6 ms·

Paying someone to be an artist is like paying someone to be an alcoholic, and the more I hear Artists collectively complain about the lifestyle I'm failing to e

Paying someone to be an artist is like paying someone to be an alcoholic, and the more I hear Artists collectively complain about the lifestyle I'm failing to enable, while I sit lashed to a desk all day, the more I want to destroy their every dream and aspiration.

ehnto 10y ago
You seem to be lambasting what you see as entitled behavior, while making it very clear that you are simply bitter that they live a life you either don't agree with or perhaps, are envious of. Either way it isn't up to you to decide who will pay for what, and your assumption that every artist is a drunken freeloader is clearly false. Most working artists also have to hold down a job and will get very little in return for their efforts. They aren't providing nothing, and very clearly people want what they are providing. It takes time, effort and opportunity costs to produce music and to expect that it be given to you for nothing because you think it's frivolous is ridiculous. Do you pay for DVDs? Pay to see movies? What about the artwork on your clothing, or the design of your car? You pay for all of those things directly or indirectly and they could all be considered frivolous in one way or another, yet someone worked hard to make it happen and people are willing to pay for that.
- simplexion 10y ago
  Recorded music is the advertising for the musician. I don't understand why I should pay for that advertising. What they are advertising is their ability to perform music and they will receive my money when I pay to watch them perform or purchase their merchandise. EDIT: Let me elaborate in regards to ehnto's argument. DVDs, clothing and cars are all physical items I am paying for and therefore I am happy to pay for that. I am also happy to pay to see a movie because movies could not exist prior to being able to film. Movies are the end product that I want to see. All of these are different to music. Music existed well before the ability to record it did. All that recording did was make it more accessible. Back when you had to purchase a record or CD there was a physical item you ended up with to listen to that music. Therefore something that was worth paying for. I bought a lot of CDs. The music is not the end product. The live show where I go to see the musician perform is. I don't get paid for people to use my work without any involvement from me past the fact I created something. Why should a musician be paid for you listening to the music they created. They aren't putting in any hours for me to hear that past the original creation. What are they getting paid for? This is why I love artists like Hoodie Allen and Chance the Rapper. They release the majority of their music for free. Hoodie Allen was unable to release one of his albums for free on iTunes, so he charged the minimum. He was constantly on social media telling people they can download his album for free from multiple locations and that they didn't have to buy it on iTunes. People still paid for that album like crazy. On that note... fuck the music industry.
  - invertedPustule 10y ago
    Agreed, and very much so. I pay hundreds of dollars for the wire to my house I pay hundreds or dollars for the radio signals to my antenna. I pay hundreds of dollars to stand in the presence of a live performance. How many more hundreds of dollars shall I pay? Hundreds more for a spoon-fed recording I could have already made? Hundreds more to stream each recording sent my way, every time it's sent my way? Hundreds per month for a subscription that provides artists D, F and H. And then hundreds more for yet another subscription which provides exclusive access to artists A, B, C, E and G? When do I get paid?
  - shivsta 10y ago
    Do you not like listening to music from home?
    - simplexion 10y ago
      I think you need to read my comment again.
  - etchalon 10y ago
    You shouldn't pay for advertising if you don't want to. The issue is that, as the creators of the work, artists have the right to decide what they want to charge for access to their creation. You do not have a right to access that content without paying whatever price it is the artist has decided to charge. If any artist WANTS to release their music for free, they can. If they do not want to release their music for free, they can also do that. But it is their right and choice. Not yours.
    - Natanael_L 10y ago
      Should that right include the option to have people jailed and fined for behavior nobody can prove is harmful to anybody?
      - whiddershins 10y ago
        But that criticism could be leveled at any law or regulation, except assault, theft, and murder. Why single out copyright? If you want to be an anarchist, great, but stop picking on creators of intellectual property.
- Endy 10y ago
  "Do you pay for DVDs? Pay to see movies? What about the artwork on your clothing, or the design of your car?" 1. No. 2. No. 3. What "artwork" on my clothing? Everything I have is for work, white or blue collared shirts. Occasionally I'll be really wild and do something in plaid! 4. Don't have a car and I won't support the consumer vehicle industry. I use mass transit, thanks.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    > What "artwork" on my clothing? Everything I have is for work, white or blue collared shirts. Wow. That's depressing.
    - Natanael_L 10y ago
      Why? The only clothes I use with prints are ones with imagery from my favorite games, the rest are just single colored or have simple patterns. Some people like it that way!
      - kaoD 10y ago
        > imagery from my favorite games How is that not artwork?
        Natanael_L 10y ago
        The actual point was that they represent at most 10% of my wardrobe.
      - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
        No, that's fine; nothing wrong with that. I just thought it was unfortunate to own nothing but work shirts.
    - Nullabillity 10y ago
      Why would I want to pay extra to be a walking ad for someone else's brand?
- vintermann 10y ago
  very clearly people want what they are providing It's not clear they want it for any price, though to expect that it be given to you for nothing That's not what the GP said, he said he wanted to see these artists go under, which is another matter. I feel the much the same way about artists who lobby for insane surveillance and trivially abusable laws because they feel they aren't paid what they're entitled to.
noonespecial 10y ago
You mean : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ulrich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ulrich when you write that. But I think of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomplamoose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomplamoose so I disagree very much.

