Daniël Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 It all depends on the reputation & technique of the artist. If i could buy penta's music or hallucinogen i would pay 250 per song regular everyday full on/goa trance/new school songs i would pay $25 per song. There is a big difference of the prices in all kinds of art between "one of a kind" and "the other crap". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jikkenteki Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Everybody is forgetting the incredible benefits artists get like travelling around the world from one party to another for free.. 446480[/snapback] True enough, but on the other hand how many of the artists on the scene really get that kind of chance as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devious Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 You may be a "jack of all trades" but you're "a master of none" I always liked the line -- procrastination is like masturbation -- it's all good until you realize you're just fucking yourself. but i even find that good :-/ Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
technosomy Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 You may be a "jack of all trades" but you're "a master of none" I always liked the line -- procrastination is like masturbation -- it's all good until you realize you're just fucking yourself. but i even find that good :-/ Aaron 447530[/snapback] nice one aaron you are on form today time to give it back to that u.s forum!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furthur Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 yes, of course i see your point of view. unfortunately this isn't Idyllia and we aren't prancing around half-naked with flutes and lyras, picking apples off trees, drinking from rivers of wine, and singing serenades to the moonlight. 446363[/snapback] we're not? damn it does that mean i have to give my flute and lyra back and put on a shirt? but i am definitely not getting rid of my river of wine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbierabbit Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 The artist doesn't deserve anything simply because he spent time and effort into making a track. According to you, then, the constructor deserves nothing for building houses and offices and superstructures. He shouldn't get anything for acquiring the raw material, labour, etc as well: he should produce it all out of his ass. Ditto automobile manufacturers, farmers, electricians, ad infinitum. If you're gonna chuck art in the free category, you might as well chuck everything else. The music should be it's own reward. I'm not disagreeing with you, not entirely, but because our society is fundamentally financial, you'd have to strip society down to realize that ideal. A computer will do fine, if you have the right feeling you can produce 100 times better tracks on a work station than someone that hasn't got the right feeling can on a studio complete with expensive synths, mixer tables and high quality headphones. Yeah, but those synths and mixer tables ease the process considerably, don't they? Let's ask a sculptor to make a long-lasting sculpture out of dry, fine-grained sand or ask him to mould a block of cast iron into shape using no heat; let's ask a painter to paint using his mouth and a singer to sing with a gag while we're at it. Would you rather eat with your hands or your feet? You can chuck gobs in your mouth with your feet, but isn't picking stuff up with your hands easier? Again, I'm not completely disagreeing with you--Stephen King wrote his best books on a typewriter--but if the artist has the skill, the right tools--better tools--can only aid his art. I mean what's up with the fashion industry? What of it? Yes, I do agree that most of the stuff the fashion industry keeps doing is crap, but that's perhaps because I can't see the art in it. My preferences do not, however make that industry useless--if it were so, hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't be busy making new clothes and styles. They definately see something in it that I do not. It's something that people should do on their free time. So according to you art is leisure while "work" is not? I don't know about you, but for an artist, art is work as much as anything else is. And what's wrong with art as work? What's wrong with labeling something you like doing as "job"? Is it fundamentally wrong to have a job you like? Is it wrong to get paid for a job that isn't cripplingly boring and is, in fact, the best way you can spend your time? "Hey, people can work 8 hours a day, let's make em do it" and we do it. We don't even think twice about it, because we have no choice. We have to work for 8 hours a day to even make a living. If there were no unnecessary industries, we would probably have to work for 2 hours per day or even less. Get some food on the tables and then everyone can do whatever the hell they want to. This is what I'm against: why shouldn't the guy make music for eight hours? Instead of working for two hours and making music for the rest, what's wrong with making music for those two hours as well? And if, as I said, we're to continue the financial society (which, like it or not, as Pink Floyd sang, is the root of all evil today), what's wrong with earning money for doing your "job" just like any other job, even if it's no job but a heck of a fun ride? And because people seem to need to state this: all of it is, of course, my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTP Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 If everyone worked to keep society running by producing food, health care, schools etc. you wouldn't have to work as much as you have to in today's consumer society. Then there would be more time to do anything you want, for example music, researching new technology, or simply chilling out . I know this is a very idealistic image of the society, and it probably won't come true in our lifetime, if ever. However, it's never too late to start working on it. 446375[/snapback] An idealist and a bit communist view I like it ... I had the same view not long ago. I dreamt of how good this all here can be when everybody would work his pensum for the society and get something in return - for there is not so much work to do if you really divide it up and you have more freetime I gave up that view though. Me having this view wouldn't change a thing. EVERYBODY must have this view, otherwise there will always be black sheeps who want to get rich on behalf of others. And this will never come true, there will always be black sheep. Anyway, I don't wanna get too offtopic here. I find it right that artists get paid for tracks. It's effort, it needs equipment and the artist needs something to live too. If the artist would get a job instead to get the money he would be tired in the evenings and would rather prefer to spend his fretime with freinds han sitting in the studio and thus he would probably produce just 10 percent of the music - even if he really really wants it - which he produces now that it is his "fulltime job", you know? Artists deserve to be paid. Not too much though. There is a differnce between getting paid and getting over-hyped and making big big amounts of cash, you know? The latter thing is not alright! