And....not even close, buddy.
(reprinted from countrymusicnation.com)
Jason Aldean and Taylor Swift aren’t the only artists coming out strong against the digital music industry. In a recent interview with Access Hollywood, Country singer Garth Brooks joined the chorus of those voicing their opposition to various digital music outlets and streaming services like iTunes and Spotify, saying that artists and songwriters are being hurt by not receiving fair compensation for their work.
“I think a lot of people are going to start following. When music starts standing up for itself, it’s going to get a lot better,” Brooks remarked. “And there are some big friends of ours in music we need to stand up to, too,” adding,”if iTunes is going to tell you how to sell your stuff and it’s only going to go this way – don’t forget who created the music and who should be doing this stuff.”Brooks also made it clear that he’s no fan of YouTube, stating that the popular streaming service isn’t really paying the people who are creating the content.
And I’m telling you, the devil – nice people, but YouTube. Oh my gosh,” Garth replied. “They claim they pay people. They’re not paying anything either and people are getting millions and millions and millions of views and they don’t get squat. Trust me.” “Songwriters are hurting,” he continued. “I applaud Miss Taylor and I applaud everyone for standing up for the songwriters, because without them, music is nothing.Brooks notably launched his own digital music service GhostTunes in September of this year, but in the interview he said it’s basically impossible to keep his music off sites like YouTube.
“Yeah, you can do it. But you can’t get out of it. I had a sweet meeting with them. They were all fired up. They’re the sweetest… and they’re all like 12,” Brooks jokingly remarked. “I had the first question: ‘How do you get out?’ Silence. You don’t. It’s totally backward right now,” he continued. “If the artists will just keep hammering away, unify, stick together, then music will become the king again, which is what it should be. Music should always be first.”
Right off, we should get a coupla things out in the open.
First, I am neither anti-capitalist nor anti-profit.
I enjoy having, or at least the idea of having, a nice, big fat bank account.
And there is a reasonable case to be made for product in the market place receiving a fair profit based on what the market will bear.
Second, though, I'm not sure that when it comes to pleading the case of profits being out of line, the best spokesperson for that case is someone like Garth Brooks.
Oh, he's very pleasant and quite the articulate fellow.
But, at last check, he has, give or take, more money than God.
And, whatever investment savvy he may or may not possess, the non-IRS dibbed portion of that ginormous pile of dough came to him courtesy of every day people paying, in one form or another, for his music.
While his fortune is, in fact, actually irrelevant in terms of his right to speak out on this, or any, issue, one fact remains ever true.
Perception is reality.
And no matter how right or wrong it might actually be, Joe and Jane Everyday are not likely to be all that sympathetic to a lament, no matter how valid or invalid in might actually be, that multi-millionaires have a problem with their current rate of payment.
Mr and Ms Everyday are less inclined to jump on that bandwagon than they are to help Garth (and others on this particular soapbox) out by picking up the old smart phone and calling them a Waaaambulance.
Thirdly, here's the kind of bone that not only seems worthy, to some, of picking but manages, somehow, to get stuck in other people's throats at the same time.
It's a little thing called compensation.
And what, in terms of the creative and/or artistic life, actually constitutes compensation.
Flashback to age, say, 12.
Every songwriter, singer, musician, artist, writer, et al that I have ever known in my life (to date), including myself, began to sing and play music and draw and paint and write because they felt something in their hearts and minds and souls and fingers and toes that led them to want to write songs or sing or play or draw or paint or write.
Not a single one I've ever encountered, including myself, has ever shared that sometime around that suddenly inspired age of 12, they awoke in the middle of the night, awash in the glow of an epiphany. the likes of which they had never experienced, an awareness that if they sang or played or drew or painted or wrote that they could very quickly, with the right contacts and a little luck, amass a fortune the likes of which they had never previously dreamed of experiencing.
They wrote songs ,sang, played, drew, painted and/or wrote because they wanted to.
Moreover, as a good, long ago departed friend/peer of mine once said "because we have to."
It's what we are. It's who we are.
It's what we do.
And if we should happen to stumble into a ginormous pile of dough as a result, well....then, it's kind of like finding a bag of onion rings in the order you originally placed that included only burgers and fries.
An unexpected, bonus windfall.
The dilemma here, of course, is that, by now, most folks reading this piece are assuming that I'm advocating for art solely, and strictly, for art's sake.
And that the pursuit of fame and fortune shouldn't play a part in the process.
In fact....I'm not.
But I am aware, because I've been around awhile and I've witnessed some evolution and some revolution, that the "money thing", as money things are wont to do, has ever so slowly, but ever so surely, managed to shove its way to the front of the line for a lot of songwriters, singers, musicians, artists and writers.
Consider.......
....the abundance (some would call glut) of material in music, movies, TV, etc that follows what is obviously some kind of formula, clearly designed to appeal to the largest number of people possible, "artistry"?.....not so much.......
...the abundance (some would call glut) of songs (be they pop, country, hip hop, et al) that, literally, sound, if not the same, then certainly alike enough to be tip toeing the line of "the same"......think "the Mona Lisa".....now imagine hundreds of them coming down the assembly line like chocolates in front of Lucy and Ethel) (PS, this example is in no way meant to imply that the original song had any real value, other than consumer consumption, at all)
...the passionate popularity of "contests" like Idol, X Factor, The Voice......filled with well meaning and, often, undeniably talented kids whose goal is just share that talent with....oh.....wait......
Okay.
There's nothing "wrong" with any of this.
If someone wants to crank out and can get people to give them money for what's cranked out, then good for them and God bless America.
A long time ago, in a fit of cynicism far, far away, I actually said to someone " if you give me the right marketing resources, I can take dog shit, put in a can, sell it and people will buy it like was going out of style."
Obviously, not every piece of creativity that finds its way to the market place is dog shit.
But.....neither is it necessarily art.
Nor....was it necessarily created, shared, performed, offered or given to an audience, be that an audience of one or ten million, for nothing more than the simple joy of songwriting, singing, playing, drawing and/or writing.
I agree, and disagree with something Garth had to say there.
“If the artists will just keep hammering away, unify, stick together, then music will become the king again, which is what it should be. Music should always be first.”
Music should always be first?
Agreed.
Music will become king again, which is what it should be?
Nope.
Because a king is worshipped and lauded with tributes of endless streams of gold and silver.
A lot of us got started doing it.....and still do it.....to share what we've been given with you.
Appreciation and, sure, a little reasonable compensation is appreciated.
No worship required.
No comments:
Post a Comment