Should musicians be on more than 30k a year

ElephantSack · 03-17-2010, 09:49 PM

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.

channel_islands_surf · 03-18-2010, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

**Janszoon** · 03-18-2010, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by channel_islands_surf

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.

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.

Daktari · 03-18-2010, 08:01 AM

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.

mr dave · 03-18-2010, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

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

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).

Red Forman · 03-18-2010, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

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?

mr dave · 03-19-2010, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarwinWasAdopted

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.

idioth791 · 03-19-2010, 02:35 AM

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.

~~Flower Child~~ · 03-19-2010, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

But I didn't say the bigs should be capped...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.

saddle_sore · 03-19-2010, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterSquishy

You know what would be nice though? If musicians all got 30k to live off of. I could make do with 30k if all I had to do was make music.

Not saying it's practical, just saying it would be nice.

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.

03-17-2010, 09:49 PM	#71 (permalink)
ElephantSack Man vs. Wild Turkey Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: ATX Posts: 948	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. __________________ OF THE SUN

03-19-2010, 02:35 AM	#78 (permalink)
idioth791 Groupie Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7	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. __________________ *http://thephreshness.blogspot.com*

03-18-2010, 08:01 AM	#74 (permalink)
Daktari Music Addict Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Originally from Lancashire, England, lived near Largs, Scotland and now live in Rocky Face, Georgia Posts: 154	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.