Why are dance halls niche these days? There are many factors, but the single biggest one is recorded music. It used to be that all music was live. Live music was a coordination point where everyone could form new social connections. And once you’re there you might as well dance.
This explanation doesn’t ring true to me?
The claim as I understand it:
Music, when it couldn’t be recorded, was expensive to produce, and so usually produced and consumed as a club good? The cost of the music creation was amortized[1] over everyone coming to a social event about it, which had the happy side effect of causing there to be social events of this type at all (which had positive externalities on dating).
But when the price of music falls, it becomes much easier for people to purchase music on their own instead of purchasing it collectively as a club good. As a consequence, there’s a much weaker incentive to go to dance halls (since apparently a big chunk of the value was getting to listen to music). So people do that less, and the dance hall scene becomes niche.
Is that right?
This story seems possible, at least. But it seems a little fishy to me that, if dance halls were as awesome for dating as you suggest that a big chunk of the value was getting to listen to music. I’m not clear on why you can’t keep doing the “teenagers go dancing” thing, just with recorded music instead of live music.
As a consequence, there’s a much weaker incentive to go to dance halls (since apparently a big chunk of the value was getting to listen to music). So people do that less, and the dance hall scene becomes niche.
Yep. This is my thesis.
I’m not clear on why you can’t keep doing the “teenagers go dancing” thing, just with recorded music instead of live music.
It can be done, and most partner dance scenes these days do use recorded music most (if not all) of the time. However, the strongest communities and greatest draw are, by far, the live music venues.
This explanation doesn’t ring true to me?
The claim as I understand it:
Music, when it couldn’t be recorded, was expensive to produce, and so usually produced and consumed as a club good? The cost of the music creation was amortized[1] over everyone coming to a social event about it, which had the happy side effect of causing there to be social events of this type at all (which had positive externalities on dating).
But when the price of music falls, it becomes much easier for people to purchase music on their own instead of purchasing it collectively as a club good. As a consequence, there’s a much weaker incentive to go to dance halls (since apparently a big chunk of the value was getting to listen to music). So people do that less, and the dance hall scene becomes niche.
Is that right?
This story seems possible, at least. But it seems a little fishy to me that, if dance halls were as awesome for dating as you suggest that a big chunk of the value was getting to listen to music. I’m not clear on why you can’t keep doing the “teenagers go dancing” thing, just with recorded music instead of live music.
Is that the right word? Can you amortize over many people enjoying a good at once instead of over time?
Yeah, it’s not the gramophone that displaced in-person socializing. TV struck first, and then the internet dealt the killing blow.
Yep. This is my thesis.
It can be done, and most partner dance scenes these days do use recorded music most (if not all) of the time. However, the strongest communities and greatest draw are, by far, the live music venues.