If Music Could Talk

Rat Patrol wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2017, 5:31pm

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation ... story.html

McDonald's is bringing back its lobster roll!

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2017, 3:15pm

And now the C Street Band smugly waits by the phone …

Rat Patrol wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2017, 7:33pm

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2017, 3:15pm

And now the C Street Band smugly waits by the phone …

Their Clarence is dead too, so they got this in the bag.

BostonBeaneater wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2017, 9:18pm

So much to unpack here...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2947620

The threat aside, it's not about whether she needs the business. It's a principle in the creative world that we don't work for free because it's well understood among our community to devalue our individual fields. It's not the same as giving someone a free tan because we have to use creative brainpower in addition to our time. Your world is different from ours. Your argument throughout the thread perfectly illustrates WHY we have to hold fast to this principle because people will try to get around it any way they can.

Kory wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2017, 6:35pm

I'm having an FB argument with a guy about working for exposure. It's on an article about that hairdresser that was asked by Marla Maples to do her inauguration hair for exposure. The guy I'm arguing that thinks it's equivalent to investing in advertising. My main point:

The threat aside, it's not about whether she needs the business. It's a principle in the creative world that we don't work for free because it's well understood among our community to devalue our individual fields. It's not the same as giving someone a free tan because we have to use creative brainpower in addition to our time. Your world is different from ours. Your argument throughout the thread perfectly illustrates WHY we have to hold fast to this principle because people will try to get around it any way they can.

Is being met with a question about whether I've personally been approached by a celebrity to do work for exposure.

He runs an apartment complex, so he's got a lot of experience to draw from.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2017, 8:09pm

Kory wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2017, 6:35pm

I'm having an FB argument with a guy about working for exposure. It's on an article about that hairdresser that was asked by Marla Maples to do her inauguration hair for exposure. The guy I'm arguing that thinks it's equivalent to investing in advertising. My main point:

The threat aside, it's not about whether she needs the business. It's a principle in the creative world that we don't work for free because it's well understood among our community to devalue our individual fields. It's not the same as giving someone a free tan because we have to use creative brainpower in addition to our time. Your world is different from ours. Your argument throughout the thread perfectly illustrates WHY we have to hold fast to this principle because people will try to get around it any way they can.

Is being met with a question about whether I've personally been approached by a celebrity to do work for exposure.

He runs an apartment complex, so he's got a lot of experience to draw from.

More practically, is there any evidence that "exposure" like that functions as advertising? Does it actually generate new paying customers? Maybe, but I'm skeptical. Instead, it encourages people to think that they are in a competition to sell their labour for as little as possible. If anything, as you suggest, all that should be regarded as a cautionary tale about how skilled individuals purposefully devalue themselves.

Mimi wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2017, 9:23am

Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2017, 9:25am

Mimi wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2017, 9:23am

Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night.

So you're saying it'll be fine by tomorrow?