That new iPod Nano commerical with the Feist song... - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-27-2007, 10:07 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
angelordevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Inside a sound
Posts: 5,827
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by lazarus

Who the hell does she think she is? One catchy song all over the television and now you're worth $30?
She has at least three catchy songs.
__________________

__________________
angelordevil is offline  
Old 09-27-2007, 10:59 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by lazarus

And I'm still trying to figure out how Spoon is able to make a living splitting their profits 4-ways by charging $25, and Feist, who also makes money through Broken Social Scene, feels the need to charge $30. And that's not even including how much money she got from Apple.
Maybe she figures she won't be around very long so she might as well get the money while the getting is good? * If people are willing to pay that much to see her, I don't see the problem with it. Good for her.

Also her expenses could be higher than Spoon's. For instance, when she tours solo, does she have a band backing her? I know when a band I like had to hire a musician (drummer) for two live tours and studio work on an album, that musician got paid a salary. The official band members however, didn't get a set salary, but split both profits and losses. In this case the hired musician made more money than the official band members.





* That was a joke, ok?
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 09-27-2007, 11:20 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by lazarus


Umm, yes. There's always a choice. Whether it's the record contract you sign, the management you have, or booking agency, there's a choice you make.

And I'm still trying to figure out how Spoon is able to make a living splitting their profits 4-ways by charging $25, and Feist, who also makes money through Broken Social Scene, feels the need to charge $30. And that's not even including how much money she got from Apple.

Who the hell does she think she is? One catchy song all over the television and now you're worth $30?
Okay so you hate Feist, and like Spoon.

I love Spoon.

Let's do it:

Cherryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-bomb dah dah dahhhhhhhhhhhh dah dah dahhhh duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 09-27-2007, 11:33 PM   #49
Refugee
 
thetitans2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,752
Local Time: 02:12 PM
I like Feist. I think that 30 bucks is nothing to go see a good concert.
__________________
thetitans2k is offline  
Old 09-27-2007, 11:59 PM   #50
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 37,992
Local Time: 06:12 AM
I don't dislike Feist at all. I have both of her albums and think they're great. There are many artists I listen to that I believe have sold out on one level or another, and even Spoon sold their fucking song to a Jaguar commerical. So they're not infallible.

It just always bothers me when a relatively new or breakthrough artist suddenly starts charging more money than your typical indie rock show. Again, maybe $30 isn't that much to you guys--I certainly don't have trouble affording it. But when you charge $10 over what the normal indie rock show costs, you're not really indie in spirit any more, and you're a bit of a whore. I just don't understand why all these other artists are able to charge less. Why don't they? Are they idiots? Are they bad business people?

My argument against people who defend artists who sell their songs for commercials is usually to say, if there's nothing wrong with it, why are certain artists so dead against it? Is there something called TOO much integrity? Should we label Fugazi a bunch of morons because they only charged $5-$10 for their concerts? Or Pearl Jam for waging a war against Ticketmaster?

When there are artists who ARE fighting the status quo, the temptation to make more money, and fighting on behalf of YOU, the consumer, or YOU, the music fan, ask yourself why they're doing it. Ask why other artists don't seem to care.
__________________
lazarus is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 12:10 AM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by lazarus
Are they bad business people?
I think that's an apt description of many musicians (and other artists too).
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 06:54 AM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by lazarus
My argument against people who defend artists who sell their songs for commercials is usually to say, if there's nothing wrong with it, why are certain artists so dead against it? Is there something called TOO much integrity? Should we label Fugazi a bunch of morons because they only charged $5-$10 for their concerts? Or Pearl Jam for waging a war against Ticketmaster?
Well, I think that artists are not divided into indie/whores or morons/smart businessmen.

I'm fine with the fact that different artists feel differently about lending their music to commercials and suchlike. And if I think that a band/artist charges too much for their live gig, I just won't go to the gig, that's all.
__________________
Saracene is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 07:58 AM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 10:12 AM
It's ten fricken' dollars difference for Feist. Am I upset that I can't see Arcade Fire for 12 bucks at Sala Rossa anymore since they struck it big? Not particularly. I don't feel any kind of "indie angst" towards them now that I pay 25 to 35 bucks to see them live.

Market forces. Whatever.

The important thing to remember, is that a hell of a lot more of that 30$ Feist ticket is going to Feist, compared to what she's getting if you go out and buy her CD for 12$.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 01:01 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,388
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Jesus H. Christ, since when does charging $30 for a concert ticket (which is damn cheap for a concert by anybody semi-famous) constitute "selling out"?

