Do you sympathize with artists in this new digital age?

[Kill Dat Noize]

This excerpt was taken from an interview from about 13 years ago when Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich spoke out against Napster and why he believed it was detrimental to the music business.

"With each project, we go through a grueling creative process to achieve music that we feel is representative of Metallica at that very moment in our lives. We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is."

Now some might interpret that as glorified sly talk which roughly translates into "fukk You. Pay me."

But obviously we know this still an issue to this day for artists across the board, regardless of genre.

Do you agree? Disagree? If so, what's your solution?

 

[Lil Bape the PostGod]

They make more money doing just a week of tour dates, than most people make in a year...

fukk them and their "craft"...real talk

we workin hard out here too

 

[TrifeGod]

Yes and no.

Technology can hurt you and build you at the same time.

Being in the music industry and being in the Art/Design industry is rough nowadays. You really have to play a good game of Chess to really see/feel your worth.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

Yes and no.

Technology can hurt you and build you at the same time.

Being in the music industry and being in the Art/Design industry is rough nowadays. You really have to play a good game of Chess to really see/feel your worth.

Well what is worth? What is value? Do artists place value on their art or do the people?

Some would argue that your art is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it.

 

[dre]

Do I symphatize with someone who could put one thing on youtube and immediately vault to the top tier of their profession? No

 

[Rominati]

Its a double edged sword. However times change and you have to adapt.

 

[Huellz Santana]

i feel sorry for the dudes who actually make good music and everyone just steals it. but that's the risk they take

i dont feel sorry for the dopeboy/trap rappers or anybody who constantly brags about money. lol @ buying the cd of a rapper who constantly throws his riches in your face.​

 

[Piff Perkins]

It's mixed. Obviously I have no sympathy for groups like Metallica who sell well regardless of piracy. But then there are smaller artists who aren't selling well, and piracy limits their profits. But on the other hand, they also tend to make good money on tour and even people who download your album will pay $20 to see you live. So IMO overall I don't think it hurts as much as it used to in the early 2000s, now that music is easier to spread/more are touring hard.

 

[mortuus est]

Support what you like/love

 

[kingdizzy01]

i agree and disagree. the phrase 'starving artist' didnt come from no where.

a real artist is going to charge for their art. the difference is whether the consumer feels its worth that amount. art these days is more relatable to fast food as its easily expendable due to the next man marketing something similar for cheaper.

at the same time, artists need to pull they head out they ass and get with the times and create a new artform. ive been sayin for sometime that music aint gonna get you far unless you have other 'products' to 'sell' me.

 

[MysteryT]

Yes and no. Yes for the talented artist that actually work and put time and effort into what they do. Yet, not getting the proper credit for it. I have no sympathy for the fly by nights or flash in the pans, who do a little jingle and get put on immediately.