- Last Active
DocMcCoy said:Reynaldo said:Even if the record label system went under due to piracy, upper-class and independently wealthy musicians/people would still be able to afford to record and tour, even if just for fun/love/vanity and a modest amount of money. Not every aspiring musician would have to choose between making music and making a living--only the financially insecure ones. That might be an interesting paradigm shift--back to a sort of patronage system.
That could be exactly where we're heading, and it's something that's occurred to me before now. It's unlikely to go down well with those who take the position that music should be for the people, but since I personally think we're unlikely to see the colour of their money, let's not worry too much about them just yet.
This paradigm shift might lead to one set of consumers who can and will comfortably support the individually-numbered $150 bespoke box-set business model, while at another level you'll have the people who can afford to pay Taylor Swift more money for one private show than she'd earn in a year touring the nation's cowsheds and enormodomes, thus removing one of the main incentives for playing those places to begin with. Both methods would involve smaller audiences and/or access only for those with sufficient money to spend, but maybe some people consider that a suitable quid pro quo for bringing Megacorp Records (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Evil Megacorp Entertainment, Inc) to its knees. And, hey, if the studies say that all these music-for-the-people downloadin' fools already spend more money on music and entertainment than the people who, er, don't spend as much as them, then they're not going to have a problem dropping $150 on, say, a handmade limited edition of the new Bon Iver album, or $500 on a Taylor Swift live-in-your-living-room concert ticket for their kid's birthday. Being that they're the ones who care the most about that kind of thing.