flyfisher

I've always thought that as well. However, out of curiosity I've just weighed my Fender P (MIJ) and J (USA deluxe) basses and found them to both weigh in at exactly the same 8.5lbs.

When part of the ceiling fell down in the old house I'm renovating it was pretty obvious where the squirrel's lost nuts were! If only I could convert old walnuts into even harder currently I could afford to fix the ceiling. [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1389634799' post='2336379'] The fact is that we are the only species with a financial system. [/quote] Indeed. And look where it has got us. Another few hundred years may well see us consigned to an invisibly thin layer in the four billion year geological record of this planet* [size=2]*other planetary timescales are available[/size]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389623124' post='2336197'] This is just as common in almost every career, whatever the profession. I couldn't list all the times that word of mouth, or reputation, have given me the edge over others. [b]Networking works in most industries[/b]; the essential difference that one has to be good at your job, just the same..! The 'lucky break', or 'know the right folks' might land a budding pop star in front of a camera, but if he/she doesn't come up with the goods, it won't last. [/quote] Very true. I'd even extend that to 'networking works for most things in life'. But it can only find you that chance - which of course is very, very helpful - but you still have to be able to deliver. Indeed, if you can't deliver then not only will things not last but networking quickly works against you as word can spread very quickly.

Alternatively, I'd predict that there's be a dramatic increase in the number of people dying with only a few beans to their name and nothing for the state to actualy grab.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1389584917' post='2335820'] Are you referring to all the organisms with complex financial systems or the ones without? [/quote] Ah, the arrogance of man. In the race of life, intelligence is vastly overrated. Indeed, it could be argued that intelligence is the very thing responsible for buggering up the planet for all the other life forms that have survived perfectly well without it for billions of years. Indeed, intelligence seems to be a prime reason for buggering up the lives of the organism that posesses the most of it. Life on our planet managed perfectly well without 'complex financial systems' for billions of years and will surely manage without them again.

Dreams have to be paid for though. I'd suggest it's all about independence. If you're truly independent then you can do as you wish and follow your dreams, for better or for worse, and no one else really has any right to question it. But if you're relying on someone else for a roof over your head and generally supporting your chosen 'lifestyle' in other ways, then you should be honest about the fact that they are subsidising your lifestyle. Of course, parents expect to support their kids, but there comes a time when the apron-strings should be cut. It would be interesting to know what people generally think that age should be. I'd ask the OP if he is able to fully support himself with his music career? It might be at the root of all the questions.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389549999' post='2335423'] Pass your genes on and run away quickly, your work is done... [/quote] Seems to have worked pretty well for most organisms on the planet. But I get your point and of course we'd all like to be able to give our kids a 'leg up' in the race of life. However, where does it all end? Don't we already have enough people moaning about the 'Eton toffs' running the country? Yet isn't that just a natural consequence of allowing the accumulation of wealth and therefore privilege down the generations? Is that really what we want - hugely wealthy and powerful 'dynastic' families? Also, what about the ever-increasing costs of end-of life care and all the recent hoo-ha about asking people to contribute to their own care home costs? Why should the state pay for someone to go into a care home when they could sell their own home and pay the care costs themselves? Such a suggestion is generally deemed to be outrageous, yet in practice, the people complaining about it are really just expecting the state to subsidise their kid's inheritance.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389538337' post='2335222'] No. I put it down to the fact that we are actually not all equal and the idea of equality is a construct bourne out of idealism. We are all different and we should all be treated differently. Including pay. In nature it usually balances out ok, species evolve and get stronger. And we get bigger and stronger through inheritance! [/quote] Do you mean by inheritance of bigger and stronger characteristics or by being given stuff by pure luck? It's an interesting area though, as we struggle to separate our animalistic, evolutionary, instinctive, kill-or-be-killed heritage with our intelligence-led, cultural and compassionate characteristics. Human history seems to be one of great success in the former and dismal failure in the latter.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389535933' post='2335173'] It's about how we value other people's time. Some people are worth more man hours than others. They're mire valuable. I can fit a new back door. It will take me all day. I'm not great at it but I have the tools and I can do it. My friend can do it in two hours. How many man hours is fitting a back door worth? The problem comes when he needs me to play bass, which he can't do at all. Now if I play bass for two hours in his band, is this the two hours that he spent fitting my door, or two of the six hours I saved when he fitted my door? Do I owe him 4hours? I think I should it's only right, but then he can't play bass at all so I'm saving him hundreds of hours of learning. This is where we remember that money is a tool to be exchanged and not hoarded. [/quote] I'd interpret that example as suggesting our time is equally valuable, whatever skills we actually possess and that money is a tool to trade those equally valuable skills because no one can do everything. Of course, all this equality stuff has been tried before and has generally been a dismal failure, which I put down to our innately selfish nature. People don't really want to be equal they want to have more than everyone else, which means that many people lose out but we don't seem to care as long as we're alright. And being among the richest 1% of people on the planet (ever!), we're extremely 'alright'. Shame we're not a bit more honest about it.

