brraap Posted October 1 Posted October 1 (edited) With all these stories coming out about how abusive the industry is, and many artists dying in the crossfire of power, those who have made it to the top - do you think they have managed to do so ethically? A question for the culture Edited October 1 by brraap
réveuse Posted October 1 Posted October 1 No, to be a billionaire, you have to participate in capitalism and exploit the working class. 11 2
LegaMyth Posted October 1 Posted October 1 Billionaire is simply a word. I can guarantee you that many "billionaires" do not have $1 billion in liquid. Unpopular opinion, I think there can be ethical "billionaires." People who say that there can't be speak as if what they say is set in stone. 1
RatGod Posted October 1 Posted October 1 I think there's levels to it. Whether it's exploiting other people's labor or doing it via your art, at the end of the day you have more money than some nations on earth and just through your spending power alone you have the ability to do a lot of good. Beyond a certain point of wealth, it becomes meaningless because everything you could possibly need you can purchase and it will have no impact on you whatsoever. We need these pop girls who are crossing the 1B mark (or honestly even lower) to start donating and creating public works and spreading the wealth because Ms. Swift or even Gaga with her 900m net worth will not feel the impact of using even several hundred of those millions to do something for the general good. that being said, they are entitled to the money they earned, I just hope that they put it to use instead of just letting it sit.
Arthoe Posted October 1 Posted October 1 I think there is just no way that you can accumulate 1 billion dollars without either tax fraud and (OR) f*cking people over by paying them wages way below their actual worth. It's just that exploting working class people has become so normalized in western society, we're not even able to recognize when we are being exploited. 3
piotrert Posted October 1 Posted October 1 idc really. $200mln, $1bln - no difference. not my money, not my business
BrokenMachine Posted October 1 Posted October 1 It all depends to where that money came from. If people pay you to use, or listen to your music, and you get $1B as a payment, that's way better than doing absolutely nothing and just being the 'face' or 'investor' of a company while leeching out worker's earnings. Since this is a music forum, label executives are great examples of that, they do nothing, they don't make the music nor the marketing strategies, and yet they bag more than the artist making the music itself, getting by contract a 70% of the earnings just because they said so. So, there's more ethical ways to become a billionaire than others, but being a billionaire itself isn't ethical at all, since it pushes you become part of the unequal distribution of wealth problem.
Dolce Vita Posted October 1 Posted October 1 (edited) it's hard to say. i think artists that are lucky enough to reach the peaks of success in the music industry most definitely benefit from an unethical system that has inherently exploited artists. and the artists with longevity know how to play the game. many of these people are privy to unsavoury characters/business practises but turn a blind eye to them, just look at kesha's case for example and the people that still work with dr luke knowing his horrendous history with women. Edited October 1 by Dolce Vita
Arrows Posted October 1 Posted October 1 yes, just like it's possible to be unethically at the bottom 7
Illuminati Posted October 1 Posted October 1 There are definitely ways to be worse about it. There are millionaires and not-quite billionaires being far more exploitative to reach the status faster, so I wouldn't go hard on Taylor personally. Lets focus on getting Elon Musk publicly executed 1
Achilles. Posted October 1 Posted October 1 Why is everyone talking about billionaires when the OP was asking about abusiveness in the industry? So far as the Weinsteins and Epsteins and Diddys of the industry are concerned, I definitely think it's possible for rich, famous, and powerful people to be uninvolved in those types of things. I even think it's possible for them to be unaware of these things happening. Lots of people have contempt for the rich and famous, and there is some merit to that, but I sometimes think the agents and managers and PR firms are worse. Sure, the celebrity has an addiction. That sucks. But who's usually providing the drugs? The sleazeball singer hooks up with underage girls. But who's finding the girls and bringing them to the singer? The famous actress starred in a film produced by a sexual predator. But her team encouraged her to take the role and hid the allegations from her because they wanted the payday. The star football player raped a dozen girls. And his lawyer NDA'd all of them. Plenty of celebrities and public figures are awful people, but there's an entire ecosystem built around them that enables and exacerbates and covers up that awfulness, and as right as it is to call out the celebrities for the horrible things they do, nothing will change on the broader level without tackling the whole structure head on. And then you look at something like the Me Too movement. Is it really a coincidence that nearly every famous man who was "taken down" by