The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Is it racist if its true?
Murago
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Well, the other day i was talking to a friend about the music business. when watching a recent episode of "the rich and famous" on Vh-1, i noticed a producer (can't remember his name) but he has worked with mariah carey and 50 cent. He charges 80k just to work with an artist on song, and he recently purchased a yacht for 7 million dollars, this guys is in his mid 20's. Anyway, i started thinking out loud, and wondered : " I thought the music business is in its greatest slump ever in the past 2 years b/c of downloading (illegal or not) and just a general lack of interest in the industry." These facts came from statements made by the record lable that prince is signed to (can't remember which).
Anyway, i figured that if its in such a slump, how are these rap artists and country artists able to make the mad monies that they are? I'm sorry, but if you spend 7 million on a yacht, you're living well. Anyway, we thought about the days of the 80's, when Metallica and GNR and U2 and all the big acts were pulling out the same paychecks, and thought about why we dont' see bands like that anymore??
We tried to imagine a modern rock band that seems to have a good following and decent reputation. We came upon Fallout Boy, Linkin Park, The Killers, Muse, nickleback, and My Chemical Romance. (Our opinious of these bands aside, they are in the "pop" genre and most rock listeners would say "yea, i know who they are".) So then, we thought: "Well, how come these guys don't seem to be living it up? Same industry, different genre, but same process overall".
Well, i figure that first -- a rap artist basically needs a microphone. They don't have to spend $10,000 on equipment alone, then upkeep, then technicians and roadies. They only need someone to press play and make sure everything sounds ok. Well ok, even given that, that doesn't explain the country artists, since they prolly have less than or equal to the amount of equiment and upkeep as a "rock" band.
THIS IS WHERE THE QUESTIONABLE RACISM COMES IN.
I would put forth the assumption that a larger overall listener base of either genre, rap or country, would not be familiar with, or have access to a decent internet connection with a proper computer. I would figure that children, teens, or adults living in the outback, ghettos, "countree" or subsidized housing would not know much about limewire, irc, or morpheus or napster. So, if they wants to pick up a portable cd player, they would be spending their money on buying the albums of said rap and country recording artists.
Now, on the other side, you have you're general white family (i've been to a few concerts, and i'm pretty certain 90% of attendees are white, thus being the only reason i say "white families) in public or private school that has access to computer thru both home and school; and "friends" who tell them the wonders of "free" music and movies. Typically, these kids can definetly lean both ways, but i think its safe to say many would be into "rock" music.
TL;DR
Basically, rap and country artists are able to make big bank b/c of the demographic differences in their listeners; who are would generally not be familiar with downloading (illegal or not), thus bringing more profit thru album sales. Is it racist to think that people raised in ghettos or "the country" are the reason rap and country artists are making o so much money and the rockers o so little?
Thanks.
Anyway, i figured that if its in such a slump, how are these rap artists and country artists able to make the mad monies that they are? I'm sorry, but if you spend 7 million on a yacht, you're living well. Anyway, we thought about the days of the 80's, when Metallica and GNR and U2 and all the big acts were pulling out the same paychecks, and thought about why we dont' see bands like that anymore??
We tried to imagine a modern rock band that seems to have a good following and decent reputation. We came upon Fallout Boy, Linkin Park, The Killers, Muse, nickleback, and My Chemical Romance. (Our opinious of these bands aside, they are in the "pop" genre and most rock listeners would say "yea, i know who they are".) So then, we thought: "Well, how come these guys don't seem to be living it up? Same industry, different genre, but same process overall".
Well, i figure that first -- a rap artist basically needs a microphone. They don't have to spend $10,000 on equipment alone, then upkeep, then technicians and roadies. They only need someone to press play and make sure everything sounds ok. Well ok, even given that, that doesn't explain the country artists, since they prolly have less than or equal to the amount of equiment and upkeep as a "rock" band.
