Jump to content

Things that suck about finding a job on music.


John Revoredo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Also, one other thing:

I think artists should have a non-art-related job to fund themselves because it allows them to relate to normal people. This is especially important for music. Nobody can take 50 Cent seriously. Why? Because all he talks about are the hoes he's gonna sleep with and the rims he's going to put on his car. I bet you if he was still a poor guy, he'd be talking about real issues. He'd be talking about the plight of people in the ghetto, like underground rappers. I mean, can you take most big-time radio bands seriously? I can't. Lyrically, it's just a joke to me. Fall Out Boy, 50 Cent. Whoever. Even Bob Dylan, one of my favorite musicians, put out his most real stuff in his earliest years of recording.

See if you can spot the lulz!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

and so do all of mine

basically what you people want is for piracy to be ok and the only people that actually give artists money are these wonderful hardcore people that do things on principle!

you want music to be a side job well guess what people spend years and devote all their time to it so it aint no side job

Clearly the most hardcore people in any field create the best product. It wasn't Rockefeller who revolutionized home-computing. It was Bill Gates, fooling around in his garage with his friends.

But, you're somewhat missing the point. For a lot of people, music isn't a side-job. For others, it is. I'm not the biggest fan of capitalist economics, but I know that we live in a free-market society, so I'll apply them: most kids will probably prefer the free music (with less production values) from the hobbyist over the $10 CD from Sire. Eventually illegal downloading will get so bad that nobody will make huge money from music even on major labels. And I think eventually that day will come. This site is a big indication of that. I bet a lot of the people that frequent this site listen to free OCRemixes more than other "paid-for" music. I know you do. I've seen many of your Last.FM profiles. The same can and will apply to every genre. Will I be alive to see it? Will I be right? Only time will tell. But I can dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, one other thing:

I think artists should have a non-art-related job to fund themselves because it allows them to relate to normal people. This is especially important for music. Nobody can take 50 Cent seriously. Why? Because all he talks about are the hoes he's gonna sleep with and the rims he's going to put on his car. I bet you if he was still a poor guy, he'd be talking about real issues. He'd be talking about the plight of people in the ghetto, like underground rappers.

If someone's lyrics suck it's because he's a sucky lyric writer, not because he doesn't work at McDonald's.

I mean, can you take most big-time radio bands seriously? I can't. Lyrically, it's just a joke to me. Fall Out Boy, 50 Cent. Whoever.

Top 40 radio is not worth listening to, and its particular failure to be worthwhile says more about the poor taste of mainstream America than it does about musicians in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art is not an industry.

Mass producing media that includes art is an industry. While it is true that musicians can write music for free, the act of packaging it cannot be free.

Also, the act of writing music specifically for a project cannot and should NEVER BE without any remuneration if the project is done to make money. Look at something like Blood on the Asphalt; that project was done for free and made available freely. But when it was included in an actual marketed product, the musicians were remunerated. Music is a product. I mean, people pay millions for paintings, why can't musicians be paid for what they do as well? If it was feasible to mass produce and then illegally reproduce paintings, do you think the original work should not be worth money?

I doubt the people who developed MP3s did this to kill the industry. MP3s are a new format, but the music on them is still produced at the cost of labor and work by the artists. By paying for music you are compensating musicians for their work. Just like the dude at Starbucks that get paid for making your mocca.

I sincerely hope you are a troll T-Rock, otherwise you would be an even worse person: someone who cannot show appreciation for musicians by paying them.

What the industry needs to do is provide a new type of product. Maybe move away from the simple CD + Booklet form and provide music in a medium that people will want. The fact remains that even with the MP3 sharing, music is still lucrative through shows, and musicians can still sell their music to ads, movies and games.

So get off your "entitled" high horses and realize that your selfish logic could be applied to anything else. I can grow my own coffee and make it at home. It would be free for me, so why should I pay for Starbuck coffee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you think about the great classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Strauss) how did they make money? Certainly not through selling CDs or records. They made money through live performances, selling the transcriptions(?) of their music to other musicians/orchestras, and not much else. Why should that be any different today?

Because they didn't HAVE CDs or records back then. They made their money using as many income streams as possible. If they were alive today, they'd be all over MP3s, CDs, etc.

Also, the act of writing music specifically for a project cannot and should NEVER BE without any remuneration if the project is done to make money. Look at something like Blood on the Asphalt; that project was done for free and made available freely. But when it was included in an actual marketed product, the musicians were remunerated.

Actually, we weren't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mass producing media that includes art is an industry. While it is true that musicians can write music for free, the act of packaging it cannot be free.