the Me Too movement was washed up and past his prime? Like Johnny Depp had a decade long streak of bad reviews in commercial bombs. Would they even have let Heard's op-ed see the light of day if he was still bringing in the dough? Weinstein similarly was on a downward spiral prior to his exposure. For the most part, most of the people who were exposed were expendable and the industry basically offered them up to give the appearance of addressing the issue, all while continuing to give cover to all of the ones who were still profitable and worth protecting. And then you get to the PR firms and the agents and whoever else, and it's just like… this PR firm is building up this woman as a feminist icon who bravely shared her story of abuse and at the same time that same PR firm is trying to rehabilitate an alleged rapist's career. The system can't lose and it can't be fixed, because they play both sides and pull all the strings. And the system rarely gets paid any attention because the system isn't famous. You can't write a headline about these unknown producers and distributors financing a Woody Allen film, but you can get a whole news cycle out of making Kate Winslet answer for starring in it. 4 2
velocity Posted October 1 Posted October 1 it's possible in theory but in reality it would be borderline impossible because humans are greedy by nature. for instance do i think that taylor directly exploits people working for her? no, if anything i've heard she's generous with the people she works with. however, she is selling cd's, vinyls, cheap merch, etc all most likely produced in unfair and exploitative conditions. i feel like often the people working in between the billionaires and exploited/abused workers are even more corrupt because they so desperately want to come closer to the top, they want a piece of that cake. for a lot of people what they have is never enough. 2
BrokenMachine Posted October 1 Posted October 1 57 minutes ago, brraap said: Hmm let me rephrase the question Not you changing it to be a question about Taylor
brraap Posted October 1 Author Posted October 1 30 minutes ago, Achilles. said: Why is everyone talking about billionaires when the OP was asking about abusiveness in the industry? 8 minutes ago, BrokenMachine said: Not you changing it to be a question about Taylor Originally the question was can you be a billionaire ethically I actually have a lot of respect for Taylor. I admire that she was able to fight for her artistry all the way through and make it to the top. She owns all her assets now and can't be controlled. I hope that'll be the way moving forwards. For example, Olivia's contract allows her to own her masters. Other players like Eminem have also achieved this. I just put her in the OP as she is the "music industry" as people say Real question is can you achieve that ethically
AvadaKedavra Posted October 1 Posted October 1 (edited) It's possible, they have so many platforms and could be helpful with their money but many pop girls simply don't want to. They want to get richer and more powerful. I wonder if theyre just afraid of losing their lifestyle once they flop or they just want to look more powerful with time. Billionaries have a different type of status in the world. I remember reading this in Reddit. I love all my popgirls but so many of them are sometimes really good and sometimes just messy human beings I would have stopped listening to them, but most indie pop singers are SO boring, and many are the same as the popgirls, just with less fame lol. Give them a billion dollars and yll see how they turn into monsters too. So we are havin inmunity card for the popgirls cause we dont wanna be left with 0 popgirls to stan The truth is that the number of people who donate and are genuinely interested in helping those who have nothing in this world is very small. We all really need to do more if we have wealth for the world or we have extra money. I think donating anonymously to different causes like people with health problems or strugglin with rent-education payments is a good way to help There are also studies on a phenomenon: the more money people have, the stingier and less charitable they are. It's proven science. I have family who were upper class and now theyre rich and they're so different now. Money really changed them in a bad way. If we all get real rich. We all have to careful with losing our values https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/ https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/the-science-of-scrooge-why-wealth-kills-empathy.html Edited October 1 by AvadaKedavra
dumbsparce Posted October 2 Posted October 2 For artists, I think it's entirely possible to rely solely on their talent/marketing to get on top. I don't think Taylor had to spread her legs or engaged in shady tactics to get where she is.
$ebert Posted October 2 Posted October 2 Let's ask Adele, my unproblematic queen. lets not forget there are many celebrities that are not problematic, like Kesha. They might not be the most relevant pop star in the world, but she is ethic and has a big following. Morals over money and fame
aotwbys Posted October 2 Posted October 2 I don't think you need to be cynical or amoral to achieve what the music business calls success, but you need the ability to get on fine with cynical, amoral people so it's a grey area
Recommended Posts