Five things you would like to see change in the world of music.

PJ_Soul · May 2017

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

My 6th would just be for more musicians to be able to earn a living with their craft. That is too complicated an issue for me to offer details, since I basically wouldn't know what I'm talking about. But artists certainly do gripe about it a lot and have plenty of ideas that don't destroy streaming services.

OMG, yes. I don't like to talk about other people's finances without their permission so putting it generically, I have a friend in a band who put out a record in the 2000's that J Mascis said he thought was the best record anyone put out that year. This friend makes very little money from making music. It's freaking horrible. Unless you are a big name, it's damn near impossible to make a living making music. Really, really sad.

What was the album Brian?? If you don't want to say publicly, maybe PM me? I'd love to find it and give it a listen!

elvistheking44 · May 2017

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

My 6th would just be for more musicians to be able to earn a living with their craft. That is too complicated an issue for me to offer details, since I basically wouldn't know what I'm talking about. But artists certainly do gripe about it a lot and have plenty of ideas that don't destroy streaming services.

OMG, yes. I don't like to talk about other people's finances without their permission so putting it generically, I have a friend in a band who put out a record in the 2000's that J Mascis said he thought was the best record anyone put out that year. This friend makes very little money from making music. It's freaking horrible. Unless you are a big name, it's damn near impossible to make a living making music. Really, really sad.

Don't most go into the music business knowing this? I chose an art career full aware that I'd be struggling until I became a "big name".
I wouldn't change a thing. I love how easy it is to access new music. I love that I can download music. I love that I can get vinyl if I want it. I love how an upcoming artist can put his or her stuff out there for the world to see in a matter of minutes. I love how television shows can open up a possibility for someone. I love that the digital aspect is involved. It's evolution baby.

PJ_Soul · May 2017

elvistheking44 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

My 6th would just be for more musicians to be able to earn a living with their craft. That is too complicated an issue for me to offer details, since I basically wouldn't know what I'm talking about. But artists certainly do gripe about it a lot and have plenty of ideas that don't destroy streaming services.

OMG, yes. I don't like to talk about other people's finances without their permission so putting it generically, I have a friend in a band who put out a record in the 2000's that J Mascis said he thought was the best record anyone put out that year. This friend makes very little money from making music. It's freaking horrible. Unless you are a big name, it's damn near impossible to make a living making music. Really, really sad.

Don't most go into the music business knowing this? I chose an art career full aware that I'd be struggling until I became a "big name".
I wouldn't change a thing. I love how easy it is to access new music. I love that I can download music. I love that I can get vinyl if I want it. I love how an upcoming artist can put his or her stuff out there for the world to see in a matter of minutes. I love how television shows can open up a possibility for someone. I love that the digital aspect is involved. It's evolution baby.

I don't see how knowing it when they go into is the point. They go into it because they have a passion and a talent and something to give the world. They SHOULD get paid enough to support themselves simply because they are worth it to society. They have a very special and important role in culture and society, and aren't fairly compensated. That they know they may not hit it rich is neither here nor there. It isn't at all fair that musicians struggle so much financially no matter what. Also, many musicians do indeed drop their dreams and don't pursue that career because they can't support themselves or their families otherwise. I HATE to imagine what kind of amazing music we have lost because of this. I am actually really surprised that you, as an artist, do not support a better structure in the industry so that artists who can find an audience are supported adequately. Accepting shit instead of striving for fairness isn't something that we should be cool with, even if it is the current state of affairs.

hedonist · May 2017

An audience doesn't necessarily equate to monetary compensation. Is it about the art itself, creating and sharing it, or making money off of it? Shit, look at Mozart. Few saw his true talent at the time, and his dead body was thrown into a ditch, a paltry grave. That doesn't mean his music wasn't / isn't still loved, appreciated, and then some. That's more valuable than the bucks, no? What exactly is compensation - fair compensation, and by whose standards - when it comes to the arts or anything else, really?

I'd love to spend my days ensconced in painting, but my realistic self says, nope - do it when you can or want, but don't depend on it to pay your mortgage. I wouldn't expect it to, and certainly wouldn't try to make that my main source of income if I had children.

Pretty common sense.

