|
|
Post by mattyd2 on Sept 23, 2020 14:43:20 GMT
Great idea, but upside down.
They should start from the bottom and work up.
The lack of fans attending matchdays in non league, Div 2 & 1 and to a lesser extend The Championship is crippling for many.
Whereas the TV package for The Prem and sponsorship deals is by far their biggest source of income. Thats how clubs like Burnley & Bournemouth survived with relatively small match day revenue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rip Roaring Potter on Sept 23, 2020 14:46:47 GMT
I set up the the thread to see what other peoples opinions were. Not to have an argument about what you believe in versus what I believe in. You're clearly very set in your views, as I am mine. But you are absolutely being unnecessarily extreme in saying there would be no entertainment left if we didnt publicly bail out struggling arts and entertainment businesses, and you know that. There is plenty of businesses who are strong enough to survive. During times like this, the companies who are able to adjust through ingenuity and creativity should be backed and championed, not those who dont. As I said, you sound as though you wouldnt be enduring any financial hardship in the event of a tax increase, so congratulations, thats great for you. I would be though so I dont want my tax money spent on things that bare no impact on me what so ever. There are more important ways to be spending the very limited cash the country has at the moment in my opinion. I'm more than happy to respond to the points you raise in your post but are you sure you actually want me to? You absolutely can post whatever you want, Im happy to read your opinion - That was the point of setting up this thread, to read other peoples perspectives and views. What I won't necessarily do, is agree with you. And you dont have to be so upset if I dont. |
|
|
|
Post by Rip Roaring Potter on Sept 23, 2020 14:56:04 GMT
I think my answer would be the same regardless of what company it was, but thats just my opinion. I would rather see people given the chance to be awarded a grant for a new start-up business, that can show its more viable and has the potential to be successful and grow, giving more job opportunity rather than throwing cash at big-wigs taking massive annual salaries for businesses that are ultimately failing, and thus still not giving its employees (particularly the ones at the bottom of the chain) the longer term job security that we all crave. I dont wanna turn this into a total political discussion mind, from experience it turns nasty and I feel The Oatcake is a bit of reprieve from the harsh realities going on at the moment. Oh no political emphasis on this at all and i agree... let’s keep politics out of this. The issue we do have is start ups have access to grants now, the environment isn’t quite right to confirm viability of success with the right market available. This would be a perfect opportunity for online businesses however so perhaps the unfortunate side will be the faster loss of high street businesses. Losing football clubs, especially in areas like doncaster would have a massive impact on local businesses who have grown hand in hand with their success. I should of perhaps been a bit more specific in terms of grants and meaning more easily accessible grants for more start ups. I have before said about the high street dying on this forum a long time a go but thats a complex arguement with how the populations tendencies are changing from generation to generation. Perhaps me being young and doing pretty much everything from the comfort of my home online warps my views on this and I understand its not something everyone, particularly the more elderly members of society, are willing to adjust to and are happy with going to high street shops etc. I honestly dont know about local businesses being directly affected by football clubs, and not something I really gave a thought to, so pardon my ignorance on that. Im always happy to be educated and learn, maybe that'll even change my views. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 23, 2020 14:59:06 GMT
I'm more than happy to respond to the points you raise in your post but are you sure you actually want me to? You absolutely can post whatever you want, Im happy to read your opinion - That was the point of setting up this thread, to read other peoples perspectives and views. What I won't necessarily do, is agree with you. And you dont have to be so upset if I dont. I can't see any sign of me becoming upset during this thread but anyway ... Arts, hospitality and sports are massive industries that employ millions of people in this country. If we hadn't supported pubs, hotels, restaurants etc. during the first lock down then many of them would have gone to the wall. If we had done what your suggesting from the off, then we wouldn't have had a lot of them to go back to once the economy started to reopen and if they have to be closed again completely at some point in the future, then they will need to be supported once again or there would have been no point doing it the first time around. Some industries however, haven't been allowed to reopen and we need to keep supporting those industries until they are allowed to reopen. It's all very well saying that these industries need to adjust but you can't simply 'adjust' when you're not even allowed to have customers come through your front door. That's how I see it, I know that you don't and I'm not attempting to change your mind. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Sept 23, 2020 15:07:47 GMT
