Taylor Swift bitching that Apple doesn't pay her for free samples
-
If you're in an association, in what way are you independent?
In the same sense that The Metal Studies Bibliography isn't about metallurgy.
There's also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_music
Independent music (often shortened to indie music or indie) is music produced independently from major commercial record labels or their subsidiaries, a process that may include an autonomous, do-it-yourself approach to recording and publishing. The term indie is sometimes also used to describe a genre (such as indie rock, indie metal or indie pop); as a genre term, "indie" may include music that is not independently produced, and most independent music artists do not fall into a single, defined musical style or genre and usually create music that can be categorized into other genres.
-
Whether TS was really standing up for the “little people” or not is also immaterial, because it had the effect of making Apple back down, which Billy Joe Jim Bob withholding his album ''Singing with My Dogs” could not have done.
But a less tone-deaf, more PC thing to do would be for TS to go "So sad. Apple should be ashamed! RT @BillyJoeJimBob Had to put down Millie today; read why Apple made me: link.bubba/aQ152"
-
Except that Billy Joe Jim Bob knows he’s small fry, and wouldn’t dare piss Apple off for fear of getting nothing at all.
-
[Conspiracy theory]
Apple paid TS to do the whole thing
[/Conspiracy theory]
-
Blakey gets paid by Apple?
-
How exactly is this a "complete fabrication"?
I'm also sure that this attitude: "Oh, you're only getting $20 anyway so it doesn't matter if we pay you." is a bit hypocritical.
Done.
I'm sorry, I said I was finished, and I really tried, but can't keep this in any longer. You are wrong, and you don't even realize why you are wrong. I know I'm wasting my time here, but I've got to give it one more shot.
Here's what I was hearing from you in this thread:
- you don't care what the individual artists think—I asked you many times what the actual artists had to say, and every time you had some comeback, but no actual data.
- you think it's very important for successful people—famous artists, union bosses etc.—to be allowed to speak for the masses.
I feel that this is an incredibly elitist attitude. Now, I'm not here saying that elitism is the worst thing ever, though I personally don't like it, and I understand that that's a pretty common1 sentiment. No, the thing that bothers me so much about this whole thing is that you're here promoting this elitist viewpoint: that what rich people have to say about poor people matters more than what put people have to say for themselves2 using the rhetoric of populism. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, ok.
1Heh.
2Not that you've demonstrated that any significant portion of published artists comes from anything under the upper middle class; my understanding is that while the Justin Biebers of this world might occasionally be thrust into the limelight, that kind of deal is powered more by how exploitable the labels believe those individuals to be than any pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps fantasy.
-
Dude, you don't get this whole representation shtick at all.
You're still stuck on equating indie labels with the big labels. Because indie labels are not "union bosses". And CEOs of indie associations aren't "union bosses" either.
You'll note, for example, that the CEO for the association I quoted stated:
Each individual member of AIM must, of course, make their own decision whether or not to sign this agreement[...]
Can you tell me where a union boss would have said: "Oh, we'll allow our members individually to decide whether to go on strike or not"? No? Because it's not a fucking union!
When you've shown capable of comprehending the difference then you may come back and argue at me again. Because if you're unable to grasp such a fundamental distinction then the rest of your arguments are equally flawed.
-
Dude, you don't get this whole representation shtick at all.
I get that it's shtick.You're still stuck on equating indie labels with the big labels.
Well they're not ===, obviously, but they are still both music labels of different sizes. Anyway, considering that you can't even tell the difference between artists and publishers I don't see how you have a leg to stand on here.
Because indie labels are not "union bosses". And CEOs of indie associations aren't "union bosses" either.
I didn't say they were.
You'll note, for example, that the CEO for the association I quoted stated:
Each individual member of AIM must, of course, make their own decision whether or not to sign this agreement[...]
Can you tell me where a union boss would have said: "Oh, we'll allow our members individually to decide whether to go on strike or not"? No? Because it's not a fucking union!
