You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||Whistling Past the Dead Netflix, You Be...; entered at 2017-08-12 19:12:05|
Registered: 2017-06-16 Los Angeles, Ca
There's always been a Katty Perry. There was Michael Jackson and Madonna long before her. It's what they call the superstar economy, that is, the only way you are viable is having a blockbuster.
Before, under the 80/20 rule, there was enough left over to fund experimental stuff. Or, although musicians weren't big hits, they could make a living.
A four member band to each make the US minimum wage of $15,080, they would need to get a quarter of a trillion plays for their music on Spotify.
There are executives that are not always about making money, this is a caricature. Of course if they don't make money, then they'll have to close the doors.
American author Cormac McCarthy is considered one of the great contemporary writers in American Literature. He hadn't made a dime in writing until he published All the Pretty Horses, in 1993. He was about 60 years old by that time. He had published I think five or six previous novels. Suttree in '79 earned him a MacArthur Fellowship, and in '84, Blood Meridian, was released which is now considered a great American novel. All of those books did absolutely nothing commercially, they didn't even earn him enough to live on. But Random House did continue to publish him because they thought he was a great author and they could afford to. That's becoming less and less plausible now.
Yes, there are executives who are nothing but bottom line, but not all executives. And yes, there are a lot of artists that got ripped off and had to fight back, the big Tom Petty case and judgment. Not everyone is a nice person, but they weren't all shills either.
But as any small to mid size artist should know, it was because of the big acts that companies could finance you. Now even the big acts can't remain independent.
When you offer something for free, it devalues the product. This happens with currencies, just start giving it away and it creates a devaluation through inflation. The same thing with content. In this case though, it was offered from free not with the wishes of the owners and it was someone other than the owners that made money off of it.
Just follow th money. Simply look at revenue from 1996-2017 then. Especially with the appearance of Napster and Kimdotcom.