 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - The lounge
Subject: RIAA wants you!
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Original Message Date: 26-Jul-03 @ 06:01 PM - RIAA wants you!
^ look
* if i remember correctly, in the first three months of this year music sales increased in the uk.
* if i remember correctly, in the first three months of this year music sales increased in the uk.
Message 81/116 09-Aug-03 @ 06:15 PM Edit: 09-Aug-03 | 06:41 PM - RE: RIAA wants you!
d, that's the way it works, though, for an independent artists there is a direct relationship, there's not Waffle House Inc. serving as the middleman and cutting checks. Sure the guy at waffle house will get fired if he doesn't make batches upon batches of Waffle House waffles to the satisfaction of the customer but there is always Huddle House. Artists don't have that kind of anonominity and the fact of the matter is Waffleman isn't doing anything extraordinary.
It isn't "your job" but choosing to support an artist through going to shows, buying CDs, t-shirts, etc., is in fact "telling" them that the job they are doing, entertaining you through their art, has met your approval. You are "telling" them how to do their job and how to live their life. You are saying, "I like your art enough to buy it, keep making art.", "I like your performance enough to buy a ticket, keep performing." If they do something that displeases you, lets say you discover that they are a shareholder in a thirdworld sweatshop, and you stop buying their art and going to their performances then you are saying, "I don't approve of what you've done, I'm not buying your art or seeing your performances anymore." In this instance you are "telling" them how to live.
I guess what I'm getting at is that artists are, and should be, appreciated for their unique ability to do something that few people have the talent and drive to do. If enough people are appreciative then they can make a viable living from their art.
It should go without saying that independent artists tend to have values that differ from those who choose to pursue "the deal". As such there is more expected of them and, if they deliver, they distinguish themselves even more. A talented person who brings joy to others through their ability to create (again, a unique talent) AND displays a level of integrity that is also unique among their peers and the public in general is deserving of the support of their fans. That support is shown through the exchange of cash and that cash is what the artists will be using to buy their house, put their kids through college, take a vacation, etc..
I want to see the artists I like come to town and put on a show. I want them to be able to afford that. I want the artists that I like to be able to go home after tour and take the time they need to write, record and prepare for the next tour. If they can't do that then I don't get to see them again, I don't get to hear their music anymore and there will be more opportunity for shitty music to fill the void in the bins and on the air.
Do they have a "better" house than I? Well lets see. I don't risk my money on touring. I don't have anyone on payroll (i.e., I'm not directly responsible for someone else's livelihood). I don't spend months on the road dealing with fans graciously, day in and day out, regardless of having had a shitty day or not. Have you ever been at dinner with one of these people and had their fans interrupt for an autograph? Anyone who can graciously deal with that on a daily basis deserves a little extra. Perhaps they have earned a "better" house because they have taken risks and put themselves in a position that I have no desire to. Does it make them a "better" person than I? Of course not. They have given up a part of their life, sacrificed something for their art, so they deserve bonus points. After having seen what some of these people deal with I can't begrudge them a little extra, especially if they put it to good use.
Before anyone bags on me for deifying these people, let me first tell you I don't. Let me also say that, unless you have been there with these people and seen first hand what they have to deal with don't go off on some theoretical impression of the way you think things are based upon People Magazine or winning tickets from your local radio station to hang out backstage one night with the headliner. Until you have spent some time with someone who has acquired a level of celebrity don't go there. I also realize that some of these people eat it up BUT not all of them do and not all of them understand the reality of that possibility going in. In the end they are "just like everybody else" the difference is that they have to deal with things that not "everybody else" does, or has the ability to. Again, they get bonus points because all the while they are doing this they are keeping me entertained and sometimes even moved. I want them to be as happy as they make me sometimes. Its only fair.
One question that may clear up a lot of misunderstanding about people's position on such matter is this: "Do you think an chemical engineer should make more money than the guy at Waffle House?"
It isn't "your job" but choosing to support an artist through going to shows, buying CDs, t-shirts, etc., is in fact "telling" them that the job they are doing, entertaining you through their art, has met your approval. You are "telling" them how to do their job and how to live their life. You are saying, "I like your art enough to buy it, keep making art.", "I like your performance enough to buy a ticket, keep performing." If they do something that displeases you, lets say you discover that they are a shareholder in a thirdworld sweatshop, and you stop buying their art and going to their performances then you are saying, "I don't approve of what you've done, I'm not buying your art or seeing your performances anymore." In this instance you are "telling" them how to live.
I guess what I'm getting at is that artists are, and should be, appreciated for their unique ability to do something that few people have the talent and drive to do. If enough people are appreciative then they can make a viable living from their art.
