The creative process takes hours, days, even years to complete. So why does the public feel that artists shouldn't be
Early Monday morning, SoundExchange executive director John Simson officially announced his departure, but not without addressing that critical issue. Simson has been credited with growing SoundExchange from its inception, current accounting and artist payment problems notwithstanding.
But maybe that's a mess best left for the next guy. In the grand scheme, this may be the bigger fish in the pan. "I am very concerned about the apparent disrespect shown by many in our culture to those who pursue artistic endeavors," Simson wrote to colleagues. "One recent survey showed a surprising number of Americans who believe that artists should have a second job to support themselves – as they should not expect to be paid for their art! We must educate the public and eradicate these extremely destructive beliefs."
Comments Closed
WILL Monday, January 03, 2011
Having once spent many weeks holed up in London's Nomis Studios during the 90's, recording but equally partying I think it's the latter that may be the cause for this mentality.
In short, bands/artists be it established or not generally are seen as having it easy being holed up in a nice studio, pretty much doing what they want, when they want (and that includes drink, drugs and sex)...it's not real work to most people and therefore said people don't want to finance that lifestyle for these artists.
Serious artists exist Friday, January 07, 2011
There are many, many very serious artists who are not party animals at all, much less so than the average person, and who produce the best work, often celebrated and awarded. It is an ignorant myth that artists are wild libertines. Maybe that's true for a few pop acts who don't have to work hard at their craft, but the really good musicians put in far more time and serious, concentrated attention to their work than most 9-to-5ers ever do. And, unlike many professions (eg, finance), they have to actually deliver. Musicians have one of the highest stress jobs in existence. See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/31/depression-at-work-10-careers-_n_802937.html#s217567&title=Artists%2C%20Entertainers%2C%20Writer
Just because you got to "live the life" of your dreams for a few weeks once upon a time doesn't mean real artists all act like fools. Far from it. Their work takes far too much real effort.
I know. I've spent 34 years in the middle of it.
WILL Saturday, January 08, 2011
I understand your point but disagree that it's only musicians that have pressure to deliver. That's a seriously misguided and stupid comment. Most jobs are target orientated in some way and finance is just one of them, none of which (including musicians) are anywhere near as important as say doctors, surgeons, nurses etc.
Whoever wrote 'Whaddaya Want From Me' by Adam Lambert (was it him?) absolutely deserves to make a wad of cash because that is a slice of sublime 3-minute pop...perfect. Top draw guitar riff, killer groove, great melodies and one anthemic chorus. Let this be a benchmark or reference to those artists who complain that they aren't making any money. Man, if I was in management or AnR and that song had landed on my desk 10 years ago I'd a creamed myself there and then!
Pretty astonishing Saturday, January 08, 2011
...that anyone would think that the bulk of folks in finance -- banks, hedge fund, etc -- actually delivered these past few years -- what they delivered was ruination.
Never heard of your "sublime pop anthem" -- I never bother with pop. Too little of it has instrumental or aesthetic values sufficient to interest me. However, they do deserve to be paid for their work if folks want it. Folks who want it should pay for it. Period.
WILL Sunday, January 09, 2011
...hence the reason I said if it landed on my desk 10 years ago(actually more like 15), because it'd still have had to be purchased on CD and with a chorus and guitar hook that big, radio would have been firmly behind it. Playlist A's everywhere. Massive sales, no illegal downloads, no reality star fronting it...back in the days when everyone in the biz knew what it took and how to break an artist (indie or major).
Record deal = radio, MTV, press = record in shops = success/failure.
WHERE ARE THE GATEKEEPERS!!!!!
Slinky Sunday, January 09, 2011
"34 years in the middle of it" is admirable. It also says that you likely don't have any idea what the typical 9 to 5er goes thru, and to generalize about "most" not being as difficult as your road job is as irresponsible as what you claim the author said.
Reality Check Monday, January 31, 2011
The argument of which is harder is irrelevant: If you take something for free that someone worked on (yes, it is work), you are stealing in the exact same way that someone who steals a bike off the front lawn is stealing.
If someone did a painting, and you wanted to enjoy it on your wall, should not the artist be paid? Same with music.
To chime in on the "which is harder" argument: Creative work is very very difficult. I have a both a 9-5 job which is very challenging, and I produce my own music and have been a musician all my life. Working on music, and real art, takes so much out of a person, you have no idea. It is tougher in many ways than a regular job or career could ever be.
Reality Check Monday, January 31, 2011
That is rationalizing, what you said. If someone creates something, that someone should have the say whether they want to give it to you, or asked to be paid. If you don't agree to the price, then you don't get the product. Unless you are willing to take it from them, steal it. Very simple.
@SoulRebelMusic Monday, January 03, 2011
Soul Rebel Music
You get paid for your work - why shouldn't musical artists?
MisterSoftee Monday, January 03, 2011
Answer? artists do anything for free, cheaepening the craft and making people devalue it. pay $100 for bon jovi, $0 fo r bon iver.
Hey. Saturday, January 29, 2011
You're an idiot. Things are given away to make you a future customer. That artist wants your opinion to gauge an overall response later.
Maxwellian Monday, January 03, 2011
I blame ISPs and Apple - thanks guys for ruining a great business
albert Friday, January 07, 2011
thats idiotic. At least Apple pays something.
Econ Monday, January 03, 2011
Artists have ranked near the bottom of society's pecking order for thousands of years in every culture. Nothing has changed except the modern sense of entitlement.
Actually one thing DID change - the invention of motion pictures. This made entertainment accessible to the lower classes. The stature of associated artists increased because of it. And it increased the number of artists-as-would-be-professionals.
As ever, the issue is always one of supply and demand. There are A LOT more people who want to make money as artists than society can possibly support. When supply is high and demand is low, price (or value) comes down. That is a feature, not a bug.
nunurbiznes Tuesday, January 04, 2011
This is the best comment on this post.
markh2011 Tuesday, January 04, 2011
It is completely untrue that "Artists have ranked near the bottom of society's pecking order for thousands of years in every culture. Nothing has changed except the modern sense of entitlement."
Does Beethoven, Mozart, Bach ring a bell??!!! Opera singers were treated as royalty in Europe as well. Even go back to ancient Australian aboriginal culture and the guy in charge of remembering and keeping the song history alive and writing new songs for the tribe was highly valued - and there was copyright - no-one could sing his songs without his permission.
We live in a Generation Y culture where they feel they should be able to have what they want when they want it. They have an exaggerated sense of entitlement. That's why they are called the "Me" generation. And that has rubbed off on the rest of society to some extent. Although my Grandparents would never think of stealing or copying someone else's music. They come from a generation of respect and cooperation else they never would have made it through the Great Depression and 2nd world wars.
Also the inventors of MP3 and other digital formats and the makers of digital music players/computers have avoided taking any responsibility for securing music copyright. That would affect their profits. There could be technology and formats that make it virtually impossible to illegally copy music or play illegal downloads. But hey the ISPs, Apple, Microsoft, etc would miss out on so much more profit.
The end result is that our culture and we as people miss out on deep artistic expression that reflects our experiences and creates connection and well-being. Because only the very popular and obvious music can succeed. I hear people complaining about how similar or uninspiring mainstream music can be. That is your fault for stealing music and devaluing it. You create the bad/derivative music that you complain about.
I am always amazed at how many people/businesses make money from musicians and how little the average musician makes from their own music. We are the juicy body that leeches suck on - and then complain when there's no good blood left and the body dies.
Econ Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Does Beethoven, Mozart, Bach ring a bell??!!! Opera singers were treated as royalty in Europe as well.
What, Wagner is chopped liver?
Your examples are all monarchical with a very limted number of artists compared to the modern west.
Their work was essentially commissioned, very little was done on spec. And their appeal was limited to the upper 5% of society, the plebes (the other 95%) didn't even know who these people were because they didn't have the time nor the outlet; they had their own artists to be sure, and the valued art became folk art. Even 99% of the commissioned art is long forgotten because it never found an interested audience.
The only historical exception is really the Ancient Greeks, and few if any are remembered as individuals because the democratic nature of society turned the valued music into folk music.
David Friday, January 07, 2011
In response to your post about the "plebes" not even being aware of the "high culture music," I would present Giusppe Verdi as a prime counter example. His operas are among the finest music ever written but were known throughout Italy. Furthermore, his piece, "Va, Pensiero" from Nabucco was considered by many to be an anthem for the unification of Italy. Also, his name was used as a codeword of support for Victor Emmanual who would become the first king of a unified Italy: Victor Emmanuel Re D'Italia.
@Tape6Matt Thursday, January 06, 2011
Agree w/ Econ 100. Not unlike professional sports, many try, but few succeed @ monetizing their passion. If you played varsity in high school you weren't guaranteed a scholarship to play Big 10, and you certainly weren't automaticly eligible for the pro draft.
