Hacker News Reader

Comment by clicks | Hacker News Reader

So, by that logic, the Beatles at about the time Revolver was released... were not musicians. Because, as you may or may not know, with the Revolver album they became a studio-only band. They neither wanted to play concerts (they were sick of playing concerts, started fearing getting shot, etc.) nor could they play because of limitations of live performance technologies at that time.

But ignoring the Beatles for a moment, what about totally electronic music that's of a kind that can't be played live in any meaningful way? And what about people like me -- who have absolutely no interest in buying band t-shirts (I prefer wearing plain clothes) or attending live concerts?

View on HN

what about totally electronic music that's of a kind that can't be played live in any meaningful way?

Electronic music is actually one of the best ways to make money as an individual artist because you can play both huge clubs and outdoor festivals, which attract hordes of people and you can play every night. I knew a minor rave celebrity in the 1990s (DJ ESP/Woody McBride) and he made over $1M every summer in Europe and then bought a house in the Minneapolis suburbs and retired to become a high school basketball coach. It seems like it would be even better now due to the sheer number of clubs and festivals. I follow Diplo on Instagram and he tours so much that he's making about $5M a year in the worst case scenario.

In contrast, my cousin is a professional violist and he makes $400-$800 per day which is about the same as a mediocre Java programmer.

Another way electronic artists make money is by selling their songs to be used in ads, movies and TV. Aphex Twin has had interviews where he admits that he made most of his money licensing his music to be used in TV ads around the world.

Music is like any other content: very long-tail. The Beatles are big enough to do whatever the hell they want, and Spotify certainly can't stop them. In this modern age of disintermediation, it would be folly to arrange a content industry as if its most successful superstars were the typical case. To be fair, the music industry made a great deal of questionable money under that model for decades, but that time is over, and it's not hard to understand why. Similarly, the time of transition for the motion picture industry is coming, and they'll probably whine even more than the music people have.

> Because, as you may or may not know, with the Revolver album they became a studio-only band.

That's famously almost true ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFJFsyAAoZ4

The album 'Let It Be' (which was performed at the famous rooftop concert) came to be precisely because of McCartney's insistence that they for once create an album without any double-tracking, fancy technology, etc. and perform it live in a televised setting (as opposed to live in a concert setting -- which they were still unwilling to do).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com