It should go without saying that independent artists tend to have values that differ from those who choose to pursue "the deal". As such there is more expected of them and, if they deliver, they distinguish themselves even more. A talented person who brings joy to others through their ability to create (again, a unique talent) AND displays a level of integrity that is also unique among their peers and the public in general is deserving of the support of their fans. That support is shown through the exchange of cash and that cash is what the artists will be using to buy their house, put their kids through college, take a vacation, etc..
I want to see the artists I like come to town and put on a show. I want them to be able to afford that. I want the artists that I like to be able to go home after tour and take the time they need to write, record and prepare for the next tour. If they can't do that then I don't get to see them again, I don't get to hear their music anymore and there will be more opportunity for shitty music to fill the void in the bins and on the air.
Do they have a "better" house than I? Well lets see. I don't risk my money on touring. I don't have anyone on payroll (i.e., I'm not directly responsible for someone else's livelihood). I don't spend months on the road dealing with fans graciously, day in and day out, regardless of having had a shitty day or not. Have you ever been at dinner with one of these people and had their fans interrupt for an autograph? Anyone who can graciously deal with that on a daily basis deserves a little extra. Perhaps they have earned a "better" house because they have taken risks and put themselves in a position that I have no desire to. Does it make them a "better" person than I? Of course not. They have given up a part of their life, sacrificed something for their art, so they deserve bonus points. After having seen what some of these people deal with I can't begrudge them a little extra, especially if they put it to good use.
Before anyone bags on me for deifying these people, let me first tell you I don't. Let me also say that, unless you have been there with these people and seen first hand what they have to deal with don't go off on some theoretical impression of the way you think things are based upon People Magazine or winning tickets from your local radio station to hang out backstage one night with the headliner. Until you have spent some time with someone who has acquired a level of celebrity don't go there. I also realize that some of these people eat it up BUT not all of them do and not all of them understand the reality of that possibility going in. In the end they are "just like everybody else" the difference is that they have to deal with things that not "everybody else" does, or has the ability to. Again, they get bonus points because all the while they are doing this they are keeping me entertained and sometimes even moved. I want them to be as happy as they make me sometimes. Its only fair.
One question that may clear up a lot of misunderstanding about people's position on such matter is this: "Do you think an chemical engineer should make more money than the guy at Waffle House?"
Message 83/116 09-Aug-03 @ 07:12 PM - RE: RIAA wants you!
Okay, "acoustic engineer". Engineer is the operative word here. Pick one you respect.
Message 84/116 09-Aug-03 @ 07:51 PM - RE: RIAA wants you!
but Mick the whole point is that in order to break away from the standard modes, you have to break away!
choosing life as an artist is in and of itself a risk because there are NO guarantees whatsoever. It would be truly wonderful if our system recognized art at the lower levels and encouraged and even subsidized it, but it doesnt, so making that choice is making the choice to struggle. And certain people amongst us clearly believe that they are OWED something, and thats just bullshit
and yes, a recording engineer is justified in earning a higher income because his skills are far more elaborate. flipping waffles is not a high-skilled job (but then, getting paid $6 an hour, which is NOT enough to live on, is not cool)
Im not a socialist, or an anti-capitalist in ANY way shape or form. I hate greed and gluttony though, and the music industry is rife with such, and the model is so thoroughly ingrained in our minds that even those who think they are bucking the system end up directly following that model!
choosing life as an artist is in and of itself a risk because there are NO guarantees whatsoever. It would be truly wonderful if our system recognized art at the lower levels and encouraged and even subsidized it, but it doesnt, so making that choice is making the choice to struggle. And certain people amongst us clearly believe that they are OWED something, and thats just bullshit
and yes, a recording engineer is justified in earning a higher income because his skills are far more elaborate. flipping waffles is not a high-skilled job (but then, getting paid $6 an hour, which is NOT enough to live on, is not cool)
Im not a socialist, or an anti-capitalist in ANY way shape or form. I hate greed and gluttony though, and the music industry is rife with such, and the model is so thoroughly ingrained in our minds that even those who think they are bucking the system end up directly following that model!
