[205guy]

What I think is missing from this whole discussion is the ability to make a living. Sure the industry is opaque to outsiders, and some of the established practices are weird (radio paying only songwriters, not performers), and now it's all being disrupted.

But forget about the numbers for one song. Let's say a guy like the OP of the other article works full time as a singer song-writer. He writes a few songs, performs some of them, has others (more popular artists) perform some of them, and maybe he plays a few gigs himself (either as a musician in someone's band, or good enough to do his own shows). Let's say he's median successful. One or two of his songs (either recorded by him or someone else) is close to charting. People are listening to it online and radios are playing it. Other songs are getting played but not getting the same traction. He works 50-60 hours a week on music, either writing, recording, or performing. What kind of living can he make?

a) 20K and lives off of another job? b) 40K and struggles to pay rent? c) 60K and can survive? d) 80K and considered successful? e) 100K and lives comfortably doing what he loves? f) More and can live in expensive parts of the country (NY-SF-LA)?

How was it in the old system of labels and DJs? How has it changed with Pandora and iTunes?

[ThomPete]

The ability to make a living is not a right, it's an opportunity.

The same opportunity that made it possible for artists to record once and resell in the millions is now working against them.

Where where they when the distribution companies who used to make a living from the music industry was laid off? Or the record stores?

It's not a right, it's an opportunity.

[tunesmith]

This is simplistic. Major labels still have the relationships which allow them to dictate favorable terms to these services that supposedly are so great for indies. These favorable terms mean that the services need onerous terms from the indies in order to break even. This effectively means the indies are subsidizing the major labels. That dynamic needs to change before we can argue that this meets some level of fairness.

[ThomPete]

Thats a whole different discussion though.

[205guy]

My point was we're trying to judge the merit of an entire system by one tiny facet. What's a fair amount of money for this guy to get if it's not X? What if I was a QA tester and I complained on my blog that my dev team was unfairly closing the bugs I open as invalid, thus depriving me of my bug-based bonus? Seems crummy, but maybe that just how the industry goes and I'm still living comfortably.

Obviously, there is no "right" to earn a living in the legal sense of a right. But it seems moral to say that if someone puts in average work, and they're average talent, they should make an average living out of some industry that is still in demand.

You raise an interesting point about the producers and salespeople of the industry. Why shouldn't they have a "right" to make an average living as well. Indeed, but they could also follow the technology, eg from "curating" a record store to "curating" a recommendations website. Or, since they also have more portable jobs, they could produce or sell other products or talents.

The musician, on the other hand, is stuck. If musicians can't live from their music, even if they are in demand, will stop making music for us consumers.

[ThomPete]

You last claim is simply not true. There have never in the history of human history been so many artists out there. If anything it's the amount of competition amongst musicians that is pushing the returns down.

[gburt]

"Average work with average talent" should NOT equal average wage because people should be self-selecting in to things they are above average at as a profession. As a society, we don't want a bunch of mediocre musicians, we want only good ones.

This sort of explains why many areas are winner takes all or extremely exponential in wage/quality.

[bisrig]

When you take the timeline of the history of the planet Earth into account, there was a not so distant past where an artist, musician, etc. could make a living based solely on the support of a single benefactor. It seems as though the past 50 years is likely to be seen as a blip on the trend of how an artist is compensated for their work.

[dllthomas]

What you say may be true, but it's only relevant to the question of what we do with that part of the discussion. It doesn't, by any means, mean it's not something we should be aware of.

[ThomPete]

Having lived of music myself in my younger years I am all too familiar with the discussion.

The problem is that once you start digging into it, the reality is that claiming "i wrote this song" is a much more muddled claim than you might think and so is the claims about how much one should earn and that others are stealing when pirating.

In reality 99% of the people playing music wouldn't be able to do it if it wasn't for the same technology that is now making it impossible for them to make a living.

So deal with it and find a way to make money or quit. That's really all there is to say IMO.

[dllthomas]

"So deal with it and find a way to make money or quit. That's really all there is to say IMO."

I listen to music, I don't create it[1]. This is not the choice that I face, and there's plenty else to say in terms of how I want to direct my attention and my dollars.

[1] at least, not for other people [2]

[2] or at least, they don't appreciate it when it is...

[paulhauggis]

When unions are discussed here on HN, will you have the same opinion?

Many unions force companies to pay workers inflated wages which are well above the current rate.

[ThomPete]

I am not sure I understand the question. Care to elaborate?

[tunesmith]

I would have said a). The long-tail factor is huge here. I know people who are starting to "hit" in this way - songs on cable shows, even a national commercial, one with a major song placement that became a hit (performed by another artist). None of them are the types with comfortable incomes, health insurance, and Roth IRAs.

[mikegioia]

I would say (d). A friend of mine was on a plane next to someone (I think in Deerhunter) and she was talking to him about his salary oddly. I remember it being around 80k but he wasn't working 50-60 hours a week. I think someone at that level is closer to 25-40 hours.

[Dewie]

> and some of the established practices are weird (radio paying only songwriters, not performers), and now it's all being disrupted.

Might as well pay royalties to sound engineers and producers, for that matter. To me it is a question of whether or not someone was a dedicated member to the group or simply someone who was hired to do a set job. I mean, some musicians do all the songwriting and playing, some are hired to play a given sheet music verbatim, etc. The latter is not very different from a sound engineer who is hired to work on one album for a fixed hourly pay.

It's kind of interesting how the musicians are the heroes of the music world and always the one that are focused on when it comes to "fair pay" etc, but the world of music isn't simply divided into the working musicians and the record label suits. Some people have suggested donating to the musicians directly instead of buying their albums (opting to pirate them instead), and that works of course the band was behind financing the whole album. If they weren't, though, then it glosses over some of the other players...

[mikeash]

I'm fairly sure that the vast majority of musicians throughout history have not been able to sustain themselves with nothing but music.