I know the writings of Jaron on this and I think he is mostly wrong.
What he is comparing was a brief time in history that the music industry was at the absolute peak.
We have just gone back to normal that most people can't make money being a musician just like being an actor is not really a viable middle class career option.
Sure, when I graduated high school you could have just made a living in a local rock band because everyone wanted to be in a band to be the next Guns n Roses.
To me, it is like how even Hitler wanted to be a painter because everyone wanted to be a painter at that time. The way everyone wanted to be a rock star when i was a teenager.
Times change and the collective artistic taste change with them. So many musicians are doing better than ever before because of youtube too.
I play the baroque lute and I can tell you that it is much tougher to get a gig in a bar today than it was in 1650 in France.
The best lutenist though are killing it on youtube with Bach videos.
> What he is comparing was a brief time in history that the music industry was at the absolute peak.
Could you provide data defending this claim? Without it, and even with it, all I see in your comment is that you're begging the question or shrugging your shoulders at the data and saying, "so what," not actually or substantively disagreeing with anything Lanier has said or written.
What caused the decline? You seem very sure you know the answer, and yet your answer basically seems to be to stop asking the question or investigating: "music was at its peak, so obviously it declined." If music was at some absolute peak, why was that? "It was at its peak" isn't an answer. It's a restatement of the question.
And can you show me that there were fewer musicians per capita, making less money in adjusted terms, twenty or thirty years earlier?
And do you have any data showing that more than a tiny, miniscule fraction of musicians are doing "better than ever before" thanks specifically to YouTube? "So many" is slippery and frustratingly difficult to quantify in a manner that lets me evaluate its accuracy.
>We have just gone back to normal that most people can't make money being a musician just like being an actor is not really a viable middle class career option.
And we want to normalize that? We can also go back to the times were 8 YO's worked in teh mines and humans worked 7 days a week for 12+ hours.
>The way everyone wanted to be a rock star when i was a teenager.
Everyone wanted to be an astronaut growing up at one point too. That trend faded... but it turns out astronauts can get a living wage. Or at least, I sure hope so.
What he is comparing was a brief time in history that the music industry was at the absolute peak.
We have just gone back to normal that most people can't make money being a musician just like being an actor is not really a viable middle class career option.
Sure, when I graduated high school you could have just made a living in a local rock band because everyone wanted to be in a band to be the next Guns n Roses.
To me, it is like how even Hitler wanted to be a painter because everyone wanted to be a painter at that time. The way everyone wanted to be a rock star when i was a teenager.
Times change and the collective artistic taste change with them. So many musicians are doing better than ever before because of youtube too.
I play the baroque lute and I can tell you that it is much tougher to get a gig in a bar today than it was in 1650 in France.
The best lutenist though are killing it on youtube with Bach videos.