PJ_Soul · May 2017

An audience SHOULD equate to monetary compensation. That's what I'm saying. Of course the art isn't (or shouldn't be) about money, but musicians deserve to not be forces to live in poverty. Earning enough to support oneself and/or their family does not erode the intrinsic value of the art unless it starts controlling the art. Simply being able to pay rent and buy food is a reasonable expectation for ANYONE who contributes positively to society in some way on a full time basis. I say the same thing about every single other person on the planet who works, no matter what they are doing. I don't see why artists should be the exception, nor do I think we should expect artists to reduce that work to a hobby. We need full time artists in this world.

elvistheking44 · May 2017

PJ_Soul said:

An audience SHOULD equate to monetary compensation. That's what I'm saying. Of course the art isn't (or shouldn't be) about money, but musicians deserve to not be forces to live in poverty. Earning enough to support oneself and/or their family does not erode the intrinsic value of the art unless it starts controlling the art. Simply being able to pay rent and buy food is a reasonable expectation for ANYONE who contributes positively to society in some way on a full time basis. I say the same thing about every single other person on the planet who works, no matter what they are doing. I don't see why artists should be the exception, nor do I think we should expect artists to reduce that work to a hobby. We need full time artists in this world.

Where do you expect this monetary compensation to come from? If an artist is struggling, you do what you can to make your ends meet. Thats life, if you chose to only make your art and do no other work...........well I guess you chose to live in poverty. Thats how the real world works. If I wanted to be a bank teller, but couldn't find work I wouldn't expect to be compensated just because I have passion for it, and love it. I'd expect to find a different job until I could be a bank teller.......

PJ_Soul · May 2017

elvistheking44 said:

PJ_Soul said:

An audience SHOULD equate to monetary compensation. That's what I'm saying. Of course the art isn't (or shouldn't be) about money, but musicians deserve to not be forces to live in poverty. Earning enough to support oneself and/or their family does not erode the intrinsic value of the art unless it starts controlling the art. Simply being able to pay rent and buy food is a reasonable expectation for ANYONE who contributes positively to society in some way on a full time basis. I say the same thing about every single other person on the planet who works, no matter what they are doing. I don't see why artists should be the exception, nor do I think we should expect artists to reduce that work to a hobby. We need full time artists in this world.

Where do you expect this monetary compensation to come from? If an artist is struggling, you do what you can to make your ends meet. Thats life, if you chose to only make your art and do no other work...........well I guess you chose to live in poverty. Thats how the real world works. If I wanted to be a bank teller, but couldn't find work I wouldn't expect to be compensated just because I have passion for it, and love it. I'd expect to find a different job until I could be a bank teller.......

But that isn't the same situation at all. We're talking about WORKING artists, not unemployed ones. Not being able to find a job isn't the same as doing a job and not getting compensated fairly.
I would expect the monetary compensation to come from music sales obviously. That's why we're talking about this in the 'things you'd change about the music industry'. My suggestion is the music industry sort its shit out so that it works better for the artists. I also said I wouldn't go into details because I'm not informed enough to. However, there are TONS of current music artists who are fighting this battle - they have plenty of ideas.

HesCalledDyer · May 2017

1. End censorship

HughFreakingDillon · May 2017

PJ_Soul said:

elvistheking44 said:

PJ_Soul said:

An audience SHOULD equate to monetary compensation. That's what I'm saying. Of course the art isn't (or shouldn't be) about money, but musicians deserve to not be forces to live in poverty. Earning enough to support oneself and/or their family does not erode the intrinsic value of the art unless it starts controlling the art. Simply being able to pay rent and buy food is a reasonable expectation for ANYONE who contributes positively to society in some way on a full time basis. I say the same thing about every single other person on the planet who works, no matter what they are doing. I don't see why artists should be the exception, nor do I think we should expect artists to reduce that work to a hobby. We need full time artists in this world.

Where do you expect this monetary compensation to come from? If an artist is struggling, you do what you can to make your ends meet. Thats life, if you chose to only make your art and do no other work...........well I guess you chose to live in poverty. Thats how the real world works. If I wanted to be a bank teller, but couldn't find work I wouldn't expect to be compensated just because I have passion for it, and love it. I'd expect to find a different job until I could be a bank teller.......

