FYI

[BlueStrat]

[sventvkg]

Sad State.....We need to figure out how to re-monitize music but it isn't going to be buying files or disks. The future is in the Cloud and streaming on mobile. Publishers and labels need to figure out how to get a fair rate ala BMI, ASCAP, SESAC...hey they want our product...Why should we give it to them free???? I've been saying this forever!!! This per stream rate of negative cents is bull{censored}..

[daddymack]

I used to think that all we would need to do is get everyone in the music industry to stop. Nothing new, no plays on radio/internet, no licensing, no sales. No DJs, no bands, no YouTube...for maybe a month. But, with so many iPods loaded with a gazillion songs...this isn't going to reach the people it needs to reach...so never mind....

No one values music as a commodity more than musicians, and we tend to have the least control over it.

 

btw, where can I dl that fart app?

[ermghoti II]

WTF? I got all my fart apps as freeware.

[Vito Corleone]

So many layers to these questions.

 

Somebody around here has a sig with a quote from Captain Beefhart saying something to the effect that his music should be free because it came to him free. There's a certain logic to that. Maybe the whole thing got messed up when started trying to monetize art. It's one thing to say you want to be paid for your skill as a guitarist--and if you're willing to go out and 'work', you can make a living performing that craft. Go get a gig playing in a Vegas show or audition for the live band on Dancing with the Stars.

 

But for those who want to write songs, paint pictures, write books, from a purely artistic standpoint and then become frustrated when there is no real market for it....it's gets more complicated it seems. Sure, I agree 100% that nobody should be stealing music and downloading it for free. And nobody has a simple answer for that problem. But that Gill's recordings are only "worth" what they were in 1960 (minus inflation?) I don't know what to tell him. People don't want to pay you $5 a piece for your latest creation.

 

Seems to me that in many ways this last several decades where people were able to get fabulously wealthy writing and singing music was probably more of an abberation of history than the norm. Gill's upset that he can't make a million dollars from each song he writes anymore as he could 20 years ago? Hookay. I understand the frustration. But I'm not 100% sure it SHOULD be any different.

[kurdy]

 

Seems to me that in many ways this last several decades where people were able to get fabulously wealthy writing and singing music was probably more of an abberation of history than the norm. Gill's upset that he can't make a million dollars from each song he writes anymore as he could 20 years ago? Hookay. I understand the frustration. But I'm not 100% sure it SHOULD be any different.

 

 

Yeah...that's sort of how I feel...the idea that one could get rich off music is something that probably never should've happened in the first place...though I don't think I'd want it to have gone down any differently. I think the idea that music is a worthy and lucrative endeavor did contibute somewhat to its cultural significance. Take away that context, and I think it would be sort of akin to making pottery or crafts. Sure, it's pretty to look at, but who cares?

 

The fact that we still never stop hearing about the Beatles, Elvis, MJ, all these "legendary" performers is no accident. It isn't all about their music being so great. The music industry needs a myth to sell to the public in order to maintain its relevance...that something great happened once; those who enter into it today get a shot at carrying the torch, and everyone else gets to witness it possibly happening again. Otherwise, everyone's just making ceramic vases.

 

Don't get me wrong...life would absolutely suck without music. But it isn't essential to our survival.

 

But when people get told for decades that "hey you can make some serious coin and get respect by noodling around on an instrument and making up catchy tunes"...as absurd as the idea may sound on the surface, once that thought gets permanently engrained in people's minds, it sucks to suddenly get told "oops sorry, made a mistake; turns out you can't." For all the people that got sold this idea for so long which may have inspired them to pick up a guitar in the first place, it's a hard pill to swallow.

 

Although the average person doesn't have to be "cultured" to appreciate music, and I think that's why it's endured. The human brain is sort of hardwired to get pleasure from it...unlike the more visual or verbal arts which are more cerebral, more intellectual; it takes work to really "get" them. Music is more entertainment than art. Maybe that alone is enough for music to maintain some of its value...I don't know.

