Singers and bands - where do they fit within class system?

[nothing but left]

Bands and singers (not all of them, of course) make a very good living. Example that come to mind, Britney Spears, Metallica, Rolling Stones, Madonna. They make milions, but they don't exploit workers and they don't own means of production, but you couldn't classify them as workers either in marxist sense, they don't have to sell they labour in order to live. Where do they fit in? You can't really call them petit bourgeois either, since they make a lot of money. right? Could they be classified as bourgeois without owning means of production and without taking a surplus value from the workers? What do you think? Thanks in advance.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say perhaps lumpen-bourgeois.

[Luc]

Perhaps people like Gene Simons could be considered a Bourgeois if he owns the companys or whatever that make of his shit.

Don't know about the rest though I don't really who they are.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Bands and singers (not all of them, of course) make a very good living. Example that come to mind, Britney Spears, Metallica, Rolling Stones, Madonna. They make milions, but they don't exploit workers and they don't own means of production,

This also goes for CEOs and other high level managers.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I am curious about the assertion that singers and others similar professions in the entertainment industry don't sell their labor in order to live. Can it not be perhaps argued that their labor-power is their capacity, proficiency, etc. in their ability to sing, act and so on? It's this 'talent' that they have that is used to obtain a wage?

[#FF0000]

I remember someone was talking about this (except with athletes), that they're p. much bourgie or petit-bourgie because a lot of them make money off of their image and intellectual property, or something.

[Demogorgon]

The vast majority of bands are just doing it on the side and have regular jobs.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I remember someone was talking about this (except with athletes), that they're p. much bourgie or petit-bourgie because a lot of them make money off of their image and intellectual property, or something.

Yeah but the classification of a class to a particular vocation isn't confined to how much money they make but also their relation to the means of production which I think would need to be explored to fully answer the question in the OP.

I mean, as far as I know actors don't really control their own means of productions there is numerous people behind the scenes, producers, studio executives and so forth that have authority over them and control what what they do, how they do it and so forth. The same could be said for artists in the music industry; there is numerous producers, record executives and so forth that have control over the individual artist aside from (occasionally) creative expression. But you see cases like Hannah Montana and other Disney prodigies they don't write their own lyrics, produce their own material and so forth and are basically puppets to the managers, producers, company and handlers.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I remember someone was talking about this (except with athletes), that they're p. much bourgie or petit-bourgie because a lot of them make money off of their image and intellectual property, or something.

They do make some money off of intellectual property, but not much...the vast majority of that money goes to their label/record company.

Most of the money that musicians make comes from playing shows, IIRC.

[#FF0000]

Most of the money that musicians make comes from playing shows, IIRC.

Yeah that's def. true.

I think it depends. I'm happy with just saying "petit-bourgeois" and leaving it at that I think.

[jake williams]

I'm just going to quote myself from an earlier thread. Just swap out "actor" for "musician" and it basically holds.


Well, let's first make clear that we're talking about a very small minority of actors who have any money. Most either make no money and do it as a hobby, or make very little money and have to take other jobs.

There's maybe a few hundred, or a few thousand at most, very rich actors in the US (people actually sitting on several million dollars). Their actual class position is mixed, and they don't themselves belong to one class or another. Many are explicitly bourgeois: they use the money they accumulate as capitalists, investing in other movies or sometimes even other industries altogether.

But many others, perhaps most, do not. They are, as actors, something like professionals or skilled workers, who make a particularly large amount of money. They're union members. And many are important progressives. Yes, they have a lot of money, and because of it they might happen to back reactionary politics; but their interests are not fundamentally in contradiction with those of workers, they don't have any employees they need to repress, and frankly, half the time they don't even mind paying their taxes because they actually enjoy their jobs.

So, it's complex. Some are big capitalists. Many are incredibly reactionary, but the same is true of the most oppressed workers. In general they basically are a strata of skilled workers, whose sometimes (rarely) exceptionally high incomes allow them to occasionally become petty capitalists or sometimes, even big capitalists.

[Lucretia]

It's the same answer we give to everybody who asks in a thread "What class is a/an X(insert occupation here)". The answer is that there is no one correct answer. Somebody's class position is relational, depends upon the class relationships in which a particular occupation or task is performed. An independent singer who travels and plays for cash occupies one class position. A salaried group hired to do a nightly show at a corporate owned restaurant occupies a different class position.

