Why was this voted up five times? This comment is breathtakingly idiotic.
I mean, what exactly are you saying here? That royalty paychecks are wrong or immoral? If so, then, in your considered opinion, how exactly should musicians be remunerated?
> No wonder everyone wants to be a musician
No, in fact, people want to be musicians because music is beautiful and people like doing beautiful things. If they wanted money, they would go into banking or IT -- you'll note that Pat Metheney doesn't have his own 747, but Larry and Sergei do.
And, finally, for insinuating that music nowadays isn't vibrant, and heaping scorn on the totally reasonable desire by musicians to earn a decent living: fuck you, you pompous twit.
It's not idiotic at all. Most musicians, even of the mega pop star variety, make most of their money performing music, not from royalties. I would go so far as to say that musicians should make most of their money by giving concerts.
I upvoted you, because you make an interesting point, but I disagree. What if I'm a conceptual musician? What if I'm a terrific composer but a terrible performer? Shouldn't there be a venue where I can make money through my compositions even if I can't assemble a traveling band to tour and perform them?
> Most musicians, even of the mega pop star variety, make most of their money performing music
Especially of the mega pop star variety. The highest-grossing band in the US last year was Bon Jovi. The idea that the new emphasis on live gigs somehow benefits new or "alternative" is a fiction. It in fact benefits well-established acts with long and successful recording careers.
Incidentally, how is recording in a studio not "performing"? Why should it be less deserving of audience's cash?
> I would go so far as to say that musicians should make most of their money by giving concerts.
I'm guessing that this is because it fits your romantic view that a musician should be essentially like a bard in the middle ages.
Also, as other another poster pointed out, some acts are not designed to be "live" acts. Like Steely Dan. Some can't perform live, or at least not to the extent necessary if there is no revenue from recorded music. The late Michel Petruciani would fall in this category (he had esteogenesis imperfecta).
You're going completely overboard in your response to a reply that, IMHO, is exceedingly vague and could be interpreted in several very different ways. I also think it's weird that it was upvoted 5 times (but people tend to upvote things they think support their opinion), but at the same time, I consider your response completely unwarranted and would downvote it, would I have the power to do so.
Stop being so coy Confusion -- if there are 'several' 'very different' interpretations to mine, then I'd like to hear them. As far as I can tell, the meaning of his statement was quite clear: musicians are a bunch of whingers who have nothing 'vital' to offer, so fuck them.
And that poster is hardly alone in his tone -- look at any thread that even tangentially touches on the music scene. Yes, my language was (is) strong, but get this: I live in London, and I'm quite active in the music scene here (you can check out my band at http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsuk, and my solo music at http://www.myspace.com/martinpercossi), and I know quite a few musicians that would have found funding by a label ten or so years ago (check out http://www.myspace.com/oliexplode, for instance), but sadly, there's not enough money to fund people who don't pander to commercial tastes.
These are not guys earning fat paychecks from your IBMs or Googles etc. They're pulling pints, struggling on 7 quid or so an hour. And I find it truly insulting the lack of compassion with which well-earning hackers here regard musicians. The constant railing about us having some sense of entitlement (when all we're asking for is our property rights to be respected, for god's sake), about us having making easy money (again -- it's Larry and Sergei who have a private 747; name me a record exec or artist that has one!) -- it really angers me to read this. So sorry if I'm the only one with necessary perspective to call a spade a spade. I feel strongly about this, and I stand by my comment, as I'm sure any number of my musician friends would. If that upsets your delicate sensibilities, well then so be it: we're talking about peoples' livelihoods here, people who really are passionate about music and want nothing more than to share it with the public in a way that's fair and mutually beneficial.
David Geffen, P. Diddy, Rolling Stones (?) - but I don't think any of these own a 747. However, just because musicians don't own one doesn't mean the can't own one. I would argue in the corporate world they are likely treated as corporate, rather than private, expenses. In the acting industry, many own private jets (or, in Travolta's case, five).
The easy path is through the mainstream - if you're willing to give in to The Man (tm).
It's a metaphorical ghetto because metaphorical lepers like you are metaphorically whining about how the metaphorical government sucks rather than leaping up, not complaining, and getting a metaphorical job. There is nothing more annoying than somebody whining about being downvoted, so while I upvoted your original comment, I downvoted the seertaak drama. I get downvoted for things I say pretty much constantly, but I don't call that a ghetto. I call that difference of opinion.
To respond to your "argument" as succinctly as possible: musicians are terrific, but musicians who demand that a hosting service like Youtube pay them when Youtube never offered that up as an arrangement are musicians who are greedy and trying to take money from an honest service. Some people get a million views on Youtube and become famous and get a contract. Maybe if your band did the same, you'd stop thinking it's totally unfair. In the meantime, companies do offer you the ability to get royalties off your videos. Just not Youtube, which happens to be the most popular one. You have a choice about using Youtube or not.
Meanwhile, my favorite new musician, Joanna Newsom, a harpist who has a bizarre voice, managed to release a Steve Albini-backed album in 2006, which I can't imagine happening were it not for the insane amount of freedom that the Internet provides. So this "inability" of musicians to get funded? Doesn't make sense to me, when you can self-release a CD for no cost at all. Get Logic Studio, learn a teensy bit about music recording, release yourself an album. If you're decent, people will hear it despite the shoddy recording, and you'll have leverage to get a deal.
So yes. You are entitled. You do not have a right to make any more money than people think you have a right to make. If you were superawesome, you would rise up. A friend's band recently signed on to a subset of Sony and they've gotten 4 million plays on MySpace. They're on the rise. I bought their album on iTunes and it was almost worth the money I paid, which is saying a lot since I'm broke.
Meanwhile, you defend yourself not with logic but with swears and Britishisms, which makes me think you're just a jerk rather than a sincere guy.
Woh, I didn't mean to start a text brawl or be vague. My opinion is that royalty checks AREN'T required to keep music alive or vibrant, though possibly the industry aspect DOES require them. I have to hold up Jonathon Coulton here (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/). He loves his fans (who love him back) and doesn't require people to pay just to share his work.
BTW, sorry I pissed people off, it wasn't my intention.
Ok, fair enough. Sorry using the expletive and calling you a pompous twit.
I wish Jonathon Coulton the best of luck with Creative Commons licensing. But as a model, I'm not convinced it will work. The benefit of having healthy labels is precisely the fact that artists don't get all the money. Some of it is siphoned off to find new acts. Let's not forget that the industry invests 20% of gross in R&D, which is a respectable figure in any industry. And of course you get economies of scale and the network of industry contacts, allowing you to market in different countries and across differient mediums.
In effect you're describing a model where the entire job of the label is taken on by the artist himself. I think that's a step backward rather than forward: if people pay for their music, the artist can concentrate on doing what he does best, which is make it. Not sell it. And, one way or another, he will need to sell it!
I mean, what exactly are you saying here? That royalty paychecks are wrong or immoral? If so, then, in your considered opinion, how exactly should musicians be remunerated?
> No wonder everyone wants to be a musician
No, in fact, people want to be musicians because music is beautiful and people like doing beautiful things. If they wanted money, they would go into banking or IT -- you'll note that Pat Metheney doesn't have his own 747, but Larry and Sergei do.
And, finally, for insinuating that music nowadays isn't vibrant, and heaping scorn on the totally reasonable desire by musicians to earn a decent living: fuck you, you pompous twit.