Tell me then Friday, January 07, 2011
Why is it that the demand for an artist's output remains high -- folks download it by the tens, hundreds of thousands or millions -- yet the artist is not expected to reap any benefit for it? The problem is that people have no honesty and no class when it comes to getting something for nothing, laws, culture and other human beings be damned. If they can be a greedy jackel, they seem to have no problem doing it, even if it means the music they so crave will no longer be able to be produced at either the quality or the quantity they have hitherto enjoyed. It says that human nature truly stinks and thus we need stronger laws and enforcement to require that people do the right thing and compensate those whose work they crave. Being able to see the fruits of your labor is a human right.
Kat Friday, January 07, 2011
Not true. In India, a nation with a long and exceedingly rich musical history and a very advanced musical culture, the highest caste was reserved for Saraswati Brahmins, who were traditionally the musicians. Since the music was very math-intensive, it was thought only the best and brightest could do a proper job of it.
And, during the period of the Thugs (worshippers of Mother Kali, the goddess with the necklace of skulls who danced on graves), they would kill anyone but never musicians.
keithmohr Monday, January 03, 2011
I know why..
People will generally support a service that brings value to their lives.
The issue is that artists are portrayed by the music industry as IDOLS, who are to be SERVED.
They have it 180 degrees wrong.
Artists are to be ICONS who SERVE culture by creating music that makes our world a better place.
Music is not the end, it is a means to an end. The end is serving culture.
Music Saturday, January 08, 2011
...is one of the most important components of human culture. Like those who dance, paint, and write professionally, they deserve to be paid for their work. The only difference now is that it is now easy to steal music. Human nature shows itself to be stupid, greedy, and short-sighted. For the why would anyone continue to sing for their supper if no supper is forthcoming?
@dilettantemusic Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Dilettante Music
should artists have second jobs?
Ehren Tuesday, January 04, 2011
When you shop for clothes, do you always think about how much the people who labor to make them should be paid?
When you vote in elections, do you think about raising taxes to increase teacher salaries above the miniscule amount they currently make?
Consumers think about their own costs when buying goods and services.
I definitely want to live in a world where talented musicians who put on a good show can be compensated for their efforts, but I definitely don't think that half the music out there is worth buying. You don't deserve to make money simply because you like making music and work hard at it.
James Tuesday, January 04, 2011
RE: Ehren
Agree to a point. if the artist fails because no one likes the art, that's fair; but if the artist can't make a living because too many steal the art, that's unfair.
(BTW I answered 'yes' to your first two questions)
Econ Tuesday, January 04, 2011
But there's a middle ground all too often ignored - was the art stolen because the artist wanted an exhobitant price for it? (Not to mention the fact that most "stolen" music files are deleted within days of theft, implying the value of storing it wasn't even worth it.)
Musician Wednesday, January 05, 2011
What if you think the bunch fo grapes at the supermarket are overpriced, you should just take them instead?
And that is overlooking the fact that the MUSICIAN often doesn't set the price for the music, the RECORDING LABELS do.
Regardless of who is setting the price, do you honestly think that 99 cents is too much for a song that you could preview in advance of your purchase?
If you don't like the song or you think the song is too high priced then DON"T BUY IT but that DOES NOT give you the right to take it anyway.
Kat Friday, January 07, 2011
The artists don't set the prices for their work. They negotiate deals with labels for royalties (which are inconsistently paid at best) and the labels set the price, or the distributors set the price. Artists rarely have any say in the price of a CD. And if you were in the business and knew the costs associated with a project, you would understand that the pricing is reasonable.
markmarshall Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Kudos to Simson for speaking out on this. It's about time someone with visibility said something.
I wrote a post about this that folks might (or might not) find interesting - called "Honor Art":
http://www.markmarshall.com/site/honor-art/
jbedbus Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Generally speaking, people are bitter, petty, greedy and selfish. They don't want others to have what they can't have for themselves.
As a musician, I can't tell you the number of conversations I've had on this topic in which the other party says, essentially, "well, I had to grow up and work a real job, you should too."
So there you have it: to the public, "artist" isn't a real job, and artists need to grow up.
ON EDIT: Interesting to note that the speaker mentioned in the article is an industry executive, not an artist. Who has abused and disrespected artists more than the industry? Funny when one problem points fingers at another problem.
to be fair Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Actually, John Simson is an artist singer/songwriter and was a manager. he's not an industry type.
http://www.discogs.com/John-Simson-We-Can-Be-Everything/release/2448080
Martin Cradick Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Musicians have always had poor respect from other wage earners, particularly here in Britain. At parties when asked what I do I've started replying that I am "a composer" rather than a "musician". The response is far more positive.
Econ Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Again, that is not a recent phenomenon, it's been that way for thousands of years.
What's the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead musician in the road?
The dog had a job.
Kat Friday, January 07, 2011
Ah, I sense the ugly head of jealousy at what econ perceives to be the gloriously wicked life of the artist, thereby demonstrating a complete unfamiliarity with the craft and the life surrounding it. I am quite certain that econ would never put in the years of unpaid training that a young aspiring musician has to put in in order to become adept enough for anyone to want to listen to his output. And the thousands of hours of concentrated work, not so much, either. And the risk of possible decimation and disheartenment at the hands of your audiences or critics -- never! And the extremely rugged life of touring -- try that at, say, 58 or 67 years old. Econ has had the comfy life of an econ. He has no appreciation of what he claims expertise in.
Brandwagun Friday, January 07, 2011
Nobody is making you go on tour, face an audience, or even create for that matter so don't bitch about how hard it is; it's your choice to be there.
The fact of the matter is that music is immaterial and in the end not that important compared to say something like the clothes you wear or food you buy at the store. It may require a lot of time and effort to create, but it was those creators who chose to do it for people to listen to. If it was the other way around, then perhaps all the fuss about pirated music would then be valid. If your music is just not good enough to command the attention of tens of thousands of people, then perhaps it is time to actually get a job like your parents more than likely urged you to do for many, many years.
So many artists claim that just because they create, they are entitled to fair compensation for what it is they do, but I can put forth just as much effort into punching a hole through a wall, and for some that might bring pleasure, but in the end it was my choice, and I wouldn't demand any compensation for it. The point is, as an artist, you are at the mercy of listeners, not the other way around. This is what is wrong with the music industry.
RadialSkid Friday, January 07, 2011
Kudos for your post. You nailed it.
It's funny how the people with the most blatant sense of entitlement imaginable are the same ones who have the audacity to accuse music fans of the same.....and even bigger "brass ones" to try and tell free and/or CC-licensed musicians that they shouldn't be allowed to release their material for free, for fear that it might cut into their OWN panhandling.
And, of course, any criticism that's offered, the only thing they can argue is "BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT! If nobody is buying my music, that must mean they're STEALING it! I have a right to make a living doing what I like, even if the market changes, or nobody is even listening in the first place! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"
Quit Saturday, January 08, 2011
...projecting your own personal neurosis. Kids are so neurotic. We've sold over a million albums, been up for a grammy, been on top of billboard charts on 3 albums, performed for President Clinton, etc. We've been professional musicians all our lives. It's work. You may be under delusions of grandeur, but we live the reality.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
If you're as successful and important as you seem to think, then what's the problem?
Try Saturday, January 08, 2011
...millions of dollars worth of illegal downloads of our albums, that's what.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
I'm amazed that you can play "brash hotshot" in one post, then turn right around and play "downtrodden victim" in the next, with no apparent sense of irony at all.
Neurotic, indeed....
The reality Saturday, January 08, 2011
I guess it's really hard for you to understand the reality of what the "criminal generation" hath wrought, and what it is doing to those who create the work they love to steal.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
You mean the fact that more recorded music has been released every successive year for the past decade? The fact that more musicians can make reasonable incomes and reach larger audiences without having to play the label game and pay the piper to get all-important radio airplay?
I don't care a whit about your dreaded "piracy," since the music I listen to is free to start with. I'm not "for it," and I'm not "against it." What I am against, however, are labels, trade groups, and "performance rights" organizations attacking free licensed music, campaigning to pervert the concept of copyright even more than they have an decimate our already weak public domain, and attempting to implement legislation that could get someone kicked off the internet for accusations of copyright infringement. Not convictions. Accusations. The fact that "piracy" is the bugbear blamed for this is as far as my involvement with the subject extends.
Poppycock Saturday, January 08, 2011
Nobody cares about your precious cc. Public domain works are not what needs to be protected; copyrighted works must be protected, and suing tens of thousands of websites and hundreds of thousands of downloaders is entirely impractical, so Federal action is required.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
"Nobody cares about your precious cc."
Then why the hell do they (and you) attack it? You is it you're trying to convince? Me, or yourself?
