At least now there are lots of ways to record cheaply and upload your music online, so if that feels like a music career to you, then it's attainable for virtually anyone who can record or mix some music. That's where it is today and there will only be more people doing it. And I think that's great. It makes everyone feel creative.
A lot of musicians saw their incomes disappear when DJs became popular alternative entertainment. It had nothing to do with major labels. I think music technology will transform the industry even more. A lot of audience members just want to have a good time. They don't necessarily need people playing instruments in front of them.
My dream is to create music/art instillations that cost very little to make or maintain which can be put in parks and public locations around the country so that every community, no matter how broke, will have a place for kids and their families to come together to make sounds, music, etc. I want kids who have no money and no chance at music education to still be able to be creative and to share it with their friends and their communities.
I don't think it is possible to give everyone who wants it a middle class income in the arts. But I do think it is possible to give everyone the opportunity to create. Just think of it. What if we could create nifty devices so that the 70-year-old Wal-Mart greeter can make music and call it her own? People are going to be broke as long as the world economy is down, but they can still be creative. If free music is a good thing, then let's create even more of it and let everyone participate.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Nitpicking
If you envision a middle class musician being supported by middle class and wealthy patrons, yes, there will be some of that. But there are other musicians who don't tap into fans with any money.
Analysts Bullish on the Eve of Upfront Week: "Explained Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett: 'When the bottom 40 percent has [only] $100 to spend every month after shelter, food and transportation, the idea that it's OK to charge $80 for basic cable is very dangerous.'"
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Nitpicking
I'm factoring in a recession which I think will be with us for awhile. So while I think people will continue to consume music (via streaming and YouTube), the money they will have to spend on music may be limited. There are endless ways for talented musicians to give away their music, but far fewer ways for them to sell their music-related services to consumers with little cash.
So my world is one where there are endless amounts of music but relatively little money changing hands for it. Will there be traveling musicians who play in exchange for a free meal, a place to stay, and enough gas to make it to the next town? Yes. Will there be musicians who work day jobs and then play in their neighborhoods for the joy of it? Yes. Will there be lots of people composing and remixing little ditties to upload on YouTube? Yes.
Music has always been around, even in the poorest neighborhoods. But having a big enough consumer base to support all the musicians who want to make a living at this seems unlikely in today's world. Therefore, I am trying to give people realistic expectations. Make music because you love it. But it may not pay your bills, even if you are talented, and clever. A lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck and they can't support you. In fact, you may need to give them your music to help them get through their lives, rather than them giving you money to help you get through yours.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re:
David Cope: 'You pushed the button and out came hundreds and thousands of sonatas
In terms of computers doing science, I believe it is being done quite a bit now. Here's one example:
Science team creates synthetic life using computer generated genome
And for your amusement:
SCIgen - An Automatic CS Paper Generator: "SCIgen is a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations. It uses a hand-written context-free grammar to form all elements of the papers. Our aim here is to maximize amusement, rather than coherence.
One useful purpose for such a program is to auto-generate submissions to conferences that you suspect might have very low submission standards. A prime example, which you may recognize from spam in your inbox, is SCI/IIIS and its dozens of co-located conferences (check out the very broad conference description on the WMSCI 2005 website). There's also a list of known bogus conferences. Using SCIgen to generate submissions for conferences like this gives us pleasure to no end. In fact, one of our papers was accepted to SCI 2005! See Examples for more details
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Street fairs and street vendors
So summer concerts that are local, family-friendly, and free are a great way for everyone to get out and enjoy themselves. Many times popular local bands are hired to play.
A step down from that is the street fair or block party. You have a group of people getting together to hang out. Music is likely to either be a local jam session or CDs on an inexpensive sound system. In that setting you might have local people selling food that they have made.
And then a step down from that are the street vendors who sell burritos and tamales out of an ice chest. Some people might leverage that into full-time careers and buy carts or even start food manufacturing companies. But most will treat it as a way to bring in some extra cash.
