Download Only Song to Crack the Top 40 391
nagora writes "The BBC is reporting that next week's UK music chart may have the first sign of the end of the recording industry as we know it. From this week (7th Jan, 2006), all downloaded music sales are counted in the official UK chart, not just tracks which have had a physical media release. Now, an unsigned band called Koopa is poised to enter the top 40 without any old-world recording, distribution, or production deals. Band member Joe Murphy says "If someone comes along and gives us an offer, we'll talk to them." before continuing on to add the words the recording industry has been having nightmares about since the introduction of the mp3 format: "If we can get enough exposure and get in the top 40 by the end of the week, do we necessarily need a large label? Probably nowadays, no you don't." Is this finally the crack in the dam we've all been waiting for to wash away the entrenched monopolies of 20th century music production? Or just a sell-out waiting to happen?"
Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:5, Insightful)
Small bands want their music out their -- the CD sales aren't where the cash cow is. Live venues can be very lucrative for even a small band -- getting 300 people to a show can net you $1 a beer or $2-$4 per head. Also, you can upsell your new fans on items they can't easily copy, such as T-shirts, autographed posters, etc. My brother's band Maps & Atlases [maps-atlases.com] just received a major article in Guitar Player, and they're moving forward with picking up sold-out shows, all without any representation. They do just fine on cover charges, new T-shirts every month or so, and autographed screen-printed show posters. If they can do 50 shows a year (1 a week), there's no reason that each of them can't make a very respectable 5 figures a year, after expenses.
Sure, CD sales account for some profit, especially on tour, but there is little reason to think that a band needs a label just for radio exposure or MTV. Both are great for the rare groups that can break 50,000 albums a year or sell out to 3000+ crowds -- and the chance of being one of those bands is so rare that it is almost impossible. Even worse, the labels utilize the force of copyright against even the bands that "succeed" by wrapping up all their future income in the form of residuals and management fees.
If you're a small band that wants to make it big -- tour. If you're a medium-sized band that is starting to form an audience -- get a street team. If you're a large band, make more products for your consumers to buy that isn't easily copied. Sometimes that 5 minutes you spend with a fan is worth a lifetime of them wanting your products, even if they get the easily-copied products for free.
The best form of marketing is piracy -- if you're part of the 99% of the artists out there who can't get into the big industry because you have no clout or nepotism pull.
Is it easy either way? NO. Simple laws of supply and demand will show you that most artists won't cut it -- it is very easy to get into the market (financially). The skills can mostly be learned. The production tools are getting cheaper and cheaper. There is a near limitless supply of people who want to get into the market. Surely, few are talented, but the simple fact that there is SO MUCH SUPPLY and so little demand means that most bands will make nothing (or worse, lose a ton of time and money trying). Still, the web will surpass the radio and MTV as the prime networking engine, and I do believe that collaborative filtering engines such a CRITEO [criteo.com] will really take off when more small sites start utilizing them to get their microcosm of users to collaborate on what they like and don't like.
Sidenote: If any bands are out here that are interested in trying this theory, and have any touring experience beyond a few local shows, hit me up with an e-mail, we have some money to invest in those who repudiate copyright in exchange for the free promotion that torrents and fileshare offers.
Congrats to KOOPA for proving that you don't need might -- or force -- to be more than a starving artist.
Observer affecting the experiement (Score:5, Insightful)
A sensible way to measure popularity (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the RIAA would never agree to legitimizing downloads like that...at least not until several more management changes happen and they get someone in their leadership who's actually owned an iPod.
Half of the record labels' power comes from... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:4, Insightful)
The right answer is to limit copyrights. I think that 30 years from creation, plus another 30 years IF the copyright holder explicitly renews his rights is fair. When the copyright expires, after either 30 or 60 years, it goes directly and permanently into the public domain. The Library of Congress should hold the official registry of copyrighted works in the USA. Corporations should not have terms that exceed or are different from the rights given to individuals.
I told them this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, right. I now repeat: Adapt or Die!
SLM
Re:I told them this. (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, right. I now repeat: Adapt or Die!