"Public domain works are not what needs to be protected;"
The very existence of the Public Domain is what needs to be protected.
"suing tens of thousands of websites and hundreds of thousands of downloaders is entirely impractical, so Federal action is required."
And what "Federal action" do you think will have any effect? You've got an entire generation now who operate under the fairly reasonable expectation that non-scarce goods should not be subject to price-fixing. And I guarantee you, the harder you push, the harder they're going to push back. Don't forget you're outnumbered.
You are so wrong Saturday, January 08, 2011
As part of a group whose 20 albums are eagerly downloaded by thieves by the hundreds of thousands on tens of thousands of sites (do the math), we fall squarely into the category of artists whose work is greatly desired by the thieves.
It is a human right to be paid for work that others exploit.
If music is so valueless, why do all the vampires want it enough to trade their personal honor for?
JanonymousR Sunday, January 23, 2011
lol. Awesome. There might be some breakmarks for the dog too ;)
I haven't paid for music in a long time. Not because I don't have the money, not because I don't think the artist deserves money, but because I have the option to listen to it for free. Don't worry... the advertisers will pay them (very little), but that's the business model they agreed to or had their hand forced into, hahaha!
Herb Agner Tuesday, January 04, 2011
One suggestion for how to re-align the American public's perspective on artists being paid for their work is to call it that: "work". Because that's what it is. It may or may not be "art" (and that's completely subjective anyway), but its always work. And getting paid for your work is something all Americans can understand.
buick6 Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Get a muzzle on BoB Lefsets or whatever the heck you call him and the disease should at least stop growing. I wonder who's paying him off????
Survey? Tuesday, January 04, 2011
So what survey specifically is JS talking about here? i.e. when he says "One recent survey" - which survey would that be?
You can't just throw this random quote BS out there without backing it up.
arthurjowens Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Simson is a highly intelligent & genuinely nice guy, but his comments divert attention away from the real issue. This is not a black and white issue of "pay" vs. "steal." SX is in the business of collecting from webcasters, and there are plenty of webcasters that want to pay but are unable to due to the exorbitant rates & byzantine reporting requirements. What SX has failed to grasp is that if you make it too expensive & difficult for a legal music site to operate, you will drive the legal sites out of business and be stuck with only illegal sites. These exorbitant rates are the result of major label pressures, and the proliferation of illegal sites is simply an example of reaping what you sow.
The rates that webcasters must pay to SX are scheduled to only go higher, so you can expect this trend to continue unless there is some change in industry thinking.
Aa Tuesday, January 04, 2011
people don't inherently think artists shouldn't be paid. that assertion is sour grapes from someone who has earned a living off of a percentage of an Artists $. the real deal is, people no longer have to pay $15 to get a record that contains a song that they heard and liked. they either pay 99 cents for the individual song, or pay nothing and steal it. the stealing is easy to justify if it's a song by a well known artist, because their celebrity and implied wealth (that was created in part by, and with help from, music execs) gives us a reason to feel our 99 cents is no big deal.
since this is now the market, those execs sell 'brands' rather that music. justin beiber is a way smarter business move than sigur ros. for sigur ros to make business sense, you'd need to also sell a Jonsi' doll with matching vegan man purse. and Jonsi would have to be seen on tmz leaving tom cruises house at 4am.
@mhamiltonmusic Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Megan Hamilton
I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to play for free. I only do for charity, now.
M Wednesday, January 05, 2011
I'm a musician and visual artist. I don't see why I should feel entitled to compensation for the things I create. I make music and imagery out of passion, as a way of expressing myself. I distribute it free of charge because I believe art belongs to everyone, not just those who happen to have money to spend.
I accept and appreciate donations if someone wants to support me financially, but what truly makes the creative process worth all the effort is positive feedback; the knowledge that something I made has inspired someone, brought them joy, perhaps helped them get through difficult times... This is the ultimate "compensation".
I would like to turn the question on its head: Why do the artists feel they should be paid for their art? Perhaps some ought to reexamine their motives for making art in the first place.
Josh Bearman Thursday, January 06, 2011
So, are you a trust fund recipient or do you make art as a secondary avocation to your full time job? Frankly, your attitude is noble, but only serves to hurt those of us who are actually supporting ourselves as artists. Why pay someone when someone else gives it away?
I'm a stringband musician, away from home more than half of every year and teaching private lessons when I am home. Even still, I make a pittance. However, I live in Richmond VA, a town that is cheap but also located close to many major urban areas. I have no concept of how freelance musicians or artists are able to survive in the more expensive cities (NYC, Chicago, Bay Area, etc.)
@fenderplyr9009 Thursday, January 06, 2011
How do you put food on your table?
M Thursday, January 06, 2011
Computer programming jobs.
Lee Fox Friday, January 07, 2011
Code monkeys are little more than caffeine swilling, pizza munchers who can't even produce something you can lay your hands on.
Paying them is a wasteful luxury that only feeds their late night fan-boy geek movie nights and encourages further silliness.
They should grow up, get real jobs, and leave that childish coding nonsense behind.
For them to actually expect a paycheck for their ridiculous bug ridden efforts is beyond amusing.
Point made yet?
AMEN Friday, January 07, 2011
AMEN to you, Lee Fox!!!!
RadialSkid Friday, January 07, 2011
And did the gentleman you're replying to say any such nasty things about musicians, considering he himself IS one?
Furthermore, if you don't want to pay a computer programmer, then DON'T. Find one who is willing to work for free....they have just as much right to do so as musicians who are willing to work for free.
Grow up and get over yourself.
Lee Fox Saturday, January 08, 2011
*chuckles* "Grow up and get over myself"? I see you missed the illustration of absurdity with absurdity. Some of the best people I know are "masters of the code". I'll restate it without the obvious sarcasm... If I provide a product that people want and I choose to sell it for a profit that is my Right and Nobody has the right to tell me I shouldn't expect to get paid just as nobody is obligated to buy it from me. Also, if they choose not to buy it, they do not have the right to take it anyway regardless of the convoluted rationalizations they throw up to justify their theft. That's just basic common sense. Don't you think?
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
I didn't miss your sarcasm....I'm simply telling you it is misdirected, especially at a poster whose biggest crime is apparently nothing more than choosing to give away digital copies of music instead attempting to charge for them. "If I provide a product that people want and I choose to sell it for a profit that is my Right" Assuming they want it, yes. Just as if the poster you responded to chooses to give it away for personal reasons or potential promotional material, that's HIS RIGHT. "and Nobody has the right to tell me I shouldn't expect to get paid just as nobody is obligated to buy it from me." If nobody is obligated to buy it from you, why do you expect to get paid? From 2005 to 2008, I worked in broadcasting....two master control jobs for local television stations, and one on-air production position for a local radio station. Due to the increasing prevalence of automation, my jobs were made redundant, and I was laid off from ALL THREE in 2008. I didn't whine for a moment about how technology STOLE my income from me, or how I DESERVE to be paid for the next 80 years for work I did between 2005 and 2008. I just went out and looked for another job. If you can't make money from your music, and you aren't willing to make music without making money, then simply stop making music. I listen exclusively to noncommercial music, and hear enough new material to realize that there is a myriad of artists willing to make music without relying on selling copies. For every artist that quits, five more will take his or her place. C'est la vie. "Also, if they choose not to buy it, they do not have the right to
take it anyway" Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The old "BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!" excuse isn't going to work here.
Your job Saturday, January 08, 2011
...vanished because technology made it unnecessary. However, no technology has rendered music unnecessary. And the innate talent, skill and early training required to make good music are not distributed democratically. So, just as you said, if real artists can't make a living making music, they will have to stop making music, thus culture will die.
Kiddies with little pre-programmed machines in mommy and daddy's basement or independently wealthy dillettantes that don't need to care how much you like their work because they have enough money already, or those who diddle about with their instrument after a long day at the office or fixing refrigerators will have to be the ones to "create the magic" for you in future.
The "cheater" or "freeloader" phenomenon that exists in bacteria to humans well describes what will be the result of rampant thieving. Culture worth having will die. We will have an amateur culture, laughing stock of the world. You'll have to go to places without computers and ipods to hear real music.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
"...vanished because technology made it unnecessary. However, no technology has rendered music unnecessary."
But technology has changed the way music is recorded and distributed. Nothing is going to change that.
"And the innate talent, skill and early training required to make good music are not distributed democratically. So, just as you said, if real artists can't make a living making music, they will have to stop making music, thus culture will die."
Protip: Your only revenue stream is not album sales. In fact, over 90% of your "professional" artists don't make money from albums sales at all.
The way I see it, if Corey Smith can give away copies of his music for free a pull in a few million dollars just from touring, then the concept that "no album sales = no professionial musicians" is misguided, at best. The concept that "no professional musicians = no music" is even more absurd.
