Not really. But I'd like to know if he thinks he deserves the remuneration he's enjoyed for the last 50 years. Notoriety, yes, celebrity ?, respect...for what? Okay, so market forces drive the value of what we love the most(other than our wives of course:). But should a monetary value be placed on music? Should money be included in it's intrinsic value? Should I receive accolades just because I came up with a catchy tune ? Do I deserve to be rewarded for loving music? Seriously. Granted, musicians need to be payed. I also have a day job. I get it that the economy must play it's role in delivering the product. But the kinds of profiteering by the industry and the players is obscene. Did Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky etc. miss out? What is a fair reward for what we've been listening to and what's been driving our hobby? IMO, it's notoriety. Honorable recognition is the highest reward one should aspire to as an artist. In the meantime, get a job! That's my position. I'm curious to know what you guys/gals think.
Damn Socialist! Maybe everybody should'nt get paid. Uh, wait let's all get paid the same. Yeah that's the ticket. Then my all these sucessful,famous,people bashers will be happy when we'll have maybe two or three muscians to listen to or maybe two kinds of amps to play them through because,God forbid, why should we attempt to get ahead a better ourselves through what was once the American Dream!
Many people are WAY overpaid for what they do, my mind jumps immediately to sports and entertainment, and others are way underpaid, such as those who give their life to protect our country. But no one said life (or compensation) was fair ....
Given the amount of time, both practice to get and stay as good as they are and performing, that performing artists spend on what they do, my view is that they do have a job and it's a damn hard one. They deserve far more than they're paid (at least in the case of most classical musicians). Your comments may be directed at the successful pop artists, but they unfairly target all artists.
Why single out musicians? Are hedge fund managers overpaid? What about large corporate CEOs? Why are college football coaches the highest paid employees at universities? Should police chiefs of small cities retire with $250,000/yr. pensions? The NCAA triple jump champion is a far better athlete than any pro golfer or tennis player, but who gets the big money?
Who said the world is fair? Again, why single out musicians?
First of all, lets make a distinction between musicians and artists. Just because I can play an instrument well doesn't mean I'm an artist. Just because I can skillfully copy someone else's painting doesn't mean I'm an artist. Yes, there are exceptions who do both. However, there are plenty out there receiving recognition they definitely don't deserve. By and large, those we are aware of are the subject here, including those of other genres. Imo, artists are heroes. Who gets paid for being a hero? Incidentally, amateur sports has always been considered the best, even before it developed into what it is. Musicians in general I agree are probably far under paid, considering. Is Bill Gates an artist? Are cops artists? I love that first response btw. And also Pops'.
Perfect economic justice or perfect justice of any kind will not be found in this world. I prefer the distribution of income that results from capitalism to the results of attempts to impose economic justice in countries like Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
I'm not advocating socialism or supporting Csontos, but why are so many of you content to say "nobody said life was fair?" That's obviously true, but that is hardly a convincing argument or statement of principle.
Life, of course, isn't fair, but sometimes we need to question inequities and ponder if there is a better way to do certain things.
Let's not forget when these people are making their way up, they don't make squat. If it weren't for the rainbow at the end of the tunnel, there may be less artists striving to make it. Then there's the bottom line, which is the Stones are still filling up big venues.
Mick Jagger is a musical GENIUS, and he deserves every cent he makes, just like McCartney, Dylan, Plant, Gilmour, and the rest of the Pantheon. They are artists who have brought incalculable pleasure to millions, and that is worth a hell of a lot more than "honorable recognition" my friend.
Ambition doesn't require the promise of fabulous wealth. Everyone strives to make it up the ladder. My point is true artistry is always a labor of love. So if it weren't for the industry itself, artists wouldn't be any less inclined to practice their talents. Let's not limit their ability to do so but make it an attractive, well payed vocation to aspire to. An added bonus would be that we would no longer have to tolerate their inflated egos grown simultaneously along with their bank accounts. I can't count how many times I had the urge to gag myself watching some of these guys on stage doing a ridiculously washed out rendition of a song. By then they're convinced they are God's gift to the arts. It seems they are only actually really good when they are just starting out as unknowns.
Csontos if you want humor post something like this:
What's the difference between a Scotsman and a Rolling Stone? A Rolling Stone says 'Hey you, get off of my cloud!' while a Scotsman says 'Hey McLeod, get off of my ewe!'
Mateored, There are so many people questioning inequalities that you can't turn on the tv or radio without getting a steady stream of that sludge. I might be willing to listen to it if the people doing the questioning weren't rich and getting richer.
Life, of course, isn't fair, but sometimes we need to question inequities and ponder if there is a better way to do certain things.
Food for thought
And pray tell where r u going to find these guiding angels to make certain there is a better way of doing things? It's been tried before and failed everytime.
Bojack - right on! Csontos, you might be looking for humor but the subject matter sounds more like socialist aspiration and distribution of wealth - a sensitive issue in this country at the moment.
BTW - Jagger has probably worked harder for what he has than most in his income bracket.
Well, Kieth is actually the anchor. Mic is the front man. If anyone deserves accolades there, it's him. He also displays humility which is quite refreshing. Without him there would be no Stones. He wrote virtually all the hits, did all the accompaniment, and is a self made success in his own right. At one time considered the most talented rhythm guitarist in the world. Anything Mic came up with on his own has been a flop. He needs backup. He openly acknowledges all of this. Get yourselves a copy of Talk is Cheap by Kieth Richards.
Don't forget Brian Jones. We never would have heard of the Rolling Stones if it wasn't for Brian. Unfortunately, he fell to drugs early and Mick and Keef took the band over and Keef even took Brian's girlfriend away. In their defense, it is said that the other Stones were more than patient with Brian, but this was before rehab and they finally had all they could take.
Keef later got a taste of his own medecine when he became addicted and Mick took control of the band and didn't want to give any back when Keef cleaned up.
It is amazing that Mick can still dance around for 90 minutes like that and that Keith is still upright, but those guys are really getting embarrassingly old for stadium rock. They should have given it up years ago and taken up painting.
Thanks for the history lesson. I wasn't aware Brian was as instrumental as that. Outstanding! However that period was before the really good stuff came along.
Starving artist syndrome shows that it is indeed a labor of love.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
