Music = the most popular thing in the world

So whoever makes it, and makes it well will earn shit loads.

I'd personally be ok with putting some kind of limit on the salary people can make in the entertainment industry, as long as it's reasonable and fair to everyone.

In the entertainment industry...how about the people in the business world ? Each of them probably makes more than all the artists in the world make in a year.

It's not the artists who should get capped...

boo boo and bubu, are you guys twins or something?

Nope, I don't know this person.

You can't judge a whole class of people you're jealous of based on a few of those "greedy selfish bastards." I know a few millionaires, even a billionaire, who donates a ****load of money. One is a former CEO from New York who donated a lot of money. Musicians, movie stars, and athletes do charity work all the time. Snoop Dogg started a football league for inner city kids, and they're not allowed to play in the league unless they maintain a certain average. What he's doing is good because he's teaching them how to earn something. He's doing the "conservative" thing, if he did the liberal thing everybody would get to play. What would be the incentive for these kids to work hard then? If they don't have to get good grades to play, why would they? Same thing goes for government. If they don't have to work hard for their money, why would they?

Btw, I don't support politicians making more money especially in times like this. Why? Because they're costing me money.

Aaaaaannnnd.... I'm living on my own in upstate NY right now until July. So yeah, I do support myself... with just a high school diploma working high school grad type jobs in construction... until I leave for boot camp for the Marine Corps in a little less than a year... and will get my degree after I get out of the Marines.

Mind you if we stop paying them maybe artists like Madonna will shut the **** up and then they can be replaced with something decent. =)

And why should the government be putting a constraint on peoples ambitions? If someone wants to make $20 mill, then should be able to. It's their life. Why should the government be butting into their money?

:offtopic:

NO! musicians shouldn't be making that much. when they do, I really question the artists sincerety and authenticity, two of the most important things about music (for me). especially considering that you have to be medicore to be popular and you have to be popular ro make the big bucks. therefore, you making the big bucks? you are mediocre :yeah:

Then go down to your local garage, and listen to your precious artists. But if you really think making money takes peoples authenticity away, my guess is you've never really been around these people. I'm not going to say who, but I'm related to someone pretty famous. Their personality doesn't change, but when cameras are flashing in your face, are you seriously telling me you'd be all cool and sign autographs like nothing's going on?

authenticity in their MUSIC, remember this is MUSIC banter not The View

Since the rest is just bull I will respond to the one sentence you had in there about music: ok I will go down to my local garage and listen to my precious artists, cause they are awesome! :hphones:

so would you be fine with listening to a 52 minute piece of music that stops after 44 minutes because that a reasonable and fair album length to everyone?

I don't know about you, but I'd be more motivated to make something authentic if a big wad of cash was being held in front of my face. Money is motivation.

Stars need bodyguards, managers etc etc. Celebs are good and surprisingly large sources for jobs. You ever been to LA?

Yeah musicians make way too much-
but thats capitalism, get over it.

It all comes down to supply and demand. Theres a ton of demand in the music industry, therefore a ton of money floating around in it. I myself will pay a pretty penny to go see Willie Nelson in concert. You know why? He's the only one who can do what he does. Like most successful musicians he has his own unique talents exclusive to him. Since there is only one of him he is in low supply, people like his unique talents therefore he is in high demand. That equals lots of money.

A lot of you guys are saying musicians do work really hard and their equipment costs a lot and they deserve it.
Meh.
A coal miner works really fucking hard.
But do they make as much as Willie Nelson? No. Because anybody can be a coal miner. Not everybody can be Willie Nelson.

and how many people work in that coal mine then go home to the Martin guitar they scrimped and saved up the 2+ grand for so they can sit on their couch and play just as well as old Willie to absolutely no recognition whatsoever?

i think a lot of people forget that THE AVERAGE MUSICIAN STILL WORKS A DAY JOB FOR A PAYCHECK. those who play music for a living are exceptions, those who make millions for playing are exceptions to the exceptions.

there is talent in being able to appeal to the lowest common denominator without being obvious about it. there is talent in being able to navigate the bureaucracy of major media corporations. right / wrong / good / bad are all completely and utterly irrelevant in this case. fact remains some people will pay for the production over the performance and that's entirely their prerogative.

really though, if it were impossible for a band like U2 to become million dollar superstars how many labels would take chances on other unproven rock bands? how much revenue would the labels have in order to take risks on unproven talent if they didn't have cash cows like Madonna at the top filling their coffers?

No I haven't forgot.

