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.
E-mail Print r 15   · Read More · 152 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 460365
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: ...
by fretinator on Mon 31st Jan 2011 19:01 UTC 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[4]: ...
by Bounty on Mon 31st Jan 2011 20:01 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"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.
"


You bring up an interesting point about marketing. The problem is, it's an investment. It generally works exactly like an investment should. Why would you invest in someone not talented, all things being equal? I hate many things in the mass media, but that's just me. It's called mass media for a reason, lots of other people with bad taste like it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: ...
by Moredhas on Mon 31st Jan 2011 20:51 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

"Why should you invest in someone not talented?"

I dunno, it seems to work for them at the moment... I've ranted my mediocre starlet theory here plenty of times, it amounts to a "plenty more where that came from" logic. It's in the recording industry's best interest to not give us quality, or we'll become accustomed to it and won't buy the rest of the crap they foist on us.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Mon 31st Jan 2011 23:43 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

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.


Well obviously the artists that I highlighted obviously did get through the system ... why did they make it through and not others .... is it because they were substantially different or did it better or was there at the right place at the right time?

There are plenty of people now that can do the moon walk and sing thriller but Micheal Jackson did it first.

The internet cuts out all of the promo folks that "build stars" for profit.


You've never seen X-factor over in the U.K. then. It is a machine for promoting and selling pop music.

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


Yes I agree but most people seem to like it and it you produce something people like and are willing to pay for you should be compensated.

The thing is that people like Simon Cowell (basically owns pop music in the U.K.) has got this stuff down to an exact science. He gets paid a lot of money because he managed to figure that out and exploit it.

I don't see any problem with that he produces something that the majority of people want to see and he makes money off of it ... lots of it ... but that is how any business works.

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


Most people like what I call "shit", that is the way it is. It is never going to change ... intelligent people will always hate mass media, music and television ... and there are those artists that will cater for them. They cater for people like me and that is how they make money.

i.e. I love action 80s action flicks, Rambo, Predator etc ... I don't like a lot of new action movies because they don't cater for me. Stallone created The Expendibles ... it was aimed at guys who like the VHS era action heroe, like me and it showed when I went to the Cinema.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 1st Feb 2011 00:06 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I forgot to add the expendibles did rather well over here because it catered for it intended audience well.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by Icaria on Tue 1st Feb 2011 12:20 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

Well obviously the artists that I highlighted obviously did get through the system ... why did they make it through and not others .... is it because they were substantially different or did it better or was there at the right place at the right time?
Is this rhetorical, or are you actually asking? Either way, the whole point is that only those people got through for reasons already identified. You're asking a question that has already been answered. Hell, you quoted the answer to your own question:
there are probably 1000's of people who can do what they did
Either refute/invalidate the premise, or grant it. Regressing serves no purpose other than stalling.

There are plenty of people now that can do the moon walk and sing thriller but Micheal Jackson did it first.
...and? What's the point of this statement? Never mind that Jackson's adult career is widely regarded as the beginning of the MTV culture, where music and musicians play an increasingly diminished role in, well, 'music'. Weta Digital and ILM have probably put more sheer effort into the average single than the singer has and that really began with spectacles like Thriller.

You've never seen X-factor over in the U.K. then. It is a machine for promoting and selling pop music.

And the internet retaliated with but a pinky finger:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/dec/20/rage-against-machine-ch...
Sadly, no one told them that Rage Against the Machine were on those big labels.

Yes I agree but most people seem to like it and it you produce something people like and are willing to pay for you should be compensated.
'willing to pay for' being the operative words here. That's the first problem with this premise.

I don't see any problem with that he produces something that the majority of people want to see and he makes money off of it ... lots of it ... but that is how any business works.
The person you're replying to hasn't indicated otherwise. Besides being a probable strawman, it's completely irrelevant to his argument. If Mr. Cowell wants to make money, fine. If people want to pay for it, fine. The question is one of whether people should be obliged to pay for it, if they intend to consume it, factoring in the marginal cost of exactly diddly squat.

Reply Parent Score: 1