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1389533415' post='2335139'] Do you suppose drug companies would develop new drugs, drugs that combat the most hideous and cruel diseases, if they just received an hourly rate for work done, and no more. [/quote] Well, the actual scientists doing the difficult and creative design and development work only receive an hourly rate, so would that be another example of a few people getting inordinately rich on the back of the work of many others?

But does the tester need to know that? Don't they just plug in the equipment in question to their PAT testing gizmo and press the button. The equipment would then pass and the sticker applied. The thing has then been officially passed as safe, regardless of whether it was intrinsically safe in the first place.

Interesting discussion, though I don't detect anyone's position moving very much. Fair enough. Seems to me that the whole issue is bound up in our inherent tendency to be selfish. Whatever we have we want more, we tend not to like others having more than us and we don't want to share what we have with those who have much less. Survival of the fittest and don't worry about any casualties on the way.

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1389486140' post='2334795'] And who writes those rules? Whose opinion counts so highly they can dictate that to someone else? [/quote] Turning that around for a moment, the current rules have been written by the music industry haven't they? If their opinion counts so highly, why is it that, as soon as technology enables it, many people seem to prefer to download their music for free? Could it be there is a body of opinion out there that it's not fair for someone to write or record one song and make a small fortune from it?

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1389486140' post='2334795'] And who writes those rules? Whose opinion counts so highly they can dictate that to someone else? Whose business is it how long it takes to write a song, book etc, and what the person should get paid? If enough people want to hear a Noddy Holder song so that it gets played thousands of times every Christmas then why should it be anyone else's business what he's getting paid? [/quote] Whose business indeed? And if a businessman (or a banker, or even a successful musician) manages to get paid huge sums and legally arrange their financial affairs to minimise their taxes, then why should that be anyone else's business either? Do we really not care about consistency in these sorts of things?

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389486947' post='2334802'] What's 'natural justice'? And why have you gone off on a tangent about business men? [/quote] What's 'natural justice' indeed? The businessman thing was another example of how someone can make a great deal of money by leveraging the work of others - loads of people contributing some of their time and/or money towards making a few people incredibly rich. My point is that they are both examples of the same thing, yet they are generally regarded rather differently. [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389486947' post='2334802'] If radio, venues, pubs, bands or whoever are making money themselves from using someone else's work than surely that person should be compensated. [/quote] Yes, but we don't apply that principle universally do we - that's my point. The inconsistencies! [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389486947' post='2334802'] Terms such as 'natural justice' give the impression that your viewpoint has a hint of envy that others make a living from music. [/quote] Well, only as envious as anyone would be about someone who no longer needs to do another day's work in his entire life because he wrote a hit song 30 years ago. But I'm probably all bitter and twisted because I couldn't get myself retired until I was 50

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389478640' post='2334714'] So an element, the song, that is essential for the covers band, is the only element not compensated. They get the song for free. But without it they have nothing to perform. Most of the songs I play in my covers band I will never buy, I don't like them. So, I've paid for my gear, but the fundamental element for any covers band and gets us paid, other people's songs, doesn't get compensated? Instrument, amps and songs, all tools for the job for covers band to get paid. Odd that we should resent paying the writer. [/quote] But the writer has already been paid when he first sold the song. You're supporting the writer being paid everytime the song is performed - which is indeed what happens (or should). I'm just wondering about the 'natural justice' in that arrangement. Perhaps it's because this is a musican's forum that we're finding it tough to question the status quo. We're generally admiring of superstar musicians (and writers) who have managed to become millionaires without working anywhere near as hard as most people. We generally don't even denigrate them when they move abroad to their tax havens. Perhaps it's because that's the dream we're also chasing? On the other hand, big, rich fat-cat businessmen are more generally figures of scorn, creaming off their millions from the labour of the hard working men toiling in their factories and businesses. Well, guess what, those businessmen have been as creative as song writers, in their own way, by thinking up a business idea, putting it into practice and persuading loads of people to work for them. It's the inconsistencies that fascinate me.