As far as I'm concerned it is part of the job to market yourself, get yourself out there, and make the connections. Thats part of the work (if you want to make money at it anyway), and anyone planning to be a musician should realize that making music is half of the work and marketing themselves is the other half. So if that coal miner goes home sits on his couch and plays Free Bird with his ****ing teeth, he shouldn't expect to make anything if he doesn't try to market himself. How is he supposed to get recognition by sitting on his couch anyway?

Music is an art and thats how all art is.
Take photography for example. I can take the worlds greatest ****ing photo, but if just lay it on the couch and a handful of people walk by and see it, do you think I will make any money off of it? Absolutely not. It doesn't matter how great it is, if I don't market it properly I don't make any money. And thats my own fault. Again, if you want to make money, half of it is taking the photo, half of it is marketing. To the people who don't take that extra step and don't make anything, thats their fault. Its just part of the job.

Why are you making excuses for this?

You can't cap peoples money like that. That's bull****. This is America. The land of opportunity, start capping people's money and Hollywood will die, the entertainment industry will die (again, the money goes back to jobs).

Again, "this" is not America. This is the internet. People from all around the world are present here. How hard is it for you to understand this concept?

i'm not making excuses for anything.

your comment about the miners and Willie Nelson made it seem that the only reason Willie makes the big bucks is because of his name and not his tireless work ethic.

unless i'm really sucking at interpreting what you mean by this line in particular.


i really hope you live in an incredibly talented area because if more people adopt that attitude there won't be many tours for much longer.

.......

I honestly have no f*cking clue what kind of point you're trying to make here because that comparison makes no logical sense.

First of all, I just want to clear up that I DO agree with you on this, we, for the most part are on the same page, being that we don't agree with a cap or universal salary for all musicians. But I don't agree with you on WHY they deserve what they earn (or justly receive it, more like).

These average musicians that you are bringing up have nothing to do with the topic because they would not be affected (maybe their incintive to do better might) but they for the most part would not be affected by a cap at 30k because the average musicians most likely aren't making that- or much more- anyway.
So thats not who I'm targeting then of course, I am targeting the exceptions of exceptions, which frankly is what most musicians, if not all, ultimately try to be in the music industry. So yes, when I speak of working hard and earning money, I am talking about the big shots who are making millions here, because thats who the topic is affecting most severely here, right?

Yes agree with you on that.

Okay while I understand this, I really don't feel one ounce of sympathy for them there though. Thats just part of it. Get over it.
They don't make lots of money because it is hard on them and whatever else, its simply because of demand for them. Yes, they do have to put in lots of work but my point is that the big shots million dollars worth of salary doesn't totally reflect grisly hard work, but rather supply and demand for them. Thats whats making them the real money, not because they smile at people who recognized them in a grocery store.

Although, yes, working hard was the basis for Willie Nelsons success, it not the main principle on what has made him the major money over the years, or any filthy rich musician for that matter. Its because he has his unique talent exclusive to him, therefore a low supply of it, that alot of people like, therefore in high demand. Thats where his money came from. And in my mind theres nothing wrong with that, thats just how capitalism works.


What I was saying by this is that if you compare the raw hardwork that a big time musician does and see the money they make (millions), and compare that to the raw hard work a coal miner does with the money they make (not millions) you see that hard work really isn't what determines why some people are millionares and some aren't. Is it neccessarily fair? no. Hell, Marx will tell you that with the Labor Theory of Value. But thats just how it works, and I'm okay with that.

and by meh I meant meh, hard work is not the reason they justly receive the big bucks. All that I said up there is^

Do you understand me now?

That's kinda oversimplifying matters isn't it?

Do you honestly believe everyone has an equal opportunity in this country?

I guess the homeless just aren't trying hard enough, LOLZZZZ.

Hollywood makes BILLIONS of dollars every year, are you kidding me?

What I have in mind is say, putting a reasonable cap on the salary of actors for signing on to a project, not for what they make in box office returns.

The average actor makes more bombs than hits, and so many movies have been poorly produced and marketed because they blew most of the budget on the actors. How many times have studios given big checks to Eddie Murphy and John Travolta despite putting out bomb after bomb after bomb?

How would Hollywood die? By not overpaying it's actors, Hollywood would actually save money, and would be able to spread it around more, and have more money to invest in more ambitious projects.

The actors are gonna be ok, putting a limit on how much they can get paid for a role isn't gonna destroy their f*cking careers, they would still make a bundle on gross percentage profits.

It would actually encourage actors to invest more effort into their projects and not be so f*cking lazy and careless with movie roles.