When she's charging $100 a head, there might be an argument... yeesh.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 02:25 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BonoIsMyMuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 5,241
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dorian Gray
do you people really think Feist has a big say over how much her tickets are?
She probably has very little say, as do most artists.

When I was in high school, I balked at having to pay more than $15 or $20 to see anybody. But that was 10 years ago. Concert tickets are getting more expensive because everything that goes into making a concert happens is more expensive. Artists are forced to charge more just so they can make a profit. I'm not talking a huge profit--I mean enough to have made going on tour worthwhile.

Yes, music is a much more creative career than most, but musicians have to be able to earn a living, too. After the promoter gets a cut and management gets a cut and whoever else needs to gets a cut, there has to be enough left over to pay the bills.

This is why I think it's not "selling out" for lesser-known artists to lend their work to commercials. It's getting them exposure that they're surely not getting from MTV or Clear Channel-dominated commercial radio. It's a survival tactic, I think. Yes, some people will like the songs on the commercials but never bother to find out who they're by, but others could, and of those people, some may become long-term fans. That's good for business. I hate to think of music as a business, but at least part of it has to be.
__________________
BonoIsMyMuse is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 03:01 PM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 37,992
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Once again, no one has managed to explain to me how bigger, better known artists are able to make a living charging $15-$25 dollars a show, and why they choose to do so when they could easily get away with charging more. Or why a band would decide not to sign with a major label. Or why any band would decide NOT to sell their song for use in a commerical. Many bands have that are also trying to survive, but choose not to do it by those means.

There are obviously many levels of selling out, compromising, etc., but as long as there are artists who refuse to play ball with coprorate interests, you have to at least question the motivations and reasoning behind those who do. That's all I'm saying. I never said don't go to the show, don't buy the album or t-shirt, etc. Hell, we're having this discussion on a U2 fansite, a band that has turned down huge sums of money for commercials, yet were able to rationalize collaborating with a coproration on advertising a new music format. Everyone has their own sense of where "the line" is.

To me, I think $30 is a LITTLE too much for Feist. I realize she's not charging an insane amount of money, esp. compared to other artists. I was just trying to open a discussion about market value and how artists see themselves in the industry. When you combine this with the Apple ad it just makes me have a little less respect, that's all. I don't think she's fucking $ting or anything.
__________________
lazarus is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 03:26 PM   #57
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,700
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Eh, never mind.

I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. $30 sounds like a bargain to me these days. But then again, I don't go to very many shows in small clubs where bands charge less.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 03:55 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irishteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 29,624
Local Time: 03:12 PM
When prices of tickets are decided it's not based on what she thinks she's worth it's based on what the people willing to pay to see her think she's worth. Everyone going to that concert thinks seeing Feist is worth at least $30 so how can you complain? If a concert sells out she either charged exactly the right price or charged too little, that's that.

When Arcade Fire played here they sold tickets for 50 euro, that's over 70 dollars and they sold out in several minutes, sure it was expensive, but it wasn't over-priced at all, how? Because it sold out, they could of charged a hell of a lot more.

If it sold out and there was at least one more person who wanted the ticket that proves that she could of charged more, but she didn't so she's either terrible at business or a nice person, either way people shouldn't complain when things are cheaper than what they're worth.

God I might actually be learning something in those Economics lectures...
__________________
Irishteen is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 04:17 PM   #59
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 37,992
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Again, I'm not concerned with what people are WILLING to pay. If Feist is going after a bourgois demographic than I'm sure it's all well and good. I'm sure there's a bunch of assholes who have no problem plunking down $400 to see The Eagles, do you think that's what they're worth? Is that just? There's obviously a big difference between those dollar amounts, but the question of worth is definitely a subjective one that goes beyond what people CAN afford or what they'll capitulate to paying.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but there are many artists other than Feist who could charge $30 and still sell out their shows. But they don't. They charge less. Why is that?
__________________
lazarus is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 05:16 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irishteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 29,624
Local Time: 03:12 PM
In economic terms $400 is what the Eagles are worth, I wouldn't pay that but there are people who are willing so good for them. The music industry is a business if the band wants to make as much money as they can good for them. People are so much talk but if you were the musician and told you could sell out a stadium charging several hundred, the first thing you will think is not going to be "sell for 50".

Maybe it's the venue size, a larger venue with the same demand would cause prices to drop. Maybe it's the cost of the show e.g.lighting, transport, stage crew etc. Maybe the venue is just expensive to play in. or maybe those other bands are just nicer people. The point is if you're told you can have $30,000 or $20,000 for doing something 99% of people would go for the 30 grand
__________________

__________________
Irishteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com