[sventvkg]

There's no way I could have progressed to the level I am now as a writer, player if I wasn't a full time musician. I simply don't know anyone who is at my level or higher that didn't do it full time. If we do not have a master class of artisan that can put the time in and develop their art, than we are never going to have anything great. That means these artists either need to rely on patronage or the ability to make enough money to buy their tools, food, shelter and clothing. We reap what we sew.

[LordBTY]

I think some musicians need to catch onto the fact that their 'creative brains' aren't actually serving society as positively as they like to think. There are many musicians in the world - many are very good at what they do.

 

A fart app provides entertainment along with a degree of escapism... so does music.

 

Frankly, a musician that thinks their music is worth more than a fart app is just pretentious.

[kurdy]

A fart app provides entertainment along with a degree of escapism... so does music. Frankly, a musician that thinks their music is worth more than a fart app is just pretentious.

 

Well...a fart app may be amusing (to some) at first, but it gets old pretty quick. Whereas good songs are addictive...you want to hear them again and again.

 

So I would say music is worth significantly more than a fake fart.

 

I get your underlying point though.

[BlueStrat]

Frankly, a musician that thinks their music is worth more than a fart app is just pretentious.

 

I think anyone who thinks that is an intellectual child.

[sventvkg]

Are you anti-art? Jesus christ...Read up on The Renaissance so you can understand what kind of advancements a highly artistic society can bring. While you're at it, read ANY well regarded thinker's thoughts on art. You sound like a neophyte in need of some education on this matter.

[sventvkg]

 

Yeah...that's sort of how I feel...the idea that one could get rich off music is something that probably never should've happened in the first place...though I don't think I'd want it to have gone down any differently. I think the idea that music is a worthy and lucrative endeavor did contibute somewhat to its cultural significance. Take away that context, and I think it would be sort of akin to making pottery or crafts. Sure, it's pretty to look at, but who cares? The fact that we still never stop hearing about the Beatles, Elvis, MJ, all these "legendary" performers is no accident. It isn't all about their music being so great. The music industry needs a myth to sell to the public in order to maintain its relevance...that something great happened once; those who enter into it today get a shot at carrying the torch, and everyone else gets to witness it possibly happening again. Otherwise, everyone's just making ceramic vases. Don't get me wrong...life would absolutely suck without music. But it isn't essential to our survival. But when people get told for decades that "hey you can make some serious coin and get respect by noodling around on an instrument and making up catchy tunes"...as absurd as the idea may sound on the surface, once that thought gets permanently engrained in people's minds, it sucks to suddenly get told "oops sorry, made a mistake; turns out you can't." For all the people that got sold this idea for so long which may have inspired them to pick up a guitar in the first place, it's a hard pill to swallow. Although the average person doesn't have to be "cultured" to appreciate music, and I think that's why it's endured. The human brain is sort of hardwired to get pleasure from it...unlike the more visual or verbal arts which are more cerebral, more intellectual; it takes work to really "get" them. Music is more entertainment than art. Maybe that alone is enough for music to maintain some of its value...I don't know.

 

 

Music is the soundtrack to our lives Kurdy. It's been around as long as man and it's the single best thing you can have to get someone to like a product as well. It's essential to our lives in so many ways. Agreed that it's NOT food, shelter, clothing..ab basic need but music is VERY primal. The most primitive societies make music as well as the most advanced. It's hardwired into our DNA. Music is so powerful that I can't even go into it here. Try to go watch film without music and see what ya think of it.

[sventvkg]

 

So many layers to these questions. Seems to me that in many ways this last several decades where people were able to get fabulously wealthy writing and singing music was probably more of an abberation of history than the norm. Gill's upset that he can't make a million dollars from each song he writes anymore as he could 20 years ago? Hookay. I understand the frustration. But I'm not 100% sure it SHOULD be any different.

