351–360 of 363 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought songwriters had some sort of union or industry group that went to bat for them? The article and this discussion makes it sound that doesn't exist. edit: hmm, ASCAP and Songwriters guild are a couple names that come up... though this might be something of a dispute within different groups within ASCAP..
There is nothing to bat for i.e. no royalties until the song has been sold. No song can be sold in significant number until it has been recorded by a famous artist backed by a well resourced record company. By the time a song has been sold in significant numbers, it is too late for ASCAP or the Songwriters Guild to act, because the song has already been credited to an artist who didn't actually write it, because the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that the salary for a mid-career tech worker in the US, or in Europe/Asia? Because tech salaries are a lot lower outside of the US. Also many countries have double-taxation treaties to avoid the double taxation when you exceed $100k I know a bunch of Americans abroad, none of them have to pay any tax to the US, but several of them have to pay specialist accountants to deal with the differences in taxation between…
> Is that the salary for a mid-career tech worker in the US, or in Europe/Asia? Because tech salaries are a lot lower outside of the US. Definitely it depends on the country, the industry, the specific company, and by the definition of mid-career (10 years? 20 years?). > Also many countries have double-taxation treaties to avoid the double taxation when you exceed $100k But then again, other countries do not double-t…
Americans have a big burden of FATCA, specialist accountants and just a lot of stress in general.
And to what end, when most of them end up paying no taxes to the US whatsoever? (this was the point I was trying to make - that after all this BS they are put through, the US is still not getting any extra tax revenue from these people)
It seems like it's mostly so that US politicians can say they've done something about high-profile rich people who have moved to tax havens, rather than actually increase tax income measurably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a Brit, I can work wherever I can find work (and legally work) around the world, earn a fortune and not pay any tax in the UK, /and/ keep my citizenship. I only would pay tax to the UK on income I earn here (which in itself leads to all kinds of strange and dodgy scenarios in terms of people avoiding paying taxes here)
This is ultimately political and comes down to perspective and opinion. As a citizen, you benefit from many things of your home country regardless of whether or not you reside there. Such as, for example, your home country's ability to exert pressure on the government of where you reside when you're unjustly arrested/detained. There's also access to the consulate of your home country and all services you have access…
That large stick to me seems to rather hit Americans traveling abroad, in that the US military unfortunately a bit has given ( people from the US ) a bad rep at some places?
when instead I, from western/northern Europe, is welcomed wherever I go (it seems this far)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The artists listed in the article are the same ones I have to listen to all day, which is why I thought my whining was relevant. I know there's good music out there and I've got it on my phone. I just didn't have my headphones charged yesterday and hit a wall listening to the same songs. I don't listen to the radio on my own time. I've just been working with guys who cycle through 3 stations that all play the exact s…
Have you tried getting better coworkers? /s One possible solution is to see if there are independently-run stations in your area. I live near a university, so there is a student-run station that explicitly is not allowed to play top-charting songs. So I get some good music discovery, and awkward banter from new djs. If you have access to a computer, then you have access to basically any station. soma.fm is pretty goo…
These two coworkers, actually, are excellent. I love working with them. Just their music choice for work is horrible. I'm pretty lucky that the only things I have to complain about here are the hours and background music.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the lyrics are amazingly vulgar and are inappropriate for most conversations.
How does that make not wanting to take credit for it a joke? And was this the first song that was "amazingly vulgar" or "inappropriate for most conversations"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that make not wanting to take credit for it a joke? And was this the first song that was "amazingly vulgar" or "inappropriate for most conversations"?
This is a conversation, not a deposition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No argument there. Does she credit her songwriters? Is it well known that she doesn't write 100%? Or does that not matter to anyone because she's so awesome?
> "I have worked with and written with some UNREAL artists who let me into their lives to create with them who deserved their credit and publishing, ..." I think most people think she falls under this category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say they are performers not artists. The girl running Photoshop is an artist, the HP LaserJet that prints it out isn't. We don't consider choir members to be artists, but if it's just one voice we assume they are?
Members of the choir are performing artists. They make artistic choices related to the actual performance of the song, like how to sing the words written on the page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fwiw, it's not the sexual imagery that bothers most people, it's the degradation they hear in the rest of the song. "Hoes in this house" for example. Sex is natural, calling women whores is not. One is a fine thing for a kid to see, the other is problematic and requires you to explain that their language shouldn't be repeated, that it's probably indicative of depression or systematic oppression of women, etc. Nothing…
That's completely fair criticism in my opinion, but not the one I see invoked by most people. In my experience, most of the time the sexual language is the problem, and that is completely bonkers to me because, as you said, sex is a big part of human life and it makes sense for it to be reflected in art.
Not the scantily clad ladies dry-humping. But that they look like they're doing it for the male gaze, as they stare into the camera instead of each other's eyes.
I guess it feels like what you'd get if you tried to have a three-way with two hookers. Hollow and depressing.