Yup... Couldn't agree more.
Most telling thing for me: From 1995 to 2004, how many CDs did I buy? One. The soundtrack to LOTR. In 2006, once I installed iTunes, how much money did I spend on music? Over $100 so far and counting. This includes some impulse buys such as:
Men At Work - picked up on a whim when I saw "Overkill" performed on Scrubs.
Tom Petty Greatest Hits - picked up on a whim when I saw "American Girl" on Scrubs
Dylan's Modern Times - saw a retrospective on NPR bought it during the show
Plus a few dozen artists I've never heard before for songs such as Loituma, some Celtic girl band that was on PBS, etc.. etc..
I would *never* have bought these in a store and the 0.99$ per song is worth the convenience for me. Yeah, I've likely parceled off a piece of my soul because of buying into DRM stuff, but I do that each time I set my house alarm for fear that some kid will break in and steal my prize bottlecap collection.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here the song (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:5, Insightful)
Need a Big-name label? (Score:3, Insightful)
No - if you've got $25-$50K laying around to get a few thousand cd's printed, and have a marketing team ready to burn shoe-leather talking the stores into putting the cd's on their shelves, and a management & accounting firm to press the retailers for your receipts.
Or - hire some grunts to run a print-on-demand setup, and a flunky to run a website and take orders paid by paypal while you cut tracks for a 2nd cd.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why shouldn't an artist continue to reap the rewards of a creation of theirs for the entire lives?
Because it runs counter to the whole purpose of copyright. If creators can milk their creations for their whole lives, then they lose incentive to make new material. If the work they do in a month* only pays the bills for ten years*, then after those ten years* are up, they have to get back to work if they want to eat, thus creating new material, thus achieving copyright's goals.
If a farmer could grow a single field of potatoes and get paid for them over and over again for the rest of his life, the world would starve.
* Made up numbers, feel free to fill in your own.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:5, Insightful)
Art's expensive. Paint, canvas, pianos, harpsicords, guitars, theatres, lights, studios, tour buses, dancers in cages, and hand-sorted m&ms all cost money.
Gone are the days when it took hundreds of thousands of dollars--if not millions--to publish a book, release an album or make a film. F*ck the "artists" who don't like the way the world is changing. I'd much rather toss a 20 to a brilliant performer on open mic night than a shrink-wrapped CD any day.
Who are the good guys? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no music industry unless someone, somewhere pays for the music, and there better be a fair number of someones to make the money worthwhile, at least for the winners of the game. You can and will get inspired amateurs willing to work for nothing, or for gig money, but you won't get the explosion of creativity that comes from lots of talented people working their butts off for years trying to reach stardom.
It's amazing that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I'd say 5 to 10 years is more than fair. If you haven't made money off of your stuff by then, then you're not likely to.
Point being that copyright is supposed to benefit us by benefiting them.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:1, Insightful)
But the band shouldn't give up their copyrights. If they get really lucky and DO get a monster hit, they could make some good money by selling or licensing that song. Conversely, it prevents advertisers, politicians, ideologues or other unsavoury types from using it in ways they might not like.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come on. Without copyright there IS no closed source. There would be no law to keep me from using it.
Re:Marketing (Score:2, Insightful)
Now you don't even have that hurdle.
Top 40 is itself is a record company scam. Part of their "buzz" machine. As an artist what you looking for is to make a living, not make the Top 40. Keep your eyes on the prize, lest someone apply missdirection and head you off on the wrong path, while keeping all the money.
KFG
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:1, Insightful)
Privacy laws are also examples of copyright-like limitations on free speech. Remove them, and any disgruntled employe's attempt to screw over his employer will be met with swift and effective retribution.
Your employer potentially has plenty of information on you that you might not like leaked to unsavory individuals in retaliation for leaking their info... (SSN, name, phone, address, next-of-kin/emergency contact, insurance info, checking account transfer codes if you get paid by direct deposit, logins and passwords to anything you ever accessed from any of their computers or networks, etc...).
