As a music lover (and working in the music industry) this 100% checks out.
Only focus in in politics, money and business… the value of music as art is totally forgot.
I believe this is a similar status of many things, when only business people runs an industry, the value of the things being managed decreses in importance, although not precisely in money.
Great for Gilmour to openly share.
Just as a wrote this, i read Fred Durst (Limp Bizkit) is suing Universal for $200 million of unpaid royalties.
you just sold your catalog for 400 million
Has to fund his 'who has the most expensive/rarest ferrari' pissing match with roger, somehow.
What is your point? He is talking about the situation for artists today. He says,
I was lucky to be part of the golden years when there was a much better share going to the musicians, so I support anything that could be done to make that easier. The working musician today has to go out and play live – they can’t survive any other way. They won’t do it by the recording process and that’s a tragedy because that is not encouraging new music to be created.
He's also 78. There's no way how he can spend 400m before he dies. He can use it to be the change he wants to see and support new music.
You know what they say, talk is cheap, put your money where your mouth is.
The correctness of his point is independent of him being or not being a hypocrite.
Absolutely.
Also whether or not he is a hypocrite is up in the air - the post you responded to certainly didn't make that case with any merit (despite implying it).
David Gilmour's point is correct, and the other users is assuming he hasn't used his money to help upcoming artists (which is also irrelevant) while also unilaterally deciding that David Gilmour can't speak about anything without immediately ponying up with receipts because he has too much money.
Call me crazy, but I'm for free speech without attaching a requirement that when you hit a certain monetary goal that your speech is no longer valid (even hypocritical) if you don't immediately and publicly give x% of your money to be counted as 'acceptable speech'.
The fact this has to be said for something as uncontroversial as 'the music industry eats its own, and has gotten worse in recent years' is wildly preposterous.
He got tired and could no longer resist the siphon :)
Why should he, tired or not?
We should expect people to act on their opinions. The rewards are not justifiable, he says, and sells.
His opinion is correct or incorrect independent on whether or not he acts on his opinions.
Kinda deliberately missing the point here, he's specifically not talking about his own financial situation.