on being paid for work, and the work being good...

[acroyear]

Robert Fripp's Diary for Sunday, 7th November 2010:

I agree, to the extent that it’s good to be paid for your work while noting that receiving payment is not an inevitable nor necessary outcome in my own field of professional endeavour (this also on the basis of experience). I attempted to convey the notion that, if you remove enthusiasm from the aspirant artist, work is only a professional activity. When this happens, the aspirant artist begins to die on the inside.



Number-crunchers don’t give a hoot for this line of thought, particularly for an accountant who has moved into “artist management”. Well-meaning number crunchers pay lip service to the notion, but don’t factor it into their computations. Well-meaning business-representatives, who are also fans & enthusiasts, even those wholly committed to a particular artist and/or venture, nevertheless tend to cook their Golden Goose. And later, wonder why the well-basted artist seems to be doing less than they used to in the way of promotion, interviews, in-stores with fan autography–photography, touring & recording. Surely the artist can’t have as rich, creative & satisfying a life outside the public domain? Don’t they want to be the centre of attention for uniformed commentary & consumer demands?



It comes down to this: you do shitty things for as long as you do shitty things. 



Reasonably & rationally arguing for a balanced life, holding the overview of qualitative & quantitative elements, has signally failed for me. I have only stopped doing shitty things when I have said no. Regrettably, often a yes has been possible, even a preferred option. But, you only stop doing shitty things when you stop doing them. How to express this positively? Perhaps: you do good things when you accept nothing less than good things. I prefer this form…



You do what is Right when you accept nothing less than what is Right.

Comments

[sestree.livejournal.com]

::shudder::

I absolutely loathe when anyone uses blanket statements for a group of people because 1) it's normally inaccurate as there are always exceptions and 2) using blanket statements such as these are a controlling measure.

[off soapbox]

More and more, number crunchers and (OMG HATEFULKILLTHEMALL) accountants, have embraced a more economics based philosophy such as realizing that with every decision there is an obvious cost and of course a hidden cost: the cost of what is foregone in favor, the cost of an intangible (such as bad feelings amongst people, lost goodwill) etc. The analysis of intangible costs/benefits is now much more common in many sectors. If not in any artistic based sector, I'm confused as to why. It's made it into the blue-collar arena which traditionally treats assets of all forms and fashions as expendable.

There is more than one reason why I never aspired to play professionally or even semi-professionally. To me, it would be like giving away the magic. It was better (again for me) to play for pure enjoyment and work in something I love - accounting.

no I don't have quotes or citations - just quite a few years working in and out of different business from non-profit to government (state), to retail and finally construction based.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

in Fripp's case, the issue was that he asked, up front, for a simple and straightforward contract...and got one that was 22 pages long. upon pointing this out, he received a 7 page contract, but by then the bad taste was already in his mouth. nothing was going to take it away again.

when throughout the entire performance of a work all you can think about is the bureaucracy required just to get to the point of performance, the work has lost its essence. the audience gets a body, playing notes, but the music is already lost.

[sestree.livejournal.com]

True - that would be yet another reason why I've never worked (even as an accountant) in any performing arts. Non-profit is bad enough truth be told.

When you're reduced to feeling you're nothing more than a body (or an asset) referred to as the party of the first or second part in a contract, it's time to reevaluate.