But that isn't the same situation at all. We're talking about WORKING artists, not unemployed ones. Not being able to find a job isn't the same as doing a job and not getting compensated fairly.
I would expect the monetary compensation to come from music sales obviously. That's why we're talking about this in the 'things you'd change about the music industry'. My suggestion is the music industry sort its shit out so that it works better for the artists. I also said I wouldn't go into details because I'm not informed enough to. However, there are TONS of current music artists who are fighting this battle - they have plenty of ideas.

well, in a sense, it is the same thing. an artist, while they don't have a specific employer, they are independent contractors that get hired based on their perceived potential financial value to the contractee. no different than anyone else who goes into business for themselves, and either they succeed and do more, or they don't and do something else.

as a musician who has never even considered doing it professionally, it sucks. as it is such a minute probability of being able to live off your passion, but that's no different than anyone else who starts a business. the large majority of new businesses fail within the first two years. should we "fairly compensate" them too because they are providing a service to the community, even though it's not financially viable in the marketplace?

there are a LOT of musicians who, many of us believe, should succeed, yet they don't. if there isn't a demand for that type of music/art, or they haven't figured out the business side in order to promote themselves properly, who are we to say "well they should be paid anyway", and what is "fair"?

I do believe there should always be public funds for the arts. But I don't think people should just be able to say "I'm an artist" and collect a paycheque if they put their art out every once in a while. I mean, if no one is being entertained (3 drunks in a pub on a wednesday night, for example), then what is the actual value then anyway?

elvistheking44 · May 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

elvistheking44 said:

PJ_Soul said:

An audience SHOULD equate to monetary compensation. That's what I'm saying. Of course the art isn't (or shouldn't be) about money, but musicians deserve to not be forces to live in poverty. Earning enough to support oneself and/or their family does not erode the intrinsic value of the art unless it starts controlling the art. Simply being able to pay rent and buy food is a reasonable expectation for ANYONE who contributes positively to society in some way on a full time basis. I say the same thing about every single other person on the planet who works, no matter what they are doing. I don't see why artists should be the exception, nor do I think we should expect artists to reduce that work to a hobby. We need full time artists in this world.

Where do you expect this monetary compensation to come from? If an artist is struggling, you do what you can to make your ends meet. Thats life, if you chose to only make your art and do no other work...........well I guess you chose to live in poverty. Thats how the real world works. If I wanted to be a bank teller, but couldn't find work I wouldn't expect to be compensated just because I have passion for it, and love it. I'd expect to find a different job until I could be a bank teller.......

But that isn't the same situation at all. We're talking about WORKING artists, not unemployed ones. Not being able to find a job isn't the same as doing a job and not getting compensated fairly.
I would expect the monetary compensation to come from music sales obviously. That's why we're talking about this in the 'things you'd change about the music industry'. My suggestion is the music industry sort its shit out so that it works better for the artists. I also said I wouldn't go into details because I'm not informed enough to. However, there are TONS of current music artists who are fighting this battle - they have plenty of ideas.

well, in a sense, it is the same thing. an artist, while they don't have a specific employer, they are independent contractors that get hired based on their perceived potential financial value to the contractee. no different than anyone else who goes into business for themselves, and either they succeed and do more, or they don't and do something else.

as a musician who has never even considered doing it professionally, it sucks. as it is such a minute probability of being able to live off your passion, but that's no different than anyone else who starts a business. the large majority of new businesses fail within the first two years. should we "fairly compensate" them too because they are providing a service to the community, even though it's not financially viable in the marketplace?

there are a LOT of musicians who, many of us believe, should succeed, yet they don't. if there isn't a demand for that type of music/art, or they haven't figured out the business side in order to promote themselves properly, who are we to say "well they should be paid anyway", and what is "fair"?

I do believe there should always be public funds for the arts. But I don't think people should just be able to say "I'm an artist" and collect a paycheque if they put their art out every once in a while. I mean, if no one is being entertained (3 drunks in a pub on a wednesday night, for example), then what is the actual value then anyway?

Bingo

brianlux · May 2017

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

My 6th would just be for more musicians to be able to earn a living with their craft. That is too complicated an issue for me to offer details, since I basically wouldn't know what I'm talking about. But artists certainly do gripe about it a lot and have plenty of ideas that don't destroy streaming services.