[nothing but left]

This also goes for CEOs and other high level managers.

but they can fire workers, can they?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am curious about the assertion that singers and others similar professions in the entertainment industry don't sell their labor in order to live. Can it not be perhaps argued that their labor-power is their capacity, proficiency, etc. in their ability to sing, act and so on? It's this 'talent' that they have that is used to obtain a wage?

Would someone care to take a stab at small-time independent bands and individual singers? Oh, crap:


The vast majority of bands are just doing it on the side and have regular jobs.

To keep my remarks in this thread purely political, thanks big time for the enlightenment! :thumbup1:

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Would someone care to take a stab at small-time independent bands and individual singers? Oh, crap:


What's the point of this post? I think it can be and I was assuming the OP was talking about bourgey pop stars not shitty little garage bands who 'tour' and are 'signed'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

shitty little garage bands who 'tour' and are 'signed'

Like I said, I have and will keep my remarks in this thread purely political. :glare:


numerous people behind the scenes, producers, studio executives and so forth that have authority over them and control what what they do, how they do it and so forth. The same could be said for artists in the music industry; there is numerous producers, record executives and so forth that have control over the individual artist aside from (occasionally) creative expression. But you see cases like Hannah Montana and other Disney prodigies they don't write their own lyrics, produce their own material and so forth and are basically puppets to the managers, producers, company and handlers.

Could these, if they don't accumulate capital, then be either petit-bourgeois (intellectual property) or labour aristocracy?

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Could these, if they don't accumulate capital, then be either petit-bourgeois (intellectual property) or labour aristocracy?

I could see them being petty bourgeoisie perhaps, yes but labor aristocrats? In what manner?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ If they don't derive enough income from intellectual property and are subject to the same kind of behind-the-scenes direction (producers, execs, etc.).

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

^^^ If they don't derive enough income from intellectual property and are subject to the same kind of behind-the-scenes direction (producers, execs, etc.).

Pardon my ignorance but it's my understanding that the aristocracy of labor would mean more developed nations exploiting lesser developed nations and that workers in the former nations are beneficiaries of the superprofits extracted from workers in the latter nations. Assuming I'm not misinterpreting things then I don't see how they would be labor aristocrats.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Pardon my ignorance but it's my understanding that the aristocracy of labor would mean more developed nations exploiting lesser developed nations and that workers in the former nations are beneficiaries of the superprofits extracted from workers in the latter nations. Assuming I'm not misinterpreting things then I don't see how they would be labor aristocrats.

That's Lenin, not Engels. The Second International's take on labour aristocracy didn't incorporate imperialism, nation-state conflicts, etc. It was all about the most well-paid of skilled workers vs. every other worker.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

That's Lenin, not Engels. The Second International's take on labour aristocracy didn't incorporate imperialism, nation-state conflicts, etc. It was all about the most well-paid of skilled workers vs. every other worker.

Please do elaborate further as I feel this is merely a summation.

[Zealot]

They are exploiting in a sense. Stage technicians, pyrotechnicians, audio engineers, guitar techs, and many others travel with the bands for their live shows (which is where a good chunk of their money is made) who are enabling them to make profits. Not to mention the creation of merchandise and the exploitation of fans, which has become almost typical (outrageous concert ticket prices, cd prices, charging for signatures (lolwut)). Keep in mind that this is usually only common with commercial/mainstream musicians.

[jake williams]

Stage technicians, pyrotechnicians, audio engineers, guitar techs, and many others travel with the bands for their live shows (which is where a good chunk of their money is made) who are enabling them to make profits.
Having coworkers doesn't make you an exploiter. The question is, what is the class relationship between musicians on stage, and those other workers? A janitor requires a mop-maker to do their job - that doesn't make them bourgeois.


Not to mention the creation of merchandise and the exploitation of fans, which has become almost typical (outrageous concert ticket prices, cd prices, charging for signatures (lolwut)).
Charging for signatures notwithstanding (that's silly), none of these things are exploitative either. Charging high prices isn't exploitation, though it might suck; extracting surplus value from someone else's labour is exploitation.

Anyway, musicians for the most part aren't responsible for the high prices of CDs or concert tickets - prices which largely go to retailers and record companies, and the venues themselves, respectively. I think it's pretty rarely you're going to see a musician challenge their manager, a venue etc. and say "Excuse me, I'd like to be rich, please charge my fans more money". I'm not saying it never goes on, but I imagine it's sparing.

[Zav]

They do make some money off of intellectual property, but not much...the vast majority of that money goes to their label/record company.

Most of the money that musicians make comes from playing shows, IIRC.
Notice that Capie propaganda says that piracy harms artists. Hmm... Whom does it really hurt?