"Kiddies with little pre-programmed machines in mommy and daddy's basement or independently wealthy dillettantes that don't need to care how much you like their work because they have enough money already, or those who diddle about with their instrument after a long day at the office or fixing refrigerators will have to be the ones to 'create the magic' for you in future."
The noncommercial artists that I listen to sound far better than the rubbish that some "producer" gets paid $80,000 to "engineer" on a "recording console" that was probably built 30 years ago. They already "create the magic" for me. I think we've perhaps struck your greatest fear....your own increasing irrelevance.
"You'll have to go to places without computers and ipods to hear real music."
I'm already enjoying real music. Good luck with your "product."
In fact Saturday, January 08, 2011
The number of professional artists has been decreasing proportionally to the increase in illegal downloading. Indeed, most artists who have sold any number of albums did make a significant fraction of their income from record sales, especially those who were careful about their copyrights. Touring is not a big bread winner for a lot of major acts -- if you've ever toured, you would begin to understand. Most acts have to take so many people on the road (with so much extra baggage -- instruments) that it eats up most of the income. Travel is very expensive.
Just because a few people can make bank touring (maybe a super famous pop act), the vast majority of professional musicians who actually make up the rich diversity of music (and arguably the best of it) are not making what they should on the road.
The fallacy of the ignorant is that all musicians who have a name must be zillionaires. And that if sos-and-so big name act can make it, why can't you? Only 85 acts sold more than 250,000 units in 2009. It'll be less in 2010 and less in 2011. The trend is clear.
So tell me, skid, if you hate musicians so much, why are you here on this website?
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
"Indeed, most artists who have sold any number of albums did make a significant fraction of their income from record sales,"
You mean the artists that sold enough albums to pay back their advance, video budget, independent promotions, and tour support? If that amounts to $1,000,000 and the artist's royalty rate is 10%, that means they'd have to sell about 900,000 $10.99 albums to pay that back. And how many artists sell 900,000 albums? Less than 10%. In fact, WAY less than 10%. Probably closer to 1%. The rest don't make a dime from album sales, period.
"especially those who were careful about their copyrights."
You mean the label's copyrights.
"Most acts have to take so many people on the road (with so much extra baggage -- instruments) that it eats up most of the income. Travel is very expensive."
Then they should budget more effectively. Touring is not expensive by design....touring while throwing money out the windows of a brand new bus IS.
"Only 85 acts sold more than 250,000 units in 2009. It'll be less in 2010 and less in 2011. The trend is clear."
Yeah...stop letting labels "steal" your income.
"So tell me, skid, if you hate musicians so much, why are you here on this website?"
Since you've arrived at your own conclusion about my appreciation of musicians, I'll let you arrive at your own conclusion about my motivations for commenting, as well.
It's amply clear Saturday, January 08, 2011
...that you don't have any idea whatsoever about the music business or the types of contracts that artists can sign. Ever heard of "licensing"? Ever heard of major artists starting their own labels after walking? Ever heard of mechanicals?
I infer that you are a frothing fulminating rationalizer of music theft who tries to act as though it is merely cc that you're concerned about. If that were truly the case, you would know you have no concerns. No one is trying to take away your right to make or take public domain works.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
"...that you don't have any idea whatsoever about the music business or the types of contracts that artists can sign."
You mean whatever contract the label gives them. Regardless of the nuances in the contract, only the tiniest percentage of commercial artists profit from album sales. This is fact.
"Ever heard of major artists starting their own labels after walking?"
You mean self-releasing? I'm all in favor of it.
"I infer that you are a frothing fulminating rationalizer of music theft"
"You argue against the recording industry, so you must be a PIRATE!" Yeah, I've heard that one from your kind before.
Here it is, short, plain, and nasty: I don't care about your product. I don't even care enough about it to download for free. I can't even listen to commercial music on the radio without feeling disgusted at the thought of where it comes from and what it represents.
Believe whatever the hell you want....My stance on your "piracy" is that I don't care about it. I have not engaged in it and will not. But I have far more sympathy for their kind than for yours. The enemy of my enemy, and all that.
"If that were truly the case, you would know you have no concerns."
If I didn't feel threatened by the recording industry's attacks on culture in general, I wouldn't think about them at all. But I've seen firsthand the crap they've pulled, spreading misinformation about free licensing, their perversion of copyright and destruction of culture, and their arrogant "copyright infringement" attacks against children and the elderly, some of whom don't even own computers.
"No one is trying to take away your right to make or take public domain works."
Is that right? Okay then. Name one significant work that has lapsed into the Public Domain in the past five years.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
I missed two of your points in my response, which should be addressed:
"Ever heard of 'licensing'?"
Which has what, exactly, to do with the direct sale of copies?
"Ever heard of mechanicals?"
Considering mechanical royalties are the very thing that was addressing when discussing an musicians share in the post you just responded to, then yes, it's pretty safe to say I've heard of them.
hanson Monday, February 21, 2011
for thanks your posting..
Lee Fox Saturday, January 08, 2011
RadialSkid said, "I didn't miss your sarcasm....I'm simply telling you it is misdirected, especially at a poster whose biggest crime is apparently nothing more than choosing to give away digital copies of music instead attempting to charge for them."
Sarcasm is stating the opposite of what something is. For example: "All the rain we've gotten today sure is great. Don't you just love being cooped up inside all day?"
If you saw it as the sarcasm it was you also saw that it was not an insult and your attacks on my statements are without merit.
You also miss the point that I did not say anything about their right to choose to give away their art.
I simply illustrated the absurdity of their statement and question:
M said, "I don't see why I should feel entitled to compensation for the things I create. I make music and imagery out of passion, as a way of expressing myself. I distribute it free of charge because I believe art belongs to everyone, not just those who happen to have money to spend."
M asked, "Why do the artists feel they should be paid for their art? Perhaps some ought to reexamine their motives for making art in the first place."
The absurdity is clear because, I say again, it is a basic human right to be fairly compensated for your work.
Stealing my creative output without fairly compensating me is the same as forcing me into slavery.
I said, "If I provide a product that people want and I choose to sell it for a profit that is my Right"
RadialSkid misunderstood, "Assuming they want it, yes. Just as if the poster you responded to chooses to give it away for personal reasons or potential promotional material, that's HIS RIGHT."
My Rights are not lost just because someone does not 'want' what I make.
I said, "and Nobody has the right to tell me I shouldn't expect to get paid just as nobody is obligated to buy it from me."
RadialSkid asked, "If nobody is obligated to buy it from you, why do you expect to get paid?"
You aren't really being logical, but, the basic facts remain...
If you want what I make, I have the basic human right to expect to be fairly compensated.
It's the basic tenet of Capitalism, The Free Market, Supply and Demand, as well as Civilized Society.
RadialSkid said, "From 2005 to 2008, I worked in broadcasting....two master control jobs for local television stations, and one on-air production position for a local radio station. Due to the increasing prevalence of automation, my jobs were made redundant, and I was laid off from ALL THREE in 2008. I didn't whine for a moment about how technology STOLE my income from me, or how I DESERVE to be paid for the next 80 years for work I did between 2005 and 2008. I just went out and looked for another job."
Now we get down to the nub of it. You are anti-copyright and resent those of us that are the creators and producers of this world and you would strip us "whiners" of our rights.
Beyond that, your logic is, again, hugely flawed. There is little comparison between the creation of intellectual property with the inherent rights attached to that versus manual labor. Manual labor is especially ephemeral while Intellectual Property can literally change the lives of all mankind for all time.
RadialSkid said, "If you can't make money from your music, and you aren't willing to make music without making money, then simply stop making music. I listen exclusively to noncommercial music, and hear enough new material to realize that there is a myriad of artists willing to make music without relying on selling copies. For every artist that quits, five more will take his or her place. C'est la vie."
You demonstrate your anti-capitalist anti-copyright anti-creator stance again, rationalizing that art must be cheap and easy because so many people are willing to take a shot at it whether they are paid or not.
Will there be music without artists getting paid?
Yes.
Will there be the wide plethora and variety of musics at the high standard of quality we have seen in the recent past?
No.
I said, "Also, if they choose not to buy it, they do not have the right to take it anyway"
RadialSkid declared, "Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The old "BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!" excuse isn't going to work here."
That is far from irrelevant unless you are anti-creator and anti-copyright.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
casm is stating the opposite of what something is....If you saw it as the sarcasm it was you also saw that it was not an insult and your attacks on my statements are without merit."
The sarcasm was incorrectly applied, since it did not encapsulate the attitude of the person you were replying to. "M" did not say anything similar about musicians anywhere in his post.
"My Rights are not lost just because someone does not 'want' what I make."
I was merely pointing out that you might not make what someone wants....which can also explain the state of not being paid. We're all content creators.