It's pretty cheap if done using the internet. Websites, while not cheap, aren't extremely expensive, and can be paid for with advertisements. You'd be hosting the music on a website. If anybody wants a packaged CD with the artwork, they have to pay for that. I've established that. If you're okay with a CD-R, then it's free. That would be my model.

Also, the act of writing music specifically for a project cannot and should NEVER BE without any remuneration if the project is done to make money. Look at something like Blood on the Asphalt; that project was done for free and made available freely. But when it was included in an actual marketed product, the musicians were remunerated.

Of course, nobody should make money off of your free product. They should either get your consent to use it for free, or pay you. That still has nothing to do with the model I suggested, though, and doesn't disqualify anything I've said thus far. I'll get to the rest in a moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guys im arguing ALONGSIDE zircon WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TO

also cheap when using internet hahaha when you have some site GIVING OUT FREE MUSIC THAT THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS ABOUT hosting can get pretty freaking expensive

thats why everyone loves torrents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, we weren't...

I remember reading you got free Capcom games. (Not a traditional means of remuneration but still it's more than nothing.) If I am wrong, I apologize. However it was within their rights to use the music without any form of compensation.

On Downloaded music: Yes, it's available for free. But people who boast a collection of gigs of illegally downloaded music are thieves. It's that simple. The only "illegal" MP3s I have are CDs that are no longer in production or that are not readily available in North America. When I can find them, I purchase them. It's that simple. You cannot "really really really like" an artist and not want to help them in their careers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the most hardcore people in any field create the best product. It wasn't Rockefeller who revolutionized home-computing. It was Bill Gates, fooling around in his garage with his friends.

But, you're somewhat missing the point. For a lot of people, music isn't a side-job. For others, it is. I'm not the biggest fan of capitalist economics, but I know that we live in a free-market society, so I'll apply them: most kids will probably prefer the free music (with less production values) from the hobbyist over the $10 CD from Sire. Eventually illegal downloading will get so bad that nobody will make huge money from music even on major labels. And I think eventually that day will come. This site is a big indication of that. I bet a lot of the people that frequent this site listen to free OCRemixes more than other "paid-for" music. I know you do. I've seen many of your Last.FM profiles. The same can and will apply to every genre. Will I be alive to see it? Will I be right? Only time will tell. But I can dream.

This post shows some clear ignorance about the market. I can name a bunch of modern artists who are making a lot of money still, and with audiences so loyal that the artists don't have problems selling their music to them despite the piracy because their audience want to support the artists.

I think artists should have a non-art-related job to fund themselves because it allows them to relate to normal people.

I would pick apart some of the other posts, but I think this quote shows exactly the type of logical fallacy being applied here. What "you think" doesn't equate to what should be, and it shows with consistent subsequent inadequate justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope you are a troll T-Rock, otherwise you would be an even worse person: someone who cannot show appreciation for musicians by paying them.

I believe in the "treat-others-as-you-would-like-to-be-treated" philosophy. I'm a musician. I plan on making music on this site very soon, and for free, obviously. Whenever I play shows, I give my CDs to people for 1-2 dollars (the price of producing them, CD-R, etc). If they simply want a free download, they're more than welcome to take that and forget buying the CD. I'm not making a profit either way. I play and make music beause it's a hobby, and I enjoy it. Outside of it, I have a completely seperate and enjoyable job. So please, don't pull that on me.

So get off your "entitled" high horses and realize that your selfish logic could be applied to anything else. I can grow my own coffee and make it at home. It would be free for me, so why should I pay for Starbuck coffee?

You're free to do that. Starbucks is over-priced and bloated anyways, for the same reasons the music industry has become so bloated. And, moreover, that's a bad example. Coffee is not art. However, if people want to pay for it, they can. Don't be suprised when new, dirt-cheap coffee comes and knocks yours off the market, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know musicians who did the same thing. I paid 5$ for their CD after a show.

Then they got picked up by a recording label, and if my tastes in music had not changed I would have bought their CD.

Just because you chose not to make money off of a hobby, it does not mean that musicians should not make money off of their careers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you chose not to make money off of a hobby, it does not mean that musicians should not make money off of their careers.

They can try to make money. It's a free country. I'm just saying that it's not the best model for the sake of music and for the sake of the consumer. More importantly, it's probably not a model that will last long, considering recent trends.

I wasn't suggesting making a law that all music should be free. I was just describing my ideal model for the music scene. Not something to be enforced by the fed, y'know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

intellectual property fight!!!!!

my favorite part is the multitude of specious arguments the anti-intellectual property crowd bounces between because each one by itself is not defensible

such as

-YO MAN IT AINT HURTING ANYONE

-the system in place is only to help the execs

-popular music sucks

-anyone who cares about making music doesn't care about the money

-any music that is worth anything and not crap is art and all art ultimately belongs to humanity

-et cetera

your logic is undeniable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will eventually come back to the old debate on when a musician becomes a sell-out.

