|
5 members (texritter, Fdemetrio, bennash, Everett Adams, Michael W. Brown),
119,272
guests, and
5,725
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.
By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 70
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 70 |
Back in the bad old days when musicans, performers and songwriters had to serve an apprenticeship and not just any kid off the strret could make it there were pluggers, talent scouts and agents. These people would look out for up and coming talent then they would contact the correct people on their behalf to arrange auditions etc help them on their way. At no time did they ask the acts for payment.....any payment made was from commision from earnings as a result of the extra work they got from this introduction. Now these talent scouts new their stuff and would never put forward a bad act as this wasted everybody's time.
Whatever happened to the bad old days.....
Now it seems acts have to pay to speak to the big shots.....that IMO is unethical. Fist off it encourages people with no talent and a few hundred bucks to submit rubbish...wasting everyones time and their money. It is also a neat earner for those at the top of the tree who already make a good living and should in theory be giving something back into the industry instead by helping those with great talent without asking for money up front first. I could go on and say more but you get my jist. Jim, you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect it, but i completely disagree with you. First of all having a fee actually SAVES time and should (in theory) deter people with no talent from submitting. What is more likely, someone with no talent to submit for free or to have to pay? Imagine the alternative. Lets use Paul Worley as example. Paul announces on the radio that he is looking for music, send music to Paul@gmail.com. How many submissions would he get? probably several thousand from every tom, dick and harry on the planet with a keyboard, with most of it being "rubbish" in your words. How long do you think it would take him to go thru all of that? How many many man hours? I am assuming you have a job and you get paid for the work you do. What you get paid can be broken down on a per hour basis correct? SO you think that because Paul has "made it" He should spend countless hours and days going thru those submissions for free and responding to each one because he owes you and should give back. That is what I call rubbish, and quite frankly unrealistic. Fast forward to Blazetrak, charge a fee to cut the fat so to speak, so instead of thousands of submissions, maybe he gets a MANAGEABLE number of 100. Could there still be some bad submissions in that bunch, of course, that is just the game. In this scenario each of the 100 will get a personal video from Paul discussing their specific submission. There is value in that to alot of people. Instead of sitting in the studio with Lady Antebellum making music that he KNOWS will make $$, he listening to you AND responding. Why should he not be compensated?
|
|
|
|
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
|
|
|
Forums118
Topics128,883
Posts1,185,194
Members21,479
| |
Most Online236,505 Jul 1st, 2026
|
|
|
"Learn the "tried and true" rules, then break them with premeditated malice!" -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|