Watchmaker wrote:Still not buying the scarcity gag. The dismal science remains closer to mysticism than qaballah.
No, for me, scarcity doesn't have any motive force as a mechanism to explain why some percentage of artists seem to resonate in the larger consciousness more than others. Some of the most amazing performers I have ever seen were in lost holes in dark places - and on Paul Simon's stage.
What explains this? Why is some music more valuable than other?
Tried to make a reasonable answer short, but it takes too much effort :D
In the end, the world is what it is and everybody can understand how they so wish.
(Economic) value is simply the amount people are willing to pay (exchange) for getting something. "scarce" is not intended as just "there's little of it", but as "there's more people wanting it than there is of it". People may want things for many reasons. In our world, "survival need" is a no longer a very common reason, while a successful branding campaign very often is, even if of course not always. Besides a small threshold of talent hard work, and massive investment, randomness is a very important factor of the "successful" bit, like it is in most aspects of our life (very often, without us being aware of it at all).
It's not really that hard, and it does indeed explain why some music (or some anything
) is more valuable than some percentage of artists (or anything
) will resonate more than other. It just doesn't tell you *which* ones.
The (very profitable) old record industry learned that a long time ago - which is why they continuously gambled on a number of artists in the perfect knowledge that, while all were "good enough", only a few would have resonated. For very much the same reason only one number wins a lottery.
Then who wants to understand, understands.. or not :) It's not really that important, and I have a glass of wine waiting, which is :D