I really appreciate your perspective on this, and I totally understand the frustration, it’s a complex issue. But here’s how I personally see it:
Not all forms of creativity carry the same emotional weight or connection for every artist. For example, I’m an abstract painter, and that part of my creativity feels deeply personal, it’s tied to my identity, almost like a sacred space. I’ve always felt that putting financial pressure on my painting would strip away some of its true essence. It would affect how freely and honestly I can express myself. But I also do photography, and that feels different. I don’t mind monetizing that part of my creativity because it doesn’t carry the same emotional charge. It’s still creative, but in a more flexible, less vulnerable way.
That’s how I interpret Rick Rubin’s situation. Maybe for him, music is the sacred space. He lets the money flow from it naturally but doesn’t chase it. Writing, on the other hand, might be more of a communicative tool, something he’s okay monetizing. And I don’t necessarily think that’s hypocritical.
Also, charging for something like a Substack doesn’t always mean it’s about profit. It can be about boundaries, energy exchange, or curating the kind of audience you want to engage with. Those who really want to engage will stick around, and that creates a different kind of space. Maybe the paywall is more about that than about the money itself.
So yeah, I think it’s possible to both honor your art and also make intentional choices about what you monetize. It’s not black and white.
Thank you for starting this conversation. Big millionaire artists always say "you know what, I do think it's better to have a normal job and have art on the side, so that you don't put pressure on your art to make money, so that you make art for the RIGHT reasons, the real pure reasons" and then you're like... but you made money off your art, a lot actually. Allie Michelle is an example of someone who said this. I love her poetry and everything she does but when she said this on her podcast I got a bit sad like, I guess you think you can strive and expect for your art to make money but other people can't :(
I can totally see why hearing that cliched phrase from an artist you admire, or one who appears to have a wildly successful career can be disheartening.
Allie and I are actually quite good friends and so I think I can speak with some perspective on this without intruding on her privacy.
She is not a millionaire artist. She is a human who still is trying to figure out her art and how it fits with the economics of her life. She does not own homes in multiple countries, she rents a modest space she made completely her own in a quiet part of a forest. Perhaps this might discourage you, to find out that even with multiple books out, someone might not be living a life free of economic concerns. Or maybe it will encourage you to know that the person you look up to is quite literally just a person who bakes brownies for her friends and buys sweet potatoes at the market, and hopes she has enough money for both.
I cannot speak on RR, personally I have a bad taste in my mouth after knowing who (ghost) wrote his book. But there really are merits to both sides. Sometimes you make art for your wallet. Sometimes you make art for your soul. It’s rare. So incredibly rare. But sometimes you make art for both.
Don’t let the business of entertainment confuse you with the business of a poet. That is always the work of the soul.
Thank you for sharing this Dakota! I completely get it, and definitely wasn't imagining Allie as a millionaire; I was imagining someone who makes a living off their art, which is really what I strive to do, not to make loads of money from art, but to make a humble living off it, and I admire how she has built her life. It discouraged me to think that I couldn't follow that same path, it made me feel a bit powerless to hear her say that (since I come from a less privileged background) But I love what you said about Allie and it does put things into perspective quite a lot, I didn't imagine someone like her would have many economic concerns since she hosts workshops and retreats and has published amazing books, but it's good to know that even then you're not always free. I also think that sentence "don't expect your art to make money" can be interpreted in different ways like money shouldn't be the main reason or motivator for making art, and maybe that's what she meant. I would love for people to say "don't expect your art to make money but it is okay to want to make a living off your art one day, and if it happens, that's great" just add that little part at the end so that we don't make up limiting beliefs about what we can or can't do with our art. I really appreciate you taking the time to comment this, truly ❤️ Allie sounds like a great person apart from being a great poet
I also get irritated by people like RR having a paywall. have FOMO as live in a 3rd World country with an horrendous exchange rate - so any writing behind a paywall is beyond me. About creativity and money - I do believe that my most important client to please and kinda feed the heart and soul is me, and only then the audience. If the other way around, it somehow drains my energy and creativity. A fine tightrope on which to balance. I reckon it all is such an individual thing - what is the deep down meaning and motivation - what is the source? It’s different for everyone.
I feel like I don’t want to lose faith in people. Rick (at least through his book and interviews) has always come across as sincere. On the side of the creators. Someone with the right values, someone kind.
