Quote:
Originally posted by Vespertine
1) None of our faves NEED any more money. If that's the argument you're using, none of them should go on tour or release new albums.
2) The point is that Lord has the power to make a statement while struggling musicians don't
3) "At the end of the day music should be about being accessible to all, not a money pit." Stupid millennial logic. "If you really love art, you would do it for free!!!!" just betrays a total ignorance about the history of art. Most of the greatest, widely-respected works of art were created on commission (usually for religious or political agendas, eep) or with financial gain in mind.
The idea that people shouldn't make fair money off their work just because they also enjoy it is sad. Imagine the outcry if we suddenly decided a bunch of moronic athletes shouldn't make millions every year just because they "should play baseball for the love of sport!!!"
Only in the last 15 years have people suddenly begun to think they are entitled to the work of creative people. I guess everyone was super rich back when albums were regularly going multiplatinum? Because if you ask anyone why they don't spend money on music, "ohhhh I'm too broke for that!" even though they probably spend $20+ a week on Starbucks, lol. Lame as hell.
Anyways, streaming is obviously the future, but right now it's not an ideal system at all.
|
The state of music is quite fine, today. The exception was the mid 80's to 90's.
The most famous musician of his time and also the greatest of all time left a fortune of 200k when he died, it was Ludwig van Beethoven.
But then think of it, every year are about 2000 concerts by his name with an average of 1000 people each for a ticket price at $ 50 that's a revenue of $ 100 mil multiply it with 200 years that's, I assume, $ 20 billions just for live tickets .It's a lot of money for the artists.
Sledgehammer is gonna HAMMER in the US, too, but maybe only like Top 20 because that video is ... nah.
Go JLaw!
