11-09-2007, 11:00 AM
Random thoughts on ED's comment:
Is part of the problem that some "artists" are so grossly overpaid compared to the vast majority? And that non-artists in the distribution chain have an overlarge share of profit?
I know that I've seen many crap paintings (in my opinion) selling for many times what I charge, and I think that I must be selling mine too cheap. But I have no "name" in the/any art world, and many people apparently don't see the value of the work itself, only the perceived value of the name. But it is nice to at least make back the materials cost, although an emphasis on production and payment can certainly make the art suffer. (Second album slump?)
Scott Adams' has some interesting comments on giving away content:
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/1...re_co.html
And the "new economy" web startups that gave the content away all failed. If you want to make a living then you have to get paid. (That still stands in the way of me painting all day.)
Of course in the music business (as I understand it) the record company makes almost all the profit on the recordings, and the band makes money on the touring and merchandise. So theoretically musicians could well afford to give away some music to get a larger audience for the shows. Signing with a promoter, as Madonna did, may be a way many will go in the future.
Free content for exposure worked pretty well for the Arctic Monkeys in the beginning, but I imagine they aren't giving much away anymore. So is the art/music business model to give them a little so they get a taste for it, and then make them pay for it?
Is part of the problem that some "artists" are so grossly overpaid compared to the vast majority? And that non-artists in the distribution chain have an overlarge share of profit?
I know that I've seen many crap paintings (in my opinion) selling for many times what I charge, and I think that I must be selling mine too cheap. But I have no "name" in the/any art world, and many people apparently don't see the value of the work itself, only the perceived value of the name. But it is nice to at least make back the materials cost, although an emphasis on production and payment can certainly make the art suffer. (Second album slump?)
Scott Adams' has some interesting comments on giving away content:
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/1...re_co.html
And the "new economy" web startups that gave the content away all failed. If you want to make a living then you have to get paid. (That still stands in the way of me painting all day.)
Of course in the music business (as I understand it) the record company makes almost all the profit on the recordings, and the band makes money on the touring and merchandise. So theoretically musicians could well afford to give away some music to get a larger audience for the shows. Signing with a promoter, as Madonna did, may be a way many will go in the future.
Free content for exposure worked pretty well for the Arctic Monkeys in the beginning, but I imagine they aren't giving much away anymore. So is the art/music business model to give them a little so they get a taste for it, and then make them pay for it?
the hands that guide me are invisible