"If you want what I make, I have the basic human right to expect to be fairly compensated."
I would ask: What constitutes fair compensation? Is it only a "consumer" paying directly? Why is selling copies the only compensation?
"Now we get down to the nub of it. You are anti-copyright and resent those of us that are the creators and producers of this world and you would strip us 'whiners' of our rights."
1."Anti-copyright" is a bit of a stretch. I'm not necessarily for doing away with it entirely, though I certainly find more merit in that extreme position than copyright maximalism. I feel copyright has become too overbearing, strangling creativity and turning art into an oligarchical priviledge.
2. Again, we're all creators and producers, myself included. Don't think you have a monopoly on creativity.
"Beyond that, your logic is, again, hugely flawed. There is little comparison between the creation of intellectual property with the inherent rights attached to that versus manual labor."
Seriously? The argument everywhere (including earlier in your SAME POST) is "you get paid for your work, so we deserve to as well," and "art is a career," yet at the first chance you get you immediately distance yourself from the "riff-raff."
"Manual labor is especially ephemeral while Intellectual Property can literally change the lives of all mankind for all time."
This is exactly what I'm talking about. "The difference, is you normal people are unimportant, while we creators are gods among men."
Furthermore, I think you're very confused....your so-called "intellectual property" is (at least in theory) for a limited time. The "property" entitlement does not change lives, but the works themselves do. Once they lapse into public domain, this impact is not minimized. In fact, it then has the potential to reach a far greater audience.
It should also go without saying that you're downplaying the importance of manual labor. Look around you right. I'll guarantee every single thing you see was produced by manual labor, unless you can perhaps see a tree you see outside your window. Even that may have been planted by an individual. That doesn't change lives?
"You demonstrate your anti-capitalist anti-copyright anti-creator stance again..."
I'd say my desire to limit government-granted monopolies makes me pro-capitalist, not anti. Why do you fear competition?
"Will there be the wide plethora and variety of musics at the high standard of quality we have seen in the recent past?....No."
My playlist says you're wrong.
"That is far from irrelevant unless you are anti-creator and anti-copyright."
It was completely irrelevant, considering "M" did not make any statements, near as I can tell, condoning piracy. Neither have I.
Lee Fox Saturday, January 08, 2011
I see no point in engaging your rationalizations for denigrating the rights of others especially when you are only willing to pick out individual phrases of my arguments without attempting to take in the whole.
It's the classic not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Have a nice day.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
The only reason I cut quotes to individual phrases is so you would see what I'm responding to without having to quote EVERY SINGLE WORD of your post. What was cut out is either addressed in my text on the whole, or doesn't warrant a response.
ed Friday, January 07, 2011
well, this attitude is just as self serving. "I dont expect to be paid for my art so why should you". My inkling is that if you get paid to be a computer programmer, and not an artist, then you are probably pretty good at programming and not very good at your music/art. So have fun expressing yourself. But don't try and mingle your concerns with those who try to monetize their art because, what would you know about it? I know a lot of artists who do actually make money (few are musicians btw) and some of them are charlatans, and some of them are real good (same goes for those who dont make any $), but what would you claim to know about their circumstances, the time they've invested into what they do, etc.
This kind of thinking, from someone who actually does music/art, is another Stockholm syndrome.
The rest of you, who believe music should be free because you can get it for free, are thieves. The noodnik who wrote that it should be OK because most of the illegal downloads are deleted within 3 days, I'd like to take your car for a joyride -- I promise it ownt be more than 3 days, that's not stealing right?
Kat Friday, January 07, 2011
AMEN.
RadialSkid Friday, January 07, 2011
So when I download free CC-licensed music through Jamendo, I'm a "thief?" And anyone who chooses to release digital copies of music for free must automatically be less talented than you are?
That ego is incredible....
Nobody Saturday, January 08, 2011
...gives a damn about your amateur cc crap. Just keep your thieving mitts off our professional work. Don't ever download copyright protected work.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
If nobody gives a damn, then why does ASCAP repeatedly attack the Creative Commons system? Why is every third or fourth post in these comments griping about musicians giving away work for free and "devaluing" commercial music?
I'm not buying your argument any more than I'm buying your music.
You Saturday, January 08, 2011
...don't even know if you have our music in your collection or not, and I will never tell you. Worry about what all those artists whose copyrighted works you may have stolen think about you. Know that that is what I represent.
What ASCAP rejects is the anti-copyright stance. Nobody cares about cc. If you don't lobby against strengthening copyrights, then nobody cares what you do with your own stuff. Perhaps you wish we cared.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
"don't even know if you have our music in your collection or not"
Was it commercially released?
Yes?
Then it's not in my collection. How simple is that?
"What ASCAP rejects is the anti-copyright stance. Nobody cares about cc."
It's it's CC that they've gone out of their way to attack, claiming it "devalues" their commercial work.
"If you don't lobby against strengthening copyrights"
I *am* against strengthening copyrights, because it's the ridiculous lengths that copyright has been perverted to that have transformed it from a short-term monopoly on reproduction as an incentive to create before lapsing into public domain (public domain, by the way, being considered a natural right of all people) to "intellectual property" that needs to be maintained for as long as possible so an artist that create one work and live off of it for the rest of his life. That does not provide an incentive to create, and it absolutely guts our public domain. For the past several years, virtually NO works have lapsed into public domain. This does not benefit society.
"wish we cared"
Don't flatter yourself. You may be fueled by out-of-control ego and wishful thinking, but I'm just going with the evidence that states otherwise.
Lee Fox Saturday, January 08, 2011
*laughs ironically* I had not yet read those leftist admissions of Radialskids's anti-copyright position before replying to their previous, sneering posts attacking me.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
"leftist admissions"
You mean....? No! Not - GASP - a leftist!
It's a pathetic day Saturday, January 08, 2011
...when so-called "liberals" hate artists. Most artists have done a disproportional amount for the left and truly great liberals like Edward Kennedy and Al Gore have been champions of copyright for artists. Historically, the left has cultivated artists. But now, many of these pseudo-lefties (who are really merely greedy little thieves) care more about saving 99 cents per tune than about labor and human rights.
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
Pulling the political angle is not going to work, especially considering that when I made fun of Lee Fox for busting out the "leftist" accusation, I didn't actually cop to being leftist myself.
Lee Fox Saturday, January 08, 2011
RadialSkid boasted, "Pulling the political angle is not going to work, especially considering that when I made fun of Lee Fox for busting out the "leftist" accusation, I didn't actually cop to being leftist myself."
And, there you admit to making direct, personal attacks. It's easy to get away with while hiding behind an anonymous, unaccountable handle.
Just another pointless, pathetic troll without the courage to stand up for their convictions.
RadialSkid Sunday, January 09, 2011
"And, there you admit to making direct, personal attacks."
If making fun of your obvious political flame-baiting seriously constitutes a "personal attack," then I'm guilty as charged.
"It's easy to get away with while hiding behind an anonymous, unaccountable handle."
And if I wasn't, would I not "get away" with it? Would I not be allowed to hold my positions? Would Super Secret Agent Lee Fox track me down and go all Jason Bourne on me? That's musical justice!
"Just another pointless, pathetic troll without the courage to stand up for their convictions."
Don't kid yourself. The entire reason I'm here is standing up for my convictions, even in the face of most venomous of opposition.
Lee Fox Sunday, January 09, 2011
You, "RadialSkid" hide behind a fake name because you like that you can just vanish when the going gets too tough.
You obviously don't have the courage to do what I and others do:
Stand up for what's right and stand against what's wrong with the name you were given at birth.
I'm in it for the long haul. I'm not a tortured juvenile in it for the latest hip fashion of slamming 'the man' to make myself look important and kewl.
When anybody sees my name, they'll know, even if they disagree with me, that I do what I know is best and that I'm willing to live with the consequences of my words and actions. They'll know that I can be relied upon and trusted to the absolute end.
I'm not an overloud ghost poking sticks in the eyes of my fellow man for the fun of it. If you want to be part of the culture of anonymity where nothing you say can come back to you, where you can be cruel just for the amusement of it, I will righteously label your words worthless and your "convictions" nothing but lies and shadows.
You are transparently uninterested in being part of the community of creatives that make this troubled world so much more worth living in. You would rather strip them of their rights and enslave them for your own selfish gain, no matter the ruination that would rain down upon us all.
I'll not further entertain your immature attacks with the properly reasoned, logical entreaties that I would offer others.
Have a nice day.
RadialSkid Sunday, January 09, 2011
"....hide behind a fake name because you like that you can just vanish when the going gets too tough."
And once again: What's to hide from? I use screen names the same as pretty much everyone else in this thread (and most people on the net). You're the only person I see at a cursory glance who signs his posts with a real name (assuming "Lee Fox" is your real name).
