have you met many artists, we don't get paid, very very few do, because we make music and art for the idea of spreading culture, its not about making money. we all have what we have and make do with what we have, if it is something truly worthy to be called art, then then money isnt insentive, tbh, if someone took a tune of mine and coverd it busking to make enough money to buy a bag of grass so be it, i'm not a centralized idea owning person, this is a giant sandbox playground, enjoy it, or dont. haha :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree with you and I don't :) I know artists who make pretty good music in their spare time, but it is damn hard to be great when having all sort of distractions, like a job to earn money to pay the bills; I also know artists who make such wonderful music, they would never be able to create that when they would have some other job to attend to. I actually think, to be great in art, you must dedicate yourself to it completely. Like for instance Van Gogh! or Rembrandt! I like to see artists being able to dedicate their complete time to their art, even those who are lower in the revenue / popularity pyramid, even those who are at the bottom of that pyramid. The internet provides those lower in this pyramid a way to monetise their work, something that was not really possible before the internet due to how the system works. If we would simple copy their work, and the artist is not able anymore to monetise their work, all those at lower levels in the pyramid as mentioned, will have to do all their work for free again. Seems a step back to what we had before the Internet.