I think this description 'essential' is very ambiguous when it comes to economy and industry. We have a very limited, misguided and unhealthy view of what is "essential" imho. I would certainly say Music is essential for example. If it isn't how come EVERY single country and culture in the world produces so much of it and has done so for centuries, and why do people spend so much time listening to it, engaging with it, making it, celebrating to it, mourning to it etc All aspects of life are permeated by music. It's not just entertainment. Apart from that its estimated to be worth £5-6 billion to our economy last year. Just trying to make a point. I agree, definitely. But I dont understand how recording artists would be that affected by lockdowns and social distancing, other than live performances. I dont know the figures at all, but I would hazard a guess that MOST musicians are still earning similair levels to that pre-pandemic through Spotify, Youtube, Apple Music etc. If anything I have been listening to far more music than I ever have by having more time at home. Spotify (and most steaming music services) are sore point for most musicians Spotify reports that it pays out between $0.00331 and $0.00437 per stream. You need to get approx. 400,000 plays a month to earn £1000 a month. That's a huge amount of plays and then that is only if you own all the rights which is not always the case. The rights “holder” can then split these earning between the record label, producers, artists, and songwriters, which means splitting pennies between many parties. So that if the band end up with £200 out of that they have done very well. Then there is the split if there are members of the band. So let's say £60 a month for half a million Spotify plays for a member of a 4 piece band! mmmmm!!! The only artists who make money out of Spotify are already huge artists and the money they get from Spotify is a drop in the ocean for them.I think the world record is £50,000 in a day for a Taylor Swift song (but that had to be split many times too) Very, very difficult to make money from online streaming. Spotify is far less lucrative for musicians than the old style recording industries ever were. (and those were extremely exploitative) For most musicians I know their income stream has falling off the edge of a cliff this last 6 months. Live performance fees have been far more lucrative for most musicians in recent decades. Most musicians use Spotify for promotional purposes....i.e to get gigs!!!.....Good luck with that one!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 23, 2020 15:13:08 GMT
I agree, definitely. But I dont understand how recording artists would be that affected by lockdowns and social distancing, other than live performances. I dont know the figures at all, but I would hazard a guess that MOST musicians are still earning similair levels to that pre-pandemic through Spotify, Youtube, Apple Music etc. If anything I have been listening to far more music than I ever have by having more time at home. Spotify (and most steaming music services) are sore point for most musicians Spotify reports that it pays out between $0.00331 and $0.00437 per stream. You need to get approx. 400,000 plays a month to earn £1000 a month. That's a huge amount of plays and then that is only if you own all the rights which is not always the case. The rights “holder” can then split these earning between the record label, producers, artists, and songwriters, which means splitting pennies between many parties. So that if the band end up with £200 out of that they have done very well. Then there is the split if there are members of the band. So let's say £60 a month for half a million Spotify plays for a member of a 4 piece band! mmmmm!!! The only artists who make money out of Spotify are already huge artists and the money they get from Spotify is a drop in the ocean for them.I think the world record is £50,000 in a day for a Taylor Swift song (but that had to be split many times too) Very, very difficult to make money from online streaming. Spotify is far less lucrative for musicians than the old style recording industries ever were. For most musicians I know their income stream has falling off the edge of a cliff this last 6 months. Live performance fees have been far more lucrative for most musicians in recent decades. Indeed. Never mind the 100,000's of self employed musicians who don't have any recording income, who perform up and down the country at pubs, clubs, weddings, private functions etc. etc. All stopped in an instant. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Sept 23, 2020 15:16:53 GMT
Spotify (and most steaming music services) are sore point for most musicians Spotify reports that it pays out between $0.00331 and $0.00437 per stream. You need to get approx. 400,000 plays a month to earn £1000 a month. That's a huge amount of plays and then that is only if you own all the rights which is not always the case. The rights “holder” can then split these earning between the record label, producers, artists, and songwriters, which means splitting pennies between many parties. So that if the band end up with £200 out of that they have done very well. Then there is the split if there are members of the band. So let's say £60 a month for half a million Spotify plays for a member of a 4 piece band! mmmmm!!! The only artists who make money out of Spotify are already huge artists and the money they get from Spotify is a drop in the ocean for them.I think the world record is £50,000 in a day for a Taylor Swift song (but that had to be split many times too) Very, very difficult to make money from online streaming. Spotify is far less lucrative for musicians than the old style recording industries ever were. For most musicians I know their income stream has falling off the edge of a cliff this last 6 months. Live performance fees have been far more lucrative for most musicians in recent decades. Indeed. Never mind the 100,000's of self employed musicians who don't have any recording income, who perform up and down the country at pubs, clubs, weddings, private functions etc. etc. All stopped in an instant. who form the vast majority of working musicians. |
