tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6771504924056950148.post660957444198534787..comments2019-12-03T14:51:34.731-05:00Comments on One Man's Journey Through Composition: Refocusing the discussion on Sustainability. John Chittumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11582106003517186396noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6771504924056950148.post-87316863941982938332013-10-30T13:39:16.383-04:002013-10-30T13:39:16.383-04:00Sorry, that second sentence should have read "...Sorry, that second sentence should have read "Resources aren't scarce anymore"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6771504924056950148.post-46781731444923211022013-10-30T13:07:34.637-04:002013-10-30T13:07:34.637-04:00Problem is that we can't move it to the supply...Problem is that we can't move it to the supply side anymore. Resources are scarce. And while some of us can make a distinction between a "high value work of art" and all the musical products that exist out there for consumption, most folks either don't or can't so any high art music is going to compete (from the consumer standpoint) with all the other forms of musical entertainment.<br /><br />While the business and corporations were traditionally the big funders and often gatekeepers of entertainment, that's also breaking down as newer technology (and forms of entertainment) quickly becomes the norm. This actually parallels what happened to musicians in the first half of the century with the coming of motion pictures, then sound pictures and radio, and then television.<br /><br />Popular (and not so popular) entertainment always had a big boost through some form of non-performance revenue streams and most of these took advantage of it when they could--now those systems are breaking down and we're seeing a surplus of musicians without the old gatekeeping mechanisms which is bringing the overall value on both high and low art. That's what I focused on in my <a href="https://silpayamanant.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/free-culture-undercutting-and-the-environment-they-create/" rel="nofollow">Free Culture</a> post.<br /><br />One of the commenters took the author to task about that surgeon/writer equivalency too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6771504924056950148.post-24647227238106736852013-10-30T12:53:20.935-04:002013-10-30T12:53:20.935-04:00Let's not move this further into supply side s...Let's not move this further into supply side style (and do mean style, as it's not really supply side) economics shouldn't be traded in culture. Or how, quite honestly, the current capitalist system of ownership is bad for anything creative.<br /><br />I will call BS on that article though for a false equivalency. I agreed that the original NY Times OpEd was wrong in calling it slavery. However, the idea that professional writers aren't the same as surgeons because everyone can write is the same as saying "surgeons shouldn't get paid much because anyone can learn first-aid and CPR." There's a huge skill difference between, say, me and a real writer (I'm good, but still an amateur), just as much as there's a difference between me and, I dunno, people that don't read books but comment that they could write one.<br /><br />It's false equivalency, something that is horribly rampant in the majority of writings about art and economics these days...John Chittumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11582106003517186396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6771504924056950148.post-80871696381203675392013-10-30T12:27:41.849-04:002013-10-30T12:27:41.849-04:00Concessions are the cash cows for the venue. The ...Concessions are the cash cows for the venue. The ad dollars from businesses go to the teams, the concessions go to the venue. We're told that cinemas are really in the food business (or the concessions is where they make their money) while the movies are what draw in their customers.<br /><br />Same thing for big pop music venues--that $5 bud light in a plastic cup is more than covering the cost of beer itself, but the venue needs to make enough off concessions to pay for running the venue and paying for staffing it.<br /><br />So yeah, the concert, the game--these are used to market the the events as well as the venue. They are the draw, but the ticket sales go the the performers while the concession sales go to the venue.<br /><br />It used to be the case that clubs would pay a percentage of their alcohol sales to musicians--5% - 10% was pretty standard, but that doesn't happen much anymore except in the venues with a big regular audience.<br /><br />I'm not sure how much we could ever divorce the business side from the value side but as long as the <a href="http://paidcontent.org/2013/10/28/no-writing-for-free-isnt-slavery-and-other-misconceptions-about-the-economics-of-online-media/" rel="nofollow">demand side</a> is driving the business, we're all going to see a much smaller piece of an increasingly smaller pie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6771504924056950148.post-32460411751965407632013-10-30T12:12:55.165-04:002013-10-30T12:12:55.165-04:00All great points. But, at the same time, it's ...All great points. But, at the same time, it's important to remember that audiences are consumers in multiple fashions. Ticket sales at football games aren't the cash cows, but the concessions, parking, etc definitely are. Tours for pop musicians have, for at least the last 40 years, revolved around selling a recording, hyping a new album, etc. than anything else. <br /><br />The live experience has been a form of marketing for another product, be it concessions, recordings, or TV/Radio proceeds. <br /><br />It's interesting, we assume that the concert is "the product," but the more I think I about it, the less I'm inclined to agree.<br /><br />All this to say, really, we need to divorce ourselves from the current capitalistic idea of value anyway. Commodifying human experience, trademarking DNA, and having an entire society focused on money being the end product of any endeavor is dangerous for any form of culture. John Chittumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11582106003517186396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6771504924056950148.post-2064871211488303332013-10-30T12:05:29.855-04:002013-10-30T12:05:29.855-04:00"Sustainability" is one of those buzz wo..."Sustainability" is one of those buzz words (along with Entrepreneur) that have more to do with marketing a "new" economic model or viewpoint than anything else. Invariably it's never really examined in a comparative manner--or when it is it's usually in the service of making apples to oranges comparisons. <br /><br />No one seems to care to mention that audiences don't create sustainability in even the <a href="https://silpayamanant.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/how-audiences-cant-save-the-arts-or-sports-or-pop-music-or/" rel="nofollow">Pop Music or Sports Industry any more than it does in the Arts</a>.<br /><br />At one time Classical Music had value for businesses and corporations--the PR sponsorships during the late 30s and 40s on the radio and early television of orchestras gave the businesses a chance to combat the previous New Deal/anti-business trend during the Depression. Eventually Sports and Pop Music took that role of value for businesses as ad sponsorship made up the lion's share of revenue for both industries (I think we tend to forget that Music Labels gave advances and tour support so that artists could effectively market the Labels' products--i.e. the Recording by the artist).<br /><br />We think of a three way relationship between audience/consumers + artists/producers + venues/broadcasters -- but we always seem to forget about the donors/corporations which actually contribute far more revenue to artist/producers when such exist for them.<br /><br />And as we know, very few folks have the benefit of that last group except large arts organizations, professional sports teams, or pop superstars. The rest of us "sustaining" ourselves through multiple income streams.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com