The growing popularity of the “Bowie” bond — a security backed by royalties — may sound strange, but it’s nothing new. In treating songs like annuities, capitalists prove once again that nothing is too sacred, or silly, to be commodified.

The growing popularity of the “Bowie” bond — a security backed by royalties — may sound strange, but it’s nothing new. In treating songs like annuities, capitalists prove once again that nothing is too sacred, or silly, to be commodified.

  • Da Oeuf@slrpnk.netEnglish
    1·
    4 days ago

    they’re complaining about how much competition there is

    And is that competition fair?

    new quality music artists put music on YouTube and music subscription services.

    And most of us will never be exposed to it,

    There’s a ton of good music

    Again, most of us will never be exposed to it. It is culturally lost.

    so you have to spend a lot of money to actually make a career out of your own music

    So you disagree with yourself about the best music ‘spreading itself’? I genuinely don’t want to humiliate you because I think you are contributing to the discussion in good faith and English may not be your first language but readers should be aware that this isn’t a properly considered point to make.

    So traditional music industry is incredibly important to success because they market. They have money to place music where people hear it.

    You make my point for me, perhaps even better than I did.

    • doeinthewoods@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      I think the competition is fair. People put music on the Internet, get the limited spots in music venues, work their way to being opening acts for different popularity levels of music artists. It’s more fair today than ever

      What I’m saying is that good music spreads itself but not in a way that makes a viable career. You can get a following that from just the raw listener numbers may look good but the payout being low. Like in the 80s if someone had 800,000 people that listened to their album, they probably made a good amount of money. To hear the album they probably had to buy the music or go to a concert. Today streaming you can get to 800,000 listens for an album and that may not even be a years worth of rent depending on where you are in the world.

      On Spotify I’ll listen to music where their profile says 40,000 listeners and I really like their music. They’re making no money. Both impressive to have 40,000 listeners but it’s not a good income. So like ya good music spreads itself but not well enough to make traditional music studios not needed if someone wants to live a better life than constantly on tour in cheap motels or couch surfing

      Ultimately my point is not solid because there’s no solution. Most will fail regardless of their hard work and skill. We understand it sucks that so many talented artist fail to make a living on their art but since Napster and iTunes we still don’t have a solution

      • Da Oeuf@slrpnk.netEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        I agree. I think the music industry (and others) have reverted to a feudal & medieval way of exerting control over markets. Which, like you say, is not a proper solution because people want something real.