No, because as technology improves, recording and composing music becomes easier and easier. Distributing also gets easier. This applies to all genres. Temporary popularity boosts of specific genres can cause some fluctuations, but ultimately the release trend of all genres is up as population goes up and young, creative people's access to music making tools goes up.

The argument for less releases is similar to the argument that higher taxation leads to lower motivation by the mega important and highly skillful rich elite, which means no further work from these essential gods will be done, which leads to death of the entire world. This is not actually the case since money is in fact not all they're in it for, and very valid scientific studies have proven that you can tax up to 70% with no consequences whatsoever. I call this the Nick Fallacy.

In this case, the argument goes that as releasing music becomes less profitable, the supply of new music will go down with it, because no artist should want to work for free. It will not, however, as money is in reality only a small part of what drives them. I call this the Nick Fallacy as well, since Nick also happens to be a recording artist who probably whines about how little money he makes from his music (haven't seen it yet, but surely he must secretly be sulking), and then on how much that little money is being taxed. A super Nick Fallacy combo move!

This is why it's ok to steal the work of artists and the money of rich executives. Their passion and love for their work is enough payment! If it wasn't, they'd stop creating output.

I am so smart! I'm going to jerk off to what I just wrote.

Quote
 | 
Block-Quote
 | 
Reply
 | 
Main Page
 ]