TheX
Well-Known Member
But they aren't the same.
Pink Floyd slams Pandora
- Thread starter Naptown Rob
- Start date
But they aren't the same.
I feel like you know this IS what most of pop music is. They don't get to use the songs for free.
pitabread
Super duper.
Pink Floyd slamming pandora because basically Pandora says they make too much money?
How much are they worth?
Oh poor Pink Floyd must be struggling to make ends meet!
Its about time royalties, loyalties and whet ever else creating the high cost of buying music is reviewed.
Granted I know that the musicians are usually on the lower end of the scale but shouldn't Pink Floyd be slamming the greedy record companies instead?
Does Richard Branson really need a whole island all for himself?
A majority of the earths population live in poverty most of which have their lives in the balance and these greedy rich aholes are arguing over a few quid.
Why doesnt Roger Waters give some of his royalties to the displaced children in the middle east , he bangs on about them often enough.
How much are they worth?
Oh poor Pink Floyd must be struggling to make ends meet!
Its about time royalties, loyalties and whet ever else creating the high cost of buying music is reviewed.
Granted I know that the musicians are usually on the lower end of the scale but shouldn't Pink Floyd be slamming the greedy record companies instead?
Does Richard Branson really need a whole island all for himself?
A majority of the earths population live in poverty most of which have their lives in the balance and these greedy rich aholes are arguing over a few quid.
Why doesnt Roger Waters give some of his royalties to the displaced children in the middle east , he bangs on about them often enough.
Brett a
~◦●○o0o○●◦~
Looks to me like a simple case of a publicly traded company (Pandora) making efforts to lower their overhead to deliver a better return for their shareholders. Who would love to be so happy, they can hardly count.
Maybe someone should write a song about greed and money. And it would be really cool if they used an odd time signature; say 7/4 time.
:scratch2:
pitabread
Super duper.
The line ''I'm alright Jack keep your hands off my stash'' springs to mind?
+48V
hi-fi or die
Yes, he made mention that this was a songwriter check...but he clearly down-played the other "big" check Pandora stroked off to him. I find that a bit disingenuous when touting parity. Again, had Pandora had the same number of listens his check would have been right there with AM?Fm boys.
For the record...the writer has always gotten the lowball share in overall royalty scheme(s)-->regardless of platform. And yes I agree they probably deserve more. But singling out Pandora with deviously undefined numbers is an agenda driven cheap shot.
Pandora is not classified (nor should it be) as on-demand "radio" like MOG or Spotify. On demand subscription services are subject to and do pay slightly higher rates. MOst of the time these are privately negotiated. Yet as far as the artist proper is concerned...that probably ends up being less to them directly in the long run. Rights holders are not obligated to pay the performance artist a set 50% cut like they do under the statutory rate.
All I'm trying to get across is that Lowery's beef (concerning non-interactive internet radio) is misconstrued & misdirected. If he truly wants rights holders and artists to get a more fair and substantial shake---why is he so content giving AM/FM a free (performance royalty) ride on his back?
Why is there a different standard for cable and XM?
Last edited:
I don't think Pink Floyd are arguing on behalf of themselves. They are arguing for musicians who don't have any money and aren't likely to get paid anymore, who are going to make substantially less than the paltry sum they do currently.
We haven't touched on youtube either... Almost any song you want to hear is on there.
Really the only reason to buy music or even bother to pirate it anymore, is if you are the kind of person who hangs around on this or other audio site and cares about source quality. Or you really really hate the odd ad.
Music is like every other kind of art, most people think the people doing it should all starve and make absolutely no money unless they're in a handful of the few who are wealthy beyond reason. It goes for actors, painters, writers etc etc. Most have nothing, a very few (comparatively) have everything.
That's a bizarre ratio of pay then.
The songwriter makes $16, the performer makes $1100
No wonder we have talentless idiots polluting the airwaves that all seem to be rich as hell.
Cable and XM aren't replacing physical media.
pitabread
Super duper.
You are quite right, apologies for my rant. It does annoy me when the super rich music stars moan about money, if I were in Roger Waters shoes I'd be more about my music than about getting paid for it, unless it was something I didnt particularly like to do anymore and lets face it , he really doesnt have to.
But if it were me , and I still loved making and playing music, and I was worth his worth, I'd be doing it for free. And I'd hope that the money saved by the buyer, or receiver in this case went to buy music from someone less fortunate.
But it isnt about the music anymore, it's all about the $
Lol, no need to apologise, and only the first sentence was directed to you.