It's interesting when we talk about music careers, we are envisioning middle class musicians making enough to make car payments, have a mortgage, and buy health insurance. We don't usually talk about music as the equivalent of a street vendor and yet in many respects that's more like the reality. It isn't really glamorous and the amount of money you bring in is relatively small. There's nothing shameful about being street vendor, and there's nothing shameful about being a weekend musician, and yet we suggest that musicians, if they have talent, work hard, and have business sense, will be grossing at least $50,000 to $100,000 a year.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re:
Yes, actually. It's been discussed over and over again in Techdirt that everyone borrows from the past. So if we program computers in the right way, they will creatively do the job for us.
OH, I get it, you are talking about 'the industry', where childish non-songs are the norm.
Yes, unfortunately. A lot of what is extremely popular right now can be cranked out pretty easily. People with little skill will be able to do a passable popular song on their iPhones.
People don't necessarily want "great" music. As the old American Bandstand line says, "Can you dance to it?"
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: You can see the gambler-to-cobbler conversion happening in real life.
Executive PayWatch: Trends in CEO Pay
In 1980 the the average CEO to average worker ratio was 42. In 2000 it was 525. In 2008 it dropped back down to 319.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Time to move on to a new model
It makes me smile in that talking about the great middle class artist movement is already outdated, too. There have been people self-publishing books, putting out their own music, and producing their own movies for decades. (Warren Miller, for example, in 1949 began putting out ski movies himself and renting theaters to show them. It turned into a hugely successful business.) So for people to think now is the time for artists to jump on this means that the best opportunities have already passed.
That's why I am trying to tell everyone: "Push the envelope." To me, in music, that starts with iPhone and iPad technologies that make average people into music creators, and movie-making technologies that let people create short animations to upload onto YouTube. Start looking at ways to create technological tools so that the average second grader is creating art equal to or even better than what the industry is currently doing. The revolution is in the tools.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re:
I'm not sure anything has changed, really. People who want to make music make music without regard to waiting for a label deal. Local and touring bands have been putting out their own cassettes and CDs for as long as the technology has been available to them.
What I see happening now is that the dream of getting a label deal has been replaced by the dream of making a living without a label. It's still hard and there really aren't more opportunities than before. The average working musician has always needed to do things like teach lessons and play weddings and that hasn't changed. If anything, it has gotten harder for the average musician to make it than it was 30 years ago because bars don't pay guarantees so much anymore and lots of bars, weddings, and frat parties switched from using live bands to DJs.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: What Is Happening In Book Publishing.
Self-publishing isn't new. People have been doing it for a long time. And some people have done well enough with it. The reason more people haven't done it over the years is because it's a hassle to order a bunch of books and have them sitting in your garage while you sell them, either yourself, at bookstores, in alternative outlets, or a conferences where you speak.
My point about the vast increase in the number of books isn't that writers are making a living at this. It's how many people think they have a book in them. And even more will come into the market with ebooks.
The digital world -- in music, in books, in photography, in design -- has allowed and encouraged many more people to upload their creations. Many aren't of interest to most people, but some are quite good. I'm a fan of photography and I'm blown away by all the great photos I can find online these days.
I think there are going to be far, far more people putting out relatively small amounts of creative content, and very very few of them will make their living solely within creative fields. The model, I think, is that many people will be creative and also have day jobs which may have nothing to do with their creativity but will pay the bills.
I continue to look for ways to push creativity down to the bottom levels, so that everyone participates. The recession is going to keep a lot of people from buying creative items, but with low cost tools they should still be able to create for themselves.
I want to see those free concerts in the park where it might be a local band playing, but the families come out with their kids and everyone has a good time. And I am looking at things like giving the kids bubbles so that they can run around and play and it's affordable for even the most hard hit towns.
It's a different world than promising every aspiring, talented artists/musician/designer/writer that they can make a living at this. No, most of them can't, in part because there's a worldwide recession that will likely stay with us a long time and people are cutting back on what they are spending.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: The rise of the part-time creator
Self-Published Titles Topped 764,000 in 2009 as Traditional Output Dipped: "A staggering 764,448 titles were produced in 2009 by self-publishers and micro-niche publishers, according to statistics released this morning by R.R. Bowker. The number of 'nontraditional' titles dwarfed that of traditional books whose output slipped to 288,355 last year from 289,729 in 2008. Taken together, total book output rose 87% last year, to over 1 million books."
Next >>