For the record, musicians don't make s***. Courtney Love published a famous article called "Courtney does the math." You might be able to google it. She nets less in a year than I've made in a day. No exaggeration.

Even huge name acts like TLC have declared bankruptcy. The contracts musicians sign are absurd. To lump musicians with actors is also absurd. Actors actually make money.

There are probably under 100 total musicians in this country that made more money in 2010 than your average California software engineer. That's no exaggeration. The only "celebrities" that I'm aware of who make less money than musicians are professional bowlers. I actually counted six professional bowlers who made more money than I did in 2009. And no, I don't make that much money. Kevin would probably make more money than I would if he'd learn Linux and move to Silicon Valley. Everyone knows I'm a slacker.

EDIT: Found it. Read this:
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html 

Then you can see why I hate record companies and why I do software for a living instead of music. I got a wife and son to feed and my son will be in college soon.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

For the record, musicians don't make s***. Courtney Love published a famous article called "Courtney does the math." You might be able to google it. She nets less in a year than I've made in a day. No exaggeration.



Even huge name acts like TLC have declared bankruptcy. The contracts musicians sign are absurd. To lump musicians with actors is also absurd. Actors actually make money.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

In this theory then.. the artists themselves must come to grips with the fact that they are highly overpaid and should no longer expect the industry to overpay them for their services just because they name may draw more interest into a marginal film effort.

Back to the Netflix discussion.. We are going to do the same as Kevin.. That is do streaming only and just RedBox any other DVDs we want to see.. We both stream (via PS3 and laptop), and typically my wife puts together the queue of DVDs to get. So I'm really not missing out on much and in fact gaining more time to stream as I won't be forced to watch the DVDs she chooses.

As far as the musicians go.. I'm with you 100% on Metallica, Shawn. I used to enjoy them prior to their anti-Napster rage. In fact, my friend had burned a copy of one of their songs onto my computer without my knowledge. And shortly after that I got banned from Napster. What Metallica failed to realize is this: We already OWNED all their CDs at the time. Needless to say, every one of them went to the trash. KoRn did a better version of 'One' anyway.

Originally Posted by: Formo 

To my defense.. my quote with artists was upon films...







The whole Metallica issue was they didn't present their case well.. they came out and basically went after everyone.. including their very fans that built them into the stars they became.. they rose up through the garage band mentality and had fans carry them to the top to an unlikely mainstream success.. once there (timing was poor) they decided to dump upon them and group them with the labels. Once I own said album.. how I choose to listen or store or share it is my business.. just like there were sales of recorders and black cassettes when I was young.. I could make copies then as well. Just a different medium today. But you didn't see Lars bitching when that type activity was helping grow and push Metallica to the top. No.. it only came once they hit the mainstream.



I agree that the music industry robs the artists blind... but the math the Courtney uses provides little factual data to it.. I find it hard pressed through all the different revenue streams that artists are making some cabbage.. and just because they are filing bankruptcy that it is only because the record labels aren't paying them a modest income once they made it.. but I don't know any musicians that have hit it big time to be in the know. Just looking at some of the "cribs", "rides" and reported "perks" that they aren't bashful to flaunt.



Of course.. not many (percentage) make it to that status and are probably median income or less if they depended solely upon the income generated from their music. In those cases.. IE Metallica early on.. I will absolutely agree with your take ZS.



That said... again.. with the number of different types of media out there today.. why such the dependency upon the record labels in the first place?

Originally Posted by: Pack93z