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Sept 23, 2020 16:23:20 GMT
Spotify (and most steaming music services) are sore point for most musicians Spotify reports that it pays out between $0.00331 and $0.00437 per stream. You need to get approx. 400,000 plays a month to earn £1000 a month. That's a huge amount of plays and then that is only if you own all the rights which is not always the case. The rights “holder” can then split these earning between the record label, producers, artists, and songwriters, which means splitting pennies between many parties. So that if the band end up with £200 out of that they have done very well. Then there is the split if there are members of the band. So let's say £60 a month for half a million Spotify plays for a member of a 4 piece band! mmmmm!!! The only artists who make money out of Spotify are already huge artists and the money they get from Spotify is a drop in the ocean for them.I think the world record is £50,000 in a day for a Taylor Swift song (but that had to be split many times too) Very, very difficult to make money from online streaming. Spotify is far less lucrative for musicians than the old style recording industries ever were. For most musicians I know their income stream has falling off the edge of a cliff this last 6 months. Live performance fees have been far more lucrative for most musicians in recent decades. Indeed. Never mind the 100,000's of self employed musicians who don't have any recording income, who perform up and down the country at pubs, clubs, weddings, private functions etc. etc. All stopped in an instant. Are there literally 100,000's of self employed musicians who are dependent on their ability to perform as their main source of income? I would have thought the vast majority of musicians in this country do it on a casual basis because they love music and at best, it is a top up to their main source of income. These people can come out to play again once this is all over, and in the meantime consumers of music have plenty of other ways to enjoy their hobby. It's certainly not the job of the government to support these people, even in these troubled times. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Sept 23, 2020 16:38:45 GMT
Football Communism.
I like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 23, 2020 16:39:15 GMT
Indeed. Never mind the 100,000's of self employed musicians who don't have any recording income, who perform up and down the country at pubs, clubs, weddings, private functions etc. etc. All stopped in an instant. Are there literally 100,000's of self employed musicians who are dependent on their ability to perform as their main source of income? I would have thought the vast majority of musicians in this country do it on a casual basis because they love music and at best, it is a top up to their main source of income. These people can come out to play again once this is all over, and in the meantime consumers of music have plenty of other ways to enjoy their hobby. It's certainly not the job of the government to support these people, even in these troubled times. It's certainly the job of the Government to support its population whoever that may be. It's going to get very messy over the next few months. Public disorder is not far away and fuckwit Johnson is already threatening us with the military. They will ratchet up the blame game and we'll all end up blaming each other and giving this shower of fucking shit Government another free and easy ride. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 23, 2020 16:40:16 GMT
Indeed. Never mind the 100,000's of self employed musicians who don't have any recording income, who perform up and down the country at pubs, clubs, weddings, private functions etc. etc. All stopped in an instant. Are there literally 100,000's of self employed musicians who are dependent on their ability to perform as their main source of income? I would have thought the vast majority of musicians in this country do it on a casual basis because they love music and at best, it is a top up to their main source of income. These people can come out to play again once this is all over, and in the meantime consumers of music have plenty of other ways to enjoy their hobby. It's certainly not the job of the government to support these people, even in these troubled times. I (obviously) don't know the exact figures but personally I know lots of musicians where it is their main source of income. There are plenty of bands who are virtually permanently on tour, both touring in this country and on the continent. The tribute act circuit alone is huge. |
|
|
|
Post by devondumpling on Sept 23, 2020 17:00:15 GMT