It doesn't pay to piss off someone bigger than you, in an information anarchy. They may have more to loose, but you're still going to get stepped on.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:5, Insightful)
A musician can get a job making music for industrial purposes (movies, TV shows, even local productions such as local TV commercials, etc). A musician can get a job teaching others how to play music. A musician can get a job working on soundtracks for video games or other goods. That's where the consistent money is. Otherwise, it is risk/reward: you're out there competing against thousands or tens of thousands of bands, the risk is huge for a very slim chance of a huge reward. Why is this? Because the content is controlled by copyright -- any one band invests 200 hours total in making an album. 1000 bands do this. 1 band succeeds and never has to work again. 999 bands fail and continue to try. Why is the first band any better than the others? Usually because they're colluding with the distribution monopolies (designed this way by the FCC, mind you) who control copyright.
If you're a tiny band and I bootleg your music, you have NO chance of suing me and winning -- I probably have more money than you, if I was a pirate. Copyright only helps the distribution cartels -- and cartels are generally formed by government force.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:5, Insightful)
bar bands don't make money as a rule.
True, as a rule, but not because there isn't a market capable of supporting bar bands. Most bar bands don't make money for the same reason most new business fail, poor management. I've been playing in bar bands for 25 years, 10 of those years playing bars provided my sole income. I only backed off due to a temporary medical problem. A bar musician can make $50,000+ per. year if they treat it like a 'REAL' job. They can't forget the business in "music BUSINESS." Be flexible, find your target market(s), play to those markets, keep your expenses to a minimum, and work at it 40+ hours per. week. Those are the kinds of things that one does when they run any kind of business.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you for helping musicians, any musicians, understand that difference. I will definitely check out your brother's band.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:2, Insightful)
The songs you sing when you're 20 are goofy when you're 30. Imagine being the Ramones and singing "Now I wanna sniff some glue" when you're in your 50s.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine if a CAD operator decided they should get paid for 70 years whenever someone copies a drawing they worked on. Not realistic, but isn't it art? How is drafting a building plan different from painting a face? Imagine if a plumber charged you per flush for 70 years after fixing your toilet? Doubtful that it would work. But many artists think their labor has value in the long term, even though they shouldn't in a free market perspective.
I make more money every year because the value I give to others increases every year -- I am worth more through learning, perfecting and marketing my skills. A musician can do the same, and entertainment has GREAT value. I go see Penn & Teller 4 times a year in Vegas, and I pay through the nose on purpose because the guys make me laugh. Yet they are on stage 5 days a week! Even Prince is trying this gig in Vegas, and he charges $300 a ticket to see him -- he plays two nights a week at his club. Awesome!
You don't need residual income from the force of copyright to make a living. I'd say 90% of us don't get any residual income on past work -- we get paid for what we produce today.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:2, Insightful)
Where's the NYCountryLawyer when you need him! Well, until he can chime on on this comment I'm gonna have to disagree with you CRC. NDAs are contracts not copyrights. COMPLETELY different animals. Copyrights protect creative works once they are released into the public, where non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) protect information or creative works before they are completed. Copyrights are granted without the need for legal agreement of separate parties, i.e., I can put a circle-C (©) on a piece of original work and it is protected by law from that point forward. An NDA is a legal agreement between two or more parties that any work being done, or information being exchanged, between those parties remains exclusive to those designated persons, organizations or institutions, and has to be signed by a member of each.
Here's an example:
If you and I formed a partnership and were working on a screenplay for a film and signed an NDA that stated we were not legally allowed to discuss the contents of said screenplay with anyone but each other, and one of us did talk about it in violation of the NDA a suit could be brought to court for violating the NDA. BUT, we would both still retain the copyright to the material in the screenplay should anything ever come of it, unless the court action resulted in a transfer of copyright due to the outcomes of the case, i.e., I sued you for violation of NDA and demanded that you release all claims to the copyrighted material to date.