 

 

 

Yea, No..You're missing the point. Are you even a musician? Do you get it? He's upset over the devaluation of music as an art. The marginalization of the Artistic class. This isn't about money, this goes much deeper than that. To sit here and actually believe Vince Gill is on about not being able to make money on his music is absurd and speaks volumes. "Money" is worthless paper or digital numbers ( more commonly) and has absolutely no value other than that which society gives it. It's pretty {censored}ing obvious what value this society puts on the material, isn't it. This IS NOT A MATERIAL OR MONETARY ISSUE TO AN ARTIST. While being able to make enough to keep ourselves fed and clothed is important for the ones who do art at a high level so they continue to do so, so the non-artistic people can enjoy their art, money has NEVER been the primary focus or concern of any real artist I have ever met. Any money that came was a direct result of the passion for the art, that of which Vince Gill exhibits.

[BlueStrat]

The reason artists started getting rich off of music is because everyone else associated with selling and marketing it did, too. Like Sven pointed out-besides films, commercials, etc music gave birth to the record industry, the radio and electronics industry, publishing houses, and so on. Should the writers and artists remain pure as the wind driven snow, wedded only to art for it's own sake, and let everyone else get rich off their work while they eschew it like Tibetan monks? Whether profit from music is a recent phenomenon or not is irrelevant. It's the reality today as it's become a multi-billion dollar industry and though it is changing, it isn't going away any time soon. New revenue streams will be found, and I would hope that artists would be compensated as much as everyone else who capitalizes on their work.

[kurdy]

 

Music is the soundtrack to our lives Kurdy. It's been around as long as man and it's the single best thing you can have to get someone to like a product as well. It's essential to our lives in so many ways. Agreed that it's NOT food, shelter, clothing..ab basic need but music is VERY primal. The most primitive societies make music as well as the most advanced. It's hardwired into our DNA. Music is so powerful that I can't even go into it here. Try to go watch film without music and see what ya think of it.

 

 

I seriously hope you're right. I admit that is a fear of mine...that music will become a dying art that people simply stop caring about. So if what you say is true (and I suspect that it is, though one can never be sure), then that gives me hope...and not because I want to get paid (though I admit it would be nice), but because, as an "artist", I want to know that what I make is connecting with people. And I'm glad that a professional musician such as yourself doesn't think I'm pretentious for feeling that way. Because quite frankly, I'm not so convinced of that, myself. I'm aware the reason why so many aspiring musicians are so eager to give their music away for free is because of that mindset...they want so badly to share with people what they put so much of their heart into creating that they end up making some bad decisions in order to do so. It's kind of an artist's Achilles' heel.

 

Just on the subject of film music, that's sort of a different animal, in that we're supposed to not really notice it. Though it requires an abundant amount of musical skill, and I have great respect for those who are involved in it, it's really meant to enhance the scene and not call attention to itself. If we notice it too much, it isn't doing it's job. (Who can hum a few bars of the latest Hans Zimmer hit?) Whereas popular songs are designed to do the exact opposite...call as much attention to themselves as possible. I'm more interested in the latter approach. But I fear that with music so readily available, more entertainment options, and people's shortening attention spans, that could become harder and harder to do, and essentially all music will become like film soundtrack music...just in the background, with few people bothering to find out who wrote it or performed it.

 

I love to see people singing along to their favorite songs on the radio, or at a concert, learning all the lyrics to a song they like. Even shows like American Idol, where people perform versions of popular songs made famous by other artists....means that music is still having an effect on people...I certainly don't want to see that go away.

[Vito Corleone]

 

There's no way I could have progressed to the level I am now as a writer, player if I wasn't a full time musician. I simply don't know anyone who is at my level or higher that didn't do it full time. If we do not have a master class of artisan that can put the time in and develop their art, than we are never going to have anything great. That means these artists either need to rely on patronage or the ability to make enough money to buy their tools, food, shelter and clothing. We reap what we sew.

