If five people are only able to produce one "hit" in a given year, and the hit fades so fast that it doesn't earn residual income in future years, then maybe they're in the wrong profession? Maybe fire the three that don't write music or lyrics and bring in three more creative types who can both write and play? That would result in more overall hits and more money for all of them. Or maybe the one creative guy should hire studio musicians for the other four spots, only have to pay them $1000 each once to make the recording, and then pocket the other $36,000 for himself.
My understanding is that yes, they get paid for it, which is why (on Pandora at least) you can't skip more than X songs per hour. (Or at least you couldn't in 2008, back when I was training my station. I rarely skip anything now since it plays exactly what I want to hear at work barring the occasional new song that doesn't quite fit.)
Well, one reasonably popular song per album (instead of ten) is the fault of the artist, not the fans. A professional musician needs to be able to work 40 hour weeks for 40 years, just like other professionals, and save for retirement, all while producing work that people want to buy. If they can't do that in their chosen profession, they need to find another profession, and give up music or treat it as a hobby.
(Yes, this is true for plenty of creativity-based professions too.)
$3800 for what amounts to a few weeks writing a song and coming up with accompanying music, recording it, and getting it post edited doesn't sound so bad, especially since they also made money from other streaming sites, CD sales, live performances of that song, T-shirts and posters sold because people like that song, etc.
What do they expect, to be able to retire off one "hit"? If they want to be a professional musician, they need to put in 40 hour weeks for 40 years and save for retirement, just like every other professional. If they're not able to be creative like that, maybe a creative profession isn't suited for them.
Or maybe, given that iDevices entered the market before Android, those that bought into the Apple ecosystem are further along the post-PC chain, and therefore more comfortable overall with using full-featured mobile devices compared to those who entered the market later.
I know I've been reading this article on my phone, despite being able to touch my laptop with my toes. When my phone dies (it's low) or if I want to buy something, I'm more likely to grab my tablet sitting in arm's reach than grab the laptop.
See this post a little ways down for an immediate example of the knee-jerk reaction to which I refer:
I agree that, for many students, whatever toys they get in 9th grade might be too late. I don't think that this is just due to the public school system, though. Kids need to enter elementary school intellectually curious and wanting to learn. For some, that's a genetic certainty. For others, though, it may take hard work on the part of their parents (or extended family, not that those exist to the extent they used to). How do we fix this? Do we have the money to train new parents on how to prepare their one- and two- and three-year-olds to be good learners? If we did, how many parents would take up the offer versus knee-jerk rebel against government intrusion in their bad parenting. From many things I've read, Head Start is one of the best programs to keep kids in school and learning. Why do we (as a country) keep cutting its funding?
As another commenter says, I agree with you in principle. If I believe in the public school system, I should send my kids to it. And I will at least in part, tempered to compromise with my wife who found one of her life's passions (music) at a Montessori elementary school before she switched to public schools, too.
But I'm not POTUS. My kids are anonymous. I wouldn't want my kids to be at a school that is itself a terrorist target due to the presence of the POTUS' kids.
I learned more in shop (9th grade) than in my first few computer classes (6th and 8th grades) as well, but that's in part because I was already programming before I took those computer classes. Honestly I didn't learn much in my first computer science class either (9th grade) but did in my second year, especially because I was competing for the school in programming competitions, learning how to quickly grasp requirements, break them down into known parts, and implement those parts logically. That sort of education (plus the years of college and work experience that followed) helps when I'm in a room with managers and I can confidently say that I not only can solve some new problem, but that I can do so in X days with minimal risk to other features.
....a video about ways they learn at school. Though, honestly, getting kids excited about anything intellectually challenging is a success.
Your faux semantic argument aside, plenty of people excited about being educated can receive that education in the public school system - even in the same schools that others fail from. (There are most certainly schools where that is not possible, but it is true at the vast majority of schools.)
I have no tolerance for anarchists who see a problem and can only solve it by blowing it up.
The people that think technology is the problem with our schools aren't addressing the real problem: The fact that our culture is anti-learning, anti-education, pro-sky-fairies and anti-critical thinking. You need to get kids to enjoy learning...
...like by having a focused, deadline- and goal-driven event to get them excited about things that they do at school. Let's have a film festival and get the students to film themselves showing off something that their schools are doing, unrelated to sports.
More importantly, why are we wasting time and resources asking children to propagandize implementations of technology in education for the sake of it rather than worrying about the quality of education, itself?
Because kids who are excited about their own education can get more out of it, regardless of school condition, than those who are just passing time until 4 PM. Hands-on applications like these with a deadline and goal help build that excitement.
But if you think getting kids excited about learning is a waste of time and resources, there's little point in trying to improve the quality of an education that the kids won't care to learn.
That assumes they can spend any time at school doing anything besides preparing for their next standardized test, and have access to resources at home to accomplish these things. And that they like tinkering with stuff, too, which probably means that we need to get their parents to like it so they'll instill it in their kids.
I think the goal is to get kids excited about being educated, because kids who are excited about school tend to stay in it longer and get more out of it.
I also think that given them a goal - explaining what they do for a film festival - is a good application to focus their efforts. I'm sure you meant "application" in terms of "job training" but, for those kids doing the filming and editing, it might be job training. For the others, they still have 4-12 years to take care of that.