Random Comments

I felt that way for pretty much all of high school. Then at like 21 and 22 I was that person. Let me tell you, self destruction isn’t always fun and fun isn’t always self destructive.

Not to mention, the secret is never self-destruction, but careful prep and aftercare. The only thing you’re winning at without those is pointless liver destruction.

I feel like everyone with delusions of grandeur around drinking needs to have a hangover so bad they throw up once. It’s the only way to shake the romanticism of partying hard.

Oh yeah, I’ve had some stinkers, and I am definitely not (just) referring to the typical After-grog bog. There is still a romanticism about partying hard, but you definitely learn that how hard you go, doesn’t necessarily mean how much you drink, nor about throwing yourself headlong at every bottle you see without a thought. There’s some hard-charging motherfuckers I know, who don’t even drink(or smoke, or snort, etc), they just know how to have a real good time.

1 Like

This too. During the month I didn’t drink, I still closed down the bar once at open mic. Great time, dead sober.

In case anyone doesn’t know…

This year just give your local homeless folks a pack of cigarettes or a bag of heroin.

7 Likes

Spotify should pay on a sliding scale. Taylor Swift, who had at least a billion streams off her last album alone (which has only been out a few months) made at least 6 million on streams of that album alone (not including merch sales, actual album sales, and royalties off her old recordings, which I’m pretty sure she gets despite the Scooter Braun debacle), while people like my friend Marina, who got probably 1000 streams last year, are making about six bucks. Spotify could cut royalties for people like Taylor in half and have them still make more money than they need while increasing smaller artist’s royalties so they get paid a living wage.

I would be behind a system where I get to choose what portion of my subscription goes towards what artists like how Humble Bundle does

It’s a good idea, but it’s not as profitable for artists as a sliding scale. There just aren’t enough Spotify users to support that system.

A sliding scale would be nice, but I think they should start by not counting streams in aggregate across the platform, and instead pay by subscriber. For instance, if a subscriber listens only to a single artist, then all of the monthly fee that doesn’t cover operational costs should go to that single artist.

EDIT: You can also calculate if your monthly fee is subsidizing other people’s music taste or not. For Spotify, you’d need to listen to roughly 2.2 hours of music per day for the artists to be paid out your monthly payment amount. (9.99 ($/mo) / 0.00735 ($/play) * 3 (min/play) / 60 (mins/hr) / (365.25/12) (days/mo))

It’s not just recording artists, but also songwriters, publishing companies, and so many more. I work at a music publisher writing software that calculates music royalties. They talk about this shit all day long every day.

1 Like

That’s hella unfair because most people use massive playlists that span dozens of artists, and listen to several of those playlists. That 9.99 getting divided between 100 artists (a low estimate to say the least) winds up being 9 cents per artist, which Taylor Swift (to maintain my earlier example) is getting millions of while small artists get dozens.

If you’re writing your own material (virtually everyone is these days) you don’t have to worry about songwriter royalties. I’m sure publishers take a massive chunk, but I haven’t been in contract negotiations yet so I’m not factoring that in because I don’t know. Still, If Taylor gets a mere 17 percent of here Spotify royalties, she’s making a million dollars this year off her latest album alone, not including everything else. Meanwhile, Marina is independent so she gets 100% of royalties, which at even 25 cents a stream for 1000 streams makes sense to me.

I’m curious if there’s anyone else you know gets a cut, cause you must be more informed on this than I.

A few days as Ann reminded me how much I like being Elizabeth.

2 Likes

How many full runs do you two practice these days before you give a talk?

What thread do I move this comment to?

Also, the answer is zero.

None. We don’t practice. We internalize all of the kinds of things we are going to say in a lecture or on a show. The slides are just prompts and visual aides. I could do the same talk without them and go anywhere between 20 and 120 minutes without breaking a sweat.

That’s the advantage of knowing a lot about something, coupled with doing a radio show live-to-tape 2-4 nights a week for 15 years.

2 Likes

Reminds me a lot of when I was helping Hannako out with Pin Hell - while obviously a different format, every question, it was just a big chunk of information completely extemporaneously. I could 100% give a 45-minute lecture on pins and merch right now - after we sorted out why you’re in my house at quarter to one in the morning wanting to know about pins and put a brew on because I’m a good host - straight off my head. Your Q’s for Q&A better be actual questions or I will be cross.

Edit - Also Buy Pin Hell and Pin Hell 2. Hannako drew me in the latter, It was the first time anyone drew me, it was very exciting. I helped out a little, but don’t get a kickback or owt, except for getting to see a good friend succeed.

I think it also helps to have someone you’re very familiar with in terms of attitude, cadence, and speach patterns. I could improvise a panel with Will in a way I very much couldn’t with say, Rym or Churba.

2 Likes

The key is that we both could do any of these panels completely solo as well.

I run the same talks at cons Scott doesn’t attend.