I didn't say that it was a union. You're the one who can't tell the difference between trade associations and workers unions, and frothed up a bunch of Marxist claptrap just because I mentioned the U word.
When you've shown capable of comprehending the difference
I realize this is probably just a defense mechanism, rather than an actual request, but I do get that those things are different. The big labels are in the business of making music; the others a conglomeration of vanity presses, predatory lenders and starry-eyed idealists.
then you may come back and argue at me again.
Fuck you.
Because if you're unable to grasp such a fundamental distinction then the rest of your arguments are equally flawed.
The really funny thing here is how you're using a minor nitpick to try and distract from the real issue, yet even your nitpick is a failure.
-
>Because indie labels are not "union bosses". And CEOs of indie associations aren't "union bosses" either.
I didn't say they were.
- you think it's very important for successful people—famous artists, union bosses etc.—to be allowed to speak for the masses.
Riight. I think we're done here. You keep mentioning unions even when I say that unions have nothing to do with this, and when I call you out on this crap, you insist that you weren't labelling them as unions (or at least union-like).
It's like arguing with a 9/11 truther - they keep pulling the same crap.
-
You claim that he equated two things, then as evidence you show that he put them both in the same list. That is not equating. If I said I loved Mother Theresa and cake, would that mean I'm claiming Mother Theresa is cake?
-
Okay, let me spell this out for you:
He specifically referenced two groups. I was using the statements of two groups for my arguments:
- Taylor Swift's (which he referenced as "famous artists")
- The CEO of an indie association
Now, three guesses as to who he might have referenced with his "union bosses". Considering the fact that he already tried to equate an association with unions before.
-
You had an opportunity to quote whatever you wanted in support of your idea that @Buddy was equating CEOs of indie associations with union bosses. You chose to quote an instance where @Buddy put them in the same list. All I'm doing is pointing out that your evidence doesn't support your conclusion.
If you claim there is another instance where he said whatever it is that makes you believe what you do, why didn't you quote that instead of what you did?
-
@Rhywden said:
Plus, if you rate someone solely based on headlines then you are TRWTF.
Inverse pyramid, man. The article starts with the most important information and moves on to the least important. Therefore: the headline is by far the most important information. Didn't you take journalism class in school?
I once heard that when writing a news story, you should make sure that the headline, the first sentence, the first paragraph, and the whole story all say the same thing, just at different levels of detail.
-
I once heard that when writing a news story, you should make sure that the headline, the first sentence, the first paragraph, and the whole story all say the same thing, just at different levels of detail.
Ah, I see your mistake: you're confusing people who write news articles with journalists ;)
-
You keep mentioning unions even when I say that unions have nothing to do with this, and when I call you out on this crap, you insist that you weren't labelling them as unions (or at least union-like).
On the plus side, we now know that he wants to abolish his local chamber of commerce as it is a union for small businessmen. Since indie labels are mostly small businesses, this must follow as a logical consequence.
-
On the plus side, we now know that he wants to abolish his local chamber of commerce as it is a union for small businessmen.
Unless we get off the
and then we'll know that he views statements by said small businessmen to be distinct from something said by the local chamber's president.
-
Hey @boomzilla, in discussions we've had in the past, have I ever said anything against unions?
In all this trolling, it's hard to remember what my position is on things that I don't really care about, but being on the anti-union side of an argument feels out-of-character for me, somehow.
-
Hey @boomzilla, in discussions we've had in the past, have I ever said anything against unions?
I can't recall any.
In all this trolling, it's hard to remember what my position is on things that I don't really care about, but being on the anti-union side of an argument feels out-of-character for me, somehow.
I would agree with this, but I think it's pure extrapolation on my part.
-
I started out disagreeing with @Buddy's argument as I felt that it was common sense1 that smaller artists would want to get paid for people streaming their music. But this made me think...
[...] show that there is a minor artist who actually cares about streaming royalties [...]