THIS IS WHERE THE QUESTIONABLE RACISM COMES IN.
I would put forth the assumption that a larger overall listener base of either genre, rap or country, would not be familiar with, or have access to a decent internet connection with a proper computer. I would figure that children, teens, or adults living in the outback, ghettos, "countree" or subsidized housing would not know much about limewire, irc, or morpheus or napster. So, if they wants to pick up a portable cd player, they would be spending their money on buying the albums of said rap and country recording artists.
Now, on the other side, you have you're general white family (i've been to a few concerts, and i'm pretty certain 90% of attendees are white, thus being the only reason i say "white families) in public or private school that has access to computer thru both home and school; and "friends" who tell them the wonders of "free" music and movies. Typically, these kids can definetly lean both ways, but i think its safe to say many would be into "rock" music.
TL;DR
Basically, rap and country artists are able to make big bank b/c of the demographic differences in their listeners; who are would generally not be familiar with downloading (illegal or not), thus bringing more profit thru album sales. Is it racist to think that people raised in ghettos or "the country" are the reason rap and country artists are making o so much money and the rockers o so little?
Thanks.
Check out www.myspace.com/scarborough -- tell me what you think!
Murago on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
And I'm not even touching the generalizations in the OP. Can o' worms, there. Maybe Poldy will catch the scent of blood and come in here snarling.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
where is this ass load of money coming from?
Would they? Do you have any evidence for that?
Its impossible to get the absolutely personalized info from every listener across america, so i think my generalization is valid.
Sales? Rap is really goddamn popular at the moment. Right now, the 'street culture' SELLS. Whether it be by clothing, music, or the stately tetrahedron!
almost EVERY dvd or cd i purchase has a warning of federal government involvment in pirated materials. what more evidence do you need? This shit doesn't just pop up for no reason, millions of people pirate music.
I heard that rap was on a steady decline in popularity since like 2003. Don't have a direct quote, just from what i've heard on the radio and tv...which i know are very RELIABLE sources. :P
But certainly, lower class people are less likely to have a home computer/portable mp3 player than are upper and middle class people.
They are also less likely to spend a great deal on music, because they don't generally have a great deal of disposable income.
If what's posted on boing-boing is correct, the music industry isn't actually hurting all that bad financially, and actual record sales have gone up. (I think. Don't quote me) The recording industry finds it in their best interests to portray every single download as a lost sale, which is clearly not the case.
Yeah, this needs more real facts and less conjecture.
Yes, that's a logical line of thought.
This whole thing is speculative nonsense and generalization and doesn't actually mean anything. Although, I would grant you that poor people generally have more limited access to the 'net, and are less proficient in using it, I'm not sure what this has to do with black people necessarily, or rap necessarily, considering how many people like rap, and the fact that plenty of black people aren't poor.
give me an alternative
See, that is almost entirely propaganda. Single sales (as in one or two tracks per disc plus maybe a few mixes) have been in steady decline since the late nineties, about a week after the internet became popular. Album sales on the other hand are on the up.
However, the recording industry doesn't like this because they make more profit per single than they do per album. So they went back into their records, noticed the coincidence of the trends (singles down, internet up) as well as the pass-time of "ripping" CDs which was just beginning to get news coverage and leapt to the conclusion that people weren't buying singles because they were ripping tracks and sending them to each other for free.
What they totally missed is that album sales went up as well, leading the sane analysts to conclude that the price differential between singles and albums had finally gotten small enough that people just bought the goddamn album and got a bunch of extra tracks as a nice bonus.
Now, I'm not saying that people aren't pirating music, or that downloading isn't happening; I'm saying that the RIAA and it's various international associates have made a miscalculation and/or whipped up a deliberate media storm in order to get away with some pretty shitty stuff. They are getting away with it too, since there is no unified opposing voice; no-one else is feeding the media "information" on piracy, or what other explanations there could be for the industry's figures.
