I'm hardly the first to mention this, but folks might want to read "The Death of the Artist" by William Deresiewicz. One of the things I'd like to figure out is how to get Spotify to present a list of songs in reverse order of popularity. I want to start listening to those tunes that have zero listens, and then work up from there.
I read your excellwnt piece before watching the ad. Even so conditioned, when I watched the ad I had a deep visceral reaction - a bad one. As an amateur musician (acoustic guitar before arthritis claimed my finger flexibility, now drums), the sight of musical instruments being crushed as a happy song plays amid the destruction was such a visual/aural mismatch that I still feel the discomfort (and I am no snowflake). You and others have written about the substantial social disconnection reflected in the behavioral tendencies (I hesitate to call them philosophies or even principles) among "tech bros" in many ways - from proposing literal islands of anarchy, to financial instrument "panaceas" that are really only mechanisms to avoid SEC, IRS, and law enforcement oversight, to political positions that reflect more of Ayn Rand than George Washington, and others. Most of us - with notable exceptions like Paul Ryan - left any intellectual and emotional fascination with the antisocial, might-makes-right, economically simplistic, naive, and essentially anarchic musings - also not actually philosophy - of Ayn Rand and her ilk at the high school door, as we encountered the realities of living in a diverse and challenging society. The commodification of people at the heart of all of these tendencies, and the redirection of reward flow from the true source of that value (the creator) to the gatekeeper (the financiers and distributors), comes through with (possibly) unintended clarity in this brutal visual claim regarding the relative value and importance of artists versus distributors. (The tools that are important are not those used to make music or other artistic pursuits but the tools that help make it available to you 24/7.)
The problem, as I see it (and you noted), is not that financiers and distributors want to be compensated fairly for their contribution to the overall effort, but that they significantly overstate the value of their effort and use their market positions to squeeze much more out of the transactions than they deserve, going beyond earning a reasonable profit to demanding rent (in the economic sense). This rent-seeking behavior is evident throughout our system, as finance has replaced most of our truly value-producing enterprises, resulting in the phenomenon that making money using other people's money, obtained at bargain basement "prices", is now one of the largest markets in the country, and keeping that skimmed money safe from taxation is the primary political pursuit of the tech bros and other self-proclaimed masters of the universe. Actually, there is a valid, experiential basis for that growing feeling of nostalgia as we grow older, but not for the reasons the R's claim. The economic system, where CEOs earned maybe 20 times what their employees earned and paid realistically set tax rates, is long gone. Many (not all) CEOs make 300 or so times the earnings of their employees and yet pay taxes at a marginal tax rate that is lower than their secretary / admin asst. As Warren Buffett admitted years ago, "There actually is a class war in the US - and our class, the wealthy, has been winning it." The culture wars provide the distraction necessary to keep that winning streak going. They'll never "get tired of so much winning."
I think the problem at its most basic is that art and commerce are fundamentally incompatible. When chasing the Almighty Dollar becomes the highest and best value, art is bound to suffer. Commerce is quantifiable. Art is not, so those who can't understand the "fuzzy," conceptual world of the creative mind often fail to see any value in art.
Apple's ad was, I think, an unintentional nod to this attitude. Art is ultimately to be reduced and subjugated to the whims and dictates of commerce. If it can't be commoditized and monetized, then what value does it really have?
It's sad, but it feels as if that's where the conflict between art and commerce is headed.
I'm hardly the first to mention this, but folks might want to read "The Death of the Artist" by William Deresiewicz. One of the things I'd like to figure out is how to get Spotify to present a list of songs in reverse order of popularity. I want to start listening to those tunes that have zero listens, and then work up from there.
Stacey Eskelin also recommended it to me...and mentioned that Deresiewicz lives in Portland, so I broke down and downloaded the Kindle edition.
I read your excellwnt piece before watching the ad. Even so conditioned, when I watched the ad I had a deep visceral reaction - a bad one. As an amateur musician (acoustic guitar before arthritis claimed my finger flexibility, now drums), the sight of musical instruments being crushed as a happy song plays amid the destruction was such a visual/aural mismatch that I still feel the discomfort (and I am no snowflake). You and others have written about the substantial social disconnection reflected in the behavioral tendencies (I hesitate to call them philosophies or even principles) among "tech bros" in many ways - from proposing literal islands of anarchy, to financial instrument "panaceas" that are really only mechanisms to avoid SEC, IRS, and law enforcement oversight, to political positions that reflect more of Ayn Rand than George Washington, and others. Most of us - with notable exceptions like Paul Ryan - left any intellectual and emotional fascination with the antisocial, might-makes-right, economically simplistic, naive, and essentially anarchic musings - also not actually philosophy - of Ayn Rand and her ilk at the high school door, as we encountered the realities of living in a diverse and challenging society. The commodification of people at the heart of all of these tendencies, and the redirection of reward flow from the true source of that value (the creator) to the gatekeeper (the financiers and distributors), comes through with (possibly) unintended clarity in this brutal visual claim regarding the relative value and importance of artists versus distributors. (The tools that are important are not those used to make music or other artistic pursuits but the tools that help make it available to you 24/7.)
The problem, as I see it (and you noted), is not that financiers and distributors want to be compensated fairly for their contribution to the overall effort, but that they significantly overstate the value of their effort and use their market positions to squeeze much more out of the transactions than they deserve, going beyond earning a reasonable profit to demanding rent (in the economic sense). This rent-seeking behavior is evident throughout our system, as finance has replaced most of our truly value-producing enterprises, resulting in the phenomenon that making money using other people's money, obtained at bargain basement "prices", is now one of the largest markets in the country, and keeping that skimmed money safe from taxation is the primary political pursuit of the tech bros and other self-proclaimed masters of the universe. Actually, there is a valid, experiential basis for that growing feeling of nostalgia as we grow older, but not for the reasons the R's claim. The economic system, where CEOs earned maybe 20 times what their employees earned and paid realistically set tax rates, is long gone. Many (not all) CEOs make 300 or so times the earnings of their employees and yet pay taxes at a marginal tax rate that is lower than their secretary / admin asst. As Warren Buffett admitted years ago, "There actually is a class war in the US - and our class, the wealthy, has been winning it." The culture wars provide the distraction necessary to keep that winning streak going. They'll never "get tired of so much winning."
I think the problem at its most basic is that art and commerce are fundamentally incompatible. When chasing the Almighty Dollar becomes the highest and best value, art is bound to suffer. Commerce is quantifiable. Art is not, so those who can't understand the "fuzzy," conceptual world of the creative mind often fail to see any value in art.
Apple's ad was, I think, an unintentional nod to this attitude. Art is ultimately to be reduced and subjugated to the whims and dictates of commerce. If it can't be commoditized and monetized, then what value does it really have?
It's sad, but it feels as if that's where the conflict between art and commerce is headed.