Message 85/116 09-Aug-03 @ 07:56 PM - RE: RIAA wants you!
the struggle of class against class is a "what" struggle? a "what" struggle? Yes, Karl.
call me a nitwit, but I really don't think "independant recording artists" run into the same privacy issues when they're out and about as say "Ben and Jen".
y'know, sometimes talented people can be complete fUckwits. you wouldn't want to encourage people to live or treat other people like Van Gogh did -- hell, you wouldn't even wanna be around the guy -- but he sure could paint.
honestly though, I don't see my relationship to "Artist" as being all that different from my relationship to waffleguy. payment for services rendered. if I like the waffles, I might go back there and eat again. if I like the CD, I might buy the next one. if I like the concert, I might pony up come next tour. once the cash is in someone else's hands, though, it's theirs and not mine, and my say in what happens to it next is, oh like, nonexistant.
call me a nitwit, but I really don't think "independant recording artists" run into the same privacy issues when they're out and about as say "Ben and Jen".
y'know, sometimes talented people can be complete fUckwits. you wouldn't want to encourage people to live or treat other people like Van Gogh did -- hell, you wouldn't even wanna be around the guy -- but he sure could paint.
honestly though, I don't see my relationship to "Artist" as being all that different from my relationship to waffleguy. payment for services rendered. if I like the waffles, I might go back there and eat again. if I like the CD, I might buy the next one. if I like the concert, I might pony up come next tour. once the cash is in someone else's hands, though, it's theirs and not mine, and my say in what happens to it next is, oh like, nonexistant.
Message 86/116 09-Aug-03 @ 08:04 PM - RE: RIAA wants you!
k, wait...does it sound like Im tryin to say what someone should do with their money?
Im not, at all.
Im not, at all.
Message 89/116 09-Aug-03 @ 08:55 PM - RE: RIAA wants you!
"my say in what happens to it next is, oh like, nonexistant."
No, you can't call them on the phone and say, "You bastard, stop doing what your doing straight away or I'll get on the bus, hunt you down, and have at you in an unsavory way. Nee, I say.", and expect them to do anything other than call the cops and have you put away for the threat of unsavoryness and saying nee at will to people.
But, spending you money on an artist's work is a tacit agreement between you and the artist. The agreement is that you will support the artist, monetarily (which in turn supports their chosen lifestyle), if they continue to meet your approval, i.e., make art that you like and live their life in a manner that you are willing to support through your patronage. The Dixie Chicks just dealt with this when they expressed their opposition to the war. Their redneck fans said, "Fuck you we won't buy your CD or go see your show". In this case it wasn't because the fans didn't like their music anymore, it was because of the fans' disapproval of the way they chose to live their lives at that particular moment. The result of their fans' decision to boycott directly effected their (inflated) income. This same priniple applies to artists at any level, although, more so at the lower levels where there is not the same kind of financial pad.
As far as an artist feeling that they are "owed" something, that falls under the category of unacceptable and unsupportable behavior. The artists who don't feel this way are the ones whose fans tend to feel the artist actually is owed something. Especially artists whose income does reach a certain point where they feel they owe something back and contribute to their communities. That's what the term "owing something back" means - its literal and many artists take it thus. See the relationship? The irony?
No, you can't call them on the phone and say, "You bastard, stop doing what your doing straight away or I'll get on the bus, hunt you down, and have at you in an unsavory way. Nee, I say.", and expect them to do anything other than call the cops and have you put away for the threat of unsavoryness and saying nee at will to people.
But, spending you money on an artist's work is a tacit agreement between you and the artist. The agreement is that you will support the artist, monetarily (which in turn supports their chosen lifestyle), if they continue to meet your approval, i.e., make art that you like and live their life in a manner that you are willing to support through your patronage. The Dixie Chicks just dealt with this when they expressed their opposition to the war. Their redneck fans said, "Fuck you we won't buy your CD or go see your show". In this case it wasn't because the fans didn't like their music anymore, it was because of the fans' disapproval of the way they chose to live their lives at that particular moment. The result of their fans' decision to boycott directly effected their (inflated) income. This same priniple applies to artists at any level, although, more so at the lower levels where there is not the same kind of financial pad.
As far as an artist feeling that they are "owed" something, that falls under the category of unacceptable and unsupportable behavior. The artists who don't feel this way are the ones whose fans tend to feel the artist actually is owed something. Especially artists whose income does reach a certain point where they feel they owe something back and contribute to their communities. That's what the term "owing something back" means - its literal and many artists take it thus. See the relationship? The irony?
Message 90/116 09-Aug-03 @ 10:28 PM - RE: RIAA wants you!
I would LOVE to be able to give something back...maybe build some housing for folks who just cant get a solid foundation, etc...
but to me, inflated profits are not the way to do this.
taking from someone to give to someone else..well...just doesnt sit right with me.
and Im just talkin about your average working shmuck.
but to me, inflated profits are not the way to do this.
taking from someone to give to someone else..well...just doesnt sit right with me.
and Im just talkin about your average working shmuck.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
There are 116 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