/rant
tl;dr:piracy not as extensive as first feared.Amazon mostly to blame with cheap albums.RIAA also to blame with expensive singles.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
It's not just white people that download/pirate music. EVERYONE I know downloads music (and I know more black people than white). Some buy CDs (only some), but none buy music digitally. It's all limewire, kazaa, or even bit torrent for a few. Downloading music now a days is just too god damn easy. Want an entire album? Done and burned within an hour. It's not difficult and everyone is able to do it.
Why does it seem like rap musicians make more money than other genre musicians? Maybe it's the structuring within the different labels depending on the genres they produce.. I don't know. All these "cash-money-millionaire" type of labels are owned by the rappers themselves. The whole phenomenon is based on making that money, getting paid.. cha-ching... bling bling.. you get the idea. Perhaps it's just that rap/hip-hop/r&b music is simply far more popular with the people than any other genre. Every music station around me is all top 40 bullcrap and, besides a few purely rock stations, they all have rap on them. In fact, rap/hip-hop/r&b is always at the top of the charts.
I think this makes sense, so i would just change my thought process to poor people in general. Still tho, middle and upper class save money by not purchasing a full album. And i refuse to believe that a 99c download is making a musician as much money as a full album sale, even with the money it costs to produce the cd, sleeve, and packaging.
also, even though it can be argued that a rap artist song may cost more money than a rock artists, how does that make up for the money they are banking?
Your generalization is not valid, because it has no evidence.
There's your alternative.
And to respond more to the racism angle, your reasoning is flawed. Even if those who listen to rap music were often without an Internet connection, CD piracy hardly requires everyone involved to have a computer. You could imagine a scenario, a likely one, that since a computer and a CD-Burner are not out of the price range of at least some poorer families, that going into business selling pirated CDs would be lucrative to a low-income individual. Thus, the amount of piracy would probably not be affected, so much.
Your basic premise is that rock bands don't make as much money as rap groups, or even rock groups from a decade ago. What is that based on? Absolutely nothing, that's what.
From there, you try to find the causes for your made up premise such as recording costs (of which you know nothing), illegal downloading (of which you know nothing) and listener demographics (based on your experience at concerts).
And to wrap it all up, you claim that your hypothesis is valid because it's untestable.
If every question or common thought that enters you're is followed by number crunching and hours of research just to raise a question and some debate, than i applaud you sir. But if you hold anyone to that same standard, than i'm sure i'm not the first person you've given similiar comments, and therefore i'm not too worried about you're particular opinion.
How about you find out if rap musicians actually make more money in the first place. Or, you know, any kind of hard evidence about anything. Anything at all. That's generally a good starting point for a thread.
There are rap artists who can play their own instruments.
It didn't take me hours of careful research to figure out that your premises are shaky. Other posters have already pointed out that the biggest consumers of rap music are not necessarily poor nor black, and that rock stars do not necessarily earn less than rappers do.
Thats the first thing I thought after seeing the title.
Decades ago, bands that i previously mentioned were popular for their debaucherous and costly parties and tours and lifestyles; similiar to what i see from rap artists. Currently i don't see that same lifestyle in bands, but rap artists. The average modern rock band, if they sell a 2 million albums, with 4 guys, after everything is said and done, makes about 40k per individual. hardly enough for a 7million dollar yacht.
when a single producer charges 80,000 just to work with an artist on 1 SONG, i can assume that recording costs are expensive, what more info do i need? I know that a band like korn will spend 8 month in a recording studio b/c they go in there with nothing written, and a band like tool will spend a few weeks, b/c they write everything before hand and just simply record and touch it up.
I know that Korn was signed on until 2010 with virgin for 25 million, where virgin gets 30% of all monies made until 2010.
Now, all this shit is just facts that don't really need to be expressed unless you really want me to keep going. My point is, i don't understand why you assume i "know nothing" just b/c i didn't come out with a list of similiar facts. Like, you wouldn't expect a mathmatician to go thru the history of math and facts when he debates a new theory, b/c its just assumed that everyone is just as knowledgeable. If you want other facts, PM me, b/c i don't really want to post anymore.