Yeah, I hate rich musicians moan about.... anything. Worse than that... preaching about the poor in Africa whilst sitting on their piles of gold.
I don't know what Waters does exactly with his money. I think anybody with more than about $5 million should follow Warren Buffets idea and donate it all when they die... But then not to charity, that's kind of mindless, they should set up scholarships or something useful.
pitabread
Super duper.
I was really talking about royalties and selling music, not really touring.
What is your definition of wealthy? A decent wage , 1 million in the bank , 2 million in the bank, never having to work again, or Rogers 150 million?
I doubt a few more quid really bothers Roger all that much.
My opinion of wealth is that people should be entitled to what they fairly earn minus taxes (I also have not problem with a fair tax code) whatever that number is. Roger earned his money. Didn't steal it. Didn't manipulate people out of it. And if he sells more music, and millions of people enjoy it, and get enjoyment out of it that they wouldn't have gotten had he not made the music, then he should be further compensated for it. Not so he can "do it for money" but because its not our right to have people just give up their time, effort and creativity to us for free unless they really wanted to. But that's their decision, not ours.
Why should you or anybody else be entitled to what he earned? We and he pay taxes for society wellness, and he's certainly paid a LOT more taxes than you and I have.
Why should you or anybody else be entitled to what he earned? We and he pay taxes for society wellness, and he's certainly paid a LOT more taxes than you and I have.
Last edited:
pitabread
Super duper.
Indeed, at least poor old Bob ''Givvus yer f***n money'' Geldof proved that not everone is in it for the money, but , they may have done a free concert for poor old Bob but they still flew away in their helicopters and I hear one particular ''mop head'' naming no names wanted to feed his Deva with flowers as he flew into land, or something pathetic like that regarding flowers and helicopters. He was also reported to have spent £293,000 on flowers alone in 1997, Christ what would people like Elton do if he could no longer afford his 6 figure flower obsession, I have an idea Elton, why not help the less fortunate who are watching their children slowly die of starvation and disease because they live in a war torn country that is the way it is to fuel your helicopter with cheap fuel? :yes:
pitabread
Super duper.
I bet he uses tax avoidance schemes, possibly registered in Ireland where artists dont have to pay tax, most of them are.
+48V
hi-fi or die
One you choose a random selection of music based upon artist or song....the other based upon a genre specific channel.
Other than primary means of transmission they are basically the same.
We're talking about people being fairly compensated for their work. For every Pink Floyd their are 1000 starving songwriters and musicians being screwed by the music industry. Screwing them further doesn't feed anybody, let alone some kid in Uganda.
Whatever you make, you're making more than most of the world. Probably more than 90% of the world. So why don't you take 90% of your earnings, sell all of your stereo equipment, and send it to those starving children? Because what really is the difference from being in the top 1% as opposed to the top 10%? Where's the cutoff? Why is your money yours, even though you're wealthy by global standards, while the money of anybody who makes more than you "ours"?
Whatever you make, you're making more than most of the world. Probably more than 90% of the world. So why don't you take 90% of your earnings, sell all of your stereo equipment, and send it to those starving children? Because what really is the difference from being in the top 1% as opposed to the top 10%? Where's the cutoff? Why is your money yours, even though you're wealthy by global standards, while the money of anybody who makes more than you "ours"?
Last edited:
Sure, that's all true.
But why, if you were absolutely wealthy (and we're not talking rich people here, we're talking people with absurd amounts of money) not just donate the majority of it after you die? Do something positive. Keep enough back for your kids to not have to struggle. There is a limit to how much money anybody needs.
I see people like Bono, who has something like $600 million. A lot of it made through smart business decisions, not just from music, but things like investing in Facebook, moving their money from Ireland to the Netherlands in order to avoid paying so much tax. Which is I guess "Tax dodging" but was supposedly done in protest.
I just wonder what the point is of accumulating so much wealth. Bono is always banging on about Africa. He could personally give half a billion dollars to fund well building, road building projects, schools etc and he wouldn't notice, it wouldn't affect his lifestyle at all.
He says he cares about these pet projects and so many rich celebrities claim they do, they are raising "awareness".. What good is awareness? How is it going to help a child starving to death that I know about it? I may donate $20 to charity, the majority of which will be swallowed up by the charities administrative costs. But he could go around everything, it's his money, he can get around all the corruption and waste and affect something positive.
I know I've gone on a rant now, so apologies. I just find it amazing that there are people with so much wealth, who claim to care and could affect a great change with no actual hit on their own lavish lifestyle and the majority don't.
