giskardsb 12,565 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 the unlucky girl who probably already has way more money than some people will have in their whole life is missing money, awwwwwwww :(the problem is pop fans are so insular they only see this small percentage of people they think are all wildly successful and rich. What they don't see are the thousands of musicians struggling to make any kind of living, or all the music they will never hear because labels can't afford to support lower tier artists, or all the creative new work that never gets promoted because labels only support the widest selling lowest common denominator. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas 27,156 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 the problem is pop fans are so insular they only see this small percentage of people they think are all wildly successful and rich. What they don't see are the thousands of musicians struggling to make any kind of living, or all the music they will never hear because labels can't afford to support lower tier artists, or all the creative new work that never gets promoted because labels only support the widest selling lowest common denominator. Well, your point of view is exact, didn't think of of not famous/successful people, but some of the biggest stars still are hungry for any coin, I just read on Internet that Demi has a 20M networth in 2015, wich is 10 times more than what average people do in their whole life... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbuHassan1992 766 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 the problem is pop fans are so insular they only see this small percentage of people they think are all wildly successful and rich. What they don't see are the thousands of musicians struggling to make any kind of living, or all the music they will never hear because labels can't afford to support lower tier artists, or all the creative new work that never gets promoted because labels only support the widest selling lowest common denominator. AND i bet Demi Lovato doesn't even have that much money. Just because you're on the radio doesn't mean you're rich. Do people really expect artists to give away their work for free? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I know, I wasn't focused here on Starbucks, but whatever coffee is in the cup, it didn't come from the sky. The farmers, those who roast it, those who pack and distribute it, the workers in coffee shop etc. are all responsible. Like she says "writers, producers etc." I don't buy anything from Starbucks, I make it at home, but some could argue I spend too much on Ethiopian coffee beans. But hard labour still cannot be compared to writing or singing a song. Most of the pop music today is disposable and generic, usually you get very fast tired of it and radio and streaming is offering it "for free". And even in 80s and 90s, singles were just used for promo, people mostly bought albums they like and they went to tour. And artists weren't complaining.You said well, some music lasts, but it seems pretentious off her to think that her own music is worthy of lasting a lifetime. At least I don't think so.Hard labor can't be compared to the majority of jobs out there...jobs where people still want raises, benefits, retirement and insurance covered. Just because you are a writer, artist, musician, actor, DJ, sound engineer, dancer, etc. doesn't mean you don't want to make a living from your hard work. No, you aren't working out in a field all day, but you still don't want to work for free or very little money. Yeah, I don't think any of these Disney type girls are making earth shattering music that will last a lifetime either, but some demos do enjoy it for a month or two...or even longer, and that's much longer than a single cup of coffee. I agree with her main point though (although the coffee argument just muddled the general point, tbh) in that there are lots of writers, sound people, studio musicians, office workers, marketing team, etc. that are employed in the music industry and make money from the sale of music. Sadly, what we will eventually end up seeing is a narrowing of artists supported or even signed to labels. There will be fewer Indie labels, as well. The popular music in every genre, will become even more risk-free and more sound-alike. The riskier artists that labels once signed will never get a shot. It all filters down and in the end, will end up hurting those who take chances artistically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PdogtheDaibutsu 717 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 um each cup of coffee is made separately, they record song only once. so it's not good comparision EDIT: and not everyone drinks $5 starbucks coffeeit's funny though because I work at starbucks and a cup of coffee is $1.88 lol. Don't know where 5 dollars came from..maybe a venti frappuccino lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Gangsta 6,693 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 it's funny though because I work at starbucks and a cup of coffee is $1.88 lol. Don't know where 5 dollars came from..maybe a venti frappuccino lol 4 cups lmao Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgalriri 1,124 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 lol idc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bt1 5,213 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Only for a day. Then Pharrell's new song ruined it And that makes it a flop? Applause didnt even reach no 1 for a minute, so Demi is doing good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 it's funny though because I work at starbucks and a cup of coffee is $1.88 lol. Don't know where 5 dollars came from..maybe a venti frappuccino lol In what country? In the U.S., all of their Expresso choices...which comprises half of the menu, are