OMG, yes. I don't like to talk about other people's finances without their permission so putting it generically, I have a friend in a band who put out a record in the 2000's that J Mascis said he thought was the best record anyone put out that year. This friend makes very little money from making music. It's freaking horrible. Unless you are a big name, it's damn near impossible to make a living making music. Really, really sad.

What was the album Brian?? If you don't want to say publicly, maybe PM me? I'd love to find it and give it a listen!

You got it!

brianlux · May 2017

elvistheking44 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

My 6th would just be for more musicians to be able to earn a living with their craft. That is too complicated an issue for me to offer details, since I basically wouldn't know what I'm talking about. But artists certainly do gripe about it a lot and have plenty of ideas that don't destroy streaming services.

OMG, yes. I don't like to talk about other people's finances without their permission so putting it generically, I have a friend in a band who put out a record in the 2000's that J Mascis said he thought was the best record anyone put out that year. This friend makes very little money from making music. It's freaking horrible. Unless you are a big name, it's damn near impossible to make a living making music. Really, really sad.

Don't most go into the music business knowing this? I chose an art career full aware that I'd be struggling until I became a "big name".
I wouldn't change a thing. I love how easy it is to access new music. I love that I can download music. I love that I can get vinyl if I want it. I love how an upcoming artist can put his or her stuff out there for the world to see in a matter of minutes. I love how television shows can open up a possibility for someone. I love that the digital aspect is involved. It's evolution baby.

Yes, of course they do unless they are totally deluded.

Ditto for artists and writers.

Edit: Look, I'm not trying to start an argument over this. It just bugs the hell out of me that people who sell shitty pharmaceutical drugs that people don't really need make a ton of money or people in sports make more money than any one could possibly need or or or, you know... and yet people who provide us with the richness that is culture- our music, works of art, books- the things that give meaning to life- we dare to say they don't deserve to make a living doing those things? And yet those who provide ephemeral jolts to the sensory neurons like selling us shit at the store, stuff that soon gets forgotten, or doctor and big pharma with prescribed drugs we don't really need and so on- those people make a living- some times a very wealthy living, and yet the majority of those in the arts don't? I don't get it.

helplessdancer · May 2017

LOVE your # 5 BL. spot on. bravo

i don't have 5 things to add but i would love to see music become more accessible to everyone on the planet. rich or poor, no matter where you live. music is a universal language and it can heal your soul and promote universal connections of love that transcend borders and race etc. there will always be people who don't get it or don't care about music but it's the people who do care that don't have access to it, unlike us the youtube nation. the people without it and want it, need it.

""Good to be Alive" is a song about gratitude. A song to remind us of the good in the world, on the days when our souls are rocked by all of the bad news that surrounds us. A reminder to be grateful for all we have, at the same time, to tenaciously stand behind things in life that serve the greater good --- getting one step closer to a world where EVERYONE can all say “it’s good to be alive today.”

Michael Franti & Spearhead - Good to Be Alive Today (Acoustic Remix)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVztZI-OMUg

HughFreakingDillon · May 2017

brianlux said:

elvistheking44 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

My 6th would just be for more musicians to be able to earn a living with their craft. That is too complicated an issue for me to offer details, since I basically wouldn't know what I'm talking about. But artists certainly do gripe about it a lot and have plenty of ideas that don't destroy streaming services.

OMG, yes. I don't like to talk about other people's finances without their permission so putting it generically, I have a friend in a band who put out a record in the 2000's that J Mascis said he thought was the best record anyone put out that year. This friend makes very little money from making music. It's freaking horrible. Unless you are a big name, it's damn near impossible to make a living making music. Really, really sad.

Don't most go into the music business knowing this? I chose an art career full aware that I'd be struggling until I became a "big name".
I wouldn't change a thing. I love how easy it is to access new music. I love that I can download music. I love that I can get vinyl if I want it. I love how an upcoming artist can put his or her stuff out there for the world to see in a matter of minutes. I love how television shows can open up a possibility for someone. I love that the digital aspect is involved. It's evolution baby.

Yes, of course they do unless they are totally deluded.

Ditto for artists and writers.