As for musicians, well, that's a little different, since a lot of musicians make most of their money from touring, and I don't believe musicians should be denied any of the money that they have actually earned. I'm talking more about excessive record deals, especially for pop artists who don't even have much creative control in the music making process.

More like more money just to put in the Hollywood big wig's pockets.

I mean yeah, that sounds good by just looking at it, but that would never be the case in real life and thats would never be where the money actually went, people are too corrupt for that to work. Spreading the money around in Hollywood like you said, is not in their vocabulary.

I honestly don't care, if overpaying actors is the alternative, then I'd rather that money go to the people responsable for producing these films in the first place.

If you think NONE of that money would go back into film production, you're absolutely insane. Maybe I shouldn't have said "more ambitious projects", but I meant ambitious by Hollywood standards.

The most important thing is that the budget would go into other aspects of filmmaking, which would be a very good thing because movie directors wouldn't be quite under as much pressure in regards to keeping a film on budget. Even if what you say is true, that would mean movie budgets would be significantly cheaper, and again that could mean less pressure and more creative control for filmmakers.

More times than not.

Yeah thanks for that Einstein. This site is obviously American made, entertainment is centered in America, so deal with it. America is where you can come up out of the hood, come from being a Crip to being a multi millionaire. Look at Xzibit and Snoop Dogg.

Um, not really. The gap between what you think you know and what actually know is apparently pretty substantial.

Also, only 15 posts and already insulting mods. You're really off to pretty spectacular start here.

I don't even know where to begin with these remarks except that they are long on ridiculous assertions and short on actual content.

I know that my Levi's are made in Mexico by looking at the label sewn into them. How can you know where this site was created?

I honestly don't know why people have a problem with popular artists making as much money as they do, as if it's the artist's fault.
You guys do realize that the consumer makes their paychecks possible, right? Yea, they're cleverly marketed and packaged for maximum impact, but in the end, the consumer dollar is what funds the ability for artists to make money.
Record companies don't just uniformly pay artists millions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts to have a band's cd play in their own living room stereo setup. Nor is the money coming from your pocket unless you pay for the goods. Your tax dollars aren't paying music artists' salaries. Consumers, like you and me and every other person who may pay for music in some way, shape or form... whether it's in the form of direct buy or royalties when music is used in another scenario, we're the ones paying the musician paycheck BY CHOICE. If you don't want to contribute to an artists' paycheck, then don't buy anything that can be credited to that artist. But pissing and moaning about how fair it is to anyone other than your fellow consumer is probably the most ignorant and misguided thing you can do. And thinking the government should get involved and cap the salaries of musicians is only going to hurt the consumer in the end... as if half of you even care since you pirate every bit of music you have in your libraries anyway.

Some of you people are absolutely despicable.

capping the length of an album makes about as much sense as capping an individual's income.


@Flower Child - i see where you're coming from, but if the bigs are capped i don't see how the smalls will thrive. then again i have a few family members who are / were working musicians to varying degrees of success (up to a 1 hit wonder in the past and entertaining Olympians a few weeks ago), so my views on this topic will be a bit skewed. i totally get your supply and demand angle though.

my big gripe here is that if the bigshots were capped at an arbitrary figure then those groups between the moonlighting office rockers and major label touring operations would be snuffed out. all the groups that 'should' be big and have the talent necessary but always miss that one lucky break to propel them into the limelight, the ones who keep touring around your state or province every summer and pack every venue they play but can't afford a cross country tour. how would they ever afford to accomplish anything if their resources (to record / promote / perform) are arbitrarily limited?


as for the whole 'hollywood would die' angle. yes. yes it would. people don't spread around millions of dollars on ambitious projects even by their standards. it's risky. if you had $1 000 000 in your pocket and someone wanted you to front $750 000 for a revolutionary idea, something totally unique and original, completely and utterly unproven. would you? that's a pretty large chunk of change that you could easily be dumping into a load of smoke. people who've worked their asses off to the point of handling those kinds of sums are not hesitant to spread it around, they're hesitant to take risks while spreading it around. especially when there are plenty proven methods (and script formulas) that more or less guarantee an acceptable return on investment.


FD is totally on the mark.

If we're talking 30K after all travel expenses and such are taken out, I'd be happy to make 30K a year and do what I love. With the potential for endorsements and sponsorships and with the costs of travel and living on the road, 30K is more than enough for my personal living expenses for a year. Nothing to raise a kid on or anything, but I'm not looking to do that for a long time, if ever.