"You obviously don't have the courage to do what I and others do: Stand up for what's right and stand against what's wrong with the name you were given at birth."
As a matter of fact, I use my real name for most of my online writings: John Douglas DeWitt. Problem?
"I'm not a tortured juvenile in it for the latest hip fashion of slamming 'the man' to make myself look important and kewl."
Yes, that's obviously my motivation. Whatever you want to think....
"When anybody sees my name, they'll know, even if they disagree with me, that I do what I know is best and that I'm willing to live with the consequences of my words and actions."
And what consequences are those? Are we not allowed to support causes, or state our opinions online any longer?
"where you can be cruel just for the amusement of it,"
You support an industry that sues a single mother for $2,000,000 for swapping 24 songs online and then gloats about it, but I'm the cruel one, because I called you immature and made fun of your political flame-baiting?
"You are transparently uninterested in being part of the community of creatives that make this troubled world so much more worth living in."
You mean the community of business people who seek to destroy creativity for their own selfish gain. Yes, I am highly disinterested in being part of that world.
"I'll not further entertain your immature attacks with the properly reasoned, logical entreaties that I would offer others."
When exactly did you start writing logical "entreaties?" The only thing I've seen from you is personal attacks and thinly veiled threats of "consequences" once you find out who I am.
Outsider Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Rad, please, I'll say this politely. You do not understand the nature of the music business. You have proved this repeatedly in this thread. You are arguing about something which is not your domain. You're entitled to your opinion, needless to say. But if I was you I would not expose it to people that struggle to make a living from creating things.
Apart from anything else, many musicians and labels have been pistol whipped over the past few years. They have no illusions about what people think of music as a profession. People spend $600 on a phone but whinge about paying 99 cents for a single track. Jamendo is cool. CC is cool. But they don't represent 1% of music consumption.
Let's face it: people are perfectly happy to gouge recorded music, and the film industry - which relied on DVD sales as an important part of the financing package - is next in line.
Oh please Friday, January 21, 2011
... don't try comparing mobile phones with songs. When I buy a mobile phone, I wholly own it. When I purchase a song, I do not own that song. I have simply purchased the right to listen to that song. It's a totally different story. A person also does not buy hundreds of mobile phones, as they might do with songs.
Nashville Friday, January 07, 2011
I don't EXPECT that people will enjoy my music, BUT ... if someone does and it enriches their life enough that they want a recording to listen to I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for 9 cents (yes, 9 cents) in return for the years it took me to write that song.
I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect a bar owner who uses my music to draw in and keep a crowd would kick a little of that money my way. After all - he is making money off my hard work.
Same for the radio station that plays my songs.
None of this has anything to do with my reasons for making music. I do in fact make music because I love it, and I will never stop making music. I want to be paid so that I can make music full time. The reason I want to make music full time is so that I can make BETTER music. The simple fact is, when you are able to focus on something exclusively and work at it eight or more hours a day you get better at it. Doesn't matter if that's songwriting or writing computer software.
Brandwagun Friday, January 07, 2011
So since your not that good at making music now, you expect people to pay you in the hopes that you will get better?
If your going to make music for the rest of your life anyways, why are you even arguing?
Ruby Friday, January 07, 2011
So interesting how proud amateurs are of labeling themselves "artist" or "musician" without recognizing that it is a profession, a calling from childhood that resulted in hard training and focus and the ability to feed oneself and one's family from it. It is not a title for dillettantes. There is a distinction. Next time, specify that you are an amateur artist and musician. You do vanity projects. We do it for real. We put everything on the line for it. We have no safety net, it's all we've ever done. Every ounce of attention has gone into it. That's why folks want it -- once upon a time, enough to pay for it, but now they just steal it by the zillions and we see them for what they really are, wormy, wriggling, dishonorable little thieves, making off with what we have worked hard all our lives to give them in exchange for a pittance that they now stiff us for. Down with the thieving vampires!
Lee Fox Friday, January 07, 2011
Word!
RadialSkid Friday, January 07, 2011
T.S. Eliot was an amateur writer when he wrote The Wasteland, since he worked in a bank while writing it. Are you going to say he wasn't an author "for real?"
Artists are artists. How dare you imply that lazy business people or starry-eyed fame seekers who see only dollar signs are the only true artists.
Lee Fox Saturday, January 08, 2011
It's not about absolutes like "only paid artists are good artists"
Recommended reading:
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/01/the-fallacy-of-intellectual-property-fallacy/
RadialSkid Saturday, January 08, 2011
"It's not about absolutes like 'only paid artists are good artists'"
Yet the person I responded to clearly thinks it is.
Lee Fox Saturday, January 08, 2011
Let's also remember that T.S.Eliot was not a solo performer. Like a major recording artist, he had a 'producer' helping him hone his skills and improving his poem. A product that was published for an intended profit.
From Wikipedia:
In October 1922 Eliot published The Waste Land in The Criterion. Eliot's dedication to il miglior fabbro ("the better blacksmith") refers to Ezra Pound's significant hand in editing and reshaping the poem from a longer Eliot manuscript to the shortened version that appears in publication.
voxleo Tuesday, January 11, 2011
AMEN and thank you. Well said. The sense of entitlement has grown to ego-ic proportions in many areas, but nauseatingly so in the entertainment fields.
May I add that I have been long sick of the stupid argument that pirates are starving the artists out of the desire to create. It is the greed of the music execs that killed their own golden goose. Its almost as if the actual finding of real talent became too much work for the corporate fat cats so they started to produce manufactured "artists" and promote marketing units based on formula pop tunes because it was the quickest way to profit without even having to negotiate with an artist who actually wanted to avoid becoming a slave.
The actual passionate talents who create for the sake of the creation have been notably absent from mainstream media vehicles for more than a decade and a half at least. In reality I think the staunching of the flow of cash to mega stars is actually levelling the playing field and making it more likely that good creations actually get the chance to be appreciated rather than being forsaken in favor of something more mediocre that has mass marketing potential by way of being the same as something else that has proven popular. The music industry has been choked with wanna be's who produce garbage in search of easy money making it that much harder for the real artists to profit from their real and valuable art. .
I love music. I used to spend mucho cash on it and would often buy album that contained one song I liked when LPs were the main vehicle. I couldn't do it for CD's at three times the cost, though, so I got a lot pickier about what I bought. If I liked something enough I bought it, but otherwise I would settle for a lower quality recording or just pass altogether on owning it if I couldn't find it for free. I've downloaded songs for a buck and have other "illegally" shared files as well and despite the resulting overdue electric bill I managed to happily fork over $300 to see Sting in concert this summer. (I challenge someone to tell me again how I am stealing from him and that I don't think he should be compensated for his work because I didn't pay for an MP3 of him singing 'I Saw Three Ships" and the sky is falling...Asshats.)
Even in the heydey there was no gaurantee that an artist would actually make the A list and get signed by a label - the odds of success were getting slimmer with the inordinate amount of wanna-be's in it for the money and I myself was actually deterred from pursuing a creative career in favor of something more "practical" and less subject to chance and that one-in-a-million opportunity. Perhaps less people trying to capitalize on crap promoted as creative content means those dedicated enough to create something really good might get the opportunity to receive some compensation for it once it isn't drowning in garbage.
I put my money where the value merits it. Unfortunately, just because someone works hard at a creation doesn't mean it is any good at all (nor does it entitle someone to be compensated for working hard or all of us would be far less frustrated with our daily grind for that matter). It doesn't even make it reasonable to expect that I should forego a tiny luxury in its favor and certainly doesn't mean I would be willing to give up the ability to keep my lights on to appreciate the results of that toil. But it also bears consideration that if it is brilliant and beautiful people will sacrifice amazing things to obtain it even if it was accidentally crapped out by a junkie on a bender. The value of a work of art is not the potential profit to be gained from it nor the investment made in its existence, it is the art itself.
VOXLEO Tuesday, January 11, 2011
"I would like to turn the question on its head: Why do the artists feel they should be paid for their art? Perhaps some ought to reexamine their motives for making art in the first place."
Three cheers!
Pencil Guy Wednesday, January 05, 2011
You can try to educate the public as much as you want, but it won't work! The current business model is broken and requires a complete overhaul! It is 2011, how much longer do you think people will pay for digital music? If artists want people to give them money for a service or product, they need to innovate and learn to view their craft as a business. If you can demonstrate value to your consumer, you will make money. If you think that business interferes with the creative process, find someone who appreciates your gift and knows how to manage and market it! I am an artist, but if I want to eat, I have to play the role of entrepreneur.