Are there literally 100,000's of self employed musicians who are dependent on their ability to perform as their main source of income? I would have thought the vast majority of musicians in this country do it on a casual basis because they love music and at best, it is a top up to their main source of income. These people can come out to play again once this is all over, and in the meantime consumers of music have plenty of other ways to enjoy their hobby. It's certainly not the job of the government to support these people, even in these troubled times. It's certainly the job of the Government to support its population whoever that may be. It's going to get very messy over the next few months. Public disorder is not far away and fuckwit Johnson is already threatening us with the military. They will ratchet up the blame game and we'll all end up blaming each other and giving this shower of fucking shit Government another free and easy ride. Aren't we on the wrong thread here? |
|
|
|
Post by oldspeckledben on Sept 23, 2020 17:02:32 GMT
Indeed. Never mind the 100,000's of self employed musicians who don't have any recording income, who perform up and down the country at pubs, clubs, weddings, private functions etc. etc. All stopped in an instant. Are there literally 100,000's of self employed musicians who are dependent on their ability to perform as their main source of income? I would have thought the vast majority of musicians in this country do it on a casual basis because they love music and at best, it is a top up to their main source of income. These people can come out to play again once this is all over, and in the meantime consumers of music have plenty of other ways to enjoy their hobby. It's certainly not the job of the government to support these people, even in these troubled times. I work in the industry and it needs support now. It's the fifth biggest sector in this country and it's dying before our eyes. It is absolutely the job of government to intervene. Nobody batted an eyelid when Branson got a billion quid and then made redundancies. Imagine that! For them it's all about pleasing shareholders over working people at the moment and that has to stop. Whilst my forte isn't function bands I can tell you that a lot of them are indeed reliant on that income. It's not a casual earner. I'm sure that Keith playing acoustic covers of Van Morrison songs down the Dog and Duck is gutted he can't get £100 cash in hand every Sunday to pay for his model railway, but I imagine that he's in the minority... |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Sept 23, 2020 17:09:20 GMT
Indeed. Never mind the 100,000's of self employed musicians who don't have any recording income, who perform up and down the country at pubs, clubs, weddings, private functions etc. etc. All stopped in an instant. Are there literally 100,000's of self employed musicians who are dependent on their ability to perform as their main source of income? I would have thought the vast majority of musicians in this country do it on a casual basis because they love music and at best, it is a top up to their main source of income. These people can come out to play again once this is all over, and in the meantime consumers of music have plenty of other ways to enjoy their hobby. It's certainly not the job of the government to support these people, even in these troubled times. There are approx. 60,000 inn the UK who make their living from music i.e. that is there primary source of income The Music Industry employs around 200,000 Then there are part-time musicians. Whether a society wants to support people such as this is something that defines that societies' culture ultimately. I thinks its a pretty miserable and culturally bankrupt society that would not value this community and what it brings to its culture (see above points) It's not so straightforward as just coming out and carrying on after this is all over for these 260,000. |
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 23, 2020 17:15:48 GMT
It's certainly the job of the Government to support its population whoever that may be. It's going to get very messy over the next few months. Public disorder is not far away and fuckwit Johnson is already threatening us with the military. They will ratchet up the blame game and we'll all end up blaming each other and giving this shower of fucking shit Government another free and easy ride. Aren't we on the wrong thread here? Without doubt but I needed to get it off my chest  |
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Sept 23, 2020 17:34:24 GMT
Are there literally 100,000's of self employed musicians who are dependent on their ability to perform as their main source of income? I would have thought the vast majority of musicians in this country do it on a casual basis because they love music and at best, it is a top up to their main source of income. These people can come out to play again once this is all over, and in the meantime consumers of music have plenty of other ways to enjoy their hobby. It's certainly not the job of the government to support these people, even in these troubled times. There are approx. 60,000 inn the UK who make their living from music i.e. that is there primary source of income The Music Industry employs around 200,000 Then there are part-time musicians. Whether a society wants to support people such as this is something that defines that societies' culture ultimately. I thinks its a pretty miserable and culturally bankrupt society that would not value this community and what it brings to its culture (see above points) It's not so straightforward as just coming out and carrying on after this is all over for these 260,000. Thanks for your responses. So these 60k people for whom music is their primary source of income are not in any way supported by the furlough scheme or the scheme for the self employed? Or indeed the wider 200k employees? Another thing I'm grappling with is this. Is it not right that the government concentrates its assistance to those industries where once a business shuts down then it's gone unless someone puts in a whole load of extra capital to get it restarted? I can't see how this applies to musicians. |
