JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Songwriter Message Forum The music industry-driven by talent or dollars?

I want to leave behind the Lady gaga Pop Hate threads because I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak.

I challenged Big Jim on his arguments there because I thought he extrapolated personal opinion about LGG to demonstrate what was wrong with the industry.

But I know he has a tremendous amount of experience...more than many of us here, and I don't think we should lose sight of his underlying concerns that

the music industry

only cares about what sells, not what sounds good,

and does not necessarily promote "talent", but return on their investment.

and in many ways, controls what we hear, meaning we are beholden to this lens...what sells...and the talent is less important than what we can make off them.


Rules...if it is your opinion, please say so so that we do not get sided tracked again...and please discuss the points, add your own, and show respect for others POV.

That way we can learn something together instead of wasting energy pointing out why otherrs are out to lunch

Jim, have I summed up your points correctly??

IMHO
You cannot have consistently high volumes of sales without talent.
People are stupid but they are not that stupid.
If people don't like the song, singer, band, whatever they won't buy it. I'm living proof. Nobody buys my stuff.

Now that doesn't mean the radio stations won't play it. They will play whatever the payola is paying them to play.
The major labels aren't going to invest Millions into an act if that act can't bring in the revenue. Money/profit is the bottom line for the labels. It's a business.
Also I don't think the majors are going to have more acts than the market can bear. They certainly are not going to invest millions into each of 50 acts when they can generate the same revenue investing millions into each 20 acts. Why would they? There is only so much discretionary income out there in the buying public to go around. Once you saturate the market more acts won't generate more revenue.

The other issue is live concerts. I really doubt people will shell out $50.00 to $100.00 a pop to attend concerts of acts they don't like. Yet these same so called crap artist's consistently perform to sellout crowds.
It has nothing to do with a single talent. For instance vocals. Heck I bet most of the time the audience can't even hear the singer. It has to do with entertainment. The most entertaining acts will have the best following.

That was the long answer.The short answer, IMHO, is yes the industry cares more about profit than talent. But again, IMHO, you will never have one without the other.

All this is, of course, My Own Humble Opinion.

But like I tell the kids. I'm right.

I guess I'm wondering if the record companies aren't saying...find me the next (insert your favourite artists name) or, find me an act that sounds like (insert your favourite "sound" here)...because that's what is selling today.

Everybody likes a "home run", but companies are also willing to consistently hit "singles"...ie, more profitable acts with less profit per act...which fits with that approach.

And we know image is so important...hence we get singers and "front men\women" who look great but who need autotune
...and we get the Milli Vanillis

So yeah, folks are not going to get consistently fooled, but that is unnecessary to this particular "short term thinking" strategy.

Dollars rule.....end of story....

It is clear from the reality TV amateurs who are instantly turned into a star that THEY the people who make the decisions do not really need or want to put top quality acts on......they have hit upon a winning formula....Lets all laugh at the talentless wannabes and then lets vote for the one who is most talented usually out of a pretty mediocre bunch.
The winner is virtually guaranteed a number 1 unless Rage Against the Machine have a massive capmpaign to oust them. LOL
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8423340.stm
The stunt they pulled proves that hype sells.... NOT quality or talent. People will buy into just about anything if it is hyped the correct way.....Having heard the AI and the Rage Christmas number one can anyone say that either was worthy of such a chart position based on quality or talent? Was it hype that did it?
Either way the dollar comes out on top. Businessmen generally do not care what they sell or how it is marketed...as long as the bucks roll in.
If the A.I. or X factor winners before their TV career produced an independant single or album and tried to get it on the shelves what chance has it of selling anything even if it was any good.
These record producers are not stupid when it comes to making money.....they do not have a great track record at finding and promoting outstanding new acts...but they have huge talent making mega bucks from taking relative crap to another level and making it artform.
I wonder what dead guys like Sinatra, Sammy Davis, Elvis or even M J. would make of it all? The current popstars are not even in the same sport never mind league.


