Re: Anybody else ...


"sgh3" <sgh3@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1190638179.612868.304640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 24, 7:59 am, "Jim Mitchell" <jnjmi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


The rational side of me certainly sees that. The same side of me that
understands that sex is purely a physiological reaction triggering
various
chemicals and neurons in my brain. But I also have a difficult time
viewing
something as emotional and abstract as music (or sex) solely in concrete
and
rational terms.

But you keep overlooking the fact that while "music" (the work itself)
is "emotional and abstract", there is a rational, revenue generating,
profit driven commercial industry in place (at least in our market
economy) that distributes and promotes it. So while it is useful to
compare something emotional and abstract (sex) with something else
emotional and abstract (art or music), it isn't useful or instructive
to something concrete and rational -- like the price of a painting or
the marketing strategy of Sony BMG or the ticket price to a concert.

You have to get your head around the idea that popular music is rarely
(almost never) purely about art and all too often purely about money.
When someone like Springsteen or Dylan or (insert a talented artist of
your choice) comes along and transcends the usual, "all about money --
no artistic value needed" ethos of the industry, that's a good thing.
Demanding that those artists not only raise the bart (in terms of
merit), but also do so at an economic discount relative to others in
the business makes no sense to me.

But hasn't Springsteen's success often been attributed to a good balance
between artistic integrity and business savvy? No one is diminishing the
role of economics in music or any art, but some of us believe that the
balance has shifted towards an emphasis on the business end of things. He
obviously has the clout to have some control over those business aspects
like ticket price, so I don't think it's unreasonable to call him out for
$100 tickets in the nosebleed section of an arena.



setting. But it's a fucked up market that would pay a public defender
or a
clinic doctor less than what someone in a lucrative and selective
private
practice would make. And I respect and identify strongly with the
people
who actively choose not to be part of that.

That doesn't bother me. If you were to turn it around and go from
"respecting" and "identifying with" the JD or MD who makes less to
complaining about and labeling as "greedy" the rest of the folks in
those professions (simply because they get paid about what most of
their peers do), I'd be a little less inclined to join in the
sentiment.

I would have a problem with me saying that too. I didn't say it and I don't
think it, so there's no point in going there.

And while I'm at it, I'll get a little naive too by saying that I'd like
to
think that Springsteen views his music and his live performances as
something more than a "commercial endeavor in a market economy".
People
who risk losing a segment of their audience to stump for partisan
presidential candidates on grounds of social and economic justice tend
to
think a little more emotionally and abstractly than that.

I agree. You don't have to sell me on Bruce's good intentions. I
applaud them and admire him for doing what he does.

The bottom line is that you think that the nature of Springsteen work
(the focus on the marginalized or downtrodden) or the nature of his
socio-political convictions (belief in social and economic justice) or
both require him to charge less for his CDs or concerts than others in
his industry who don't have the same focus. To me that makes no
sense. Should Steineck's novels sell for less than Hemingway's
(becaus eof the nature of the work)?

Book prices are largely uniform- Stephen King and JK Rowling don't charge
significantly more for their books than an author with much less exposure,
even though I'm sure that either could push the limits of the "market" to
the extreme and set a prescedent for the skyrocketing in price of popular
books. If authors did in fact have direct control over what their books
cost, then I would hold Steinbeck to the same standards that I hold
Springsteen. At the very least, I'd expect him to be honest that he was
motivated primarily by self-gain rather than by any sort of concern about
the humanitarian impact that widespread reading of his novels might have.


Say I'm a believer in economic
justice and my neighbor is a right wing Rush Limbaugh fan and we live
in homes that command exactly the same market price -- must I sell
mine for less than he sells his to demonstrate that my convictions are
real?

That's a little different because housing is something that can make or
break average people. No, I wouldn't expect you to take a loss on your
house. But I would expect you to hold yourself to certain standards and
practices in selling it if you were outspoken on fair housing and other
issues of social justice. If you didn't, you certainly wouldn't have much
credibility with me the next time you tried preaching to me about those
issues.



.

Loading