I read this article when it came out a while back, and thought it would be a good idea to see what the folks at LvMI thought of it. When I first read it, I was kind of taken aback at how authoritarian their dreams were. Of course, they don’t realize that regardless of what they want, if the majority sees no use for their hipster music, then it will go by the wayside.
And as a disclaimer, I read Pitchfork all the time and I listen to a great deal of hipster music as well
Haha, of course. But Pitchfork likes indie music, so therefore they like the idea of reaching into the never-ending pool of taxpayer money to fund what they like. Democracy makes it too easy to steal from others and fund something that most people find useless. And of course the consequences will never be felt if it is a complete catastrophe.
And this is coming from a guy who enjoys a lot of independent music and film. There certainly would be a market for that stuff if people were left to their own devices.
Amadeus, government will do anything to invite the sheep onto the farm .
But saying that, another point I didn’t bring up is government funding “culture” disallows a version of Schumpeter’s creative destruction. The government promotes cultural inertia. How can you grow and expand as a culture when the government is determining which avenues are the most beneficial for the society? This goes back to the schooling debate. The government enforces the Prussian model when you have many competing theories for what makes a better education. Of course we’re never going to find out what those are as long as the State mandates which education forms are acceptable.
i think there could be a positive argument to be made that the market would produce fewer pathbreaking bands than consumers would prefer as a result of positive externalities and high transaction costs.
you can’t copyright a “sound” (you couldn’t stop the birds from sounding like the beatles) and you can’t commoditize inspiration (the amount iggy pop paid to see the doors concert that inspired him to play music was probably much much less than return he recieved) => so more experimental bands have less incentive to enter the market => which leads to fewer new sounds
in a perfect world, music listeners compensate these experimental bands as to internalize these positive externalities. but, in the real world, transaction costs are incredibley high and these mutually beneficial transactions would go unmade.
How would the government know the efficient amount of subsidies for music? What incentive would it have to provide the efficient amount of subsidies even if it knew it?
Trying to convince hipsters and sub-cultures about anything that isn’t fashionably left wing is a dead cause. Honestly, it really is as hopeless and futile a task one can do. The best you can do, is to get them arguing about different left wing causes and how to present left wing aesthetics.
@William, oh I definitely agree. Left-wing stuff is all across the music industry, and for the most part it’s just anger towards Republicans and greed.
Musician: Those damned greedy people. Why can’t that stop being so greedy and trodding on the little guys? I’ll take my tax-funded check that you owe me for writing this song now. Thanks.
I have long wondered if the Norwegian government subsidized all those Black Metal groups whose members went about burning down churches and stabbing each other… seriously, there were so many back in the days you’d thought they were trying to corner the market. Granted, a few were (and still are) excellent but most of them were junk no record producer in his right mind would have thought to sign.
When the tax-funded music comes from other countries it just sounds better for some reason. Sadly, I’m a Canadien. Supposedly, the money is needed to keep American music from dominating but its all ripped-off from the U.S. anyways so I don’t really see the point. I guess more it needed.
@Angurse, right, the Pitchfork article discussed how the UK and Canada are trying to protect their “cultural product.” Honestly though, who cares? I listen to bands from all across the globe and I enjoy a lot of it. I’m by no means American-centric and I don’t think American music has a distinct feel to it. There’s a ton of crossover. Most of the top 40 stuff is bombastic techno with hip-hop drum kicks/claps today, and the techno bit has spilled over from European club scenes. American folk indie and Canadian folk indie are very similar. The post-punk stuff can be seen in bands like Franz Ferdinand and Interpol, both from different countries.
You guys did give us Wolf Parade though. Great band
right, the Pitchfork article discussed how the UK and Canada are trying to protect their “cultural product.”
Which is funny, because it shows how left wingers are just as whacked out conservative nut jobs as the right wingers are; the only difference is they are more socially acceptable.
It’s not hipster unless it’s illegally downloaded with SoulSeek and it’s some obscure indie crap. If the government funds indie music it’s obviously not obscure.
I have 60+ GB’s of music, all of it downloaded, majority of it obscure. I’ve done well without the government in my music department.
Indie means independent (though, some people describe indie rock as such too). Not all independent musicians are “hipsters”. Actually, while I agree, that many of them make rock music (so called “indie rock”), there are also many of them who make electronic, experimental and other kinds of music… there are a lot. So to generalize it and call them all under the same umbrella term “hipsters” is not good.
