All-Star Usa Cheer New Music Rules..

[AngelsMum24]

I don't disagree with you, I'm a business person. With that said, my artistic friends definitely think differently than I do. A ring designer friend refused a job because the person buying her design wanted her to remove a loop that slightly extended over her next finger. I told her point blank she was crazy if she didn't remove the loop, it was a $1500 design and the loop was physically annoying the customer. She said it would ruin the balance and integrity of her design and didn't want her name on it without the loop. I don't get it but, it's her design.

I'm all for art and integrity but my family likes to eat, so I would have taken out that loop! LOL

 

[Eyes On The Prize]

I can understand that completely as well, however cheer is a great way to expose kids and parents to new and old music and increase exposure for the artists, which would translate to more money for them an their labels. Per the video, they have the option to allow or deny.

I am a graphic designer and this is an arguement we hear all the time. "By helping me you get exposure and you'll make more money so I should have what I want for cheap." It is extremely frustrating to hear and to constantly have to justify our product. It infuriates me, personally. It infuriates everyone in these fields.

For a quick second though, lets really think about this exposure thing: On one hand, the person saying "you'll get exposure" might not be able to afford the product. In that case, are they a business I can get actual exposure from? Will the samll town lanscaping company who is asking me for a logo really propel me into the big agencies in NYC where I'd like to end up one day? Probably not, so why should I waste my time? On the other hand, the person saying "you'll get exposure" might actually be able to afford the product but they don't value it or me so again, why should I waste my time?

Here's the thing - we can't pay rent, buy food, or afford a car with "exposure". Like you, we also have families to look after, bills to pay, etc. Any self-respecting "creator" (writer, artist, musician, designer, etc) is NOT going to take you seriously when you make the expsoure arguement. Any self-respecting creator isn't going to waste their time do things for "exposure" when they can go do it for money. Why? Because we provide a service, produce a product, and help make the world go round, just like everyone else in the world. And we deserve to be compensated just like the rest of you. Do you ask anyone else to do their job at a discounted rate for "exposure"? When your car breaks down, do you go to your mechanic and say "well, can't you just fix it for free/reduced price and I'll tell my friends you're great?" No. When your tooth hurts, do you ask your dentist "hey can you pull this tooth for free? I'll pass your business card around in exchange." No. Archeticts don't hand out blue prints for free. Diners don't give you meals for free. People don't do your taxes for free. I really am curious as to why you think artists, writers, designers, musicians, etc should operate under that thought process and not everyone else.

When you ask people to do things for free, you show that you don't value their work or time or experience. As a designer, I paid thousands of dollars and spent countless hours building and refining my skills just like every other person in the professional world. I should be compensated for my education and experience just like everyone else. Free work does not open doors for us. It actually closes them because we are wasting our valuable time doing free/cheap work when we could be out there looking for better opprotunities for ourselves. Free work also hurts our entire industry because then people continue to devalue our work and start to expect more for less.

I don't disagree with you, I'm a business person. With that said, my artistic friends definitely think differently than I do. A ring designer friend refused a job because the person buying her design wanted her to remove a loop that slightly extended over her next finger. I told her point blank she was crazy if she didn't remove the loop, it was a $1500 design and the loop was physically annoying the customer. She said it would ruin the balance and integrity of her design and didn't want her name on it without the loop. I don't get it but, it's her design.

The reason she probably didn't make those alterations is because it's her design and not theirs and she will sell the design as her design. It would be different if she was creating it for someone else but it was her design. The thing people outside the creative realm forget a lot is if you are an artist, you do work for people and then you do work for yourself and even though you can make money off of both, they aren't the same thing. For example, an artist can be hired to do a portrait for someone and then they can go home and do a painting for themselves. The portrait is a service and the customer has full control over the outcome because technically, the customer owns it. The painting they do for themselves can be sold but the artist has full creative control over that piece and doesn't have to make alterations if they don't want to because the artist owns it until they sell it.

If your friend created the ring for herself and then decided to sell it, I don't blame her for not making alterations to the design. Artists are also business people and are aware of how much they are losing when they say no. But they also are aware that there are billions of people in the world and if someone doesn't it, they know there is another one who will. It's like turning down a job offer that is subpar/isn't what you wanted to hold out for the one you know is out there that is way better.

 

[AngelsMum24]

@Eyes On The Prize - I didn't say anything about doing it for free, cheap or discounted. I'm saying it's already out there on YouTube with tons of views. Why not profit off of what's already done? Apparently they didn't care up until 2013 when thanks to technology sales have plummeted.

