Flower Child

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?

boo boo

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.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Flower Child

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.

boo boo

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.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Bane of your existence

More times than not.

channel_islands_surf

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.

Janszoon

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.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Engine

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?

__________________

Like an arrow,
I was only passing through.

Freebase Dali

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.

mr dave

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.

__________________
i am the universe