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin OOOD Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I believe it's something like "Alright, we got our recognition and enough money to make a mistake or two, let's try something different." and it usually turns out to be shit. It's sad, but it's the truth. 446361[/snapback] No. You're wrong (and I don't normally make categorical statements like that). All you can say is "... and it usually turns out to be something I don't like". PS. Some of the opinions you have put forth in your posts have made me quite pissed off. I haven't got the time to reply properly right now because I've got to pack and leave for a gig very soon. I might just leave you to fester in your own 'idealism' (I bet you don't pay for all the music you download, either, am I right?)... being creative might not be a 'job' for most people who try and express themselves with music, but making stuff that's worth listening to takes TIME - far more time in some cases than most of you imagine. I worked it out on Isra once, and for what we (and most people) get paid for a track (if we get paid at all), the equivalent hourly rate works out at literally a few cents an hour. "What about gigs?" I hear you cry... sure, they can sometimes pay ok but for 95% of people who make trance getting a decent gig AND getting paid for it is nigh-on impossible as promoter's artist budgets are normally gobbled up by the fees demanded by headliners. I'm fed up to the back teeth of being skint; of not knowing whether I'll be able to keep my car on the road; of surviving on ramen noodles for the last week of every month. But I tell you now, if money was the motivation I could be earning £50k as a computer programmer right now... but if I did that I'd be too tired in my time off to make music. People like you make me sick; you don't have any appreciation of how much artists give of ourselves, just to give you a 10MB download. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin OOOD Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Yes, and that something is a smile on a face. Money can't buy happiness, mind you. 446365[/snapback] But it can buy a roof over one's head, and some food and clothing. Or should I just smile at the bailiff when he comes to confiscate my computer for non-payment of rent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin OOOD Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Everybody is forgetting the incredible benefits artists get like travelling around the world from one party to another for free.. 446480[/snapback] And in the 4 days they spend travelling, recovering from jetlag, performing, then travelling home and recovering from jetlag again, they're unable to do any other 'normal' work to earn money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmiwinks Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 FACT: since the beginning of time, a part from a few rare exceptions, good artists have always lived poor, died miserable and were buried in common graves... Things only changed in the second half of the 1900s with mega producers and artists with private jets and all... so today's trend is actually an exception from the rule... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmtree Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 hehe.. I wouldn't make such an absolute statement - a lot of musicians lived very comfortably - usually the ones who made 'pop' music for the wealthy patrons and/or the masses, be it operas, polkas, waltzes, big band, RnB, or club trance. it's the 'misfits', the real musicians, those that refuse to compromise their vision, who are usually poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philter Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 i can only agree with some of the points that colin made.............. a friend of mine once asked me: can you make a living FROM your musik?...my reply: no but i can live FOR it.... yeah, there have been times when ive eaten nothing but toast....... FACT: since the beginning of time, a part from a few rare exceptions, good artists have always lived a poor, died miserable and were buried in common graves... Things only changed in the second half of the 1900s with mega producers and artists with private jets and all... so today's trend is actually an exception from the rule... 448094[/snapback] how very true... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moni Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 when you're talented, when you have "it" in your blood and love it, then music making can (or even should) become your job. so it should be paid, and with good money i may add. just like: not everybody can be a surgeon, or a lawer, etc., cause they don't have what it takes .. same way: not everybody is an artist and can make music. artists shouldn't have to get a second job to be able to get by. hire me to make music as a job and i'll get fired in 3 days. 3 days because i have a nice smile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icarus Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 FACT: since the beginning of time, a part from a few rare exceptions, good artists have always lived a poor, died miserable and were buried in common graves... Things only changed in the second half of the 1900s with mega producers and artists with private jets and all... so today's trend is actually an exception from the rule... 448094[/snapback] Actually, it doesnt mean its an exception to the rule. It means that times have changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phobium Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Things only changed in the second half of the 1900s with mega