Kat Friday, January 07, 2011
You can market and promote all you want, and it will be a waste of money and energy if your output is available for free. No, this is a law enforcement issue. The download sites and links need to be taken down off the web. Takedown notices are whack-a-mole. Believe me, trying to send out 30,000 of them to all the sites that have our complete life's work on them -- each one with tens of thousands of downloads (do the math!) -- and each one making you jump through various and different types of hoops in order to effectuate the takedown -- no. One (or even ten or a humdred people) could devote their life to it and still fail to get them all. It's time for the Feds.
In biology, there's a phenomenon called the "cheater" or "freeloader". They leech off the work of other members of any organic society, be it bacteria or humans. When they overwhelm a community, the entire society collapses. It is worth studying. That's why law enforcement is necessary. Culture is dying.
Brandwagun Friday, January 07, 2011
First of all, I can guarantee you that true culture is not, nor will it ever be dying. Besides, are you claiming that your music is this "culture" that you speak of?
Second, in this time of economic turmoil, joblessness and actual hardships that people are suffering through on a daily basis, do you really feel it is necessary for the government to spend the kind of money that it takes to call in the Feds, just so little "artists" can feel appreciated for the crap they put out? Seriously the utter selfishness in that statement is mind-boggling, to actually suggest that the government take the time and use its resources in order to re-allocate money towards the hands of people who do nothing but strum a guitar all day, and claim it to be art. Clearly your demanding handouts for what is essentially nothing, since again, nobody is forcing you to create in the first place. God bless America! Am I right or am I right? It is this attitude that has brought us so low...
The world will get by without their "culture" I guarantee that.
Jobs Saturday, January 08, 2011
Professional music is a job. Everyone involved in the production, promotion, fabrication or encoding, distribution and sale of albums is injured by the thieving vampires. That's a whole industry. That's a hell of a lot of jobs.
And yes, we are entitled to compensation for our work when folks obviously want it so badly. The US has signed onto international treaties saying that artists and scientists must be compensated for their work when it is exploited. Therefore, our human rights are enshrined in treaties with the force of law, and the government has a sacred obligation to enforce it and make it easier to enforce.
Brandwagun Saturday, January 08, 2011
But do they want it so badly? Or will they just take it if they can? Making music can be a job, but it doesn't have to be, and this has been my point all along, not to mention music is immaterial and so the lack of it will not really affect much.
If somebody were to sneak into a brick and mortar record store and steal albums, this in fact would be a crime, but not on the digital scale. The reason for this is because there are actual people behind the physical album like those who supply the materials, those who transform those materials into the actual copies, those who transport them to the stores, and those who actually maintain the stores. When things go digital, 90% of that is eliminated. If nobody had the option to download music for free in that digital realm, things would physically (figuratively) be unproportional, as it is so easy to create and then place the music online for people to buy (if this were the case, then your music wouldn't be bought anyways, just for the same reason it's downloaded for free: its not worth the money. Given this, you as an artist are better of with the free promotion that comes with free downloads then non-existent sales where nobody will ever hear about you). If artists opens themselves up to the digital realm, they then have no choice but to also open themselves and whatever they place in that realm to the pitfalls that come with it.
Lee Fox Saturday, January 08, 2011
That's quite a load of rationalization.
Update:
There are "Actual People" behind digital downloads too. They do not appear out of thin air. They are the virtual embodiment of blood, sweat, and tears.
In other words, they are Intellectual Property that was created by Human Beings and should be respected, not ripped off as though they are without worth or without effort in their creation and cast away as garbage to be pilfered by lawless scavengers.
Theft is theft.
Whether it is a physical transfer of goods or not is immaterial.
Brandwagun Saturday, January 08, 2011
Update:
your still arguing for the musician. I'm describing the middle man. You've missed the point entirely and clearly this is a waste of time, especially since what you are fighting against will never stop.
@ms_blue Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Jana Cleland
Artists should create music not make me cappuccinos. Compensate them!
X Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Nobody is forcing artists to work in cafes. I am getting tired of fellow artists acting like victims. You are responsible for your own well being and nobody is going to hand you money. If you are creating something of substance, there is a market for it. You might have to work in a cafe, clean toilets, or work as a baby sitter along the way, but so what? Success isn't going to fall from the sky! You have to put forth the effort instead of feeling a sense of entitlement!
Kat Friday, January 07, 2011
Under the current circumstances, one can market and market all the livelong day, but if their output is available for free, then all it will serve to do is make more folks want to steal it. If you are really an artist who has produced work that others want, then you would feel the pain that artists feel when their life's work is downloaded for free in 7 seconds from tens of thousands of websites, untold thousands of times and millions of dollars worth of your work is being stolen from you, and you're now struggling with whether to put out any more albums because it's no longer making back even your production costs. And it's what you've done all your life, to great acclaim. You tour your ass off, but you're getting on in years and your health may not hold up, but you don't want to die in penury after giving Grammy-nominated award winning work to a mass of humanity that wants what you do but could care less if you starve -- they're quite happy to take the food right out of your mouth. We once struggled with crooked labels, but now it's far worse -- we struggle with crooked fans.
mcperc Friday, January 07, 2011
I think that is partially true however humans suck. Yep, plain suck and always want things for Free or Cheap off of someone else's hard work. (Well, the majority anyway.)
Do you shop at mainstream stores such as the Gap, American Apparrel or plain go to the Mall, Wal-Mart & or Target to get those great deals? Then you are a Leech like the rest of Western society and proving my point.
Do you shop at mainstream grocery stores? There you go again you Cheapskate. Always trying to save a buck off the back of people who work really hard to get that produce & products to you. Or ... you are downloading music for free, "borrowing" from friends. And this includes software of all types.
If you like IT then fricken BUY IT! Quit stealing Art & other goods.
What in the Hell happen to HONESTY? Crooks.
vOXLEO Tuesday, January 11, 2011
I am tempted to respond to accusatory posts like this with an equally stupid retort, to answer name calling ("Crooks!") with name calling ("Elitist snob!"). It occurs to me that there is a great deal of polarization on this issue and I wonder what might come to light should details of lifestyle or income be attached to each opinion. Would it add some perspective to either side of the argument? There is a great deal of passion largely centered around money and toil and entitlement and all at a time when society is becoming divided on a lot of issues into some distictly financially correlated groups. Perhaps we could all benefit from being a little less self-righteous and at least try to keep our arguments focused on fact and less on personal attack.
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree anyway though, as anyone who is unable to provide evidence to validate a claim is unlikely to be persuaded by evidence in support of one either.
I think that with this much emotion present in the commentary, there is little to fear in the way of art or music dying out for lack of paying consumers. Where there is passion, there will be a creative expression that comes of it, regardless of whether it is paid for or not, and beauty will always shine brighter than gold.
Kat Friday, January 07, 2011
ms_blue: AMEN! If folks want good music, they need to realize that music is very hard work (they should try it!) and making good music takes a lifetime of hard, concentrated, devoted, single-minded work. The sacrifices are huge, but the work is worth the effort. If some members of the public just want peurile machine crap that will stultify their minds, then fine, they can have that too. But there are still millions upon millions of intelligent people who need intelligent, beautiful, well-wrought music and any society that allows the destruction of the noble profession of making that music is looking at the complete decimation of culture. It will not be worth a damn.
misabel Wednesday, January 05, 2011
It isn't a question of value, it really is just that people can get the music for free, and you can't fight human nature. If people could steal food from the grocery store with complete anonymity, they would do it - and eventually it would become something 'everybody does,' and people would start to feel comfortable justifying their behavior and browbeating grocers when they complain that they really should be compensated for the food. "Find ways to add value to what you're doing! The money's not in the food these days. Sell t-shirts! Take the food around the country in a van and present it live at other grocery stores! You have to be an entrepreneur!
What we need is technology to prevent stealing, and enforcement. Recorded music is the product, and that product is being stolen. The solution, nasty as this may seem, is to scare people into not stealing anymore by putting their computers at risk of some horrible viral infection if they download illegally. There would be a big hue and cry at first, but people would get used to it, and eventually, stealing music would start to be seen as a sort of a skanky habit.
sigfusson Saturday, January 08, 2011
your analogy is brilliant (grocery stealing) and I couldn't agree with you more. As an internet radio show co-host for indie bands on TSSinderadio.com, I know full well how hard they struggle to get the music out there and to somehow be compensated for their efforts. They often don't even get paid to do live gigs at pubs & bars unless they bring in a ton of their own fans who buy a lot of booze with them to the gig. It is not only the music lovers who get the music for free, but often so do the live venues where these indie bands play.
T-shirt, CD & other merch sales can help, but to support 4 band members with merch on the indie level is just as much a pipe dream as stopping illegal downloading of music. I won't pretend that I've never downloaded a song for free, but I will tell you that I stopped doing that a long time ago, and unless the artists we interview offer me a complimentary copy of their CD, I will find it on iTunes or CD Baby and buy a copy of their CD online. Seriously, individual tunes are .99 cents and full CD tracks are often less than $10.00. It really doesn't get any cheaper than that to support the musicians you love.