four to five dollars for the smallest size, especially with tax. Their medium sized "Refreshers" drinks are four dollars. But yes, there are a handful of choices that are two to three dollars for a small drink. :) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoAskedOpinions 658 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I added it to my spotify. Its not like I pirated it, she is still making money. Maybe if she made better music more people would buy it?... @WhoAskedOpinions - Rates, reviews, and rankings of music and TV shows Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrawberryBlond 14,881 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Comparing food/drink to music is such a ridiculous comparison. We need food and drink to survive, give us energy and help us think. It's a necessity. Music just makes us feel good but it can't keep us alive. We have every right to spend good money on food and drink. Besides, not all of us drink coffee (most other drinks are cheaper), not all of us drink at Starbucks (which is clearly what this meme is based on), not all of us drink the most expensive Starbucks coffees (again, clearly what this meme is based on) and not all us spend this much on coffee everyday. These types of comparisons are always too generalised and act as if everyone is on the same income, with the same spending priorities. It doesn't take into account the amount of people who go without these luxuries when they can't afford them, how long they take to save up and even how many of them even believe in spending money on any sort of luxuries.These artists who have been well off their whole lives or the majority of their lives simply can't get their heads around the idea of someone not having enough money to buy everything they want. It doesn't even cross their minds that their music isn't selling not because people are illegally downloading it instead, but because people just aren't buying it in any form because they can't afford it. I'm definitely in that category. If I bought the singles and albums of every artist I liked, I'd be broke. I've got to pick and choose the best of the best and listen to the rest for free on YouTube. This is all perfectly legal. Just because you're not buying music doesn't mean you're illegally downloading it either. I wish more artists would realise that if they actually released good music, they might sell more. The statistics show that the public will happily pay for music if they think it's good enough. Oh, and it's not like music sold amazingly well pre-digital era. Until the 1980's, albums really didn't sell much at all. The 80's and 90's was when they reached their peak and then it whittled out with the digital age. But what was going on pre-1980, when the only way to listen to music was to buy it? Why weren't sales through the roof? Because a lot of people weren't as well off back then as they are now. Even when we're going through a recession, we're still probably better off than the public was pre 1980. Most people who grew up in these eras report everyone around them being poor and an album being a rare treat. So, in today's world of tough financial times on top of having the option to listen to music for free, it's doesn't take a genius to work out sales are going to dip. It's just the way of the world. Most people I speak to rarely buy music in any form. They just listen to it for free and that's it. Only a small percentage of a country actually buys music. It's akin to the whole "95% of an artist's singles are bought by the public, not the fans" concept. The majority aren't illegally downloading, they're just not purchasing music in any form. With YouTube and streaming services, why would you bother, apart from your ultimate favourites? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeki 31 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Then chances are you won't go in and buy a five dollar cup of coffee several times a week, either. That's the point here...not that you should take money from your tight weekly food budget to buy music, or not that starving people should buy music. Starving people aren't shelling out five dollars for a cup of coffee at Starbucks. well and thats how it is i wont even have the money to pay 5€ each day for coffee Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freebit 6,240 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Comparing food/drink to music is such a ridiculous comparison. We need food and drink to survive, give us energy and help us think. It's a necessity. IA w/ your whole post completely, but THIS. Even these Starbucks drinks as overpriced as they are qualify as sustenance that your body can use for fuel. I mean I would wager that a lot of people might just go to the Starbucks they see around the corner purely for convenience at times, like that time I ended up at Teavana in the mall because I was so parched from shopping and wandering around all day that even hot tea was appealing. I do agree with her that pirating is kind of sad for all the effort and work involved that goes into that music, but this comparison is just not a great one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYorkCity 10,536 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 That doesn't apply to your music, dear. not today fatty. Not today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas 27,156 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 AND i bet Demi Lovato doesn't even have that much money. Just because you're on the radio doesn't mean you're rich. Do people really expect artists to give away their work for free?she has 20M, average people make 2M in a lifetime. I don't think people expect them to give away their work for free, but they are already blessed to have that much money and should stop acting hungry for any $ they can get Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.