Now, copyrights can be contested if prior art existed before you released your work and made your claim to copyright on it. That's something else; maybe plagiarism in the case of the screenplay. NDAs are also not restrictions on free speech as they are not restricting original oration or free thinking, they are designed to protect the work of multiple parties prior to public release; especially in the case of "trade secrets". If you alone, without the help of others, or without the blanket protections and resources (material, financial and human assets) a company can provide, were to develop a piece of intellectual property then you are free to do with it anything that you want. That's called sole invention. If any other party is involved in the development of an invention (especially one that may generate revenue), and that party is either a person, organization, corporation or institution then an NDA is a good way to protect the rights of ownership and competitive advantage in a free market economy. If you've ever had a confidence betrayed in your life then you know what it feels like (to a degree) when a NDA is violated. What the NDA does is give you legal recourse to sue the ever loving s**t out of the party that was in violation, instead of just going home and crying and then dealing with the fallout from the betrayed trust.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole 'It will make you do more work' point seems a little off to me... A creative person will create based on the desire to create more so than to make money... those who do it purely to make more money probably aren't really making worthwhile contributions anyway.
I dunno... I suppose my measure for it being a good argument is that I can agree with the reason and convince someone else... and I just can't see the point of it being forced into the public domain while the original creator could still be making a living from it. Being able to extend indefinitely past the creator's death is a load of bull, and does nothing to benefit the creators of the works... but during their life? Hmmm... not an easy sell to me.
Re:Had to be done (Score:5, Insightful)
But the Top 40 is not about gauging popularity. It's about gauging sales.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, great, something new... (Score:2, Insightful)
And now? With the .mp3 format and the internet and the whole "information age," what big independent act is around to follow in those footsteps? Koopa? Sure, there are independent "jam" acts all over the place trying to fill that void (Umphrey's McGee [umphreys.com], Gov't Mule [mule.net], Tea Leaf Green [tealeafgreen.com], String Cheese Incident [stringcheeseincident.com] as well as smaller acts like Soldiers of Jah Army [sojamusic.com] and The Bridge [thebridgemusic.com]) but, even with the help of the information age and the internet, have yet to really take off.
"...do we necessarily need a large label? Probably nowadays, no you don't." No, you don't. The Dead proved that over 30 years ago. Also proved you don't need the internet or any fancy information age form of communication, either.
Don't get me wrong. The most powerful way (especially for independent musicians) to get your music out is word of mouth. And sure, cell phones and the internet and sites like the Internet Archive [archive.org] all help, but likely it will still take a friend to tell you they saw [insert band here] and really liked them for you to do anything about it or to take notice of said artist. Great, so bands have websites and people can go there and possibly download music, or buy their CDs, or read all about them. People still need to have some motivation to go to that website.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)
The end result of copyright tends to be monopolization in the distribution portion, especially in music and video. This artificially-created cartelization leads to control of many other distribution markets -- radio, TV, concert venues (Chicago shows tend to be run mostly by a large monopoly called Jam Productions), etc. The FCC is also to blame here, as they've allowed the cartelization of copyright to also monopolize the airwaves -- again due strictly to government-legalized monopolization of a product that has a lot of supply, so they cap it.
When a bad band is marketed (and produced) by those in control of the cartel/monopoly, that band is set at a higher level than a band that might be great but isn't part of the cartel/control scheme.
Getting rid of monopoly would be huge in terms of leveling the playing field -- now bands have to not just write good music (and MANY popular bands don't write their music), they have to be able to PERFORM IT regularly as we would perform our jobs.
You spend hours learning new coding techniques or learning new marketing techniques, etc, but it is your long term hours that you pay, not your education necessarily. In music, a band's "practice" and "writing" is like your continuing education -- it sets them apart from the competition by having a new product to offer directly (face to face).
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case 28 years from first commercial publication (otherwise the life of the creator) is plenty.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)
The stated purpose of copyright under US constitutional law is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Providing a government-granted monopoly that depreciates in a manner mimicking that of physical goods is a means to promoting the Progress, not an end. And since 1978, the depreciation curve is set so long that it creates a perverse incentive.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)
Paintings (my significant other is a contemporary-style painter, actually), that is where getting hired comes into play -- you paint for years to build a name, and then you sell individual pieces. People want the authentic piece, not the copy, generally. If you want to hit a wider crowd, make copies of your original, but sign them -- people pay for it. If someone wants to "bootleg" your painting, they have to invest the time to do so, and the knock-off may not be worth as much.