Reality TV and manufactured pop stars has killed the music industry or at very least made it stagnate JMO.
I ask this and want an honest answer....When was the last time you saw a truly talented, original innovative new act?
For my 2 cents worth it has been a while.
And where will these current crop of stars be in 20 30 40 years time? Most are forgotten in weeksd or months. We are living in the age of disposable music.

To sum up with a bit of humour....
An old masterpiece painting was discovered.....
An art critic went on and on about the brush strokes the light and shade the pigments and colours and the composition.
A businessman camE along glanced at it and said "How much is it worth?"

I heard Jennifer Simpson is gonna do the worlds first Pantomine Singing tour.........since big boobs long legs and blond hair will only get you as far as a one year contract with Sony and opening act for Rascal Flatts........those pesky dam lyrics-so hard to remember when you have other things on your mind-like remembering your current boyfriends first name so you dont scream out the wrong one and look-ummm stupid maybe........anyway Jennifer is now braving rude French waiters and deciding which side of the street to drive on depending on which country she thinks she is in on any given day......we all wish her great success with her latest version of a Silent Auction to see which record label picks her up next..........life is tough but she is tougher-attagirl Jenn! dont give up!

Tom

"only cares about what sells, not what sounds good"

What's so bad with that? I like the fact that the suits in the record industry don't put themselves up as judges between good/bad art, and that they let the buying audience do it.

We all know how people are all talk and no do.. I can get a million great reviews of a beutiful ballad with a very decent singer, to learn that when I put it out no one will actually BUY the damn thing. Same goes the other way around. I can write a song about dirty sex, and have a whore perform it, and everybody tells me it's obscene, low brow, ridiculous ect. But whe I put it out, it sells millions.

So it sounds fair to me to let the BUYING public determine what's good or bad, not the TALKING public. I wan't to know the real truth, not just project my own. The other way around is how socialism used to work :-)

The famous duo (that were in a 60'ies boyband) John and Paul used to say "Let's write ourselves a swimmingpool!"..

There are really no BEST music, only RIGHT music, IMO..

Hi Magne the thing perhaps you have overlooked is that the suits decide WHAT gets in front of the public not the other way around. Only very occasionally does and artist work their way up from nothing just with public support behind them. The suits may eventually have to sign and give them a deal but that is the exception. It is like a kind of censureship. The public will as a rule only buy what is fashionsable that they hear regularly on TV and radio...... and who do you think controls that?
I understand the attitude that if you cannot beat em join em.....but lets be honest about what really goes on.
The public have little or no control over the destiny of artists
other than they decide when to stop buying. They have no say in who gets the payola plays in the first place. That is 100% up to the suits.
FACTUAL INFO
At one time I remember, a panel made up of a small cross section of the record buying public were employed to listen to new records prior to them being released. The most popular ones that they voted on were released and the rest were scrapped. That system went out round about the time when they discovered that the charts could be manipulated by buying records from a certain store on a certain day in the month.... as the sales from that store determined what the charts were. I have heard of people who had hits just because their manager bought a couple of dozen singles from the right shop at the right time. That was shortly before the payola scandel was exposed.
END OF FACTUAL INFO.
As I said before the music industry is crooked and probably always will be. JMO.

Art and talent has nothing to do with hits and neither has public opinion ....Dollars make a hit.

Kia Cars. The ones that buy them and after time will love them, and talk them up are the same as buyers of anything, music included.

What is crap to some is great for another. This comes from the obvious notion that everything is relative to the viewer, the listening, the driver, the food eater! Example: "Man,,,garlic is great, and should be used in every food"! "NO,,,I think garlic is crap, and anyone pushing it is a no good business man just thinking of the dollar".

Music is of course subjective, like anything else. What some would call great technique by Sinatra, (I'm one of them), others would hear the phrasing and wonder, "Why does he take so long to say a word or line"? And. "He sure needs his nose to sing!" . They might have a liking for vocals that don't even have vibrato! Or they might love the sound of a certain singer, like Dylan, who they will think even his singing is great!

