Entertainment vs. art in a bad economy

I've always found some comfort (and opportunism) in the fact that no matter what crisis or problem the world (or some segment of it) is facing, someone's makin' a buck off it. Warren Buffet just invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs—one of the two investment banks that got through this financial crisis relatively unscathed (is that an oxymoron?). When asked about it, he said "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." . He's wealthy, he does good things with his money, he's smart, and he's doing good for an investment bank. Why shouldn't he be rewarded?

Richard Nixon went to China when he was President. He brought back a piece of wisdom from there. He told folks that the Chinese symbol for crisis is one character that means "danger", and another character that means "opportunity". That's some pretty smart stuff. (I just saw another article that clarifies the "Crisis=Danger+Opportunity" thing. Nixon's "common wisdom" isn't 100% accurate.)

Who in showbusiness profited from 9/11? Filmmakers, comedians, musicians...We really needed to be cheered up. We escaped into things we found comforting, because the world was just too scary or too horrible for some of us.

How could we dare to laugh during a tragedy? We have to. We aren't laughing at the tragedy, we're laughing in spite of it. That's tough to figure out sometimes.

Comedians understand the concept of "too soon", and can even joke about that. The other night, Bill Maher (on his show "Real Time with Bill Maher", in the "Exit Strategy" segment) was talking about how India would be a good place to live if you want to stay thin. Behind him, as he talked about staying thing, was a picture of Gandhi. He didn't get a laugh. He asked "What? Too soon?".

One couldn't joke right away after 9/11—especially about the tragedy. Many comedians recount that it was Gilbert Gottfried at a Comedy Central Roast telling his version of the old joke "The Aristocrats" that gave comedians permission to laugh again. That was about 3 weeks after September 11, 2001.

Are entertainers being opportunistic? Absolutely not. The business world profits off the entertainers and artists, while the purveyors of entertainment product/services get paid the same whether times are good or bad. Comedians will always bare their souls the same way, whether during good times or bad.

Lots of charities took in money around 9/11. Politicians experienced boom times! (No kidding!) Some are still clinging to 9/11 to rationalize all kinds of disgusting behavior..but that's another story for another blog.

So what does this have to do with the arts and entertainment? It occurs to me that, during bad economic times we need escapism. Movies do well, despite many people cutting back on "unneccesary expenses"; comedy clubs often experience boom times because of bad times.

"Art" doesn't always make out as well as entertainment does.

Most musicians, comedians, actors and others who pursue their entertainment-industry related craft look on what they do as their art. Newsflash for the more serious among you: The sad truth is that most people who pay to see you /hear you don't care that it's your art. They want to take their minds off their problems, and they think you can help. They're not paying for art—especially not during tough times. Most people associate art with museums and auctions, neither of which are critical (for most people) during tough times.

Many artists—especially those who take themselves far too seriously—are offended by the idea that people will equate what they (artists) do with other, lesser forms of entertainment. Will I go see the circus, or will I go to a comedy club? They may even take it one step further. Well, both have people who'll make me laugh...The circus ticket is $40, and the comedy club is $20 + two drinks..and the comedy club is closer. Is it an insult to the comedian that someone's considering the circus as an alternative? I don't think so. I'm as big a fan of comedy as anyone I know, and I still see comedy as a form of entertainment for the masses.

Comedians perform a holy function in the world. They make us forget our problems, but that's not the holy part.

That comedians help us by baring their souls on the stage is not relevant to most of their audience. Jon Stewart's doing well. God bless him. He's a funny man, he's worked very hard for a very long time to get where he is. And he still works hard. On "The Daily Show" he doesn't usually bare his soul. No matter who is elected (or awarded the office of ) President of the United States, comedians will have plenty to joke about. With McCain, there'll be jokes about, teeth-whistling, anger management problems, a waddling walk, and just a general fuddy-duddiness. Needless to say comedians will have more material about Sarah Palin than they did about Dan Quayle. Damn! Who ever thought we'd have a president with more comedy-potential than Dan Quayle? The comedy bar's being raised pretty high now. If Sarah Palin gets into the Veep-spot, most comedians will be depressed for a short while, and then...the comedy will come flowing forth.