Basically, at the end of the day society has lost all respect for itself, and until that respect returns I fear none of this will change.
Nick Conte Thursday, January 06, 2011
Throughout history, and particularly in the twentieth century, as well as the twenty first century, the reason for getting up in the morning was to try to better yourself, either by education or moving up in the firm where you worked.. The ultimate reason for doing this was to make as much money as you could, not only to support yourself but to also make it possible for your children to have a better life than you do. There's nothing wrong with that approach and yet there are those who don't think so.
To pick on one segment of society and say that artistic people should not be compensated for their efforts is perplexing. How about everyone who feels that way is also not paid for what they do, and also get a second job to help them get along in their main job?? How about Doctors, Lawyers, engineers, etc also not get paid for what they do, and also get a second job to help them with their first job??
Will society get better that way and help us to realize our dreams? I don't think so! In today's world making ends meet is hard enough without someone making mean spirited and short sighted comments.
@k8music Thursday, January 06, 2011
k8
Don’t Quit Your Second Day Job!
c-leb Friday, January 07, 2011
don't quit your second day job is right! i do music and art for a living and argue with my peers all the time about compensation ethics. it comes in all forums and trying to embrace the old model at this point is a mute and tired point. many of the podcasters have it down, give it away and accept donations. otherwise expect to be disgruntled ... times they are a changin
@soulstreammusic Friday, January 07, 2011
Michele Scorza
Such an important issue that needs that affects the overall marketplace of the music professional.....
airlend Friday, January 07, 2011
In any business the most important thing to take into consideration is it's current climate. The fact that record sales are crap right now (and pretty much always have been) only means one thing to me as a working musician:
Licensing, touring, merchandise and studio work are my alternatives. Instead of dwelling on the negative fact that music is being pirated on a daily basis I encourage all fellow artists to focus on alternative sources of income that stay in line with your passion. Get a day job if you have to but more importantly get creative. There are other ways to prosper than record sales!
By the way, whether we like it or not, art IS a business. Thats why we are having this discussion. And yes artists should be paid for their work god dammit!!!
@dupesbeatbox Saturday, January 08, 2011
Sherwinn Brice
Just another sad set of news on the music business, people actually believe that artist shouldn't be compensated...
@highceilings Saturday, January 08, 2011
Alex Wong
At least there's more coke for u now, Shawn Parker, as musicians sure as hell can't afford it anymore.
@MicControl (Twitter) Sunday, January 09, 2011
this is very disheartening
joseph nicoletti consulting Monday, January 10, 2011
this is a "PASSION" driven Business, ! why do people think that a Creative person (or company) should not be Paid ?.. who started this thinking ?...What a world this would be with No music/songs/movies/Art,.. you get it,,,just because it is a Digital world,, does not mean you can STEAL,..this Culture must value "TALENT' more than being Famous for 15 min...keep the PASSION the "Passion" alive ,allow the Talent you enjoy to be compensated for the work,,respect plays into this thinking,.most people do not have a CLUE on the Years of Dreaming,working,rejection,and getting back up and Dreaming Again,,. just to "Entertain" you-the Public..... joseph nicoletti consulting/Promotion p.o.box 386 Laguna Beach california 92652 USA ph 949-715-7036 KEEP the Dream Alive !......
CBQ Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Rest assured, if someone steals your music, there is no way they were ever going to buy it - so what have you lost?
At least they've listened.
Concentrate on the people who actually like your music and are willing to pay for it. Ignore the thieves.
Outsider Tuesday, January 11, 2011
"Rest assured, if someone steals your music, there is no way they were ever going to buy it - so what have you lost?"
This is so untrue I was genuinely sirprised to read it here. While it's true that a lot of dpwnloading could be compared to a test drive, the point is that in this case you don't bring the track back to the garage and pay for it!
Something else: many of the streaming and lyric sites generate healthy revenue from advertising. So not only are the creators not being paid, someone else is!
@musicregistry Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Stephen Trumbull
Some great comments
@endurablegoods Tuesday, January 11, 2011
endurablegoods
Good stuff in comments
@terranaomi Friday, January 21, 2011
terra naomi
Very sad to live in a "culture" where these beliefs exist.
musickats Friday, January 21, 2011
Music, depending on one's tastes, is Entertainment, or can go so far as Relaxation, Healing, etc. "one man's floor is another man's ceiling". What one or "elite few" is to "judge" what is "worth" compensation to the authors/performers and what is not?? It used to be Big Corporations choosing the "select few" that were given Big advances. The indie music idea was put into practice for Original, innovative artists/groups/singers/writers who have talent, and courage to put out what They believe in without Corp funding. If you don't like something, you don't have to buy it, but that doesn't mean you have the right to take Anything that's not offered "free" or destroy the chances of someone else buying what you Don't like. Most times people are FICKLE.. with music and everything else...... They'll Love something for a short time, then get tired of it, put it aside...Then years or even months later, it may sound great to them. Same thing in reverse with "hating" something at first. Look at popularity of the Retro stuff out there.
6-14 (pounds/dollars) or so for a CD of songs. usually with some pretty cool Artwork, even if you don't fancy All songs, is still cheaper than most "Entertainment". It's sad today, that too many will go and spend hundreds of pounds/dollars/etc. on "recreation" Drugs, Overboozing, Extravagant toys, etc....(some that can make them ill or kill them)... but Expect to get Music for Free all the time, plus expect it to be Perfect, Exactly what They like forever, at that time, without compensating the works of all involved with the releasing, promoting, slogging, etc. of that music! Many Poor people have not the means to hear 1/4 of the music that people with Computers/radios do. It is a Luxury actually.
If anything "should be" Free it IS Necessities... like Electricity, Court/Judges/Juries for Victims of Fraud/ Injury/Murder, etc., Healthcare, Food, clothing etc. These are Way Way OVERPRICED on top of Corrupted. So should Books be Free for All as well?? What does one go to Music College, Art School, or Journalist classes for?? To give their work away???
Why not ask Car Dealers, why they can't give out Free Luxury cars, like Rolls Royces??? One not only Pays for transportation, but Pays for the Petrol to use, plus Pays TAXES on its use, just to Get to Any work!
If someone wants to give away their House, Cars, Clothes, Food, etc. it's Their choice. (some rich get Tax deductions for such) If someone wants to give away their solo music (not done with others), that's their choice and right. It is Intellectual Property, just as Books, Films, Poems, Artwork, Journal Articles, Etc. If they Need to or Want to make a decent income from their Craft or Talents, that is their Right. A person who Designs Fashionwear actually gets more than the people who Sew the Clothes together for them. Yes, those get "stolen" too....the "designer clothing" ideas. But at least the original designer got paid, eh?
Ripping off is ripping off...... This is not like loaves of bread being stolen by Starving people.
Most music for "release" requires the abilities/input of several people.... and Costs, which build up over time. Many people work on "spec" for independent artistes. They get paid when the artiste does.
If a Graphic Artist works for a Corporation and designs a Logo or does music in a Commercial...... they get paid. The Whole Public might not like the Logo or Commercial... but someone at the Corp did. So does that mean the artist/composers should give the Payments back??? NOOO. Am sure many have been driven up the wall hearing some music you hate in a commercial being played over and over and Louder than the actual programme, eh??
The economy has been shot by Mega Ego-oriented Greed and self serving cruelty. Give a Break to ones with ability, who slog hard to help "recreate" already! You don't have to buy certain music, if you don't like it. You don't have to ripoff either. You might not like something 2 weeks or 2 months after you hear/buy it anyway. You can always give it as a gift to a friend, or better yet, to a Poorer person or who enjoys it, and can at least have access to a music player. Some cannot even afford that, let alone computers.
liz Monday, February 21, 2011
It´s interesting that nowadays, artists are often the ones who end up paying out. If you wanted to record your music, you pay a studio. Then you pay for digital distribution to actually release your music to the public. Then if you´re lucky or talented, you might actually make 99p back and get a few royalties here and there, usually less than 30p per month. Artists should just give up on the idea of making money from recordings, think of it as promo material or, better still, as gift you´re giving to the world. The only way to make any money is from live performances. If you are good and people like what they here, you will be paid and you will be asked back, recommended and cheered. Let´s face it, how much satisfaction can an artist actually get from discovering that someone, somewhere bought your song... I much prefer and value live audiences, instant feedback and the thrill of a real gig. I feed my body teaching, I feed my soul singing and writing music. I don´t look for recognition, fame, money, if it comes, it´s a bonus.
@Yuminale Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Yuminale
Everyone has an opinion. Thanks John Simpson for speaking out!
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us