Well, then we just need to produce more stuff, that will reliably increase the number of good stuff, according to Sturgeon's law. That's good enough for me :)

Yeah, I don't disagree with this either. However, I want to remind you that freedom from unwanted tasks, and more time for family, the arts, and all beautiful things, has little to do with socialism, but was the promise of technology in the west as well, just like the hope of improvement for all humanity was the driving force behind the whole Enlightenment (of which industrial technology is a result).

Ooops, typo: the album peaked in Austrian charts on 17, not 87.

The situation with health care is not *that* rosy here, either, but certainly better than the US, yes.

Good point, and a depressing one. Because really, the fact that efficiency continues to grow should make us richer, not poorer (that was the promise of technology, anyway). And if the well-off want to enjoy their life, we better find something to do for the "useless" masses in their "spare" time.

Yeah, that's basically like a DJ set, it's not making music live. It may work for some artists, and that's fine. I don't want the others starved, is all.

Don't assume that things don't exist because you are not aware of them, the field of culture (like most other worthwhile ones) is deeper and wider for any one person to explore fully. Like in the other reply I wrote, I will just mention the first thing that comes to mind: Plunderphonics

The past 60 years were special because at least during major parts of this time the music economy *did* generate enough income to live and create (not to be rich) for music beyond the mainstream. I preferred that state of things to a society were only the most dumbed-down crap supports its creators. I don't disagree with what you wrote in general, but it's a question at which height we as a society want to place the bar to jump over. If we place the bar so high that even a band with very favourable reviews in the most respected papers (Ja, Panik had one in Die Zeit and others) can make a living, we are going to be poorer.

Absolutely, but I was responding to an argument that musicians should just play live to earn money. Had the argument been the other way around, I would have responded with what you wrote.

Damn, sorry for messed up link

FYI, the economics of the music business are such that it's not only avant cellists that cannot survive on their music, but - at least in countries with a more limited market due to language and cultural barriers - the problem extends far beyond that. Just as an example, one of the most promising young non-mainstream (for lack of a better word) rock bands in the German-language market is "Ja, Panik". Their fourth and latest album was in the Austrian charts for 5 weeks and peaked at 87, and peaked at around 80 in Germany. This amounted to a few hundred sold CDs. Add to that the income from downloads from the band's website, radio play, and streaming and the album may have made maybe (maybe!) 5,000 euros, likely not enough to even cover production. Yes, they played a tour and drew a few hundred people in the bigger cities, but how many big cities are there in the German language area, and how much can you make at 15 euros a ticket? Not many and not much, and I doubt that the merch sales from the online shop is killer, either. The band members obviously all need other income, obviously (and if you want to tour for every record, that removes a lot of work options right there), and for a while jokingly rented themselves out to fans via their webshop, with items like "book a Ja, Panik member for: .... DJ for your party: 100 eur; ... cleaning your toilet: 200 eur (2 members mandatory)", and stuff like that.

Now, you can say that it's just fine if they have to work on the side, or that it's fine that only the musicians with top 10 sales should be paid for their work, but this would be a major change in the way our society has treated its artists at least in the decades after WW2, and not one we should make light-hearted, IMO

I don't know, from the top of my head emptyset comes to mind. Yes, you could use these prerecorded sounds for a live set, but the music like the one the record cannot be created live. I agree with you that it's a possible source of income for musicians to do other stuff on the side, like DJ sets or something (even for non-dance musicians), but I'd think that this requires that their names already has at least some value attached to it. Nevertheless, this is a significant change to the economies of music, whe we as a society are effecting, and we should be at least aware if it happens, if though we might not be able steer or prevent it.

You are off by a factor of 100. It's 0.42 cents.

There is music that cannot be played live, or which does not work in a live setting, and which is still worth having (as a cultural contribution to humanity, I mean)

You have valid points. But nevertheless the guy I replied to was simply wrong when he said, "Your typical e-book reader will last MONTHS in the hands of a heavy reader without recharge."