Is streaming a revenue stream that makes a difference to minor artists? Or is streaming a way to get the music out there which opens up more lucrative opportunities like record sales, touring and merchandise?
I don't know the answer to this and I get the impression (although I don't want to speak on his behalf) that @Buddy doesn't either.
1 Yes, I know.
-
The general theory is that up and coming artists mostly want to get people to listen to them by any means necessary so they can sell tickets and tee shirts. However, there are a lot of artists that work differently. There's even some that make their money indirectly. For example, ad money on their YouTube channel.
-
I don't know the answer to this and I get the impression (although I don't want to speak on his behalf) that @Buddy doesn't either.
Well, I'm definitely not an expert, I'm mostly just going by what I've picked up here and there online; I believe we had a thread on here about how playing shows is typically the only reliable way for artists to make money. But the one data point I do know personally seems to back that up. A friend of mine is a minor local success—his band's at the stage where people are coming to their shows who know some of the words to most of their singles, or sometimes we'll meet people who drove over an hour just to see them. But on the other hand, he hasn't quit his day job (he's one of those rockstar coders we always here about: he thinks it's ridiculous that kid are still being taught C or Python instead of real languages like PHP or ColdFusion). Anyway, he's been pretty busy lately, I haven't had a chance to ask, but I know that last time it came up, online revenues were pretty insignificant.Also, when they released their album, I got a look at their contract; it was highway robbery. I told him that, he just shrugged like that's just the way things are. This wasn't a major label at all, this was a bunch of bumble-fucks who couldn't even get an album cover printed right the first time, although that's not surprising considering that every hour they spent cleaning up their own mess was billable. And that was their lead singer's seventh album that he'd been in, so it's not like their a bunch of clueless ingénues getting taken for a ride by one bad apple either.
Tldr: I don't know everything, but I know enough to know @rhywden's full of shit.
-
There's even some that make their money indirectly. For example, ad money on their YouTube channel.
Yeah, and when YouTube changed their terms of service, there was some artist I've never even heard of complaining about it. I mean, one person complaining doesn't prove anything, but if someone's claiming to be representing the people, and they can't even dig up one blog post to support their point, I figure it's reasonable to assume that it doesn't exist.
-
-
Also, when they released their album, I got a look at their contract; it was highway robbery.
Related:
It's about authors, not musicians, but I suspect there are similarities. (And goddamn his site is unreliable these days. I have to refresh at least once to get a page to load.)
If that doesn't work:
How Authors Get Paid, part 2
This link is going around Facebook and a couple of people who took my creative writing class sent it to me: From what I’ve seen myself, I have no reason to doubt the BBC’s stats. I believe these ar...
-
(he's one of those rockstar coders we always here about: he thinks it's ridiculous that kid are still being taught C or Python instead of real languages like PHP or ColdFusion).
LOLWUT? thumps said "rockstar" over the head with a Cortex-M devboard repeatedly
-
-
@tarunik said:
LOLWUT?
Psssst. It was probably supposed to be sarcasm.
Not exactly, though it was a long time ago when he said that, back when I was still studying and he was already earning more then than I am now.
-
Yeah, books are an interesting case: I don't think I've ever paid for a book (except textbooks, obviously). The way I see it, if someone pays for a book when there are perfectly good copies available in the library, that's basically just an act of charity, and people would be better off sending their money directly to the artist rather than on a torturous journey through the whole unnecessary old distribution system.
I think the main perceived value of signing with a publisher is that they have much more reach in terms of marketing—and considering how much they make off each copy it makes sense for them to want to market your stuff—except, like it says in the article, that doesn't always seem to pan out.
I know one of the reasons my friend's band signed with a label despite how much it cost them was for the industry connections they supposedly had, but I'm not aware of any stations that are playing them now that weren't before.
-
if someone pays for a book when there are perfectly good copies available in the library
Then they have a copy in their library? Though from the rest of what you were saying it sounds like you are one of those people that only have a couple bookshelves in their home.
-
I normally only read one book at a time.
