[seertaak]

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.

[MrRage]

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.

[unalone]

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?

[seertaak]

> 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).

[seertaak]

It is truly the last refuge of scoundrels to downvote my reply without providing any justification.

[Confusion]

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.

[seertaak]

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.

[greyboy]

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).

[seertaak]

This is incredible.

Another pair of downmods -- again, no one addresses the points I make.

I ask again, what are these other, benign, interpretations?

Hacker News is becoming a ghetto.

[unalone]

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.

[seertaak]

> 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.

You use this word, "metaphorical", a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Also, what on earth makes you think I, or my musician friends (who I expressly told you work low-paid jobs as bartenders) don't have jobs? I'm a developer at a equity stat arb hedge fund, and I'm doing just fine, thank you very much. However, unlike you, I have the ability to empathise with my musician buddies who are less fortunate and didn't have the benefit of obtaining a Masters in Maths and Computing from Imperial College.

> I get downvoted for things I say pretty much constantly, but I don't call that a ghetto.

It certainly is ghetto behaviour to downmod somoeone while being too lazy to offer anything in way of riposte. Although, in f airness, you didn't do that, so kudos to you.

> 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.

Who cares if YouTube never offered that arrangement? If you recall, the idea was that YouTube was supposed to be the forum fo r which Joe internet user could post funny videos about himself, not for the wholesale ripoff of established and up-and-comin g artists. Do you really think that YouTube would have achieved the traffic it enjoys without the flagrant hosting of copyrig hted material? And, just to repeat, seeing as you don't seem so bright: the material is COPYRIGHTED. Far from being greedy, i t is absolutely right and proper for musicians to demand remuneration for the the use of that material.

> which I can't imagine happening were it not for the insane amount of freedom that the Internet provides.

Yes, the internet does empower artists in some sense. But food and rent don't grow of trees. People need to pay for music in order for musicians to continue making it.

> You have a choice about using Youtube or not.

The implicit threat from YouTube is "accept our staggeringly low royalties, or deal with the piracy issue on your own." If yo u'd bother to read Waterman's statements for example, you'd know that on the basis of around a million views of his Rick Aste ly songs, he got 11 quid. Is that fair?

> 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 i t despite the shoddy recording, and you'll have leverage to get a deal.

It doesn't need to make sense to you. You are obvioulsy a layman who has no real expertise or interest in the music business. If you did, you would know that getting Logic Studio -- which, incidentally, costs 200 pounds, hardly a small amount for someone working behind a bar (not to mention a pair of AKG 414s -- 500 pounds each, in order to record drums, a few SM57s at 60 pounds a pop, a decent mike preamp, ... shall I continue?) (all the tracks on my myspace were recorded like this, all programmed by me, all done on cubase, so pardon me if I laugh when you say "learn a teensy bit about music recording") -- is far from being enough to record an album. Remember that generally speaking half of a labels budget for an album goes to marketing and promotion, not to the actual recording of an album. Plugging a record on the radio, putting up advertisements, etc. all cost money. Why would a label finance this for anything more than sure-fire hits in the face of widespread piracy? And then people here complain about a lack of "vitality". It's so hypocritical!

> You do not have a right to make any more money than people think you have a right to make.

No, you see, actually, it's the other way around. YOU have the right to listen to my music, IF you pay the price that I deem fit. Otherwise, you shouldn't listen to it, because then you're breaking the law, and trampling roughshod over my rights. Capiche? If you walk into a shop and want to buy a skateboard, then it's the shopkeepers prerogative to set the price, is it not? Why should it be any different for music? The seller sets the price, and the buyer can exercise his vote of disapproval by not buying -- and using -- the product. Not by engaging in some self-serving so-called "civil disobedience" and just stealing the product. That one even needs to state this point is astonishing.

> If you were superawesome, you would rise up.

Of course the "superawesome" will rise up. And, of course, I believe The Signals belong in that category ;) However, and this is the point, when an industry sees its revenues fall by 50% in less than ten years, you can be sure that many interesting but perhaps more niche acts will be left by the by. And that's sad.

> 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.

Good for them, I wish them much success!

> 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.

Britishisms? I chuckled when I read that.

As for not using logic, well, I think my posting record is clear for anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty. I addressed the original posters remarks. I justified my use of strong language. Where is the lack of logic?

[scott_s]

The end of your initial comment is not civil. Downvoting such comments is the entire point of the moderation system here.

[seertaak]

So slandering the community of songwriters is civil, but taking someone to task for it isn't.

Somehow, I very much suspect that had my vitriol been directed at "fat cat music execs", my comment would have been upmodded and nobody would have batted an eyelid at at the strong language.

And the strong language is there for a reason. It's intended to wake people up from the slumbering, lazy groupthink that is so in evidence whenever the music industry is the subject.