[nzeid]

I think my point my have been lost somewhere around how much making music actually costs.

Yes, anyone can _do_ music at little cost at any time. But there is a real cost to make "good music" and it isn't in sheer musicianship or equipment - it's also in time.

I've never done music full time but I've been in several studio and live sessions and I assure you it's exhausting and time consuming.

[StackRanker3000]

And are more or fewer people able to put in that time now than before piracy and streaming became a thing? The answer to that question is not obvious to me, but I lean towards ”more”, or at least ”roughly the same”

Even if the answer is ”fewer”, and we thought that was such a horrible thing that we had to have a massive social movement or introduce strict regulation to move away from streaming, how would you put the genie back in the bottle when piracy is so easy, and people have become used to the technological advancements we’ve made?

[subjectivationx]

I don't think you can really compare because the culture is so different.

Before the internet, you weren't going to get famous without being an actor, musician, artist, author, etc.

Sam Walton was not famous the way Elon or Jeff Bezos are famous.

I would think there is less because music just isn't as important as it use to be and there are just so many other creative outlets now. The hard thing to account for though is electronic music. You would have had to spend quite a bit of money in the 90s just to make a track and now you can do it basically for free.

If it was 1990, I would be in a band because there wasn't much else to do. Being in a band then was like having a podcast now.

The music industry was never this static thing either. There isn't much before 1950. It is hard now to imagine how huge folk music was in the 70s. MTV was such a big deal in my youth but that only had a 25 year run of being relevant if that.

I don't think there is a real alternative to streaming or the power law distributions that are going to come with that.

[nzeid]

It's tricky. From everything I know first hand and reading, both piracy and streaming never had a net negative impact on the artists themselves. This was often only a concern for labels.

I don't want this to come off as backpedaling - the original comment I was responding to said that if the artist became unavailable on streaming services, then they would not engage with the artist. As it turns out, artists don't rely on these people for income.

Both streaming services and piracy have the knock-on effect of increasing concert and merchandise sales (through reach), which have much higher margins for artists. I've obtained studio grade LP's from several artists entirely for free, as they have the expectation that we'll be paying them in person at concert. If the only way you support your artist is through a streaming service, then your specific engagement doesn't matter.

[ufocia]

Just because it's exhausting and time consuming doesn't mean that it will be good or popular. Those are subjective measures anyway.