Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Jan 2011 15:32 UTC
Multimedia, AV Francis Ford Coppola is one of the most prestigious and critically acclaimed directors in cinematographic history. He directed, among others, the Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now, and has won so many awards it's hard to keep track. In an interview with 99%, he touched on the subject of art and making money, and his musings are fascinating, and yet another indication that the times are changing in the content industry. "Who says artists have to make money?" Coppola wonders.
Thread beginning with comment 460307
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ...
by NuxRo on Mon 31st Jan 2011 16:06 UTC in reply to "..."
NuxRo
Member since:
2010-09-25

Yeah, and who said artists have to eat?


I think artists can make a lot of money from concerts and other live shows; of course they have to eat.

What I do not understand is why people like Michael Jackson (to give a famous name) have to get zillions and zillions of moneys; same for actors. Why do they have to earn a shitload much more than a teacher, a surgeon, a researcher or a soldier?

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: ...
by Cymro on Mon 31st Jan 2011 16:30 in reply to "RE: ..."
Cymro Member since:
2005-07-07

If you're taking a role-call of people in life who make more money than they deserve, where do you think musicians come on that list?

They barely even make the list.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: ...
by nt_jerkface on Mon 31st Jan 2011 16:56 in reply to "RE: ..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

You can't expect all artists to live on stage revenue.

It's only the top performers that can make that kind of money.

Some artists don't have a stage presence and rely entirely on digital sales but I can see that some here would take that away from them based on some self-declared right to digital content.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 31st Jan 2011 17:00 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Some artists don't have a stage presence and rely entirely on digital sales but I can see that some here would take that away from them based on some self-declared right to digital content.


I happen to pay for all my music. Not digital though - I buy CDs. At my local professional record store (not some crappy chain store).

Your thesis is provably wrong, though. Thanks to the internet, we've seen an absolute splurge of new artists come up that otherwise would've never made it. Thanks to the internet, I get to enjoy music record labels deemed unmarketable, like Shirley Manson's noir solo work.

These new artists used the internet properly and rose to prominence despite copyright law, not because of it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by Soulbender on Mon 31st Jan 2011 17:04 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I guess they can always get another job to support their hobby. There are many professions throughout history that has come and gone. Some has been very well paid during some periods just to disappear when humanity moved along and new technology replaced old. If people are not interested in paying so much for the artists work as they used to then the artists will have to come up with some other way of supporting themselves. Tough bananas but making a good living from your hobby is a privilege, not a right.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Mon 31st Jan 2011 17:40 in reply to "RE: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Take a self stacker in a super market ... any able body person can do their job. It is simple, thus the pay is low.

Myself I am a web developer ... not as many people can do this job so I get paid a lot better.

Not many people are bright enough or work hard enough to become a doctor so they get paid more than me.

And only a few people in the world can be Micheal Jackson, Jimmy Hendrix, Dio etc etc. So they get/got paid lots ... because they bring something that people like that no-one else can ...

That is why they get paid more, because they bring something of value that no-one else can.

Edited 2011-01-31 17:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by fretinator on Mon 31st Jan 2011 19:01 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

That is why they get paid more, because they bring something of value that no-one else can.


I think you are begging the question. The point is that there are probably 1000's of people who can do what they did, but there is no way to make it through the producer/marketing/industry machinery. The internet cuts out all of the promo folks that "build stars" for profit.

Most of these "idols" are really mass-marketed. There are oftens thousands of more talented people who can't make it through to us.

If the content industry has its way, it will remain that way. Otherwise they have to get real jobs.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by unclefester on Tue 1st Feb 2011 02:54 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The greatest musicians of all time - the Baroque classical composers were all lowly paid servants.

Doctors are only highly paid in English-speaking western countries. In communist countries 80% of doctors were female because it was a very lowly paid low-status profession. In many African countries a doctor would be lucky to earn $100/week

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by Hae-Yu on Fri 4th Feb 2011 19:20 in reply to "RE: ..."
Hae-Yu Member since:
2006-01-12

Money is a point system. Given a limited number of points, how do people distribute them according to what they value? Since people VOLUNTARILY give money to actors and singers and sports figures and bitch and complain about the salaries of teachers and soldiers and other useful people, it shows exactly what they (and the society values).

Reply Parent Score: 1