The superstars that turned their commodity into a cash cow either had it in mind to begin with, or got lucky and got smart enough to capitalize off of mass marketing. But such things usually involve pandering and artistic compromise. I respect more the artists who remain artists primarily and look to make a buck off of it second, not the other way around. Music is an art and a business, but I respect the artist more than the businessman.

Thanks for the info on the homeless. As if I've never met one before, I'm from LA, home of skid row. Most of the homeless there are drug addicts, alcoholics, or just flat out lazy. I've never met a homeless person who is a hardworking person trying to find a job, you know why, because those hardworking homeless people go down to the shelter and find a job. So yes, everybody has an equal opportunity. There are plenty of people from Harlem, Compton, Chicago's south side who went on and did something with their life. How? They worked for it.

Movie sets have plenty of employees. Everybody they need, they have now or else the movie wouldn't get produced just right. It's the celebrities who need to pay managers and bodyguards and drivers etc etc that creates jobs. What would a bodyguard in LA do if celebrities made 30k a year? Or most of the Hollywood and Beverly Hills and New York shopping that brings in a load of money into the economy? It's more than fair, it's the people who worked for where they have. I don't care if you're a good musician, get out of your basement and go market yourself and maybe you can achieve the American Dream like all the successful artists did.

Opportunity is about who you know. So, no, some impoverished kid from the projects or the trailer park does not have the same opportunities as someone raised around people with money, power and influence.

Hi there,

Just came across this thread and my first reaction was to just ignore it for being such a silly question in the first place.

Why? Because you cannot just isolate a small part of any society, in this case musicians, and ask if they are worth what they earn or try to place a cap on what they should earn. Why musicians? What about sports men and women, what about politicians, what about graphic designers, prostitutes, etc,etc...

You mention Madonna earning millions of dollars... good for her. At the time she was hungry, had a certain amount of talent and marketed herself well. No business can force people to part with their money, we earn it and have the freedom of where and how we spend it. I admit to having three Madonna albums so in my small way, I have contributed to her millions.

If someone is wise enough to part with $10 for one of my cd's, then they would be contributing to my millions,,ha, ha. (maybe hundreds - if I'm lucky).

It's all about supply and demand. If everyone thought Madonna or U2 or Kanye West were absolute crap then they would not have millions.

Personally, I make a decent living from my day job and much of my spare time is taken up either listening to, playing live or recording music like the majority of most musicians in the world. But, I don't begrudge any musician who does well and gets comfy from it.

Have a great Thursday, Gordon.

yes absolutely.

just because an individual might not ever get the opportunity to be a millionaire it does not mean they never had the opportunity to take care of themselves same as everyone else (with the obvious exceptions of the legitimately certifiably handicapped as opposed to the self diagnosed asperger generation and even still most handicaps will try to find some level of independence because they don't want to be seen as leeches).

People who live below the poverty line have the same opportunity to take care of themselves as the children of, say, Sam Walton? That is, they don't simply have an opportunity to take care of themselves, but their opportunity to take care of themselves is identical to that of those born into immense wealth?

obviously not identical no. unfortunately the world isn't fair, but that's why i specified not being a millionaire. you don't need anything besides food and shelter to live, yeah it sucks to not be able to afford many luxuries, but that doesn't mean you can't survive. working at walmart might not be glamorous but it can still put food on the table and keep a roof over your head. there's your opportunity to start standing on your own two feet.

for education, national student loan programs. oh wait you graduate in debt OH NO! wait... if you stop drinking like a fish at the bar every weekend and don't automatically try living at your parent's level those monthly payments aren't that unmanageable. keep living like a broke ass student for a few more years (you're still learning after all).

not really my problem that so many people look to others and think they 'need' to have those same luxuries as the ultra rich to be whole or whatever excuse their ego convinces them of buying into. i never realized how far below the poverty line i grew up at until i got to college and heard people who had carS in their driveways complaining about being 'poor'. belly was always full and the heat was always on at mom's - the extra stuff was gravy. until one finds a source of peace and happiness within themselves no material object will ever satisfy them.

I disagree with you. Groups need money to advertise and get their tunes out for the world to hear. Musicians have a broader range of affect as far as the amount of people affected compared to other 30k professions.

But I didn't say the bigs should be capped...
I said the bigs don't neccessary deserve the millions they are raking in (if you look at it in terms of hard work) but they are justified in receiving it because thats just how capitalism works.

Well this is where I was coming from. By 30K I meant Sterling, not Dollars (I think this equates to around $50,000 a year)

I just think that if someone is going to be having a relatively easy life writing music (not saying writing music is easy btw) then they should be prepared to sacrifice a stupidly high-earning income for a more modest one. :band: