Very interesting read regarding streaming services.

[Marvin]

The biggest error in Dad189470578450871's new 'model' is he's assuming that all products and all markets are the same. It's just like neo-liberal economists who regard buying healthcare as the same as buying baked beans from a supermarket. The logic is fundamentally flawed because the two entities are in no way like each other...it smacks of economic illiteracy.

Royalties actually work for the purchaser as well as the provider. Services like Spotify would be totally unworkable if they had to shell out an up front fee for work. That work might be a commercial disaster and hence huge risks come into play. Under royalties it only pays small incremental fees based on usage.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Marvin

[tauzero]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437580274' post='2827261']
Let's take an artist, painting a picture. He can sell it, as a finished original, to anyone who wants to buy it. He charges the time (including his instruction and apprenticeship needed to become good...). Someone buys it. The artist carries on painting further works.

The buyer of the painting could have been an individual, looking to decorate his salon, but is, instead, a buyer for a manufacture of jigsaw puzzles. The painting he had bought is to be copied, reproduced several thousand times, cut into pieces and sold as jigsaw puzzles. The buyer (or,in this case, his company...) have taken on the 'risk', and hope to get their money back from puzzle sales. Maybe they will.
[/quote]

Do you count a jigsaw of the Mona Lisa as the Mona Lisa?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1437590701' post='2827410']
Do you count a jigsaw of the Mona Lisa as the Mona Lisa?
[/quote]

I'm not sure that I understand the relevance of the question. Why the Mona Lisa..? The artist I chose in my example painted a seascape of Brittany. It's very popular for puzzles, I think, because of the vast expanse of sky and sea. What difference does the subject make..? It's the time taken to paint it that counts, surely..?

[ras52]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437592262' post='2827438']
It's the time taken to paint it that counts, surely..?
[/quote]

But art doesn't work like that... Cathy Dennis wrote Can't Get You Out of My Head in an afternoon, and Toxic over two or three weeks, and her 'clients' - the public - both deemed them to be of comparable value.

And I heard Graham Gouldman talk about hit songwriting recently, and he said his hit rate was about one in fifty - for anyone "buying" a song from him it would be like buying a lottery ticket. Who's practically going to do that?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1437595343' post='2827489']
But art doesn't work like that... Cathy Dennis wrote Can't Get You Out of My Head in an afternoon, and Toxic over two or three weeks, and her 'clients' - the public - both deemed them to be of comparable value.

And I heard Graham Gouldman talk about hit songwriting recently, and he said his hit rate was about one in fifty - for anyone "buying" a song from him it would be like buying a lottery ticket. Who's practically going to do that?
[/quote]

I'm aware it doesn't [i]actually [/i]work like that. I was suggesting a way of improving things (improving in the global sense, I'm also aware that some will not benefit from the change...). A baker baking his croissants in the morning has to estimate (guess..?) how many he's likely to sell. A good baker guesses right. Any unsold stuff would have to go into the general cost of baking; the less wasted effort, the better. Same thing with composing, no..? If one is no good, and sells none: time to get some training or change horses. A musician not cutting the mustard doesn't get asked back for another session. A baker producing burnt bread has few customers. What is 'art' worth, if not the time (sometimes a lifetime...) honing it to perfection. Is that not worth more than something cobbled up on a napkin after dinner..? The time taken to become good at one's trade would be appreciated, and paid in consequence. The more one produces good stuff, the more folks will buy it. Same as bread. A baker that stops baking, though, doesn't sell any more. To me, other trades and occupations are the same.
Fundamentally, I'm all for composers, musicians and all the ancillary trades getting a fair deal for their efforts, no more and no less. I don't think Stradivarius ended up a millionaire, nor Grieg (That's Edvard Grieg, not Greggs the bakers..! ). They did a splendid job and left a great legacy. What, in absolute terms, will the legacy of 50c, or Lady Gaga be (just 2 cited at random...)..? Any real defence of the (to my eyes...) obscene sums swashing about in those unhealthy climes..? Again, I insist, this is not a question of jealousy. I don't think Stradivarius should have been paid millions, either. A fair wage for fair work seems fair to me; this, for all. The merit is in the time spent doing it, not in the popularism or marketing fad of the day.
I've not got all the answers for all the situations, but I can't, myself, imagine a justification or defence of the 'star' system (in financial terms...) as it stands. Earnings through royalties and copyright are not, imo, a fair way of remunerating working musicians. I've not seen any reply as to why it's only songs that have this 'special' treatment, and not bass licks, drum fills or light shows. Are these not creations, too..?

Edited July 22, 2015 by Dad3353