producers and artists with private jets and all... 448094[/snapback] I don't think most psyproducers want a private jet, I just think they want to get enough money out of it to atleast pay the rent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmiwinks Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 3 days because i have a nice smile. um-hum yeah, a nice smile *wink wink* anyway, back to the main subject: if you want to explore this even further, true creativity isn't even a job or talent or anything, it's more like a disease. Scientists studied what made talented artists like Van Gogh or Mozart tick and they seem to agree that it has a lot to do with an affection of the temporal lobes: basically these people have a form of dementia and are pretty miserable all their lives, but the positive side is that they create things that are way out of reach of a "normal" mind. True creativity has nothing to do with the money... of course, I'm not saying that it's right for everyone to download mp3s and for artists to have to live on wellfare, I'm just saying this to put things into perspective (BTW wellfare also only exists from the second half of the 1900s, before artists didn't even have that... let alone the part-time job at McDonald's or Shell). So basically, on one hand in history you had these "freaks" who'd like to be normal but can't, they lived as outcasts all their lives and only got the recognition they deserved generations after their death and now you have people who think that they're due a few thousand dollars for a track just because they bought a PC with a dual-core processor and Fruity Loops (cause if they'd actually bothered investing into a 303 or a 101 the music would actually sound good) ok, I'm exagerating a bit but why not think about it this way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaft Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Scientists studied what made talented artists like Van Gogh or Mozart tick and they seem to agree that it has a lot to do with an affection of the temporal lobes: basically these people have a form of dementia and are pretty miserable all their lives, but the positive side is that they create things that are way out of reach of a "normal" mind. So basically, on one hand in history you had these "freaks" who'd like to be normal but can't, they lived as outcasts all their lives and only got the recognition they deserved generations after their death 448378[/snapback] Mozart and Gogh 'freaks'? You bastard!! Perhaps those kinds of 'outcasts' are still with us, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmiwinks Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Perhaps those kinds of 'outcasts' are still with us, eh? of course they are: they're the ones making true progress in art, the ones that the next generations will look back on and say "man, those idiots living in the 21st century didn't even see the talent behind this, they only bought conventional crap that isn't worth shit today" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cangrejo Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 I'm too tired to break up all posts into quotes, but you all made your points and I agree with some, I disagree with some, and some I just don't understand. It doesn't matter anyway. Look at some tribe that lives in the jungle and you'll see what I think is a great society. Only the people out there hunting/collecting food would be replaced by robots. Then everyone could spend their free time listening to music, making it, making clothes, painting, researching things etc. Of course we need some doctors etc. but there will always be people who are interested in learning the ways. And if some people feel that they aren't interested in working, it's their call. I hope you understand the point and start a revolution tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 And in the 4 days they spend travelling, recovering from jetlag, performing, then travelling home and recovering from jetlag again, they're unable to do any other 'normal' work to earn money. 448021[/snapback] Why should they. They just got paid from the lives and dj sets they did on atleast 5 different locations in the country they travelled to They should enjoy drinks from coconuts with a fancy umbrella and listen to shpongle under a palm tree for a few weeks then go back home and start working on some new tunes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbierabbit Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Only the people out there hunting/collecting food would be replaced by robots. Then everyone could spend their free time listening to music, making it, making clothes, painting, researching things etc. I kind of like this, but isn't it deviating from what you said earlier? Earlier you said everyone would spend two hours doing work and now you're saying that "work" would be done by robots essential freeing humans to pursue whatever artistic/aesthetic endeavours they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phobium Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Why should they. They just got paid from the lives and dj sets they did on atleast 5 different locations in the country they travelled to They should enjoy drinks from coconuts with a fancy umbrella and listen to shpongle under a palm tree for a few weeks then go back home and start working on some new tunes 449775[/snapback] Well, that would be neat. I hope you are a party organizer who can pay that much money. If so, book me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cangrejo Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I kind of like this, but isn't it deviating from what you said earlier? Earlier you said everyone would spend two hours doing work and now you're saying that "work" would be done by robots essential freeing humans to pursue whatever artistic/aesthetic endeavours they want. 449829[/snapback] I'm glad you like it, I like it too. Although, we would probably need to develop alot better AI before robots can replace us humans in all lines of work. And then they would replace us as a whole. Mankind is doomed Perhaps it's deviating, but it's a better idea, so why shouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Well, that would be neat. I hope you are a party organizer who can pay that much money. If so, book me 450228[/snapback] Only good ones of course, isn't the Posford getting like almost 10000 pounds for a live+dj ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.