|
|
|
Post by oldspeckledben on Sept 23, 2020 18:07:42 GMT
There are approx. 60,000 inn the UK who make their living from music i.e. that is there primary source of income The Music Industry employs around 200,000 Then there are part-time musicians. Whether a society wants to support people such as this is something that defines that societies' culture ultimately. I thinks its a pretty miserable and culturally bankrupt society that would not value this community and what it brings to its culture (see above points) It's not so straightforward as just coming out and carrying on after this is all over for these 260,000. Thanks for your responses. So these 60k people for whom music is their primary source of income are not in any way supported by the furlough scheme or the scheme for the self employed? Or indeed the wider 200k employees? Another thing I'm grappling with is this. Is it not right that the government concentrates its assistance to those industries where once a business shuts down then it's gone unless someone puts in a whole load of extra capital to get it restarted? I can't see how this applies to musicians. The musicians won't have venues to play in if this continues. Those 200,000 are employed to rig the stage, turn the lights on, do the sound, take people's tickets etc etc. Once the places go under that put on events that pay their wages then there's literally no route back. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 23, 2020 18:55:13 GMT
There are approx. 60,000 inn the UK who make their living from music i.e. that is there primary source of income The Music Industry employs around 200,000 Then there are part-time musicians. Whether a society wants to support people such as this is something that defines that societies' culture ultimately. I thinks its a pretty miserable and culturally bankrupt society that would not value this community and what it brings to its culture (see above points) It's not so straightforward as just coming out and carrying on after this is all over for these 260,000. Thanks for your responses. So these 60k people for whom music is their primary source of income are not in any way supported by the furlough scheme or the scheme for the self employed? Or indeed the wider 200k employees? Another thing I'm grappling with is this. Is it not right that the government concentrates its assistance to those industries where once a business shuts down then it's gone unless someone puts in a whole load of extra capital to get it restarted? I can't see how this applies to musicians. Yes they are supported by the furlough scheme and that support needs to continue as long as they aren't allowed to work. All the people who were employed in hospitality were supported until they were allowed to go back to work. Why should those people who haven't been allowed to go back not continue to be supported, it's not their fault that the government aren't allowing them to do so? And it's not just the music industry, think of all the people who work in theatres, not just the actors but all the other staff as well. The West End theatres alone, are a massive source of revenue from overseas visitors, we can't allow those venues to go bust, we'll lose over a 100 years of heritage over night, that we'll never get back. |
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Sept 23, 2020 21:16:34 GMT
Thanks for your responses. So these 60k people for whom music is their primary source of income are not in any way supported by the furlough scheme or the scheme for the self employed? Or indeed the wider 200k employees? Another thing I'm grappling with is this. Is it not right that the government concentrates its assistance to those industries where once a business shuts down then it's gone unless someone puts in a whole load of extra capital to get it restarted? I can't see how this applies to musicians. Yes they are supported by the furlough scheme and that support needs to continue as long as they aren't allowed to work. All the people who were employed in hospitality were supported until they were allowed to go back to work. Why should those people who haven't been allowed to go back not continue to be supported, it's not their fault that the government aren't allowing them to do so? And it's not just the music industry, think of all the people who work in theatres, not just the actors but all the other staff as well. The West End theatres alone, are a massive source of revenue from overseas visitors, we can't allow those venues to go bust, we'll lose over a 100 years of heritage over night, that we'll never get back. Fair enough. I did think there was a hint of a suggestion that the government should be supporting (as oldspeckledben so neatly put it) 'Keith playing acoustic covers of Van Morrison songs down the Dog and Duck for £100 cash in hand'. Which I wouldn't agree with at all. I do agree with the general principle that if the government stops a particular group of people working genuinely for their livelihoods then they should be supported through it. Lets see what dishy Rishi comes up with tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 29, 2020 20:05:58 GMT
|
|
