Why Sup Forums should be socialist

Under capitalism, the experience of both sides of the music industry are completely ruined.

For the musician, his creative ability is muted by record labels and need for money. Many times you'll see artists commercialize or sell out and this is because they don't just need to follow their passion, they need to fight to survive as well. And even if the artist themselves doesn't care about making money, their label will still get in the way.

For the listener, he must pay for music with money that could be used on more important resources. The musician doesn't put a price on his music because he is evil, but only because he wants to survive.

This concept of intellectual property that forces the listener to pay does not hinder only he, but it also hinders artists who wish to remix.

But you can have capitalism, I guess, because letting artists follow their passion and letting people listen to music for free goes against human nature.

You do realise music has production costs, right? And technology making it easier and easier to produce and disseminate is the best thing for music?

also
>he pays for music in 2016 [+1]

Necessity is the mother of invention. You would have a point, but like every other socialist you ignore human history and what systems ACTUALLY produced great art and creative tech, instead of just which ones you think probably should.

Yeah but you leftists are fucking crazy and would probably have me taken to the side and shot for no good reason.

Yeah because history has shown non-capitalist countries have had such amazing music scenes! /s

Stop spending so much time at your leftist university, it's clearly doing your head in.

>2016[+1]
what the fuck is this?

OP, not only are you right, but what you're talking about is actually already happening. Europe as a whole is far more socialist than the rest of the world, and they not only tend to appreciate a wider variety of music, but also tend to create a wider variety of music as well. Go check out greatest of all time lists, and it's gonna be mostly European artists as well due to how much support they are given to innovate and refine.

where's OK computer on that chart?

2nd row in the middle

didn't see it senpai

10 bucks on this fag not knowing what a row is.

Yes, but the means of production should be owned by the musicians. We're seeing this more and more often with indie labels and musicians self-producing albums, which is a good step forward to socialism in music.

Yes, better technology is always good and helps pave the way for socialism. You bring this up again when you mention the fact that you don't need to pay for music as much anymore.

This is true, but it does not apply to commercial need. In able to be commercially viable, you must conform to popular standards and therefor NOT innovate.

Claiming that socialists ignore history is a ridiculous claim, for it is the basis of Marxist material dialectics.

are you fucking stupid man i said i missed it youre dumb as fuck

I wouldn't say Europe is socialist per say as the workers do not own the means of production, but it is closer than the rest of the world, and it does produce the best music

Europe is composed of social democracies, based Rojava will hopefully have a thriving music scene once they settle down after the civil war.

i hate communism and would typically consider myself a traditional libertarian. i support capitalism, but when it comes to music, i believe a musician's main concern should be making sure their music is distributed and released as easily accessible for audience reach, rather than worrying so much on profit and whether their shit's leaking online, or doing shit pulling it out from streaming sites and w/e

is this an act of commie acceptance?

Yes

Also can someone make a communist flag with a bass clef and an eight note or something like that?

Jesus, you're retarded. Capitalism creates a perfect place for economic competition among musicians, and allows you to be your own corporation, allowing you to make substantial gains. Go back to leftypol with your shitty politics.

>Economic competition among musicians

Oh, so like the Top 40? GREAT example of music there.

It is not a competition of quality of music, but rather a competition of wealth, which means being safe is rewarded much more than being creative or experimental

aaand with socialism, they have no reason to strive for better innovative music

You don't have a reason to strive for innovative music under capitalism. You make much more money by following the trends, and most of the innovative artists in history either had to quit making music or had to sell out due to capitalism.

Under socialism, one would strive for their passion rather than popularity, which hinders creativity

autism the post

OHHH NOO SOME PEOPLE TAKE THE EASY WAY OUT AND DO WELL! WHAT EVER CAN WE DO? IT'S NOT LIKE CHEATERS WOULD EXIST UNDER OTHER SYSTEMS!!! AAAAAAAAAH! It's called taking risks retard, lower risks always give you the better outcome, why should some faggy ideology come in to undermine what's kept life in existence since inception just because muh rich people?