Edit: Look, I'm not trying to start an argument over this. It just bugs the hell out of me that people who sell shitty pharmaceutical drugs that people don't really need make a ton of money or people in sports make more money than any one could possibly need or or or, you know... and yet people who provide us with the richness that is culture- our music, works of art, books- the things that give meaning to life- we dare to say they don't deserve to make a living doing those things? And yet those who provide ephemeral jolts to the sensory neurons like selling us shit at the store, stuff that soon gets forgotten, or doctor and big pharma with prescribed drugs we don't really need and so on- those people make a living- some times a very wealthy living, and yet the majority of those in the arts don't? I don't get it.

no argument, brian, just discussion.

I'm not sure how you can compare big pharma to individual musicians that may or may not be any good at entertaining. but for the sports example, there are millions of other athletes that don't get to play in the NFL, for example, that never make any money doing what they love. an incredible small portion of the talent pool actually makes it that far, just like musicians. should we give them a paycheque because it's their passion, but they just weren't good enough to make the team?

I love the arts, and it should be publicly funded. but not to the point of putting musicians on civic salary just so they can do what they love. I'd love to do it, but honestly, I highly doubt my songwriting is worth it.

i'm not sure when passion=work came into play. i guess it came after work no longer equaled basic survival, so we had to find another purpose for it, like humans always do; we need a purpose/reason for everything. now we have jobs that we love. people encourage you to do something you love, or you are "wasting your life". hogwash. that is giving people unrealistic expectations in life, and perpetuates the "drone at the desk=loser" type of mentality. I work for a paycheque so I can participate in the things I love doing. I don't do the things I love to pay me to do the things I love. to me, that's like winning the lottery, not something that is feasible in the real world. I actually feel quite fortunate for the job I have. I HAVE a job. it's not hard, fairly stress-free. decent pay. excellent benefits. 99% of the world don't have that.

how could we possibly measure who gets what, and what professions are included in the "arts" and "passions" and their entertainment value? the arts are constantly changing. you'd have some guy in his apartment, painting his life away, showing it to no one, then destroying it, and he'd argue he helping the world by releasing his work into the ether rather than letting anyone see it-"it's spiritual, and it's my passion, and I'm providing a service-where's my money?".

that's all I'm saying.

hedonist · May 2017

Well-said, Hugh. You addressed much of what I was thinking but can't quite articulate this morning. Thanks

brianlux · May 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

elvistheking44 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

My 6th would just be for more musicians to be able to earn a living with their craft. That is too complicated an issue for me to offer details, since I basically wouldn't know what I'm talking about. But artists certainly do gripe about it a lot and have plenty of ideas that don't destroy streaming services.

OMG, yes. I don't like to talk about other people's finances without their permission so putting it generically, I have a friend in a band who put out a record in the 2000's that J Mascis said he thought was the best record anyone put out that year. This friend makes very little money from making music. It's freaking horrible. Unless you are a big name, it's damn near impossible to make a living making music. Really, really sad.

Don't most go into the music business knowing this? I chose an art career full aware that I'd be struggling until I became a "big name".
I wouldn't change a thing. I love how easy it is to access new music. I love that I can download music. I love that I can get vinyl if I want it. I love how an upcoming artist can put his or her stuff out there for the world to see in a matter of minutes. I love how television shows can open up a possibility for someone. I love that the digital aspect is involved. It's evolution baby.

Yes, of course they do unless they are totally deluded.

Ditto for artists and writers.

Edit: Look, I'm not trying to start an argument over this. It just bugs the hell out of me that people who sell shitty pharmaceutical drugs that people don't really need make a ton of money or people in sports make more money than any one could possibly need or or or, you know... and yet people who provide us with the richness that is culture- our music, works of art, books- the things that give meaning to life- we dare to say they don't deserve to make a living doing those things? And yet those who provide ephemeral jolts to the sensory neurons like selling us shit at the store, stuff that soon gets forgotten, or doctor and big pharma with prescribed drugs we don't really need and so on- those people make a living- some times a very wealthy living, and yet the majority of those in the arts don't? I don't get it.

no argument, brian, just discussion.

I'm not sure how you can compare big pharma to individual musicians that may or may not be any good at entertaining. but for the sports example, there are millions of other athletes that don't get to play in the NFL, for example, that never make any money doing what they love. an incredible small portion of the talent pool actually makes it that far, just like musicians. should we give them a paycheque because it's their passion, but they just weren't good enough to make the team?

