[scarecrowbob]

I'm a semi pro musician. The market makes plenty of sense if you adopt the idea that:

a) any commodity will eventually be priced at its cost of producution

b) recorded art is a commodity, at least at the level of record labels and national acts

I make more playing piano by myself for 30 people at a winery in the Texas hill country than I could playing in a really hopping stage band in Austin... one experience is costing the folks engaged in it a lot more, and there is a lot less competition.

The only reason I sell merch is because rich people would rather buy something than tip a service worker.

[pbhjpbhj]

>a) any commodity will eventually be priced at its cost of [production] //

The problem with this idea for the arts is that people are prepared to create music/art without a wage, so they absorb a primary cost of production (wages) themselves. Indeed they'll pay for everything, because it's enjoyable to create music. We could have no professional musicians and we'd still have more music created than anyone could ever listen to.

Also, "cost of production" should include wages, but what level of wage is right. Capitalism values people by their scarcity, but almost any musician could be replaced -- even top bands have replaced members -- meaning that for most music production capitalism will value the people making the music at around zero. So, you then need fashion (merch)/lifestyle/live shows to boost value. It strikes me that stars are made to increase the value of the music (selling a lifestyle) rather than because of the value of the music.

[scarecrowbob]

"they absorb a primary cost of production (wages) themselves"

I think that you are correct in this point. Your point doesn't undercut my point however-- in fact, if you look at the history of labor, the reason production gets draconian is because as the margins for commodities get smaller the owning classes have to force the laboring classes to absorb more of the cost of reproduction.

Hence people driving for Uber. Or the undervaluing of domestic, unpaid labor in the cost of production.

We hide a lot of those costs of production in the US.

And the answer to how long and how that gig economy will last has to do exactly that issue. The issue isn't how to fairly compensate people (what "level of wage is right") and I don't really agree that scarcity is what drives price... I still think that assuming that multiple people can get into a market price will always move towards the cost of production.

But that's just my own idea... not everyone believes that the price for a commodity will sink to that level. At some point, labor can no longer afford to reproduce itself no matter how many parts of it are externalized, and folks can't afford to go to a field and pick strawberries. Or play jazz.

It's really bad if we wanted to keep things like having live music all over the place... all the professionals have to get day jobs, and so the really good, smart musicians are all doing other things because they can't make ends meet. Those folks are often still playing, but you're not gonna get great unless you're playing all the time, really. But that has little to do with recorded music as a commodity, and a lot to do with all kinds of things from drunk driving laws to netflix.

You're also more or less correct in your assessment of "stars", insofar as they disrupt a commodity by creating a false sense of scarcity. As you note, "almost any musician could be replaced", and that's true about "stars" at a certain point. So those are temporary disruptions, not a workable situation for an industry.

Still, though, there are points in production that cost a lot to make: live shows, quality merch, music lessons, etc... those things have a real cost in time regardless of how much supply there is. That doesn't boost the value of recorded music, but people still want those things, even if they are scarce/ have a higher cost of production.