All these american fabricated pop stars look the same to me, like if record labels buy them on walmart or something. Just like american news presenters, look plastic made.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Taylor Swift Shares Behind-the-Scenes Details of Her Apple Music Letter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I said earlier, people hate young women who are not having sex with them. Nice example;
You DO realize that music artists aren't slaves - they are independent people and can CHOOSE who they work for. If they don't like their label's policies, they can just work for a different music label.
The same objection goes both ways.
Of course, you could simply acknowledge that both parties (the photographers and the music artists) have a valid complaint about the two policies, and making their grievances known allowed them to resolve their respective issues.
You think 'true genius' is very rare, because you've decided to only acknowledge those geniuses who were persistent enough to succeed. Thus demonstrating the truth behind the point you're trying to object to.
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
Quite simply, without the determination to succeed, and the persistence to keep trying when you inevitably fail, mere talent, genius, or education will not bring you success. There's nothing about breeding mediocrity and garbage in there. It's a simple fact that even talented, well-educated geniuses will face failure in their endeavors, often multiple times. Only persistence allows people to continue, to reach beyond that failure, and keep trying for success.
There's *millions* of people in the world with the talent, brains, and education of Einstein. Only those who persist will reach long-term success without immense quantities of luck.
I really wonder how to respond to this and whether it is worth the time and effort. You barely addressed any of the points I made and simply added more bad comparisons.
Yes, I am aware of "paying in exposure". Most often the problem with "paying in exposure" is the quality of the payment (most often exposure gained is minimal or irrelevant), not that the concept is necessarily bad - plenty of people, including me, have worked for free or low payment for various benefits, one of them being exposure. It works exactly like that, especially in arts and design. And anyway, Apple is providing more than just exposure.
Preposterous; then what is the problem? If it is so bad, don't use it. However, seeing all the whining, it does look like they want to get on that service. Or, is it just for the principle?
Why didn't you address the points I made about Apple's costs? Apple isn't paid either during the trial period, yet they are running the service. You have some interesting view of fairness. That big company employs people, in case you didn't know.
I do. Artists will get paid after the trial. Apple too.
Not at all and I already explained why. If you really have sold to galleries, then you know that what I said is true for the majority of galleries. Simply put, the whole service they provide and the way the provide it is way too different from Apple's to make for any interesting comparison. You barely addressed a single point (actually a sub-point, same as this one) and you think you've addressed the whole argument.
Wow. That is so wrong.
Music artists ARE slaves to their label. They are employees, not independent contractors. They work FOR their label, and are forced to for a period of time (or not make music).
An artist starts independent. They are young and become popular at a local level, but aren't making any money because they can't sell their music easily - they need a label. A label comes along offering them $1 million. This is a risk on both sides. The artist might never make it big thus not 'worth' the $1 million, but the artist MIGHT make it big, with the label benefiting earning lots of money from the artist, while paying the artist very little. Most artists feel the need to get a label as it will give their music more exposure.
The artist then signs a contract with a label who expects 3-5 albums from them. They're now 'slaves' to the label and can't leave for 5 years or so until they make all the albums in their contract. It's very RARE to find an artist who likes their label. They can't 'just work for a different music label' - that's not how the industry works. They get young people in, and make them stay for a period of time. For the rare artists that survive more than 5 years and can switch labels, or have power, like Taylor Swift, they can disrupt things. Most artists can't.
Anyways, what does that have to do with photographers at all, who are completely independent?