-
And that means you should limit what is in your personal library why?
-
limit
There's no limit, just no reason to expand it.Let me ask you this: if you've already read a book that you don't own, are you gonna buy it just so you have a copy to put on your bookshelf? How is moving that same decision to before you've even read to book any less ridiculous?
-
Let me ask you this: if you've already read a book that you don't own, are you gonna buy it just so you have a copy to put on your bookshelf? How is moving that same decision to before you've even read to book any less ridiculous?
Some of us like to read books more than once. Or have them available for other members of our family to read.
-
Public libraries.
-
Public libraries.
Owning a popular book makes it much easier to read when you want. No needing to place holds or any of that shit.
-
That's not something I've ever struggled with. Normally I just get some other books out to keep me busy until its my turn. Obviously, everyone's got their own decisions, but I personally tend to file “can read a book any time I like” under “pointless extravagance” in terms of what I do with my money.
-
if you've already read a book that you don't own, are you gonna buy it just so you have a copy to put on your bookshelf?
Often. For reasons that @abarker pointed out minutes later.
Obviously, everyone's got their own decisions, but I personally tend to file “can read a book any time I like” under “pointless extravagance” in terms of what I do with my money.
Books aren't expensive. This is a tiny cost (the volume of volumes owned is more likely to be an issue) that you are apparently dodging. I'm struggling to think of better uses for money after you have a roof and food, so I just don't see the "extravagance" you seem to perceive.
-
@Buddy said:
Obviously, everyone's got their own decisions, but I personally tend to file “can read a book any time I like” under “pointless extravagance” in terms of what I do with my money.
Books aren't expensive. This is a tiny cost (the volume of volumes owned is more likely to be an issue) that you are apparently dodging. I'm struggling to think of better uses for money after you have a roof and food, so I just don't see the "extravagance" you seem to perceive.
Agreed. I spend about $60-70 per annum on books, and that gets me dozens. I can't figure how that qualifies as an "extravagance".
-
I'm struggling to think of better uses for money after you have a roof and food
a) good god man, don't you have any ambitions?
b) buying something just because you're struggling to find anything else to spend money on is pretty much the definition of extravagance.
-
OK, both your points seem to be stemming from a deep misunderstanding of what I said. Books are something that I consider to be one of the best uses of money (I like books), so it isn't spending money because of struggling to find anything else but because it is a good use. In addition you still seem to be thinking that this is a huge amount of money, but while if you group things like comics and game rulebooks into the "books" category I probably spend an order of magnitude more than @abarker that is a pretty small percentage per year of my salary. What are you seeing that is such a better use?
-
I like books
Sloppy thinking. You like books, so what? You're just gonna throw a whole bunch of money in their general direction without considering what the alternatives are, how you can maximize the value gained for dollars spent?
I like reading books. I can do that for free. You like having books, which is your prerogative, but don't ask me to understand it, and don't ask me to support a dying industry just so you can keep buying your stupid trinkets.
-
I like reading books
Sorry didn't realize I was talking with a blakey knock off. Yes of course that is what I meant, but I also like being able to reread easily, loan when recommending to someone, and take notes in margins which are all things that owning the book help. While you appear to not care about these things and so think owning books is wasteful, I am having trouble understanding why these benefits have so little value to you.
-
Because I have never wanted to do any of those things?
-
if you've already read a book (...)
What about reference books (like, say, a programming language handbook), which you don't read end-to-end, but it's nice to have them handy when you need them? What about the collectible value (a.k.a. "looks good on the shelf")? What about not having to worry that you need to read this book this month, or you'll be hit with overdue fees? What about this nice feeling of having something of your own? What about the fact that any bookstore is likely to have a bigger choice than any library, and doubly so for popular/new books, which are either unavailable or on a years-long waiting list? What about wanting to read in a form that doesn't fall apart in your hands, like oh-so-many library books do?
The only benefit is "it's cheaper". And most books are already in the peanuts price range.