ehnto 10y ago

You seem to be lambasting what you see as entitled behavior, while making it very clear that you are simply bitter that they live a life you either don't agree with or perhaps, are envious of. Either way it isn't up to you to decide who will pay for what, and your assumption that every artist is a drunken freeloader is clearly false. Most working artists also have to hold down a job and will get very little in return for their efforts. They aren't providing nothing, and very clearly people want what they are providing. It takes time, effort and opportunity costs to produce music and to expect that it be given to you for nothing because you think it's frivolous is ridiculous. Do you pay for DVDs? Pay to see movies? What about the artwork on your clothing, or the design of your car? You pay for all of those things directly or indirectly and they could all be considered frivolous in one way or another, yet someone worked hard to make it happen and people are willing to pay for that.

simplexion 10y ago
Recorded music is the advertising for the musician. I don't understand why I should pay for that advertising. What they are advertising is their ability to perform music and they will receive my money when I pay to watch them perform or purchase their merchandise. EDIT: Let me elaborate in regards to ehnto's argument. DVDs, clothing and cars are all physical items I am paying for and therefore I am happy to pay for that. I am also happy to pay to see a movie because movies could not exist prior to being able to film. Movies are the end product that I want to see. All of these are different to music. Music existed well before the ability to record it did. All that recording did was make it more accessible. Back when you had to purchase a record or CD there was a physical item you ended up with to listen to that music. Therefore something that was worth paying for. I bought a lot of CDs. The music is not the end product. The live show where I go to see the musician perform is. I don't get paid for people to use my work without any involvement from me past the fact I created something. Why should a musician be paid for you listening to the music they created. They aren't putting in any hours for me to hear that past the original creation. What are they getting paid for? This is why I love artists like Hoodie Allen and Chance the Rapper. They release the majority of their music for free. Hoodie Allen was unable to release one of his albums for free on iTunes, so he charged the minimum. He was constantly on social media telling people they can download his album for free from multiple locations and that they didn't have to buy it on iTunes. People still paid for that album like crazy. On that note... fuck the music industry.
- invertedPustule 10y ago
  Agreed, and very much so. I pay hundreds of dollars for the wire to my house I pay hundreds or dollars for the radio signals to my antenna. I pay hundreds of dollars to stand in the presence of a live performance. How many more hundreds of dollars shall I pay? Hundreds more for a spoon-fed recording I could have already made? Hundreds more to stream each recording sent my way, every time it's sent my way? Hundreds per month for a subscription that provides artists D, F and H. And then hundreds more for yet another subscription which provides exclusive access to artists A, B, C, E and G? When do I get paid?
- shivsta 10y ago
  Do you not like listening to music from home?
  - simplexion 10y ago
    I think you need to read my comment again.
- etchalon 10y ago
  You shouldn't pay for advertising if you don't want to. The issue is that, as the creators of the work, artists have the right to decide what they want to charge for access to their creation. You do not have a right to access that content without paying whatever price it is the artist has decided to charge. If any artist WANTS to release their music for free, they can. If they do not want to release their music for free, they can also do that. But it is their right and choice. Not yours.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    Should that right include the option to have people jailed and fined for behavior nobody can prove is harmful to anybody?
    - whiddershins 10y ago
      But that criticism could be leveled at any law or regulation, except assault, theft, and murder. Why single out copyright? If you want to be an anarchist, great, but stop picking on creators of intellectual property.
Endy 10y ago
"Do you pay for DVDs? Pay to see movies? What about the artwork on your clothing, or the design of your car?" 1. No. 2. No. 3. What "artwork" on my clothing? Everything I have is for work, white or blue collared shirts. Occasionally I'll be really wild and do something in plaid! 4. Don't have a car and I won't support the consumer vehicle industry. I use mass transit, thanks.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  > What "artwork" on my clothing? Everything I have is for work, white or blue collared shirts. Wow. That's depressing.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    Why? The only clothes I use with prints are ones with imagery from my favorite games, the rest are just single colored or have simple patterns. Some people like it that way!
    - kaoD 10y ago
      > imagery from my favorite games How is that not artwork?
      - Natanael_L 10y ago
        The actual point was that they represent at most 10% of my wardrobe.
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      No, that's fine; nothing wrong with that. I just thought it was unfortunate to own nothing but work shirts.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    Why would I want to pay extra to be a walking ad for someone else's brand?
vintermann 10y ago
very clearly people want what they are providing It's not clear they want it for any price, though to expect that it be given to you for nothing That's not what the GP said, he said he wanted to see these artists go under, which is another matter. I feel the much the same way about artists who lobby for insane surveillance and trivially abusable laws because they feel they aren't paid what they're entitled to.

noonespecial 10y ago

You mean : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ulrich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ulrich when you write that. But I think of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomplamoose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomplamoose so I disagree very much.