Rolling Stone: How the music industry is failing songwriters

[BUtterfield 8 41,240]

 

[moonsago 7,285]

I didn’t read the article but did they touch on the fact that a lot of these ‘artists’ nowadays get writting credits although they did nothing? These songwriters have to split royalties with artists because the trend is ‘authenticity’ in western music, everybody has to have writing credits to be taken seriously nowadays so of course shady stuff like this has to happen so an image can be created. 

[RadioIsOurs 13,847]

Is she talking about DJ White Shadow

[Shipper 12,980]

3 minutes ago, moonsago said:

I didn’t read the article but did they touch on the fact that a lot of these ‘artists’ nowadays get writting credits although they did nothing? These songwriters have to split royalties with artists because the trend is ‘authenticity’ in western music, everybody has to have writing credits to be taken seriously nowadays so of course shady stuff like this has to happen so an image can be created. 

In the article they mentioned Ariana took 10% for changing a few words in the song Better Off from her Sweetener album. but let's not pretend Gaga didn't "allegedly" did the same for TIHTY (Source from Linda Perry, Katy's mom )

 

[ALGAYDO 31,073]

Songwriters and artists who are sampled often really do get the short end of the stick huh 

[Meta Mart 352]

I've written something like more than 200 songs. Never received a cent from it.

It's not just an underpaying industry for writers, it's a thieving one.

And then people come at me assuming I'm paid for being conscripted to perform by other works.

Truth is, as much as they can, it's a capitolist shirking industry practice.

It comes down to a belief that the facts of being a practitioner and not regarded with responsibility.

I did a tonne of work in my own capacity, to impart the necessary culture qualities involved in paying people appropriately. And it doesn't mean culture isn't also free. that you can go somewhere and enjoy music or whatever, and it won't have people paying for it. But amongst all those factors are licensing and laws to protect creators so that people get their due.

I designed a mural which I wasn't credited for. A lot of my work is taken under this antagonistic presumption of creative challenge or encouragement. It's insulting even more when it's just as some kind of creative statement for the notion of placement as a process.

You need to understand that artists and creators, they feed the culture, they placate rheumatism, they progress environments, think of anywhere you might go that is without music, what we do is a vital part of working for the population like people who do roadworks.

And it's hard work. I'm talking having to think every moment of the day on creative threads and abstracted connections and production. The point at which you finally go and pave that road, you've done so much work on it, you've done so much training, both on the actual work and on the whole development process. And another might get credited for it, and it's not right.

What I think is necessary is for there to be a just distribution for art's commerce, mandated by the government. People do so much work, even out of the spotlight, the spotlight for creators is typically directed at them. But because of industry malpractice, there is a problem of slavery and trafficking.

Artists aren't necessarily rich beyond measure and living lavish. Partly they sell an affluence to project an aptitude of ability in their works, which helps make it work more successfully. But there is a huge differentiation between the scope of being enabled in practice and access, as a kind of affluence, and being made to struggle because you're not given the privilege of being recognised for your experience of being focused on. Even to the accord of being focused as a sideline of industry malpractice.

Essentially, creators are made to weather the psychonarratology of an output, in tandem with performers, and even moreso as being the point of expression. Malpractice would seek to abscond this premise, leaving nothing for writers, and justifying it as being reposted as an expression focus. But we live in reality, not a pop culture reality of industry appropriations of expressions. And it's subjective, and it is true, we do have a dumb public who believe the people they see are literally embodying of all their attachments. Put it this way, it's highly unlikely any creative output you're seeing, is that performer sewing their own garments, and playing every instrument. It's highly unlikely that GROUPS of people, come together and jabber about a song together for it's lines that are written, and not someone who's composing it all together, I mean they're poems, they're only like a bunch of stanzas. They're hard work for the writers involved. They embody entire cultural movements.

The images we see aren't the truth. Just like the writings as art creations aren't especially "the truth".

But I need authorities to distinguish not be the dumbest of meat heads, like worshipping images. A performer is just as likely to be a dominant writer in their projects too, but there are lots more packets of contribution in any project that are involved. Even to the extent of the crews and management and those supporters which go along being quiet reliability. There are many ranges involved. The attributes to the whole thing, can be just as connected to the different peoples.

It might sound like, not such a big deal, but in a fascist world, where opinions and expressions seem to mean everything, it doesn't just steal from people, or even those who made chump change on it being assumed to have a different equity than what's actually their reality, it puts people in actual danger of violent abuse behaviours, if they can't be recognised. If the only recognition you have is if you can afford to assert yourself as if you have a lavish capacity associated with what people might think is an art output's presence and equity. It can lead to hostaging situations and bullying and even people being abducted and dismissed because they are looked over and not believed. Ruining and pit falling their entire lives as existences they have to contend with being their own identity.

It's like, you'd be very surprised if a general actor in any production you might see, if it were a more common standard, especially with an ensemble and everything, as much as they can be groupwork.... for these movies to be written by their protagonist actors. Most music work is the same. You know, it might be a person, but it's typically a music concept output. An album per se. A pop visage. Like, I would be very surprised if the recent Star Wars saga was turned out to be written by Daisy Ridley. I'm not saying people couldn't be that go getting, it's the impulse of art, but performers as writers themselves, aren't especially the only people that are creating, and especially performers tend to work with what is given to them to find as expressions. It can be a very mixed bag. Imagine you could foresee an artwork as being yours because someone else has written it and assumed you'd be the performer, it's not just "yours" as your psychonarratology, because you assume it. The industry needs to get the hell over its sense of unbridled egotism. And yes, that means respecting the ego. A writer being recognised is part to the ego, it's a dynamic between peoples. Even the performer doing something does make it a psychonarratology that they assume as a role they undertake, it's just not explicitly their responsibility. What I mean, is they tend to have a privilege even, they don't even have to assume it in their own sense of being, as being the onus of their psychonarratological creative production. Like you could imagine seering yourself to do a performance, and you'd probably think it was from you, but this whole thing is collaborative, and good wishes to those who genuinely express an output wholly from their creative origin, but originality even in such notions, is hardly ever typically original to someone or without many people being cast and assumed to take on roles. It's like, the ego is not what it's about, and making it that is failing our whole society and culture in the philosophy department, even where meta established writing with others is concerned.

[moonsago 7,285]

2 hours ago, Shipper said:

In the article they mentioned Ariana took 10% for changing a few words in the song Better Off from her Sweetener album. but let's not pretend Gaga didn't "allegedly" did the same for TIHTY (Source from Linda Perry, Katy's mom )

 

Yup yup, I agree, I remember that! And see? She didn’t get the Oscar for that and I’m glad. She got it for something honest that was truly made by her. 

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,125]

I love the end where they say they're fine with violating their principles if a big enough artist gives them a chance at a hit song. Not sticking to the principle is what's causing their work to be devalued. 

[COOOK 76,406]

Points were made, without having to read the article