I love the arts, and it should be publicly funded. but not to the point of putting musicians on civic salary just so they can do what they love. I'd love to do it, but honestly, I highly doubt my songwriting is worth it.

i'm not sure when passion=work came into play. i guess it came after work no longer equaled basic survival, so we had to find another purpose for it, like humans always do; we need a purpose/reason for everything. now we have jobs that we love. people encourage you to do something you love, or you are "wasting your life". hogwash. that is giving people unrealistic expectations in life, and perpetuates the "drone at the desk=loser" type of mentality. I work for a paycheque so I can participate in the things I love doing. I don't do the things I love to pay me to do the things I love. to me, that's like winning the lottery, not something that is feasible in the real world. I actually feel quite fortunate for the job I have. I HAVE a job. it's not hard, fairly stress-free. decent pay. excellent benefits. 99% of the world don't have that.

how could we possibly measure who gets what, and what professions are included in the "arts" and "passions" and their entertainment value? the arts are constantly changing. you'd have some guy in his apartment, painting his life away, showing it to no one, then destroying it, and he'd argue he helping the world by releasing his work into the ether rather than letting anyone see it-"it's spiritual, and it's my passion, and I'm providing a service-where's my money?".

that's all I'm saying.

You make a good case in discussion, HFC. There is no simple answer and I'm not sure subsidizing is the answer. Fundamentally, the issue goes deeper- to things like who gets paid what in the process, and what do we value in our society. Most promoters and managers make more money than the musicians themselves. The same is true in some other fields. Education, for example, where the administrators often make more money than the teachers and who sometimes are people who believe "we could get some work done here if it weren't for the damn students" (I helped teach in a college where this is exactly what one profs said to me about administrators).

You said, "I love the arts, and it should be publicly funded. but not to the point of putting musicians on civic salary just so they can do what they love. I'd love to do it, but honestly, I highly doubt my songwriting is worth it." I get it. I love to play guitar and occasionally sing but I have arthritis, a damaged finger and a weak voice. As much as I love playing, I'm not good enough at it to make a living at it. I know books well and make a modest living doing that instead. No, I'm not talking about guys me, I'm talking about the many really fine musicians out there who make damn near nothing and yet are excellent musicians. I know a number of people like this. I'm sure many of us do and I think that is a shame. I don't know how good a musician you are, HFD. Maybe you should be able to make a living at music but only if you are good at doing it.

So what I would suggest is a trend toward greater fairness in pay and even more basically, a greater focus in society on understanding and promoting the value of creativity. Creative people are often less aggressive than business people who in turn are often (especially the more successful ones) what are commonly referred to as "A type" personalities. Now. it could be argued that this is just "the way life is", that its Darwinian survival of the fittest. Or we could look at it differently and see that part of being human is to be compassionate to the less aggressive and often more creative among us and to place a higher value on the aesthetics of music, art, writing and other forms of creativity. So many of us love music but also so many among us take it for granted and seem to thing it should be a perk for simply being alive. A number of hippie type boomers used to think all concerts should be free. Wrong!

We could start by encouraging thinking favorably about creativity in school- let kids know that it is at least as valuable to write a song, paint a picture or write a book as it is to produce yet another gadget or weapon or pharmaceutical that no one really needs.

PJ_Soul · May 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

elvistheking44 said:

PJ_Soul said:

An audience SHOULD equate to monetary compensation. That's what I'm saying. Of course the art isn't (or shouldn't be) about money, but musicians deserve to not be forces to live in poverty. Earning enough to support oneself and/or their family does not erode the intrinsic value of the art unless it starts controlling the art. Simply being able to pay rent and buy food is a reasonable expectation for ANYONE who contributes positively to society in some way on a full time basis. I say the same thing about every single other person on the planet who works, no matter what they are doing. I don't see why artists should be the exception, nor do I think we should expect artists to reduce that work to a hobby. We need full time artists in this world.

Where do you expect this monetary compensation to come from? If an artist is struggling, you do what you can to make your ends meet. Thats life, if you chose to only make your art and do no other work...........well I guess you chose to live in poverty. Thats how the real world works. If I wanted to be a bank teller, but couldn't find work I wouldn't expect to be compensated just because I have passion for it, and love it. I'd expect to find a different job until I could be a bank teller.......

