Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

And in this paradise what do artist eat?

Well maybe if people weren't paying $100 tickets to empower Mick 
they'd have more than dirty dishes and a turkey sandwich.  It used 
to be that only the rich had art, Now the rich've turned sue happy 
laywer,and left music lackluster? Copy, Loop, Paste... is why you 
can't pay the bills and have your production all at the same time. 
Even if we don't make any money are we less musician?  Eat, breathe, 
sleep music without greed. Everybody pays their dues.

> Well maybe if people weren't paying $100 tickets to empower Mick
> they'd have more than dirty dishes and a turkey sandwich.
> 

Thats a good point - which affects all of us in some way. Music has become a 
huge mega business - with everyone from ticketron to the record companies 
taking big chunks - so that the artist gets relatively little. Instead of muscians 
playing at the pleasure of lords, the top musicians have become lords 
themselves.   And 1/1000 of 1% make millions, and maybe 1/10 of 1% make a living, and 
the rest have day jobs and dreams - who pay out a lot more for equipment than 
they make.

But I think the internet and MP3s will change that for the better - where 
more of us can be heard, and there is greater democracy. Just as we have with web 
blogs for people to share opinions and ideas, music will become more broad.

On Dec 30, 2004, at 10:43 PM, Jon Pyre wrote:

>
>  And in this paradise what do artist eat?
>
>  Well maybe if people weren't paying $100 tickets to empower Mick 
> they'd have more than dirty dishes and a turkey sandwich. 

Excuse me.  I am totally lost here.  How exactly does that work.  Do 
you think the Stones have somehow crippled the economy?  Is it the 
Stones fault that your career has not gotten off the ground.  If the 
stones let people steal from them more freely would that fix 
everything?

> It used to be that only the rich had art, Now the rich've turned sue 
> happy laywer, and left music lackluster? Copy, Loop, Paste... is why 
> you can't pay the bills and have your production all at the same time.

Again I am confused about what it is you are trying to say.  You seem 
to be implying that "the rich" of the old days and the modern "rich 
artists" are somehow the same entity.  In the old days the aristocracy 
commissioned art and the artists had to kiss aristocratic butt to stay 
alive, they had little to no protection for their ideas outside of the 
aristocratic patronage system and if they fell from grace they were 
screwed.  These days some artists actually can get rich but they are 
not "the rich" of the old days that you refer to who were in fact "the 
aristocracy".  Under the old system it would have been impossible for 
an artist ever to have been "the rich" these days it is possible for an 
artist to get rich and sometimes rich artists sue people, but unlike 
the old days these days poor artists also sue rich ones and the rich 
ones do not have aristocratic patrons to protect them when they are 
caught stealing from poor ones.  In your opinion is the system of 
aristocratic patronage somehow superior to that of system of 
intellectual property laws that apply equally to all?

>  Even if we don't make any money are we less musician? 

No, not making money does not make you less a musician, not making 
*music* makes you less a musician.  Stealing the few musical ideas your 
record contains makes you less a musician.


> Eat, breathe, sleep music without greed.

Picasso by all accounts was one greedy son of a bitch, he worked night 
and day because there were people buying his art and he loved the 
money.  And also enjoyed the power his commodity gave him over the 
people around him.  Nobody says that Picasso was not an artist.

> Everybody pays their dues. 

No not really, some talented people are just born with nice voices and 
nice faces and luck out and hit right away, while many many more people 
pay their dues all their life and end up with nothing.  Talent is 
something some people have and others don't.  No amount of whining will 
change that.  The truly greedy small hearted people are the ones that 
simply cannot accept that the artists who create work that the world 
loves and listens too year after year have actually done something 
special and deserve to be rewarded for it, and instead sit and groan 
about how unfair the system is and how they should be getting a piece 
of the action too and if they are not rich like the big boys then the 
big boys just must not deserve what they have got.

Basically underneath it all what I see these people saying is: "If I 
cant have what you have, then you shouldn't have it either."  Isn't 
*that* lovely.

On Dec 31, 2004, at 4:42 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> Well maybe if people weren't paying $100 tickets to empower Mick
>  they'd have more than dirty dishes and a turkey sandwich.
>
>
>
>  Thats a good point -

What is good about it?  I have never paid 100 bucks to see the stones.  
I have never paid anything to see the stones.  I have never seen them.  
It is not a legal requirement that everyone pay 100 bucks to see the 
stones. Only the people who want to see them need pay it.  If I liked 
them so much that I wanted to see them I would happily pay the 100 
bucks.  I do not begrudge the stones their dedicated fans.  I do not 
feel that the dedicated fans owe *me* something because they are 
willing to pay 100 buck to see the stones.  It is just a totally non 
sequitur argument.

Furthermore, the last show I played was a sellout and about 900 people 
payed about $45 to get in.

Do you know how much of that I got as a band member?  About 2% of the 
door.  The show was a one off and we rehearsed as a band 6 hours a day 
for 5 days.  And before that I rehearsed the songs a lot on my own.  So 
even though the band  I am in can sell out a reasonable hall at $45 a 
ticket we can only do it a very limited number of times a year and when 
we do it is not like we are raking in the cash.

I personally wish we could play more often and the tickets cost less, 
but the system simply does not allow that.

> which affects all of us in some way. Music has become a huge mega 
> business - with everyone from ticketron to the record companies taking 
> big chunks - so that the artist gets relatively little. Instead of 
> muscians playing at the pleasure of lords, the top musicians have 
> become lords themselves. 

Bullshit.  Top musicians work hard for what they have.  The aristocracy 
of old was ashamed to be seen doing any work of any kind.  The only 
endeavors that they were willing to be seen to be doing were hobbies. 
They were not just useless they were proud of being useless.

> And 1/1000 of 1% make millions, and maybe 1/10 of 1% make a living, 
> and the rest have day jobs and dreams - who pay out a lot more for 
> equipment than they make.
>
>  But I think the internet and MP3s will change that for the better - 
> where more of us can be heard, and there is greater democracy. Just as 
> we have with web blogs for people to share opinions and ideas, music 
> will become more broad.

If that were the case it would already have happened but what the 
reality is that the vast bulk of the music that people share on the 
internet is just the same top artists that are selling albums.  I know 
of no successful artist that "broke in" via the internet.

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, dennis gunn <dennis@s...> wrote:
> 
> On Dec 31, 2004, at 4:42 AM, GAmoore@a... wrote:
> 
> > Well maybe if people weren't paying $100 tickets to empower Mick
> >  they'd have more than dirty dishes and a turkey sandwich.
> >
> >
> >We luckily live in a country where chasing a dream isn't a crime 
and if acquiring wealth along the way without breaking the laws of 
the land goes with it, I say, good for you!!!

Paying the dues to play the blues doesn't mean rubbing your face in 
the mud, it just means learning how to play. Anyone who rubs their 
face in the mud thinking they'll be a better musician for it, will 
only find out they've got a dirty face.
Gary