On one side, we have the people who would rather listen to the "indie" musicians, and who think that when a large record label picks up a musician, that the artist more or less stops playing music for the music, and more for the money.

On the other hand, we have the people who believe that being payed for the music is just the natural progression of things, and that there's no problem with being paid copious amounts of cash for your art.

Of course, no one can fit into either of these two categories completely, but they more or less lean to one side or the other.

It's all opinion, guys. There's no way to really settle this.

PS: Does anyone else think this should be moved to Politics, Philosophy, and Religon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the way I see it, you are proposing a model that is most convenient for people who don't want to pay. The fact that you do not see how a musician deserves money for their work tells me that you are not an artist, you are just a hobbyist with delusions of grandeur.

Signs of a lost argument: When you resort to saying I'm some sort of fake through the internet. I don't know the line between "hobbyist" and "arteeest," but I know I've practiced my music for hours and hours year after year since I joined the school band when I was still in school. I know I've spent time with trumpet, percussion, and guitar (fingerstyle and otherwise) to make enjoyable music for myself and for others. Do I have delusions of grandeur? Not really. I'm not that amazing at all. I'm sure my skills probably stack up with most of the musicians on this site. Am I going to get signed by some major label? Probably not. Do I want to? No. I quite enjoy my job, and am fine devoting a decent chunk of my free-time to making music I love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing: I'm a sellout writer.

Used to write short stories and such, never tried to get them published. Right now I work as a professional writer. Frankly, I hate it, but sometimes you have to pay the bills. If I could be paid enough to live for writing short stories and novels, I'd do it. It takes effort and sacrifices to make it in the industry. It sucks that some fans that motivated you to reach for the stars then decided you don't deserve to be paid for what you do.

Edit:

Also, it's not signs of a lost argument. If you use your character to defend your point, I can attack your character as I would any argument. You don't want to make money off of your hobby, good for ya. People who decide otherwise should be allowed to pursue that goal without you imposing your flawed logic to them. You don't want to pay for music because you provide yours for free? Start charging money for your music and you'll be able to pay for other people's.

Musicians provide a good, and to download it for free when they want money for it is to steal it. No way around it. You give it away, your distribution has nothing to do with the music BUSINESS.

Also, I highly doubt you would refuse to sign a record deal should the opportunity arise. And at that point, when your music becomes a viable means of income, will you still want people to get it for free?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I going to get signed by some major label? Probably not. Do I want to? No. I quite enjoy my job, and am fine devoting a decent chunk of my free-time to making music I love.

This is like a professional musician saying he does your job for fun and for free, just like you should if you had any kind of integrity.

... sellout. :<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who decide otherwise should be allowed to pursue that goal without you imposing your flawed logic to them.

Of course people can do what they want. It's a free country. However, I'm also free to impose what any kind of logic I like on them.

You don't want to pay for music because you provide yours for free? Start charging money for your music and you'll be able to pay for other people's. Musicians provide a good, and to download it for free when they want money for it is to steal it. No way around it.

I think you're under the impression that I'm either a) financially struggling or B) an illegal downloader. I buy all of my music (I like having a physical copy), and I'm fine financially. I have a job to buy things (like music), and then I make music as my hobby. If music is made to be given for free, downloading it for free isn't illegal.

Also, I highly doubt you would refuse to sign a record deal should the opportunity arise. And at that point, when your music becomes a viable means of income, will you still want people to get it for free?

Yeah, I think about that sometimes. The truth is, I might end up a big sellout. But I might not. Hard to say. However, I know that the music scene tends to be worse off everytime good artists go to major labels. This is an opinion, admittedly, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who agrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will eventually come back to the old debate on when a musician becomes a sell-out.

On one side, we have the people who would rather listen to the "indie" musicians, and who think that when a large record label picks up a musician, that the artist more or less stops playing music for the music, and more for the money.

On the other hand, we have the people who believe that being payed for the music is just the natural progression of things, and that there's no problem with being paid copious amounts of cash for your art.

Of course, no one can fit into either of these two categories completely, but they more or less lean to one side or the other.

It's all opinion, guys. There's no way to really settle this.

PS: Does anyone else think this should be moved to Politics, Philosophy, and Religon?

what the heck this has nothing to do with artists selling out

this is a hey i made this thing and if you wanna hear this thing i want money

doesnt matter if its some big record company or some fat dude in his basement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole "musicians shouldn't be paid" thing. Just... wow.

His argument does not stand because he imposes his logic while saying people are free to pursue due compensation for their work. This whole thing is wonkier than a 3 legged dog on LSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...