[Go to page: 1,...15,16,17]

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Best article on it yet?

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/ ... spotify-5/

Of course it would be nice if it was like 20 years ago again and thinking on it, we should have totally made the most of then, before the arse fell out of it. Capitalised on it all. Most people thought it would last forever. The way it was and would always be.

What if that's the case right now, and Spotify is the very best we can get because a newer technology and cultural shift drops it even lower than free?

Ha... Maybe we'll have to flat out pay for the privilege to make music next. The government will go the opposite way of the previous utopian idea and tax us all for being creative hippies! Song tax.

No hindsight on that yet... but the point is:

What if this moment is the best it will be ever again for making, distributing and 'selling' music?

Make hay (and some CD's) while the sun shines.

[TomViolenz]

A government that would be proud to prioritise rewarding everyone's ability to create in someway? Your suggestion and the negative income tax idea are food for thought in the small hours and I guess we have to start somewhere with progress. Imagine... a totally new planet.

The bolded part will probably never happen, the negative income tax will come, because it will be the only solution to keep capitalism moving, not because of any good will, or reasonabless.

It arguably would already be a good solution to many economic problems nowadays (not even talking about social or even cultural ones). But as long as there are other options for our owners (and without full automation yet there are still many for them), this approach will not be taken.

That's why I don't expect to see it during my life time. (and I'm not even that old yet )

[TomViolenz]

Best article on it yet?

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/ ... spotify-5/

Of course it would be nice if it was like 20 years ago again and thinking on it, we should have totally made the most of then, before the arse fell out of it. Capitalised on it all. Most people thought it would last forever. The way it was and would always be.

What if that's the case right now, and Spotify is the very best we can get because a newer technology and cultural shift drops it even lower than free?

Ha... Maybe we'll have to flat out pay for the privilege to make music next. The government will go the opposite way of the previous utopian idea and tax us all for being creative hippies! Song tax.

No hindsight on that yet... but the point is:

What if this moment is the best it will be ever again for making, distributing and 'selling' music?

Make hay (and some CD's) while the sun shines.

As negative as I am on the future regarding culture/music, the bolded part will never happen either.

We are the "circuses" part of the the all important "bread and circuses" mantra of the ones who seek power over the many.

[re:dream]

Not that it will happen soon, but it will happen eventually: The negative income tax.

If you earn less than a certain amount you get money instead of paying in. At least enough to sustain yourself, but probably more.
The reason this will happen eventually is that capitalism in a (almost) fully automated society would otherwise not function. (No consumers)

The negative income tax also does away with the nanny state aspect of all social/welfare schemes, since it is payed out unconditionally. (no checks on wrong behaviour and such).

At this point culture will flourish, and the difference to socialism will be mostly semantics.

But with my luck, I don't expect to see that happening in my life time

It is being seriously proposed by parts of the international social protection policy researcher community.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

And it makes fairly good sense in principle

But I don't think it will happen.

[TomViolenz]

Not that it will happen soon, but it will happen eventually: The negative income tax.

If you earn less than a certain amount you get money instead of paying in. At least enough to sustain yourself, but probably more.
The reason this will happen eventually is that capitalism in a (almost) fully automated society would otherwise not function. (No consumers)

The negative income tax also does away with the nanny state aspect of all social/welfare schemes, since it is payed out unconditionally. (no checks on wrong behaviour and such).

At this point culture will flourish, and the difference to socialism will be mostly semantics.

But with my luck, I don't expect to see that happening in my life time

It is being seriously proposed by parts of the international social protection policy researcher community.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

And it makes fairly good sense in principle

But I don't think it will happen.

I know, some of the minor political parties are even taking it on as a topic too (I think the Greens in Germany already do and Die Linke has been asking for something like this basically since they rebranded themselves from the former SED).

There are several models of it and negative income tax is one of the ones proposed by most.

I think if capitalism wants to stay the name of the game it will eventually happen. I don't see any other solution to still wanting to sell your products, but not needing anyone to produce them.

[re:dream]

- and not having enough people who can afford to buy them. The basic logic of the Universal Citizens Grant is very much informed by basic Keynesian economics - the notion that stimulating aggregate demand by improving the purchasing power of those at the bottom of the income distribution is good for growth in the long terms.

I am not sure it is inevitable, though. You are assuming that the masters and mistresses of our economic world are rational and are capable of long-term thinking. I don't think those assumptions hold.

[TomViolenz]

- and not having enough people who can afford to buy them. The basic logic of the Universal Citizens Grant is very much informed by basic Keynesian economics - the notion that stimulating aggregate demand by improving the purchasing power of those at the bottom of the income distribution is good for growth in the long terms.