But that isn't the same situation at all. We're talking about WORKING artists, not unemployed ones. Not being able to find a job isn't the same as doing a job and not getting compensated fairly.
I would expect the monetary compensation to come from music sales obviously. That's why we're talking about this in the 'things you'd change about the music industry'. My suggestion is the music industry sort its shit out so that it works better for the artists. I also said I wouldn't go into details because I'm not informed enough to. However, there are TONS of current music artists who are fighting this battle - they have plenty of ideas.

well, in a sense, it is the same thing. an artist, while they don't have a specific employer, they are independent contractors that get hired based on their perceived potential financial value to the contractee. no different than anyone else who goes into business for themselves, and either they succeed and do more, or they don't and do something else.

as a musician who has never even considered doing it professionally, it sucks. as it is such a minute probability of being able to live off your passion, but that's no different than anyone else who starts a business. the large majority of new businesses fail within the first two years. should we "fairly compensate" them too because they are providing a service to the community, even though it's not financially viable in the marketplace?

there are a LOT of musicians who, many of us believe, should succeed, yet they don't. if there isn't a demand for that type of music/art, or they haven't figured out the business side in order to promote themselves properly, who are we to say "well they should be paid anyway", and what is "fair"?

I do believe there should always be public funds for the arts. But I don't think people should just be able to say "I'm an artist" and collect a paycheque if they put their art out every once in a while. I mean, if no one is being entertained (3 drunks in a pub on a wednesday night, for example), then what is the actual value then anyway?

I don't think peoplel should just be able to say "I'm an artist" and collect a paycheque if they put their art out every once in a while either.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2017

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

elvistheking44 said:

PJ_Soul said:

An audience SHOULD equate to monetary compensation. That's what I'm saying. Of course the art isn't (or shouldn't be) about money, but musicians deserve to not be forces to live in poverty. Earning enough to support oneself and/or their family does not erode the intrinsic value of the art unless it starts controlling the art. Simply being able to pay rent and buy food is a reasonable expectation for ANYONE who contributes positively to society in some way on a full time basis. I say the same thing about every single other person on the planet who works, no matter what they are doing. I don't see why artists should be the exception, nor do I think we should expect artists to reduce that work to a hobby. We need full time artists in this world.

Where do you expect this monetary compensation to come from? If an artist is struggling, you do what you can to make your ends meet. Thats life, if you chose to only make your art and do no other work...........well I guess you chose to live in poverty. Thats how the real world works. If I wanted to be a bank teller, but couldn't find work I wouldn't expect to be compensated just because I have passion for it, and love it. I'd expect to find a different job until I could be a bank teller.......

But that isn't the same situation at all. We're talking about WORKING artists, not unemployed ones. Not being able to find a job isn't the same as doing a job and not getting compensated fairly.
I would expect the monetary compensation to come from music sales obviously. That's why we're talking about this in the 'things you'd change about the music industry'. My suggestion is the music industry sort its shit out so that it works better for the artists. I also said I wouldn't go into details because I'm not informed enough to. However, there are TONS of current music artists who are fighting this battle - they have plenty of ideas.

well, in a sense, it is the same thing. an artist, while they don't have a specific employer, they are independent contractors that get hired based on their perceived potential financial value to the contractee. no different than anyone else who goes into business for themselves, and either they succeed and do more, or they don't and do something else.

as a musician who has never even considered doing it professionally, it sucks. as it is such a minute probability of being able to live off your passion, but that's no different than anyone else who starts a business. the large majority of new businesses fail within the first two years. should we "fairly compensate" them too because they are providing a service to the community, even though it's not financially viable in the marketplace?

there are a LOT of musicians who, many of us believe, should succeed, yet they don't. if there isn't a demand for that type of music/art, or they haven't figured out the business side in order to promote themselves properly, who are we to say "well they should be paid anyway", and what is "fair"?

I do believe there should always be public funds for the arts. But I don't think people should just be able to say "I'm an artist" and collect a paycheque if they put their art out every once in a while. I mean, if no one is being entertained (3 drunks in a pub on a wednesday night, for example), then what is the actual value then anyway?