I love his interviews. His thoughtfulness. But I had the same question as many others:
Why a paid Substack?
Is this really his idea? Or maybe someone on his marketing team thought it was brilliant. Maybe Substack made an offer, moved his list over here as part of a deal. (The live interview might’ve been part of that too?) It wouldn’t be the first time a platform “acquires” creators, we’ve seen this before.
I want to believe the money part wasn’t Rick’s idea alone. That he agreed, but maybe didn’t think it all the way through. Because the damage it might cause, to his image, to his role as an example, a symbol for creators, feels... real. And I want to keep believing in him. Thank you for writing about this topic, James 🙏🏻
I also tend to think it’s likely more a Substack acquisition btw his marketing team that has been put to him. I can’t imagine Rubin is all that interested in hanging out on Substack or has even given it much thought.
Which makes it even more problematic. There are so many people here on Substack that are giving a lot of thought about what they write, the messages they want to convey. Those are the people I support. Not those who are showing up because it is good for the marketing platform. UGH!
Good article. I read The Creative Act and had a quesy reaction to the art/commerce point of view and I thank you for putting my discomfort with the book into words that resonated. The paywall just confirms my suspicions about Mr. Rubin.
Interesting article, James! It really had me thinking and I get where you’re coming from. I’m currently re-reading the Creative Act for the millionth time – it’s like my creative bible – and I never really saw it the way you describe. For me there is a different kind of nuance to the point he makes. As for instance I think when Rubin talks about separating art from commerce he’s referring to the sole act of creating art without pressure, the importance of giving each piece the very best one can – and then, once the artist has done that, commercial success might be out of the artist’s control, but my interpretation always was that it is exactly this detachment from commerce as a mindset that WILL inevitably bring success – and if not, at least the you gave it your all, and can then move on to the next piece of art and do the same.
So I always read these parts somewhere along the lines of, as long as you focus on making art for arts’ sake instead of money, you’ll one day be able to gain financial success, should you want it.
I know he never expresses that directly, which is what your essay made me realize, but it’s always been my interpretation of the concept and I find it actually, as you also mention, extremely liberating to think about nothing else than my art within the process. (Bowie actually talks about this also: the best art is usually made when artists don’t think of what the audience wants , but just create.) Then again I’m the kind of person who tends to react very sensitively to outside pressure, and I realize there are people who thrive on the thought of giving the audience what they want. I just don’t want to have to think about how to monetize or strategize, however I do want to monetize my art by all means – but I don’t believe in having to know your audience and making art for them in order to do it – I strongly believe that if we make the best art we can, primarily the art we need for ourselves, and share it, then the target audience will eventually be drawn to it. That is a point Rick actually mentions a lot in his work – how important it is to complete your piece of art and share it so your audience can find, and relate to it.
Well, I can see there are different takes and interpretations to everything, and I do agree with you on many points, one being about conditions for artists needing to be improved. There’s truth to your words, but as always, I do think there’s more to it and Rubin’s intentions to what he expresses are probably (hopefully?) more complex and we’ll probably never know.
I actually agree that that is what the text technically argues in the Creative Act. And I do think it's a nice perspective. Focusing on selling during the creation process can be a distraction and just making good art can be the best way to sell.
I guess the issue for me is, and I could have said this more clearly in the article, that Rick is clearly very focused on commerce himself. His actions prove this if his words don't. He can't have made 300 million dollars working as a producer getting paid by the hour. He made it as a music executive. That is, by owning the creative output of other artists.
I don't begrudge him his money. I think he probably earned it. But I am cynical of a music executive telling artists not to worry about the money until "later". Because when "later" comes, the artist is usually blindsided and taken advantage of. The big labels treated their musicians like trash, and the "do it for love" message helps them set their punitive conditions.
Not only do I rarely check my email, but I actually downloaded the Substack app so I could read this immediately when I saw the email notification. My fiancé and I have been talking about this ever since arriving on, like, page six of his book several years ago. It makes me want to bash my head into the wall, kind of? I felt guilty as a creative when I couldn’t finish his book, but when I sat with that for a minute, I realized that 90% of his insight is those koans you’re talking about, and he talks in circles. Now, I can try to make sense of it, especially since he does weave his Hollywood brand of spirituality/devotion into his advice, but it becomes so convoluted and, to me, removed from the every day life of most creatives and artists. He’s like the boss-level of creative think gurus, just out of touch with reality. Maybe if he stayed in his OTHER multimillion dollar house when he wrote it, it would have turned out better? And I have nothing against people making money but it’s as if he completely ignores his position and influence, as you said.