 

 

Sure, but Gill isn't exactly unable to earn a living. Throughout history, how often have "musicians" or "great artists" been among the most fabulously wealthy people in our society? Only the last few decades, it seems. Not saying there is anything WRONG with the fact that that happened. I'm just not sure it really should be EXPECTED. Artists have always starved for their art for the most part. Not that they SHOULD starve either. Just sayin', I think maybe the expectations of what is possible or normal to achieve by being a musician got a bit out-of-whack there for a few years.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Yea, No..You're missing the point. Are you even a musician? Do you get it? He's upset over the devaluation of music as an art. The marginalization of the Artistic class. This isn't about money, this goes much deeper than that. To sit here and actually believe Vince Gill is on about not being able to make money on his music is absurd and speaks volumes. "Money" is worthless paper or digital numbers ( more commonly) and has absolutely no value other than that which society gives it. It's pretty {censored}ing obvious what value this society puts on the material, isn't it. This IS NOT A MATERIAL OR MONETARY ISSUE TO AN ARTIST. While being able to make enough to keep ourselves fed and clothed is important for the ones who do art at a high level so they continue to do so, so the non-artistic people can enjoy their art, money has NEVER been the primary focus or concern of any real artist I have ever met. Any money that came was a direct result of the passion for the art, that of which Vince Gill exhibits.

 

 

You're right, I missed that point. The only thing I saw Gill talking about relating to VALUE was how much money he could get for a single vs. what it went for 50 years ago. And comparing to the PRICE of a fart app. I didn't see anything much in that BESIDES bitching about how much he earns. As far as devaluing music AS AN ART? That's nothing new: great music earns nothing; crap music makes millions. What else is new? But he wasn't talking about that. He wasn't bitching about how nobody buys "real" music anymore vs. LMFAO. He was SPECIFICALLY bitching that a single is only worth in MONETARY VALUE what it was 50 years ago minus inflation.

 

IF he's bitching about "art" doesn't sell while crap does---then that's even more boring. Mozart complained about that. Who, BTW, died a pauper. But if that was Gill's primary complaint, then yes. I missed that.

[Vito Corleone]

 

The reason artists started getting rich off of music is because everyone else associated with selling and marketing it did, too. Like Sven pointed out-besides films, commercials, etc music gave birth to the record industry, the radio and electronics industry, publishing houses, and so on. Should the writers and artists remain pure as the wind driven snow, wedded only to art for it's own sake, and let everyone else get rich off their work while they eschew it like Tibetan monks? Whether profit from music is a recent phenomenon or not is irrelevant. It's the reality today as it's become a multi-billion dollar industry and though it is changing, it isn't going away any time soon. New revenue streams will be found, and I would hope that artists would be compensated as much as everyone else who capitalizes on their work.

 

 

True, but again, I didn't see a bitch about "the man is taking all the profits from MY music" in Gill's comment. Seemed he was just bitching about how a single isn't worth as much as it used to be-- that the GROSS wasn't what it used to be, not just his net. And yeah, I agree. That sucks. I remember stories about how some guys lived their entire lives off of one Top 10 single. And I'm sure that DID happen with the right song back in the day. Those must have been great times to be a songwriter/recording artist. These days, it's not so much.

[sventvkg]

 

Sure, but Gill isn't exactly unable to earn a living. Throughout history, how often have "musicians" or "great artists" been among the most fabulously wealthy people in our society? Only the last few decades, it seems. Not saying there is anything WRONG with the fact that that happened. I'm just not sure it really should be EXPECTED. Artists have always starved for their art for the most part. Not that they SHOULD starve either. Just sayin', I think maybe the expectations of what is possible or normal to achieve by being a musician got a bit out-of-whack there for a few years.