I don't think peoplel should just be able to say "I'm an artist" and collect a paycheque if they put their art out every once in a while either.

it was a simplistic way of putting it; I didn't really believe anyone was suggesting exactly what I had said. sorry, sometimes my hyperbole gets away with me.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2017

brianlux said:

You make a good case in discussion, HFC. There is no simple answer and I'm not sure subsidizing is the answer. Fundamentally, the issue goes deeper- to things like who gets paid what in the process, and what do we value in our society. Most promoters and managers make more money than the musicians themselves. The same is true in some other fields. Education, for example, where the administrators often make more money than the teachers and who sometimes are people who believe "we could get some work done here if it weren't for the damn students" (I helped teach in a college where this is exactly what one profs said to me about administrators).

You said, "I love the arts, and it should be publicly funded. but not to the point of putting musicians on civic salary just so they can do what they love. I'd love to do it, but honestly, I highly doubt my songwriting is worth it." I get it. I love to play guitar and occasionally sing but I have arthritis, a damaged finger and a weak voice. As much as I love playing, I'm not good enough at it to make a living at it. I know books well and make a modest living doing that instead. No, I'm not talking about guys me, I'm talking about the many really fine musicians out there who make damn near nothing and yet are excellent musicians. I know a number of people like this. I'm sure many of us do and I think that is a shame. I don't know how good a musician you are, HFD. Maybe you should be able to make a living at music but only if you are good at doing it.

So what I would suggest is a trend toward greater fairness in pay and even more basically, a greater focus in society on understanding and promoting the value of creativity. Creative people are often less aggressive than business people who in turn are often (especially the more successful ones) what are commonly referred to as "A type" personalities. Now. it could be argued that this is just "the way life is", that its Darwinian survival of the fittest. Or we could look at it differently and see that part of being human is to be compassionate to the less aggressive and often more creative among us and to place a higher value on the aesthetics of music, art, writing and other forms of creativity. So many of us love music but also so many among us take it for granted and seem to thing it should be a perk for simply being alive. A number of hippie type boomers used to think all concerts should be free. Wrong!

We could start by encouraging thinking favorably about creativity in school- let kids know that it is at least as valuable to write a song, paint a picture or write a book as it is to produce yet another gadget or weapon or pharmaceutical that no one really needs.

free music. hehe. that's funny. I get so irritated when people make fun of me for paying for music. "just get it off a torrent" they say. "you're a sucker for paying for that" they shout. or get a streaming service. No. I did apple music for a while at the suggestion of a buddy, and what I found was, I was just downloading the fuck out of everything, and I appreciated none of it. I didn't have enough time to absorb what i was downloading. Now, if I have a budget, and purchase outright a few albums or even just one album per pay period, I sit and listen to it; appreciate it, take it all in.

I tweeted a question to Tragically Hip guitarist Rob Baker a few weeks back, asking what, in order, is the biggest cut an artist makes per platform, he replied:

1)physical purchase by FAR
2) then digital
3) then way down the line, streaming (which is literally almost nothing)

I was actually quite surprised that they get more of the pie from cd's than they do from itunes. I mean, there's no overhead with digital! But I guess Apple takes more money than their record company does. Brutal. I have too many cd's, and have for some time, so I buy physical for Canadian artists (and Pearl Jam), and digital for everything else.

I just can't justify not paying for art. a guy from work suggested I get this box for my tv (I don't have cable, just netflix-I can't be bothered to spend that kind of money to not watch anything). I can't recall what it was called. He said "you get everything, it's all free". I said "so it's illegal". "no, no, it's all on the up and up". He was convinced it was legit. I said "where did you get the box? Best Buy?". "no, my brother knows a guy". yeah, sounds reaaaaaall legit, buddy. Sorry, I pay for my entertainment. If you get your hardware from a "knows a guy", then it ain't legal. Come on!

hedonist · May 2017

Creativity can (should) be encouraged at home as well. As a kid, even as a teen, I did more painting, drawing, reading, piano-playing, singing, IMAGINING outside of school.

As to pharma shit...I'm not a proponent by any means, at least for myself - the side-effects of some scare the holy bejesus out of me - but, I know many who have had their lives and mental health do a 180 because of some of the drugs. Easy to discount the bigbadwolf companies vs the assumed noble musician, but really...value means different things to different people. I may not always succeed in my effort but do try to keep that perspective in discussions like this.

Five things you would like to see change in the world of music.

Comments

Categories