Agree with all this! And double agree that he deserves to make a lot of money for his work as a producer. I just wish he was more direct and less wishy-washy.
Thanks James. This is an honest reflection and I think many people feel a similar way. As a producer myself, so much if what we do is place value in art and fight for the value of art for other artists. I think what he’s attempting to do is hold an ideal we all need to keep in our hearts somewhere as to not be squished into submission. That said, I enjoyed you article. Lots to consider :)
Thanks Jessica, and I like what you say about producers. I think producers/editors etc. are artists and are integral to the artistic process. I suppose I'm more critical of Rick's hybrid role as a huge executive. That's probably where he makes the bulk of his money.
I've found the controversy of Rick Rubin genuinely perplexing because I just randomly picked up his book at a bookstore one day and thought his writing was really interesting and didn't actually make the connection for many months that he is super famous in the music industry. He writes some interesting stuff, people get value from it. I did when reading it. Now I feel like I should question the value I got from the book because of articles like this, but I feel like that isn't really the point of consuming art. Sometimes I derive value from content written by millionaires, sometimes I derive value from content written by people with 10 subscribers on Substack. The meat of his content isn't really hidden behind a paywall (and the book is included in Spotify) and if he was charging, I'd probably just find valuable content somewhere else. I also just interpreted his "don't make art for money" as a message that it creates an anxiety layer that makes the art worse / inauthentic, which i've found to be true 100% of the time. Idk, should I be taking away a different message from this essay?
You can take away whatever message you like. I agree completely with your interpretation of what Rick argues in the Creative act. And I agree that it can be a good and helpful perspective.
I also don't think you should question the value of the book, especially if you enjoyed it and got things out of it.
I just want to raise questions about a music executive who has a lot of power to set the conditions of employment for artists saying they shouldn't worry about money or that commerce sullies art.
I would question why the thought of making art for money causes you anxiety. Is it perhaps because the executives and gatekeepers have created a terrible labour market for artists and those conditions give you anxiety?
I don't think this is a "controversy". I'm not trying to cancel Rick. And I'm not trying to stop people reading and enjoying his and Neil Strauss's book. I just want people to realise that he is a music executive first and foremost and that he has certain incentives.
I appreciate the thoughtful response! I read through each point you made above a few times. Yes, there is the book itself in a vacuum and its message and then his influence as a whole. And it is really frustrating when people in positions of power don't do more that can move the needle on important issues like artist pay. Reading this piece also reminded me of Chappell Roan's speech and the advocacy she has been doing, and moments like that seem to be an exception and not a rule. To answer your question - it gives me anxiety because then it moves the creative process from being a visceral, subconscious deep flow state to something where I look through the lens of business acumen, which leads to contemplating failure. So I think it is the feelings of failure, looking ahead too much, if I view my art through the lens of money. It is an interesting question, when to pull one's head up and think about the business side of art. It seems it can't come too early in the process, but it needs to come at some point to protect yourself to some of your points above. There are so many aspects too of business early on that are irreversible-signing a bad deal thinking you won't make it, not getting the cut you deserve, etc.
I read all of this in your voice. The article was equal parts delightfully sassy (your tone) and infuriatingly frustrating (your topic) — great work! ✊🏻✨
It's definitely not the main thesis of his book, and, as noted above, he never directly says he's against artists getting paid. But he talks around it a lot.
I really appreciate your perspective on this, and I totally understand the frustration, it’s a complex issue. But here’s how I personally see it:
Not all forms of creativity carry the same emotional weight or connection for every artist. For example, I’m an abstract painter, and that part of my creativity feels deeply personal, it’s tied to my identity, almost like a sacred space. I’ve always felt that putting financial pressure on my painting would strip away some of its true essence. It would affect how freely and honestly I can express myself. But I also do photography, and that feels different. I don’t mind monetizing that part of my creativity because it doesn’t carry the same emotional charge. It’s still creative, but in a more flexible, less vulnerable way.
