Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "JRE Clips" channel.

  1. RZA ignores that the only reason Napster was able to steal from the music industry was because the industry was a bloated, corrupt monster that had grown fat stealing from their customers and artists. The RIAA was an oligopoly engaging in price fixing and collusion. In 1997 Tower Records was selling 2pac's Hail Mary single for $13 (1997 dollars). Multiple artists (including Wutang) put out double CDs to instantly double their revenue without actually having enough good material to fill the record. Recording contracts were charging artists completely fraudulent fees like "Breakage Clauses" on contracts that were already incredibly predatory and exploitative (eg: Artists were seeing pennies off a CD sold for $20+, but then forced to pay all production costs and bullshit fees from their penny stake.) This is why artists like TLC could go multiple times platinum & multiple globally iconic hits while simultaneously going bankrupt. All of this would have been illegal, but the only thing the RIAA didn't skimp on was investing in lawyers, lobbyists and bribery in order to cement their position of power. Napster would not have made a dent in their business if: 1) Prices were set anywhere near the real fair price for the product. 2) The industry used its massive revenue to invest in improving the customer experience by developing innovative music delivery technology (I mean fuck they should've been the ones to invent Napster) 3) Customers perceived illegal downloads as actually stealing from the artists, rather than from the bloated bureaucracy between them. Honestly, stealing Jeru the Damaja's entire music catalog and sending him $1 in the mail would've been a lot more generous than actually buying all his albums. RZA doesn't care because Wutang started from such humble beginnings and became so wildly successful that he can overlook the fact that 98% of his money early on was stolen by his bosses. But he needs to shut the fuck up about illegal downloads.
    1100
  2. 416
  3. 149
  4. 43
  5. 28
  6. 24
  7. 21
  8. 16
  9. 15
  10. 12
  11. 12
  12. 11
  13. 9
  14. 9
  15. 9
  16. 8
  17. 7
  18. 6
  19. 6
  20. 6
  21. 6
  22. 5
  23. 5
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27.  @MichaelJames-lz7ni  This is not true. Record sales revenue did not pay for production costs. Rather, the tiny portion of record sales revenue earmarked for the artist were used to pay production costs (and multiple other invented fees). The company's share was untouched. This was known as 'recoupment'. Many platinum artists did go bankrupt directly as a result of predatory recording contracts (TLC, Toni Braxton, etc.). Furthermore, it's extremely misleading to include examples like Madonna & Michael Jackson who are radical outliers, even among platinum artists (who are already outliers). This doesn't represent the prevailing reality. It's a bit like studying poverty but only looking at homeless people who won the powerball lottery twice. Finally, it's important to understand that even among these super-outliers better terms came as a result of contract renegotiation subsequent to their success. They lost a lot of money under the terms of their first contracts. The prevailing wisdom amongst managers, agents, and financial advisors was that in the absence of some miracle, the vast majority of artists (particularly debut & sophomore) should expect to realistically earn $0 from recording royalties after fees were deducted, and focus on merch, live shows, and capturing as much of the advance as they could. This was all the case before the invention of .mp3 Let me be clear: Unless you were already a multi-millionaire, there was no way in hell you would see a million dollars from selling 1 million records.
    4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48.  @unnamed776-m9h  This is well beyond my field of expertise. I understand contract terms and economics, but I have no idea what it takes to make a star. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving much advice in this regard. That said, I can suggest generally: 1) Keep costs down 2) Perform often 3) Focus on establishing a living wage through your work before thinking about being a star. Being a star is a unicorn/winning the lotto type thing. If you can earn a living wage from your art, you're already ahead of most people. 4) Find visual artists that can help you with branding. A cheap way to do this is to find senior year visual arts students. 5) Read any contract carefully. Do not sign anything on the spot. Always ask politely for time to review. No exceptions. 6) Seek the assistance of pro-bono lawyers. Organizations like Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts provide these services at little to no cost. 7) Try to minimize the duration of any contact you sign. Preferably 3 albums, although this is often difficult to get them to agree to. More than 5 is too much. 8) Treat the enterprise as a small business. 9) Get health insurance, establish a savings & retirement fund, go to the dentist and brush your teeth. These sound silly, but little things like this derail entire careers. An unchecked cavity can become a career ending disaster when you find out an infection has spread and you need $10,000 to treat. Now you have to get an exhausting job and are trapped in a cycle of debt that is difficult to break free from. 10. If you get signed, treat your advance like the only money you'll get, because its the only thing guaranteed.