If you actually understood the marxist position, you would realize marx is saying the exact same thing you are. Captialism has produced all of this, and it produces and produces and produces, and technology advances the end of capitalism further and further. The point is that there is such an abundance of technology there is no more need to work and hoard the means of production which brings us to socialism.

You're proving my point. The first guy said that capitalism promotes innovation which it fucking doesn't. If you don't see a problem with a lack of innovation, defend it.

Marx's point is that he's a complete retard? Seriously, is socialism an inside joke only college kids will get, or do people actually believe this childish nonsense?

Yeah, it does. You could easily make pop trash and bask in a few million dollars, or you could strive and release independently and get far bigger just by marketing yourself. Why is there so much uninnovative music you ask? Because not everyone is a innovator, but everyone wants a slice of fame, and capitalism gives you the freedom to get that fame if you make the right business agreement. This separates the people at the top, middle, and bottom of the food chain. The bottom feeders are musicians that take no economic risk and make no gains, or are the consumers. The middle are those who take the lowest economic risk by investing minimally and apealing to the buyer's market, or are modestly successful musicians who invested minimally and self promoted to reach a level of decent standing. Appealing to the buyer's market is a great idea as you make gains in fame, money, and you may even get big enough to reach the third tier: the place where those who are the most talented, capable, the most self-aware, and the most knowledgeable exist as the innovators who carry us foreward. Capitalism gives us the motivation to innovate by weeding out the less capable, the panderers, and sell-outs to help us realize the true leaders. With these clear distinctions, those who know they are capable will feel more compelled to achieve as they can strive to join their ilk with a better picture as to where that ilk lies.
Tl; dr life has risks and only few can reach the top by taking the most risks; compete or die.

That sounds reasonable on paper, but it isn't true at all on practice. Let's look at the richest musicians: Dr. Dre, Paul McCartney, Jay-Z, Madonna, Jon Bon Jovi... Tell me with a straight face that they are innovative musicians. Now if you look at legitimately innovative musicians, they never get even close to these levels of success, not even today. The Velvet Underground, CAN, etc. They never became big and famous like those artists I listed earlier BECAUSE they innovated and did not conform to the pop standards of their day

Now you're just b8ing, go get rekt on Sup Forums then return to the college chat room from which you came.

Not an argument. Try again

Not gonna bite, try again.

>That sounds reasonable
nah it sounds stressful and brutal, just not as much as muh revolution. politics know no chill baka desu senpai

That's because there exists a trust, a cartel, between people who market media to the masses and massive record companies that produce the garbage you hear, enforced by copyright law, which is not capitalist.

Capitalism is antithetical to innovation which yields no profit. Innovative music under capitalism occurs in spite of its economic system.

that's not true for technology now is it

>here's ten thousand dollars, make something I haven't heard before
>OK
yeah so antithetical

Dre was incredibly important for hip hop tho
and the others would be obscure under capitalism or socialism simply by the fact that their music was not for everyone. This wont change no matter the system

Oh yeah, all those examples of experimental musicians who are given loads of money.

Not to mention the fact that charity, in its very nature, is anticapitalistic, i.e. no work required for money. And even if it is an intrinsic part of capitalism, it's far too unreliable to serve as a consistent method of supporting experimental works.

This is actually a valid argument, although I would argue, as would other, more qualified people, that there is not necessary fall-off of innovation in a post-capital society. Anyway: what economic incentive is there to create anything but the most commercially viable technologies? Even those, such as the the synthesizer, is too easily replicable to be an economically-motivated invention.

What about Johan Sebastian Bach you fucking poser.

can we end the political posts on Sup Forums tho

can you learn what an art is please thank you

You're an absolute fucking idiot of you think you can compare pre-contemporary music or economics to the present day.

Also, if you think the 18th century is a hotbed of revolutionary musical development (note: this doesn't mean that Bach was anything but revolutionary).