That’s how I interpret Rick Rubin’s situation. Maybe for him, music is the sacred space. He lets the money flow from it naturally but doesn’t chase it. Writing, on the other hand, might be more of a communicative tool, something he’s okay monetizing. And I don’t necessarily think that’s hypocritical.
Also, charging for something like a Substack doesn’t always mean it’s about profit. It can be about boundaries, energy exchange, or curating the kind of audience you want to engage with. Those who really want to engage will stick around, and that creates a different kind of space. Maybe the paywall is more about that than about the money itself.
So yeah, I think it’s possible to both honor your art and also make intentional choices about what you monetize. It’s not black and white.
All very valid points! I particularly like your point about energy exchange.
Thank you for starting this conversation. Big millionaire artists always say "you know what, I do think it's better to have a normal job and have art on the side, so that you don't put pressure on your art to make money, so that you make art for the RIGHT reasons, the real pure reasons" and then you're like... but you made money off your art, a lot actually. Allie Michelle is an example of someone who said this. I love her poetry and everything she does but when she said this on her podcast I got a bit sad like, I guess you think you can strive and expect for your art to make money but other people can't :(
Yep I agree, Gala. I think it does a lot of damage. I know Amie was really hurt by that sort of chat when she was starting out.
Oh gosh yes, this. Elizabeth Gilbert vibes.
I can totally see why hearing that cliched phrase from an artist you admire, or one who appears to have a wildly successful career can be disheartening.
Allie and I are actually quite good friends and so I think I can speak with some perspective on this without intruding on her privacy.
She is not a millionaire artist. She is a human who still is trying to figure out her art and how it fits with the economics of her life. She does not own homes in multiple countries, she rents a modest space she made completely her own in a quiet part of a forest. Perhaps this might discourage you, to find out that even with multiple books out, someone might not be living a life free of economic concerns. Or maybe it will encourage you to know that the person you look up to is quite literally just a person who bakes brownies for her friends and buys sweet potatoes at the market, and hopes she has enough money for both.
I cannot speak on RR, personally I have a bad taste in my mouth after knowing who (ghost) wrote his book. But there really are merits to both sides. Sometimes you make art for your wallet. Sometimes you make art for your soul. It’s rare. So incredibly rare. But sometimes you make art for both.
Don’t let the business of entertainment confuse you with the business of a poet. That is always the work of the soul.
Thank you for sharing this Dakota! I completely get it, and definitely wasn't imagining Allie as a millionaire; I was imagining someone who makes a living off their art, which is really what I strive to do, not to make loads of money from art, but to make a humble living off it, and I admire how she has built her life. It discouraged me to think that I couldn't follow that same path, it made me feel a bit powerless to hear her say that (since I come from a less privileged background) But I love what you said about Allie and it does put things into perspective quite a lot, I didn't imagine someone like her would have many economic concerns since she hosts workshops and retreats and has published amazing books, but it's good to know that even then you're not always free. I also think that sentence "don't expect your art to make money" can be interpreted in different ways like money shouldn't be the main reason or motivator for making art, and maybe that's what she meant. I would love for people to say "don't expect your art to make money but it is okay to want to make a living off your art one day, and if it happens, that's great" just add that little part at the end so that we don't make up limiting beliefs about what we can or can't do with our art. I really appreciate you taking the time to comment this, truly ❤️ Allie sounds like a great person apart from being a great poet
I also get irritated by people like RR having a paywall. have FOMO as live in a 3rd World country with an horrendous exchange rate - so any writing behind a paywall is beyond me. About creativity and money - I do believe that my most important client to please and kinda feed the heart and soul is me, and only then the audience. If the other way around, it somehow drains my energy and creativity. A fine tightrope on which to balance. I reckon it all is such an individual thing - what is the deep down meaning and motivation - what is the source? It’s different for everyone.
I feel like I don’t want to lose faith in people. Rick (at least through his book and interviews) has always come across as sincere. On the side of the creators. Someone with the right values, someone kind.
I love his interviews. His thoughtfulness. But I had the same question as many others:
Why a paid Substack?
Is this really his idea? Or maybe someone on his marketing team thought it was brilliant. Maybe Substack made an offer, moved his list over here as part of a deal. (The live interview might’ve been part of that too?) It wouldn’t be the first time a platform “acquires” creators, we’ve seen this before.