    3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72.  @goober69er    I think your analysis suffers a bit from 'mile wide inch deep' perspective. You brought up a smattering of issues, however when you look more carefully into each one, i think they are not all the concern they appear to be. 1) I don't know that Canadian law regarding child sex reassignment actually differs from US laws substantially. These procedures are already allowed in the US and have been for a long time. The issue is that barring the most extreme cases, they are very difficult to actually have done due to a combination of a stuff (ethical standards among provider professional associations, cost, exposure to legal/civil liability, etc.) Furthermore the process is not as simple as alarmist conservative media tends to make it, as the amount of medical and psychological evaluation that needs to take place prior to a full on reassignment surgery is so extensive that (barring extreme cases like biologically intersexed individuals) it is unlikely a child will be able to qualify before enough time has elapsed that the individual is at adulthood. All signs indicate that this seems to be a virtual non-issue that has been blown out of proportion. Almost certainly any reform in this area will probably happen through refinements in the criteria for surgery as published by the relevant professional associations and not by any new legislation. Simply put, this is a red herring. 2) I also agree with the Roe v Wade standards, as do most Americans. While half of your statement is true (with some conservative states trying to undermine the ruling by effectively banning abortion) the other half is not. There is no equivalent race to allow for abortions at the last day. The situation of the US right now is that we are failing to meet the RvW standards by a wide margin due to lack of funding, access, and a number of other deceptive and complex schemes plotted out by anti abortion conservatives. So again, this is not a case of evenly balanced sides. We are radically below the RvW standard, with zero risk of being above it. And only one side is working to undermine the law in this regard. 3) The US has faced much greater threats to freedom of speech than today's PC culture. McCarthyism, total domination of broadcast media in the 80s, etc. Currently speech is more free than it has ever been. Now, it's true that there are some annoying college kids out there. But there are a few things to consider: - There always have been. - Social movements tend to gain more traction when traditional sources of power are dominated by the opposition. The PC police are high profile because Trump is in charge, just as the Tea Party saw its zenith under Obama. Don't get distracted by the pendulum swing, it'll roll back when leadership changes. - Most social movements are initiated and led by their most annoying members. So it's usually ridiculous people asking for ridiculous things. But when the dust settles, we tend to find a good balance. When this is over we won't use some of the offensive language we used to, but we also won't be the politically correct automatons some young idiots are asking for. - Honestly the PC movement appears to already be losing some steam. I think it peaked like a 18‐24 months ago. - Comedy is a good example because whereas comedians complain about it, anti-PC comedy is actually extremely popular with all the anti-PC guys making record revenue. And comedy in general is experiencing a golden age right now. That's a good tradeoff for skipping some college gigs. So all in all, this doesn't seem like a real threat.
    2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97.  @Typecast-L  Joe is spreading misinformation about a topic that he is blatantly ignorant about and jeopardizing the public health in the process. Elon Musk is extremely unqualified to weigh in on this matter and is far worse than Joe in this regard. He is peddling unscientific conspiracy theories and jeopardizing people's lives for his own selfish purposes. Both of their positions are directly opposed to the domestic and international scientific consensus on this matter. The entire world's supply of medical professionals, virologists, and epidemiologists are remarkably united in their disagreement Musk's (and Joe's) dangerous and outlandish claims. YouTube is exercising it's social responsibility by limiting the degree of dangerous misinformation being peddled. However, even within this context they have not censored Joe's discussions with Musk. So they have been extremely tolerant of both these guys abhorrent behavior. So let's be clear that neither of these men have the moral high ground here. That said, Joe's entire show is based on ranting. It's not surprising he'd rant about demonetization. However, as you said yourself, he's made a lot of money of YouTube. So demonetization isn't actually that big a deal for him. You know what is though? $100 million. PS: YouTube isn't silencing medical professionals. They are banning crackpots who are giving illegitimate medical advice that counters national and international guidelines during an extremely deadly pandemic. They're doing the right thing.
    2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119.  @goober69er  Congratulations on your attempt to grow a brain. Now if only you could learn how to pay attention before commenting. I never made the point you're arguing against lol. I didn't take issue with the idea that men and women may have an evolutionary tendency to act differently. I took issue with people who claim to know precisely what that difference is, when even the people studying this stuff for a living haven't reached agreement on it. I also don't see why both can't be true. That women can have an evolutionary tendency to behave a certain way, but also that socially constructed gender roles influence people's behaviour as well. And if that's the case, where does one influence end, and the other begin? And which has a greater effect? And could they be in conflict with one another? Also, if we're using an evolutionary model, what is the rate of evolutionary change with regard to behavior? We know it may take millions of years to grow legs, but only a few generations to grow the ability to metabolize milk. So how many generations of complex human society are necessary to cause an evolutionary change to a psychological feature? If few, then animal models wouldn't help very much. Also, we run into a problem when we try to translate an emotional or cognitive characteristic into actual behavior, since behavior is as much determined by your instincts as it is by a cost/benefit analysis. This is why it's important to say, "yes, evolution may play a role in determining gendered psychology, but i will refrain from attributing gendered behavior to evolutionary forces because of all the confounding variables i have not accounted for."
    1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1