I am not sure it is inevitable, though. You are assuming that the masters and mistresses of our economic world are rational and are capable of long-term thinking. I don't think those assumptions hold.

I guess

And then there is climate change approaching.....

To quote a popular TV show "Climate change is comming..."

But then the question becomes: What will Feudalism in the internet age look like?!

[ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends]

.
.
.







.











.


































.




















.


















.



























.










.




































































































.

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Best article on it yet?

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/ ... spotify-5/

Of course it would be nice if it was like 20 years ago again and thinking on it, we should have totally made the most of then, before the arse fell out of it. Capitalised on it all. Most people thought it would last forever. The way it was and would always be.

What if that's the case right now, and Spotify is the very best we can get because a newer technology and cultural shift drops it even lower than free?

Ha... Maybe we'll have to flat out pay for the privilege to make music next. The government will go the opposite way of the previous utopian idea and tax us all for being creative hippies! Song tax.

No hindsight on that yet... but the point is:

What if this moment is the best it will be ever again for making, distributing and 'selling' music?

Make hay (and some CD's) while the sun shines.

I dont know if this article is the best yet, it was a good read though. remember now, many stars were found on youtube, not on spotify. wasnt justin bieber, or beiber, i dont know, discovered from youtube? and also adel, or adele, i dont know?

Agree, there's no doubting that YT is very useful. It was also Adele's manager that was quoted in the article, intentionally I would think.

I took that the point of him mentioning YouTube was, not that it isn't great for marketing and exposure, but that it is being ignored for decimating the music industry status quo. Whilst Spotify is taking the blame from most artists and the media, and it's damaging their chances of further success, when actually they are providing more guaranteed income for artists that YouTube. Rather than just random ads.

I would assume that the only reason YouTube have not yet started charging a premium fee is that they don't want to rock the boat with having to correctly police all their content. Isn't it the biggest copyright infringing 'legal' corporate site in the world at the moment?

[beats me]

Meh, Youtube has allowed label reps to be just as lazy as the rest of us. Now they don’t need to leave the house either to find “talent”, and by “talent” I mean anybody who has a high view count. I’m sure they’ve probably tried to sign several cats and people doing faceplants off their skateboard.

At the height of my mp3.com days I got contacted by a rep from Sony asking me to mail them a demo CD. I thought “Whoa, no fucking way!” and slopped a package together expecting nothing. But I didn’t expect what I did get, a returned unopened envelope with an official “no longer with the company” stamp on it. Precious.

[ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends]

.
.
.







.











.


































.




















.


















.



























.










.




































































































.

[beats me]

I know, right.

[Stromkraft]

Is the consensus here that streaming services are basically the same model as radio broadcasts and that no-one should expect to get paid more from streaming per listener (as measured per listen) than what they would get from the same amount of listeners if played on radio? Spotify and other seems to, based on what I've learned from others, pay a significant bit less than what radio pays.

Or are there musicians and producers (and labels) that are mixing up streaming as being equal to sales of product?

For me the key thought pointing to the future of revenue is realizing that the fans never paid for the music primarily, when they got their records, but did so for the whole experience and the service in itself. If your music is on a streaming service people can discover your music and you as an artist and possibly as a producer. What do you offer beyond that?

What are people willing to pay for if not for music itself? I think it is

• The Experience itself (Live playing is just one)
• Ownership
• Participation
• A relationship of sorts with the product/artist and community

I ask myself what I can offer here, but at the moment I'm just about the music itself and totally focused on that.

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Is the consensus here that streaming services are basically the same model as radio broadcasts and that no-one should expect to get paid more from streaming per listener (as measured per listen) than what they would get from the same amount of listeners if played on radio? Spotify and other seems to, based on what I've learned from others, pay a significant bit less than what radio pays.

Or are there musicians and producers (and labels) that are mixing up streaming as being equal to sales of product?

For me the key thought pointing to the future of revenue is realizing that the fans never paid for the music primarily, when they got their records, but did so for the whole experience and the service in itself. If your music is on a streaming service people can discover your music and you as an artist and possibly as a producer. What do you offer beyond that?

What are people willing to pay for if not for music itself? I think it is

• The Experience itself (Live playing is just one)
• Ownership
• Participation
• A relationship of sorts with the product/artist and community

I ask myself what I can offer here, but at the moment I'm just about the music itself and totally focused on that.

+1 Totally agree. It's what I was alluding to by mentioning the painter's exhibition a few posts back. They create a product, but sell an experience. It's what kind of experience can you give people with music... outside of the usual Dj'ing/Live thing, as that is formulaic these days.

There's so much scope for 'out of the box thinking' that I find it exciting times.

[ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends]

.
.
.







.











.


































.




















.


















.



























.










.




































































































.