I want to believe the money part wasn’t Rick’s idea alone. That he agreed, but maybe didn’t think it all the way through. Because the damage it might cause, to his image, to his role as an example, a symbol for creators, feels... real. And I want to keep believing in him. Thank you for writing about this topic, James 🙏🏻
I agree it was probably not pernicious and I'm sure he didn't mean it this way. I just thinks it's important to ask the question!
I also tend to think it’s likely more a Substack acquisition btw his marketing team that has been put to him. I can’t imagine Rubin is all that interested in hanging out on Substack or has even given it much thought.
Which makes it even more problematic. There are so many people here on Substack that are giving a lot of thought about what they write, the messages they want to convey. Those are the people I support. Not those who are showing up because it is good for the marketing platform. UGH!
I was as confused when noticed it. So still haven’t formed an opinion so thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will stay confused for now 😂
I too remain confused.
Good article. I read The Creative Act and had a quesy reaction to the art/commerce point of view and I thank you for putting my discomfort with the book into words that resonated. The paywall just confirms my suspicions about Mr. Rubin.
Yes, it reeks of hypocrisy, doesn't it?
Ah the cognitive dissonance is real indeed! Do as I say, not as I do!
Yep exactly!
Interesting article, James! It really had me thinking and I get where you’re coming from. I’m currently re-reading the Creative Act for the millionth time – it’s like my creative bible – and I never really saw it the way you describe. For me there is a different kind of nuance to the point he makes. As for instance I think when Rubin talks about separating art from commerce he’s referring to the sole act of creating art without pressure, the importance of giving each piece the very best one can – and then, once the artist has done that, commercial success might be out of the artist’s control, but my interpretation always was that it is exactly this detachment from commerce as a mindset that WILL inevitably bring success – and if not, at least the you gave it your all, and can then move on to the next piece of art and do the same.
So I always read these parts somewhere along the lines of, as long as you focus on making art for arts’ sake instead of money, you’ll one day be able to gain financial success, should you want it.
I know he never expresses that directly, which is what your essay made me realize, but it’s always been my interpretation of the concept and I find it actually, as you also mention, extremely liberating to think about nothing else than my art within the process. (Bowie actually talks about this also: the best art is usually made when artists don’t think of what the audience wants , but just create.) Then again I’m the kind of person who tends to react very sensitively to outside pressure, and I realize there are people who thrive on the thought of giving the audience what they want. I just don’t want to have to think about how to monetize or strategize, however I do want to monetize my art by all means – but I don’t believe in having to know your audience and making art for them in order to do it – I strongly believe that if we make the best art we can, primarily the art we need for ourselves, and share it, then the target audience will eventually be drawn to it. That is a point Rick actually mentions a lot in his work – how important it is to complete your piece of art and share it so your audience can find, and relate to it.
Well, I can see there are different takes and interpretations to everything, and I do agree with you on many points, one being about conditions for artists needing to be improved. There’s truth to your words, but as always, I do think there’s more to it and Rubin’s intentions to what he expresses are probably (hopefully?) more complex and we’ll probably never know.
I actually agree that that is what the text technically argues in the Creative Act. And I do think it's a nice perspective. Focusing on selling during the creation process can be a distraction and just making good art can be the best way to sell.
I guess the issue for me is, and I could have said this more clearly in the article, that Rick is clearly very focused on commerce himself. His actions prove this if his words don't. He can't have made 300 million dollars working as a producer getting paid by the hour. He made it as a music executive. That is, by owning the creative output of other artists.
I don't begrudge him his money. I think he probably earned it. But I am cynical of a music executive telling artists not to worry about the money until "later". Because when "later" comes, the artist is usually blindsided and taken advantage of. The big labels treated their musicians like trash, and the "do it for love" message helps them set their punitive conditions.
Yes I totally see your point
This is also my interpretation of The Creative Act, and Rubin's POV in general.
Not only do I rarely check my email, but I actually downloaded the Substack app so I could read this immediately when I saw the email notification. My fiancé and I have been talking about this ever since arriving on, like, page six of his book several years ago. It makes me want to bash my head into the wall, kind of? I felt guilty as a creative when I couldn’t finish his book, but when I sat with that for a minute, I realized that 90% of his insight is those koans you’re talking about, and he talks in circles. Now, I can try to make sense of it, especially since he does weave his Hollywood brand of spirituality/devotion into his advice, but it becomes so convoluted and, to me, removed from the every day life of most creatives and artists. He’s like the boss-level of creative think gurus, just out of touch with reality. Maybe if he stayed in his OTHER multimillion dollar house when he wrote it, it would have turned out better? And I have nothing against people making money but it’s as if he completely ignores his position and influence, as you said.
