It seems this Vs. thing could become a theme for my blogs. Recently I've been looking at overwhelmingly one sided arguments on the subject of 'what's better for musicians: Twitter or Facebook?'
I say one sided because they all draw the same conclusion; Twitter is better. It all really boils down to this hugely unpopular facebook reach algorithm thing, where you only actually see around 5% of the posts from a facebook page unless they pay to have that percentage raised. The comment section arguments always seem to split into tribal factions around this point, with some people complaining that 'musicians always want something for nothing' and the other side arguing that Facebook moved it's 'free and always will be' goalposts in order to make money with no warning or time given to adapt. I would argue that everyone really wants something for nothing (isn't that what destroyed/continues to destroy the music industries established model?) But also rich people will often (notice I said often and not always) be greedy and when they see an opportunity to make vast amounts of money they will take it. I'll openly admit to thinking the Facebook pages thing would be great forever and so neglected to build my mailing list (as every good little musician should), so have been stung by this. Am I upset about it? Not really. 'The rich will get richer'. Now the young have to get wiser.
Get wiser and start using Twitter more, it seems.
Oh, and it's @samdraisey, if you're interested :)