Comments on: Performance that doesn’t perform

By: Tateru Nino

Tateru Nino — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:51:40 +0000

You have a point there. Most music composers and artists are at the bottom of the food-chain as far as payments are concerned. Only a very few of them actually grow wealthy from it, and then only by having enough clout to be able to set their own terms. Most don’t ever achieve that bargaining position.

By: Ari Blackthorne

Ari Blackthorne — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:40:45 +0000

Not sure if this really applies to the “argument” (regarding ‘if an artist doesn’t make money on what they’ve done, why should they continue’)

I used to teach stage theater and among the first lessons was to make it clear that one who enters the ‘arts’ should do so “for the art in you, not you in the art”.

Meaning the best success is when your motivation really is in the right place and the best place for the artist is for the art, not any potential riches that may come from it.

It’s why the best movies (for example) are often the little indies made on a budget. The blockbusters are fun, but on a pure entertainment and intellectual and emotional level, those backyard budget indies just can’t be beat. (Just my own opinion, I know LOL)

By: sonoran

sonoran — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:47:40 +0000

“On the other hand, while the ‘starving artist’ might be something of a cliché, why should an artist make more work, if they’re not getting paid for the work that they’ve already done?”

That’s a good question. Of course artistic peformance hasn’t always relied on an economist’s rationale for its existence. Modern media with its billions in cash flow is a relatively recent phenomenon. There was a time when chronicaling events in song, the joy of performing or other such reason were the artist’s motivation. Everyone needs to eat and have a roof over their heads, but I’m not sure music consumers really need to support the lavish lifestyles of media corporate execs and the massive publicity engines that everyone seems to think is so necessary for success.

Maybe there’s a shaking out that’s due. It’d be nice if content creators could be more directly connected to their markets/audience and require less expensive self-interested support.

By: TigroSpottystripes Katsu

TigroSpottystripes Katsu — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:46:46 +0000

I see, it was messed up from the start, and then as times changed the messed upness started to become more and more clear to the point some people intentionally or otherwise, managed to avoid the messed upness to their own advantage, but in the process revealing how fragile the whole messed up structure was

By: Tateru Nino

Tateru Nino — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:42:21 +0000

Perhaps, but remember that that is the basis on which these works are contracted.

To extend your analogy a bit, “The model wants to be paid every time someone looks at one of the statues because that’s the basis on which the industry pays — Now there’s a new way of looking at the statue that only pays the person who mass-produces them, but the basis for the model being paid has not changed.”

By: TigroSpottystripes Katsu

TigroSpottystripes Katsu — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:26:15 +0000

Ignoring fact that a human body can’t be trademarked/copyrighted/whatever (that is one of the main reasons why there are so many non-human characters in cartoons), the whole situation is a bit like a model having a cast of their body in a given position done, and then statues are produced in mass from the cast. And the model wants to be paid for every time someone looks at one of the statues…

By: Nykti Harcourt

Nykti Harcourt — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:21:47 +0000

I won’t lie, I almost always download my music. Nowadays I do not have the money to spend 20-30$ on a CD here in Canada. Now, if I DO find an artist I like, I will find some way to purchase a CD through them so they get most of the proceeds.

Of course I haven’t really worked with iTunes at all except to put music on my iPod.. so I don’t know about that side of it or how much money goes directly to the artist.

By: Ari Blackthorne

Ari Blackthorne — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:13:08 +0000

In that, you have actually made the C|NET story I read a short time ago make some sense in a way they couldn’t (for me): That music writers and authors want Apple, Inc. to actually pay a perfomance fee every time the 30-second “demo” track in played in the iTunes store.

At first my thought was “those greedy idiots are on heavy-duty drugs!)

But now with your explanation, I can see their argument in a far more balanced light and understand their acclaimed plight.

Thanks!