Agree with all this! And double agree that he deserves to make a lot of money for his work as a producer. I just wish he was more direct and less wishy-washy.
Thanks James. This is an honest reflection and I think many people feel a similar way. As a producer myself, so much if what we do is place value in art and fight for the value of art for other artists. I think what he’s attempting to do is hold an ideal we all need to keep in our hearts somewhere as to not be squished into submission. That said, I enjoyed you article. Lots to consider :)
Thanks Jessica, and I like what you say about producers. I think producers/editors etc. are artists and are integral to the artistic process. I suppose I'm more critical of Rick's hybrid role as a huge executive. That's probably where he makes the bulk of his money.
He’s a producer first, executive second. Now if Jimmy Iovine started a paid Substack, that’s a whole other level of drama.
I've found the controversy of Rick Rubin genuinely perplexing because I just randomly picked up his book at a bookstore one day and thought his writing was really interesting and didn't actually make the connection for many months that he is super famous in the music industry. He writes some interesting stuff, people get value from it. I did when reading it. Now I feel like I should question the value I got from the book because of articles like this, but I feel like that isn't really the point of consuming art. Sometimes I derive value from content written by millionaires, sometimes I derive value from content written by people with 10 subscribers on Substack. The meat of his content isn't really hidden behind a paywall (and the book is included in Spotify) and if he was charging, I'd probably just find valuable content somewhere else. I also just interpreted his "don't make art for money" as a message that it creates an anxiety layer that makes the art worse / inauthentic, which i've found to be true 100% of the time. Idk, should I be taking away a different message from this essay?
You can take away whatever message you like. I agree completely with your interpretation of what Rick argues in the Creative act. And I agree that it can be a good and helpful perspective.
I also don't think you should question the value of the book, especially if you enjoyed it and got things out of it.
I just want to raise questions about a music executive who has a lot of power to set the conditions of employment for artists saying they shouldn't worry about money or that commerce sullies art.
I would question why the thought of making art for money causes you anxiety. Is it perhaps because the executives and gatekeepers have created a terrible labour market for artists and those conditions give you anxiety?
I don't think this is a "controversy". I'm not trying to cancel Rick. And I'm not trying to stop people reading and enjoying his and Neil Strauss's book. I just want people to realise that he is a music executive first and foremost and that he has certain incentives.
I appreciate the thoughtful response! I read through each point you made above a few times. Yes, there is the book itself in a vacuum and its message and then his influence as a whole. And it is really frustrating when people in positions of power don't do more that can move the needle on important issues like artist pay. Reading this piece also reminded me of Chappell Roan's speech and the advocacy she has been doing, and moments like that seem to be an exception and not a rule. To answer your question - it gives me anxiety because then it moves the creative process from being a visceral, subconscious deep flow state to something where I look through the lens of business acumen, which leads to contemplating failure. So I think it is the feelings of failure, looking ahead too much, if I view my art through the lens of money. It is an interesting question, when to pull one's head up and think about the business side of art. It seems it can't come too early in the process, but it needs to come at some point to protect yourself to some of your points above. There are so many aspects too of business early on that are irreversible-signing a bad deal thinking you won't make it, not getting the cut you deserve, etc.
"Square the dotted circle." That is so funny.
Someone got it!
I read all of this in your voice. The article was equal parts delightfully sassy (your tone) and infuriatingly frustrating (your topic) — great work! ✊🏻✨
Haha thanks Ceri. I definitely have said versions of this rant out loud to Amie multiple times.
Because we are in hell, and thats not a metaphor.
Kareem has one as well. Wtf
Yes very annoying. I am actually listening to his book on audible now, this realisation has cast a shadow. I didn't know he was so wealthy 😧
Yeah the guy's absolutely stacked with cash.
Wait, does he really believe that? I haven’t read the book and definitely did not think that was the thesis of it. Wow. That’s depressing.
It's definitely not the main thesis of his book, and, as noted above, he never directly says he's against artists getting paid. But he talks around it a lot.
This makes me feel better about subscibing to Jeff Goins instead.