Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Elizafox's posts Post Back to profile
Elizafox

You know I always hear about struggling artists of all kinds like it's this new phenomenon. It isn't. Artists have always struggled, and I don't know why people think this is somehow a new thing. They struggled before the Internet, dealing with an industry always trying to crush them, and always finding ways to scam them. The only way artists have historically made a lot of money is to have multiple successful sales (albums, pieces, etc.) and tours. It's feast or famine. Certainly as long as recording has existed, it's been dominated by greedy jackasses and shady practises. Art has always relied on patronage as well.

6 June at 19:05 | Open on social.treehouse.systems
7 comments
Elizafox

Basically the only way to make a living in any artistic endeavour is to be really, really good; or be really, really connected. No it is not fair. Not even close. It also has never been literally any different. iTunes opened up a brief window for independent music artists, but it isn't like piracy didn't exist then too, and it isn't like artists were doing great either. Etsy is still a thing for many other types of artists, but a lot of people are selling a lot of art, and the supply simply outstrips demand. Not saying it's fair, or that's how it should be, but that is how it *is.*

Basically the only way to make a living in any artistic endeavour is to be really, really good; or be really, really connected. No it is not fair. Not even close. It also has never been literally any different. iTunes opened up a brief window for independent music artists, but it isn't like piracy didn't exist then too, and it isn't like artists were doing great either. Etsy is still a thing for many other types of artists, but a lot of people are selling a lot of art, and the supply simply outstrips...

6 June at 19:08 | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Elizafox

If you think Spotify is unfair wait until you learn what the RIAA has been doing to music artists for decades.

Know why a lot of bands break up?

The RIAA and the labels bankrupt them. They've always been doing it.

Most bands didn't just not make money; they LOST money. They ended up owing tens or hundreds of thousands to the label. They got fronted the production costs that they then had to pay back, and they often didn't promote the album at all or promoted it so badly (or the band was just mediocre at best) that the artists wound up in debt they couldn't hope to pay back.

I think people pay attention to Spotify screwing artists and kind of miss the fact that these artists get worse than screwed by labels. Like beyond screwed. Most artists get nothing from Spotify, but they don't wind up tens of thousands of dollars in debt to Spotify.

Actually, publishing in general is like this. Like all publishing. Just sayin'.

If you think Spotify is unfair wait until you learn what the RIAA has been doing to music artists for decades.

Know why a lot of bands break up?

The RIAA and the labels bankrupt them. They've always been doing it.

Most bands didn't just not make money; they LOST money. They ended up owing tens or hundreds of thousands to the label. They got fronted the production costs that they then had to pay back, and they often didn't promote the album at all or promoted it so badly (or the band was just mediocre...

6 June at 19:14 | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Elizafox

It used to be recording artists would make their money through tours (written authors to an extent also), merch, etc.

Ticketmaster has ensured artists don't profit from that unless they sell out a venue and do a gruelling tour for 8 months, either.

Merch? They've always been grifting artists. It's the only way most artists can make anything at all, though.

6 June at 19:17 | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Elizafox

People just do not know how this industry works and they look at Spotify as this great evil, which works great for Ticketmaster and the RIAA. Whilst you get pissed at Spotify's grifting, they can rob the artists blind. It's like a con man distracting you with a shell game whilst someone pickpockets your friends.

I feel independent artists who refuse to play the RIAA and Ticketmaster's games (justifiably so) also overestimate how much people are willing or even able to pay for music these days, or how small their audience will be without promotion (which costs money). Yes Spotify are terrible and ripping off artists. That's true. However, it isn't like things were better *before* Spotify even if you distributed music yourself (honestly, *especially* if you did).

People just do not know how this industry works and they look at Spotify as this great evil, which works great for Ticketmaster and the RIAA. Whilst you get pissed at Spotify's grifting, they can rob the artists blind. It's like a con man distracting you with a shell game whilst someone pickpockets your friends.

6 June at 19:19 | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Elizafox

I've been adjacent to artists my whole life btw, lots of friends who are musicians, many of whom have done it before Spotify existed. None of them do it for a living. They've all tried. Yes even before Spotify. It's not possible unless you're extremely good. Even then...

6 June at 19:30 | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Elizafox

This is btw why I've never done music even before Spotify. I knew there'd never be any money in it, and I'd spend a fortune on equipment that just wouldn't pay for itself and I'd be depressed about it. I'd pour blood, sweat, tears into something that would ultimately make me more upset. Sure I could be an amateur... but most artists are not amateur.

6 June at 19:37 | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Dr. Quadragon ❌

@Elizafox This.

People who want to do any kind of art, and think that this will bring them a lot of wealth are either inexperienced or insane.

Friends, fame, love, influence, satisfaction with the act of creation itself - may be, though none of this guaranteed. But not the money. "Rich artist" is the exception rather than the rule.

> Sure I could be an amateur... but most artists are not amateur.

I disagree with this one though. A lot of artists see themselves as amateur, most of them, really. It's an impostorship syndrome. You just don't see them as that because you have it too.

@Elizafox This.

People who want to do any kind of art, and think that this will bring them a lot of wealth are either inexperienced or insane.

Friends, fame, love, influence, satisfaction with the act of creation itself - may be, though none of this guaranteed. But not the money. "Rich artist" is the exception rather than the rule.

7 June at 0:52 | Open on mastodon.ml
Go Up