 

[Ashley]

@Eyes On The Prize - I didn't say anything about doing it for free, cheap or discounted. I'm saying it's already out there on YouTube with tons of views. Why not profit off of what's already done? Apparently they didn't care up until 2013 when thanks to technology sales have plummeted.

They didn't care until 2013 because that's when a cheer music producer made it his mission to make the music industry aware.

And honestly, Rachel Platten is probably the only example of the cheer industry giving any decent exposure to any artist - and saying that her success is due to the cheer industry is probably a gross overestimation of Senior Elite's impact.

 

[Eyes On The Prize]

@Eyes On The Prize - I didn't say anything about doing it for free, cheap or discounted.

My response was not solely directed towards you. I used your post as a jumping off point because you mentioned exposure and there where other comments made previously in this thread that hinted that "exposure" is something that creatives should take into consideration when being compensated for their products/services.

I have also seen some comments in this thread about music mixers "charging too much for their product" or people having issues of paying for rights to the music they want to use and it relates back to what I said in my post. Maybe you think it's too much but it probably isn't that much for the amount of work they put into their project. I'd be interested to hear what the total time it takes for any music producer to make a mix, start to finish. If a music producer charges $1,000 a mix, and spends 100 hours on the entire process, it only comes out to $10/hr for their work. $10/hr is nothing. 100 hours is also nothing - it is so easy to spend 100 hours on any project. I can definitely see the best mixes in the industry, the CA mixes, the CEA mixes, the Cali, Stingray, WC mixes taking well over 100 hours in total per season per mix.

People who create things deserve to be paid what they are owed, that's all I'm saying.

I'm saying it's already out there on YouTube with tons of views. Why not profit off of what's already done? Apparently they didn't care up until 2013 when thanks to technology sales have plummeted.

I don't understand what you are referencing here, can you please explain?

 

[Beans100]

They didn't care until 2013 because that's when a cheer music producer made it his mission to make the music industry aware.

And honestly, Rachel Platten is probably the only example of the cheer industry giving any decent exposure to any artist - and saying that her success is due to the cheer industry is probably a gross overestimation of Senior Elite's impact.

I agree with this. She was successful because Fight Song is a good song. If SE decided to use some stupid nursery rhyme lullaby as their pyramid song, the song/artist would still flop.

I think cheer has an impact on the music success, but most of the music used in routines is stuff that is already popular or songs that are trending. The only exception is Euro-Pop songs which already have a tighter-knit fan club.

 

[OldskoolKYcheercoach]

I'm just over here thanking the Good Lord in Heaven that I don't have to listen to the same 10 songs played over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over at every competition. all. stinking. year. this year.

 

[AngelsMum24]

My response was not solely directed towards you. I used your post as a jumping off point because you mentioned exposure and there where other comments made previously in this thread that hinted that "exposure" is something that creatives should take into consideration when being compensated for their products/services.

I have also seen some comments in this thread about music mixers "charging too much for their product" or people having issues of paying for rights to the music they want to use and it relates back to what I said in my post. Maybe you think it's too much but it probably isn't that much for the amount of work they put into their project. I'd be interested to hear what the total time it takes for any music producer to make a mix, start to finish. If a music producer charges $1,000 a mix, and spends 100 hours on the entire process, it only comes out to $10/hr for their work. $10/hr is nothing. 100 hours is also nothing - it is so easy to spend 100 hours on any project. I can definitely see the best mixes in the industry, the CA mixes, the CEA mixes, the Cali, Stingray, WC mixes taking well over 100 hours in total per season per mix.

People who create things deserve to be paid what they are owed, that's all I'm saying.

And I agree. I have no problem paying for original music or the licensing for royalty free. Am I happy about it costing twice what I had budgeted, no. But it is what it is.

I don't understand what you are referencing here, can you please explain?

It was a reference to how YouTube handles Copyright. I don't see why the cheer and music industry couldn't do the same thing. Those artists music was already on Youtube for years in cheer music before Varsity decided to take them all down. Secondly, if they were still up with the way YouTube handles the copyright, apparently the music industry had already approved it to be there.
The second comment is in reference that the music industry didn't care until 2013 when it sued MPs. It has overlooked dance for how long?

 

[AngelsMum24]

They didn't care until 2013 because that's when a cheer music producer made it his mission to make the music industry aware.

And honestly, Rachel Platten is probably the only example of the cheer industry giving any decent exposure to any artist - and saying that her success is due to the cheer industry is probably a gross overestimation of Senior Elite's impact.