Let's say you are a photographer or a painter or a writer and someone steals your copywritten work. What can you do? Do you think that 99% of creative "artists" out there can handle a copyright-violation lawsuit, or even afford a C&D letter? Doubtful. Copyright is not helping them.
Attribution? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)
In no particular order:
First, the term should chiefly be based upon publication, which would be the release of the work to the public via distribution of copies, public performance or display, etc. At that point, you're no longer worried about publishers sitting on works, which they are highly unlikely to do anyway, since then they face competition from other publishers for the exact same work. Remember: publishers exploit artists, but they don't compete against them; they compete against other publishers, and support copyrights for that reason. Between creation and publication could be a span of some time, but not too much, since 1) we don't want authors sitting on works (as copyright is meant to, among other things, promote the public interest in having works published), and 2) we don't want works not intended to be copyrighted and published getting copyrighted later, e.g. personal letters that later become interesting to scholars, etc. (as copyright is also meant to encourage creation and publication of works that otherwise wouldn't be created and published, and these sorts of works would have been without copyrights).
Second, the terms can vary for different kinds of works. For example, computer software terms ought to be a lot shorter than the terms for proper literary works, like novels.
Third, we want highly granular terms, so that the author has to frequently re-evidence his desire for a copyright. If an author only cares about copyright for 20 years, and there was only one 25 year term, then that term would be 5 years too long. With many short terms and a renewal process, the author could stop bothering to renew after 20 years and the copyright could end immediately (given 5 year terms renewable 4 times, but in this case only renewed 3 times). When we had renewal terms, the vast majority of works that were copyrighted to begin with were not renewed!
Fourth, we also want formalities for initial registration so that works where the author doesn't care about copyright from the get-go become public domain works immediately. See the bit above about wanting to encourage the creation of works that otherwise wouldn't be created, but not to encourage the creation of works that would be created anyway.
Fifth, ignore the lifetime of the creator. Fixed-year terms are far more predictable for both people investing in the copyright, for the author himself, and for third parties who are waiting for the work to hit the public domain. We can safely ignore the creator's family, since virtually no works are profitable to begin with, much less for a long period of time. Works that could be used by the family to provide for themselves are about as rare as the author leaving behind a winning lottery ticket. If you are concerned for the author's family, then you should not support copyright as a way of helping them, since it almost never does. Instead support things that do help them, and better still, are helpful for everyone, and not just the handful of fantastically successful creators out there: life insurance, social welfare systems, reliable investments, IRAs, etc. Authors who use those, rather than relying on copyrights, are actually helping their families. Copyrights as a means of support for survivors is criminally irresponsible.
Sixth, studies indicate that for the tiny handful of works that have any economic value deriving from copyrights to begin with, that value is highly front-loaded. For example, a movie will earn 90% of its profits from its theatrical release within a few weeks, mostly during the first weekend. When it comes out on PPV, the same thing happens. Ditto for its release to rental stores and retail. Books, CDs, etc. are all pretty similar. A handful of works have lasting value, but they're so rare that it is foolish to create our policy around them, and granular renewal systems can help to weed the others out anyway. Other kinds of works (e.g. fine art) don't derive value from their copyrights. A poster of a Van Gogh is cheap. A perfect counterfei
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your problem is that you are looking at it backwards.
The real question is, why should everyone in the world give a creator a monopoly over his work, merely because he created it? The natural state of a work is the public domain, where everyone can enjoy it. And the natural state of man is to have freedom of speech, which copyright is an infringement on.
The answer is that if people think that giving a creator a monopoly will help the people more than it harms them, then it is in their own best interest to grant it.