If Obama's elected, wow...It'll be a whole new thing. There will be race jokes, and that will upset some people. There'll be jokes about him being a "stiff". Joe Biden's not as old as McCain, but he's no spring chicken either.

Okay..I digress. If you play music, perform comedy, act, do magic, juggle, whatever...You'll do better in a bad economy if you go into showbusiness, and realize people will need you more in a bad economy. Don't be a sourpuss about most people using you for escapism. You have a job, and that's more than a lot of people can say in this economy. Be grateful, take the applause, and hope for that one great inspiration to create art that'll be remembered.

Major Record Labels, Darwinism, and the Future of Intellectual Property

It's been over a month since my last post here. However, nothing has changed, and everything has changed in the world(s) of major purveyors of intellectual property. And with the Writers Guild on strike, it makes ya think (okay, it makes me think) about the whole intellectual property landscape, and how physical media are overvalued.

The short version: Intellectual Property is about what's in the mind(s) of its originator(s)! So many are concerned these days with the media on which the darn things are sold. The physical forms by which some entrepreneurs choose to sell intellectual property are but one means of capitalizing on it. Even those who focus on the digital transmission of music, lyrics, screenplays, and whatever else, are often myopic in their view.

Sorry, I'm full of big words and complex sentence structures today.

Let's review what's gone on in the past 6 weeks or so.

1. Radiohead has released their current album without the backing of a record company. They've made some money, and are sufficiently tired of the record companies' b.s., that they've decided to sell their album directly, and to make it available via their website for download (or purchase of physical media). That's pretty impressive. What's even more radical about Radiohead's move is that they are charging on a "pay what you wish" scale. When a friend first told me about it, I didn't believe it, so I downloaded it for free. I'm not a Radiohead fan, but I'm sure a fan of their marketing tactics.



2. The RIAA sued an individual for file-sharing/downloading music illegally. They were probably mistaken in going after the one they sued. No one could prove that the alleged file-sharer was even the one who did the deed. But before we get into the analysis of this event, let's continue with the next one.
3. Madonna has signed a $120 million record deal. The deal is not with a major record company, but rather, with Live Nation—a concert promoter and ticket sales outfit. She walked away from Warner Brothers, when they wouldn't "step up" with a viable offer. Warner was the first major label to sign her.
4. The Writers Guild of America is on strike right now. The only issue they have with movie and television studios is back end profits on digital media sales. Everyone there is being somewhat forward-thinking in their understanding that there's real money in selling and broadcasting over the internet.

There's some commonality in the lessons we can learn from these recent events. There are hundreds of others which made the news this year, and in recent prior years, from which we can learn similar lessons.

How about these for starters?

- Myopia has little to do with your personal collection of hallucinogens. (Okay, that was an awful pun). There are many ways in which someone who could have profited from the above-mentioned events, chose to lose money, because they had tunnel-vision about how they sell intellectual property, and/or how the profits should be divided.

- Profit centers change. Some are so stuck to the old models /their old ideas about how to make money, and/or what makes money, that they eschew change, in favor of their "old faithful". This is nothing new.

Blacksmiths aren't making quite as good a living these days as they did before cars were commercially available. Those who loved being blacksmiths, and learned their trade weren't about to give it up. They probably had to focus on different audiences. That's one way to stay in business.

When VCRs first came out, the MPAA was against them. They said that home taping and viewing would mean the end of movies and movie theaters. You tell me: How are movies doing today? :) G'ahead...tell me. Say it. They're making a dollar or two, aren't they? And DVD sales? Not bad, ay? The studios know where the money is. That leads to the next point...and the next post.