I am well aware of that and anyone still using that company should probably be consulting their own copyright attorney. J/S

 

[Eyes On The Prize]

It was a reference to how YouTube handles Copyright. I don't see why the cheer and music industry couldn't do the same thing. Those artists music was already on Youtube for years in cheer music before Varsity decided to take them all down. Secondly, if they were still up with the way YouTube handles the copyright, apparently the music industry had already approved it to be there.
The second comment is in reference that the music industry didn't care until 2013 when it sued MPs. It has overlooked dance for how long?

YouTube has partnered with the music producers, the cheer world hasn't. Varsity taking their videos down was a CYA move. YouTube and the cheer world probably don't use music the same way. Cheer music alters the song which I'm not sure if YouTube's partnership allows. That Chris Brown song that was used as an example wasn't altered as far as I know. So the cheer music probably wasn't approved to be there like the CB song was. You can't alter the song without the artist's permission because it's their art. I think that is one of the fundemental differences between those two things.

I think the fact that the song wasn't altered was a "pro" for Sony allowing it to be on YT.

 

[ScottyB]

YouTube has partnered with the music producers

Only because the lawsuit youtube was faced with would have essentially ended youtube. That's why artists have Vevo pages. That was youtube's settlement option: give artists and labels a way to put their own stuff on a channel where they would get all the views and ad dollars, cutting out youtube's share in the process.

 

[Eyes On The Prize]

Only because the lawsuit youtube was faced with would have essentially ended youtube. That's why artists have Vevo pages. That was youtube's settlement option: give artists and labels a way to put their own stuff on a channel where they would get all the views and ad dollars, cutting out youtube's share in the process.

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that was the story behind Vevo. I don't think the cheer world could do the same thing that YouTube does though.

 

[Beans100]

I've been reading into the legality of cover songs (which they aren't legal unless 2 different licenses are obtained) and I wonder how many of these popular artists came to fame by singing cover songs. Justin Bieber gained popularity through a Neyo cover. I'm sure Taylor Swift did her fair share of singing other people's songs too...

 

[OnceUponACheerleader]

Sort of pertaining to this (feel free to move if it doesn't apply), Patrick has released his first fully custom mix. I guess it's a good indication of what we'll be hearing at least from Patrick.

is this for the purpose of the tv show? where there is obviously copyright laws with music? - that why its considered 'fully custom?'

 

[AScheer]

I am a graphic designer and this is an arguement we hear all the time. "By helping me you get exposure and you'll make more money so I should have what I want for cheap." It is extremely frustrating to hear and to constantly have to justify our product. It infuriates me, personally. It infuriates everyone in these fields.

For a quick second though, lets really think about this exposure thing: On one hand, the person saying "you'll get exposure" might not be able to afford the product. In that case, are they a business I can get actual exposure from? Will the samll town lanscaping company who is asking me for a logo really propel me into the big agencies in NYC where I'd like to end up one day? Probably not, so why should I waste my time? On the other hand, the person saying "you'll get exposure" might actually be able to afford the product but they don't value it or me so again, why should I waste my time?

Here's the thing - we can't pay rent, buy food, or afford a car with "exposure". Like you, we also have families to look after, bills to pay, etc. Any self-respecting "creator" (writer, artist, musician, designer, etc) is NOT going to take you seriously when you make the expsoure arguement. Any self-respecting creator isn't going to waste their time do things for "exposure" when they can go do it for money. Why? Because we provide a service, produce a product, and help make the world go round, just like everyone else in the world. And we deserve to be compensated just like the rest of you. Do you ask anyone else to do their job at a discounted rate for "exposure"? When your car breaks down, do you go to your mechanic and say "well, can't you just fix it for free/reduced price and I'll tell my friends you're great?" No. When your tooth hurts, do you ask your dentist "hey can you pull this tooth for free? I'll pass your business card around in exchange." No. Archeticts don't hand out blue prints for free. Diners don't give you meals for free. People don't do your taxes for free. I really am curious as to why you think artists, writers, designers, musicians, etc should operate under that thought process and not everyone else.

When you ask people to do things for free, you show that you don't value their work or time or experience. As a designer, I paid thousands of dollars and spent countless hours building and refining my skills just like every other person in the professional world. I should be compensated for my education and experience just like everyone else. Free work does not open doors for us. It actually closes them because we are wasting our valuable time doing free/cheap work when we could be out there looking for better opprotunities for ourselves. Free work also hurts our entire industry because then people continue to devalue our work and start to expect more for less.

This came across my facebook timeline the other day.