Tim Spalding · @librarythingtim
27th Jan 2011 from Twitlonger
Hey. This is the author of the blog post.
I'm fairly bored with all the hubbub about the music argument. I don't actually care about the music industry, but, yes, labels were gross and now there's all this great live performance. The top musicians make a lot less in music sales, but they make so much anyway nobody really cares. Whatever.
It doesn't apply to books. Sure, labels are gross. And publishers do have a middleman role, but publishers add more than labels did and aren't bloated monsters. There are a lot more "mid-list" authors than "mid-list" bands. The latter can scrape by sleeping on couches and performing. Book writing is done by adults with mortgages and kids. They live on advances. The biggest-name authors are rich, but household names in writing regularly make less than, say, any of you fine folk. Alternate income opportunities are few. Some do teach, but making money on touring is absurd--maybe a dozen authors could do it. All told, a 50% decline in recorded music makes Lady Gaga poorer than Madonna was, and makes the creative bands a little hungrier but also freer. A 50% decline in books would devastate literature.
More generally, I'm saddened by the state of the argument about music. After years of watching these discussions it's clear to me that <i>no amount</i> or type of evidence will convince the convinced to change their mind on it. I think the Economist article nicely shows where things are heading, but I am sure that even that level of music sales in the US will not convince people to change their mind.
If you disagree with me, please list some evidence that will convince you. Give me a metric and a level that metric could hit, and let's circle back in a few years, when we're China.