CS70 wrote:Talent - whatever that means - is a dime a dozen (at least art-related talent. It's not with more difficult stuff) It's so common that its economic value is zero. .
I'm kind of stunned that you would say that. Is this not the attitude that leads to musicians getting $0.001 per stream? "It's worth nothing, so pay them nothing."
Is this not the attitude that means when musicians approach venues looking for a gig the response is "come in and do a gig for free, then if we like you we''ll give you a gig" to which the correct response is "tell you what, give me a pint of beer for free and if I like it I might buy another one."
Not at all. But we are in the "music business" forum and not in the "pander to your illusions" forum.
To recognize that there's abundance of talent does not mean it's not important or even critical - only that its economic value is so low that it's basically zero. Think of it like air: it is very important, even absolutely critical, but you can hardly sell it. Or water: good old H2O is the same everywhere, and yet you pay $.0001 for your tap water, and $10 for a bottle of Voss water (I've been in Voss, it's not far and I guarantee you: it's plain old water).
What is worth something is scarcity
Scarcity can be real - there's not enough of something to go around - or artificial - like in Voss' water case... water is not scarce, but water coming from Voss
is (to a degree) and the marketers have managed to create enough buzz about it to ensure people want that, and not other, to the degree that many are willing to pay 10.000 times more for it.
Because scarcity, of course, depends on demand.
As a musician, you are paid 0.0001 not because your music is bad or not important, but because you haven't yet made it scarce.
Are you basing this statement that "anyone can do art related activities" on data, or is this your impression? It isn't mine.
Data. Talent accrues. 40K sumbissions on Spotify weekly (or monthly, don't remember and doesnt matter). Spotify alone contains now around 35 million tracks. Apple Music, 45 million. If you listened to 10 Spotify tracks a day every day, you would need to live around ten thousand years to go thru the catalogue once.
Musical talent is like air, or water. Important, perhaps even critical, but not economically valuable per se.
And yeah, anyone can do art related activities, btw. There is no licensing.
When there is (for example to become employed in a classical symphonic orchestra of some reputation) you do need qualifications.. but even then the qualified people vastly outstrip the available positions, so it's middle-paid job.
As the saying goes, there's plenty of quantum physicists that can play piano, but there's very few pianists that can do quantum physics.
What are the activities that you do consider difficult and therefore suitable to make money out of?
It's not about difficult
. It's about scarce
Bar artificial regulations, any activity for which there is real scarcity, or artificial scarcity will allow you to make money. In other words, anything where the ratio between supply and demand is small.
As a musician, should you want to build a business out of your talent (which you certainly have, as a shitload of other people), you need to focus on creating scarcity: which is done by branding and marketing specifically your name, since people singing and playing exceedingly well, there's a dime a dozen (especially nowadays with YouTube). You need to become (and stay) the Voss water of music, or as near as you can get.
That is, of course, difficult - but because it requires financial muscle, good management of it and a degree of luck.