-
@Buddy said:
if you've already read a book (...)
What about reference books (like, say, a programming language handbook), which you don't read end-to-end, but it's nice to have them handy when you need them? What about the collectible value (a.k.a. "looks good on the shelf")? What about not having to worry that you need to read this book this month, or you'll be hit with overdue fees? What about this nice feeling of having something of your own? What about the fact that any bookstore is likely to have a bigger choice than any library, and doubly so for popular/new books, which are either unavailable or on a years-long waiting list? What about wanting to read in a form that doesn't fall apart in your hands, like oh-so-many library books do?
Yes, those are all the things that I'm saying are only tangentially related to thing thing that I like to do with books: opening them up and looking at the words that are inside.The only benefit is "it's cheaper". And most books are already in the peanuts price range.
What about not having to manage a whole stack of books, only 5% which I'll probably ever open again? What about having a whole team of people keeping everything nicely alphabetized and Dewey-decimized? What about old, obscure or out of print books? What about being able to pick up any book at all off the shelf and take it home without worrying1 that you're gonna get through 5 pages of it before realizing how shit it is?1(edit) not saying it won't happen but that it's not something that would merit any concern.
-
What about not having to manage a whole stack of books, only 5% which I'll probably ever open again
That sounds like you have very different reading habits from those you are arguing against.
What about old, obscure or out of print books?
Libraries tend to have these even less due to how their selection criteria works.What about being able to pick up any book at all off the shelf and take it home without worrying1 that you're gonna get through 5 pages of it before realizing how shit it is?
If a book you bought is crap donate it. Yeah the people in the shelter or halfway house may have issues with shit you shovel at them, but they have something.
-
@Buddy said:
What about not having to manage a whole stack of books, only 5% which I'll probably ever open again
That sounds like you have very different reading habits from those you are arguing against.
Yes. Honestly, I don't even know what you're arguing with me for. I have already made up my mind that love of owning books is just fetishism; valuing an object associated with reading more than the act itself. You haven't yet posted anything I can't dismiss as justification-after-the-fact, and even that you are still arguing with me is just reinforcing my opinion that you need people's validation to make your decision to own so many books seem worthwhile.I don't like spending money to entertain myself. That's just who I am, and I'm happy this way. If you think I'm trash just because I don't own more books than I know what to do with, that doesn't bother me one iota.
-
If you think I'm trash just because I don't own more books than I know what to do with, that doesn't bother me one iota.
If it makes you feel better, that's not why I think you're trash.
-
I don't like spending money to entertain myself
Pray tell then, what the hell do you spend money on? Making yourself suffer? Well if that's your thing I guess, but then again, if it is, then that's entertainment.
What about not having to manage a whole stack of books, only 5% which I'll probably ever open again?
You can sell them/give them away/tear them to shreds. Or not. Choices!
What about having a whole team of people keeping everything nicely alphabetized and Dewey-decimized?
On your bookshelf? Hell, I could use that too.
(More seriously: they're only organized as long as they're in the library and not in your possession, so I fail to see what that has to do with anything).
What about old, obscure or out of print books?
You'll probably have better luck buying them second-hand than finding them in the library.
What about being able to pick up any book at all off the shelf and take it home without worrying1 that you're gonna get through 5 pages of it before realizing how shit it is?
But you can set it on fire if it's egregiously shit. Can't do that with the library book.
-
that's entertainment
So is this.
Choices!
Why the fuck would anyone want to do that? Are you seriously trying to argue that the benefit of buying books rather than borrowing is so you can destroy them? What the fuck do you have against books?
in your possession
It's easier to keep track of five to ten books than a whole library full of them.
second-hand
That hasn't been my experience; in my experience second hand book stores are mostly filed with shitty books that nobody else wanted. Also it's interesting that you chose to word this supposition in a way that made it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Probably.
set it on fire
Well why don't you set fire to the whole god damn library then since you apparently hate them (libraries) so much?
How Authors Get Paid, part 2