 

 

Sure he can make a living. 30 years on a major label will do that. he can tour and make 6 or 7 figures a year no problem no matter what but he's concerned with music as a whole being devalued. There is no sense of entitlement here. If you do good work and people want it you should be able to make a living. Now if people like your work they just steal digital files and it makes it really tough. As I have stated before, selling disks or files is a dying model anyway. It's all about the cloud (streaming) and mobile. We're just behind in this country. People DO want out content. Musicians need to figure out a fair way to get paid licensing our content in the new model. Trying to grasp a dying business model such as the music business has been trying to do is a losing and stupid strategy and many are going down with the ship. The savy artists are figuring out how to get paid in the new game. It will all shake out eventually.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Sure he can make a living. 30 years on a major label will do that. he can tour and make 6 or 7 figures a year no problem no matter what but he's concerned with music as a whole being devalued. There is no sense of entitlement here.

 

 

I get that. And I'm not trying to argue with Vince Gill or accuse him of anything. {censored} anyone who takes someone like Gill to task when it comes to making music. My point is just that it maybe it was OVERvalued for a period of time and now it's coming back to its TRUE monetary worth. To the degree it's a craft: then it's the free market at work. Times are tough for a lot of industries these days; certain skills go in and out of fashion. There's still money to be made as a craftsman, it just might be harder than it used to be, or the style of the craft has changed.

 

To the degree it's ART: how do you put a monetary value on that anyway? That's the point of the Captain Beefhart comment. And true artists WILL create. They don't need a monetary incentive to make great art. And all that overvalued music is what led to a lot of the crap that's out there, anyway. Take it to the other extreme: if there's NO money to be made creating music, then the ONLY people doing it will be the true artists doing for the love of the MUSIC. From an ARTISTIC standpoint, that might be a better thing. And MIGHT lead to real music having real value again.

[sventvkg]

 

I get that. And I'm not trying to argue with Vince Gill or accuse him of anything. {censored} anyone who takes someone like Gill to task when it comes to making music. My point is just that it maybe it was OVERvalued for a period of time and now it's coming back to its TRUE monetary worth. To the degree it's a craft: then it's the free market at work. Times are tough for a lot of industries these days; certain skills go in and out of fashion. There's still money to be made as a craftsman, it just might be harder than it used to be, or the style of the craft has changed. To the degree it's ART: how do you put a monetary value on that anyway? That's the point of the Captain Beefhart comment. And true artists WILL create. They don't need a monetary incentive to make great art. And all that overvalued music is what led to a lot of the crap that's out there, anyway. Take it to the other extreme: if there's NO money to be made creating music, then the ONLY people doing it will be the true artists doing for the love of the MUSIC. From an ARTISTIC standpoint, that might be a better thing. And MIGHT lead to real music having real value again.

 

 

The argument that "maybe music was overvalued" is flawed because it's Obvious it's a highly in demand product. It's just that the distribution methods have changed in regard to how people want to consume their music and the Labels tried not to change. As a result we have RAMPANT piracy of the product this rendering sales to anemic levels. That has stopped almost all investment in the art and artists, in favor of only lowest common denominator crap that can be sold to 14 year olds. Just sayin....MUSIC is highly in demand like it always has been.

[Vito Corleone]

 

The argument that "maybe music was overvalued" is flawed because it's Obvious it's a highly in demand product.

 

 

So is water. But it's cheap because it's plentiful. Supply and demand. Technology makes music as plentiful as water. It's not even about piracy. I can legally listen to any song I want any time I want without paying for it. So why would I? Why would I need to own it for the most part?

[Potts]

 

There's no way I could have progressed to the level I am now as a writer, player if I wasn't a full time musician. I simply don't know anyone who is at my level or higher that didn't do it full time.

 

 

What exactly level are you at?

[drewl]

And yet some people get paid vast sums of money to throw a ball through a hoop, or hit a ball thrown at them or throw an oblong shaped ball.

that's entertainment, and they have a pretty good system of compensating the entertainers.

 

Hell at this point, pro wresting has a better system of compensating their entertainers.

[Vito Corleone]

 

And yet some people get paid vast sums of money to throw a ball through a hoop, or hit a ball thrown at them or throw an oblong shaped ball. that's entertainment, and they have a pretty good system of compensating the entertainers. Hell at this point, pro wresting has a better system of compensating their entertainers.

 

 

Basketball isn't an art form.