Think about a municipal cable tv company. They get a monopoly from the municipality to operate cable tv services for a period of time. No one thinks that they should just get one -- it's because the municipality is exploiting the tv company, getting them to install and maintain expensive infrastructure that they have to have in order to supply (and charge for) cable tv. Once the monopoly runs out, the municipality gets the infrastructure and can open it to competition (which is ideal, free markets, and all) or put it on the block for another time-limited monopoly, if it's worthwhile to do so. This is the deal, and both sides know it, and both find it to their advantage, so it works.
In copyright, the public wants works to be created and published and in the public domain. Giving up a little of the latter temporarily results in a lot more of the former, so it is worth it to the public -- so long as it's limited in time and scope. The author wants as much of a monopoly as he can get, so he'll be happy with anything, but will also push for more, even when it's against the public interest, since it is in his interest to do so. This is where the false idea of 'I should get it forever merely because I created it' comes from. It's never actually been like that, you know.
But during their life? Hmmm... not an easy sell to me.
They should get the absolute minimum copyright that would still have caused them to create and publish the work. That's what the public wants from them. Giving them more is wasteful. It's like the city paying a billion dollars to have a contractor build a parking lot when a ten thousand dollars would've sufficed. Admittedly it is impossible to read the minds of authors, so we can't go case-by-case, but it's still possible to set things up so that it's better than a wasteful one-size-fits-all kind of thing.
A week late (Score:3, Insightful)
Several singles whose CDs are not on sale anymore cracked the top 75 including "Mad World" from Donny Darko, a former number 1 which is now used in the Gears of War ad which at #58 made its first chart appearence for 3 years.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of that stuff is in the public domain. And it is the very foundation you can build your Work of Art on. Work of Arts don't drop out of nothing, they are based on a huge cultural fundament you mostly got for free, because the society around you is nurturing you with associations, notations, languages, melodies, situations, relations...
Samuel Longhorne Clemens (also known as Mark Twain) once talked to the local priest: Your sermon today was magnificent! But I have a book at home which contains every word of it! The priest was very offended until Mark Twain showed him the book: the dictionary.
If you ever manage to create an appreciated Work of Art which doesn't need the free cultural environment of you and the admirers of the Work, you get my personal permission to enjoy the copyrights as long as you want.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that's a different kind of agreement. A builder is contracted to provide a product 1 time for a set price. That same builder could easily build the house himself and keep it, then rent it out. Then it WILL provide income for the rest of his life.
Writers are the same. They could write a script to certain specs and hand it over for a set fee. Or they could write a script and then agree to release it if given money each time it is used. Historically, they have chosen to receive fees for usage. (From the publisher, not the consumer.)
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:1, Insightful)
The downside to this idea is that 5 to 10 years won't be enough time to make a worthwhile profit on certain material.
If an artist decides that a certain creation is going to cost too much to make a worthwhile profit within the time span, they might not create it at all.
Market forces state a popular creation will profit faster - but some of the most ground-breaking music/writing was definitely not popular when it was conceived.
Copyright should be there to help promote innovation by helping the innovators to make a profit on what they have done.
While I can't think of the best solution, a blanket 10, 20, 30 years won't solve the problem.
Which takes more effort: an author writing a short story, an author writing a novel, an artist taking a decade to write a ground-breaking new album, a computer generating a new techo album in a few hours?
It's a flawed implementation of a necessary concept.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not everyone is a great musician, and being able to make a living by being a musician and playing just the stuff you like is not a God-given right. I have a sister who wanted to get into the entertainment biz. She tried for several years to get into it, and had some minor success, but she just couldn't make a living at it. OF course, now she's a loose ends. She's over 30 and has never had an 8-5 job - she doens't understand it and can't imaging actually going to work every day, for 8 hours a day. But you know what - that's what most people do to make a living, and they "play" during their free time. She will, most probably, end up with a job doing community theater, or singing gigs on the weekends, because the stuff she likes to do just isn't popular enough to pay the bills. I think she could have done well in certain other venues, but she wanted to do her thing.
Sometimes doing what you love to do just doesn't make enough money to pay the bills, and you have to be like everyone else and go get a real job.
Re:Don't stop at just the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)