I don't think anyone is suggesting artists shouldn't make a living from their craft. I think the suggestion is that they shouldn't be able to make an entire living from spending just a few hours on their craft and then sitting back for the rest of their lives.

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389473865' post='2334626'] It'd be interesting to guage how many contributors, who make money from playing in covers bands, don't think that the person whose work they are using to get paid should also not receive something. After all, if they had not written the song covers bands would have nothing to play and not get paid themselves. [/quote] Continuing the 'get paid for the actual work' theme, the writer has already been paid for his song, after which it becomes public domain (yeah, I know, contentious). The covers band is being paid for their performance, not for the song. I'm warming to Dad's theme. After all, the concept of royalties is a fairly recent thing isn't it? It's just a made up convention enabled by recording technology - certainly a nice little earner if you can get away with it, but that's not the same as genuine fairness.

Or Suzanne Vega? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I_7M_JeSoc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZt7J0iaUD0

Any love here for Norah Jones? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBKcKQHZXks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isTuhS42LhA

[quote name='whynot' timestamp='1389447479' post='2334240'] What a load of bollocks. Why shouldn't a writer, either through natural talent or hard graft to create something that people want, receive royalties when used, as other parties are feeding of that work all along the way. Just my opinion of course. [/quote] Ignoring the actual opinion, what about the inconsistency? Why single out song writers and similar for this sort of deal but not apply it to everyone? What makes writers so special? Why don't we pay royalties on the wheel? or knives and forks? Or shoes? Or maybe we did but they're now out of copyright?

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389467251' post='2334511'] I suppose he gave all his royalty cheques back along with his white Roller and his large country pile after he said that...and resigned from Apple records of course. [/quote] No, he was just as hypocritical as the rest of us.

[quote name='leschirons' timestamp='1389459717' post='2334399'] Eva Cassidy's Somewhere over the rainbow is now the definitive version I suspect. She did a seriously cool jazzed up version of Route 66 too. [/quote] I remember being surprised when first hearing the original jazzy version of Route 66, well this version by the writer so I assume it was the original. Incidentally, Bobby Troupe was also portrayed the army jeep driver in M*A*S*H (the film) who was always saying "Goddam Army". Not a lot of people know that. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLUYf6cekMA[/media] Edit - found the Eva Cassidy version . . . . not quite as 'cool' as the Troupe version, but very good nevertheless: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtZ5MM2vbzM[/media]

Well I, for one, benefited a fair bit by being able to get a mortgage and I'd hazard a guess that millions of other people did as well. I'd also hazard a guess that there are quite a few businesses that have reason to thank the banks for providing the necessary finance to help run and grow their businesses. You may well be serious, but so am I. Anti-banker sentiment, in the manner expressed, is little more than pandering to popular opinion without taking full and honest account of the reality of things. Yes, banks have immense power but we should be asking why that is? Could it be because they provide an essential service? A bit like oil companies really, but it's not popular to slag off fat cat oil billionaires is it? And to save your imagination, yes I am being provocative - I'm trying to provoke people into thinking beyond the superficial headline stuff and discuss why things are the way they are. I realise that puts me at risk of being miscontrued as an apologist for (in this case) bankers or whatever (which I am most certainly not), but that's a risk I'm prepared to take in the pursuit of a more thoughful discussion.

[quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1389381031' post='2333727'] Take for example Radio , does the radio not pay the royalties for a broadcast , then why should an employer pay again if 4 people have a radio on in a workshop ? pay the approppriate royalty to broadcast to the population, but dont then further charge the population to listen to it FFS . [/quote] No, no, no. That'll never catch on. Government wouldn't allow it for a start in case people started to complain about how they tax us on our earnings then when we spend what we have left then on what we buy then on when we use what we buy. We really must stay used to paying through the nose for everthing, time and time again otherwise 'the system' will fall apart.