I guess when Kanye advertises in pepsi, and puff has BK, and 50 with vitamin water, and JayZ with roccawear and all that shit, you'd prolly be raking in tons more then another artists who just stands on the metaphorical legs of music alone.
Would you call that selling out tho? or just a good business decision?
No. If it's true, it's not racist.
Or the way I'd put it: If it's racist, it's not true.
From Dictionary.com:
rac·ism
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
The first definition is the most relevant here--the belief that race determines achievement and that some races are inherently superior to others. This belief is false; race has no biological significance, and to my knowledge there has never been any demonstrated demographic discrepancy between races that couldn't be explained by socioeconomic factors.
From that I say if someone says something racist, it is not true. I also say that the OP doesn't have much to do with the thread's title, because the OP didn't actually say anything racist or true.
I've heard about that before. I saw it in a small documentary on MTV (no less) .Question. How much is per album worth? And what percentage goes to the other people besides the artist?
Cause I remember regardless of all the records CrazySexyCool was selling, TLC was broke at that time.
I'm sure the white guys are doing just as well, but maybe they don't emphasize it as much. My generalized read is that wealthy rockers are viewed more as having "sold out," while wealthy rappers are viewed more as having "made it."
Maybe it's a result of hiphop being younger. As recently as 20 years ago there were pop and R&B stations that outright refused to play rap. Maybe at midnight on a Tuesday you could hear Rap Attack with Mr. Magic. When Timbaland produces a Nelly Furtado song or Pharrell a Britney Spears song, yes there's an element that says they sold out. But there's also a bigger element that sees it as a sign that hiphop has finally arrived, that it's being recognized as just as legit as more established music. The public excess is just an outward sign of mainstream success.
Rock is much more established having been around since the 50s, and has already had some anti-mainstream movements like punk and grunge. The word "sellout" seems to get tossed around a lot more at artists who go mainstream. Timbaland is still considered a legit hiphop guy - is Gwen Stefani still considered a legit rock girl? Avril Lavigne? The trend in rock seems to be away from public excess. The last rock group I remember acting like sex, drugs, and rock n rollers was Oasis a decade ago. And they drew as much criticism as praise. Nowadays it seems like rock bands would rather talk about Africa and global warming than mink coats.
Or the fact that looking at a producer's "crib" is a poor measure of the popularity/profitability of a genre of music.
1) In America, Black people tend to have less income than White people.
2) The lower the income the less likely you are able to pirate music.
3) Black people are the primary consumers of Rap.
THEREFORE
4)Rap is less likely to be pirated, resulting in more money for the artist.
Your argument is sound, but each premise and the conclusion needs validation. ARE black people poorer on average? ARE black people the primary consumers of Rap? If the answer to those questions is "yes", I would still suggest plain old fashioned popularity has more to do with the financial rise of Rappers than any trick of microeconomics.
About RACISM. Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, and/or the right of one race to domineer another. Racism is NOT the belief that all races aren't exactly alike. Go wrestle a Samoan. You're probably going to get your ass handed to you. It doesn't make you a Samoan supremacist to note that they are big, powerful people does it?
He's not even going there, which makes the racist angle a bit difficult to discern. If he's trying to say that urban white people are hurting rock sales because they're downloading all their music and black people are generally poorer and so are forced to buy whole albums, there's nothing inherently racist about it. But it's still an oversimplification that cites no evidence and fails to consider alternative explanations.
I don't think we even need to google for studies; it's pretty common sense that that would be the case. People download the music they like the most, just as they buy the music they like the most. The chart will be pretty much exactly the same.
On that note, do US music charts include downloads yet? The chart here in the UK does; so when the Beatles release their back-catalogue online, the entire top 10 will probably be Beatles songs. :P