To each their own. In my opinion, it is close to being attacking of others feelings and beliefs when told their artist who they love is crap or similar.

To give that as "an opinion" of course is valid, but still, why the need to? Why not just talk about the ones that they would call "great"? I would rather talk about Beatles, Sinatra, Wonder, Joel, George M, Cohan, Cole Porter, The Duke, Elvis, Orbison, Armstrong, Zepplin, and Carl Perkins, who I rediscovered and more, (for starters). They do it for "me". Maybe not for others. That's fine! I feel no need to dump on artists that others may like, for any reason, no matter how I think about any other artists. For that is just my tastes, and prejudices, toward any aspect of their writing, performance, production, etc.

The older folks in the 40's thought Sinatra to be a joke. Same for the older folks as to The Beatles. They just shake their LONG hair and go WHOOO.....(Man,,,They sure don't write songs like they used to)!"!

Same for any genre too. Many pop or rock people think Country is corny. I bet fans of one genre mainly considers the others to be non musical or crazy, or boring, or too simple, etc, for THEIR ears and taste!

Not saying all musicians have the same talents. Every genre will have varied talents within it. Just the people listening might not need as much talent from a certain act for reasons or their own attraction to the music or looks, or both. Hype too, for anything! My Cornflakes were hyped! BUT, I loved them!

Many will think Lady Ga Ga is super talented. For them,,,she is. They just love her style and sound and production. Some will cry over her. Same happened for Elvis, who many thought to be ridiculous in many ways, until he sang some ballads and church songs. (Oh,,,,he does have talent,,,he just felt the music and moved like a nut, with that hair all in his face, with that crazy look in his eyes"! Some never allowed that thought to happen though, and still thought Elvis was, like Sinatra, a joke. Not like the singers of "old". See?

It's ALL relative.

I say Enjoy" what you all love, and just drop the personal negative dumping on fellow people in the music industry. At least they are in it. THEY ALL are in it to make money. The Stones would NOT play now if not paid HUGE bucks to play four chords.

Older folks back when would have NEVER let Elvis, or The Beatles step into a recording studio if they had it their way, as some older ones today seem to think the same about the younger acts.

These current acts ARE making memories for the youth that will last, to later have them say, "The current music is crap! Where's a Lady GaGa extravaganza when you need one"!? All they do is make money "now"

They always set out to. Ask the British bands of the 60's that got signed by just showing up with longer hair combed down, and three guitars and a drummer. All the while, the older folks were having fits.

Sound familiar?

It's ALL relative. Nothing more, nothing less than one's own time frame and what was fab for them.

Dollars. But to get those dollars you need a buyer, and it takes an appealing product to hook a buyer.

Here's a very interesting perspective from John Mellencamp:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mellencamp/on-my-mind-the-state-of-t_b_177836.html

As a guy who grew up in Rock n roll and never really listen to country, rap, dance pop, well anything but rock, you get it. I have to say that when i first turned on the country station ,because my Publishing company thought I'd have more success in country, i thought to myself there's no way i can write this. I listened too two different stations that saturday night and heard nothing but donkey kong, bahdonka dong, skoal can ring, and 4 x 4 references. I grew up in a little hick town outside of Tampa and I know my way around a gun, tackle box, and old cars but that was crazy.

Fortunately i gave it another listen and found some great pop songs with what i consider sometimes silly lyrics. The one thing i have come to love about country is it's simplicity and lack of production tricks. Rock n Roll these days has lost it's soul, it's so plastic, Lenny Kravitz said it best Rock n Roll is DEAD. At least the stuff i grew up on is.

In the end the one thing i learned is it'll never be as good as your memories make it. The Beatles were great but there better in our minds if we grew up with them. For me Guns and Roses first album Appetite for Destruction is the greatest piece of music ever written. I know it's not in reality but it will always be in my mind because it moved me as a kid.

Don't knock Lady Gaga there tons of artist out they're who don't write there own material to bash. Wait i'm a song writer maybe i should keep my mouth shut.

Johnny, what your saying is right, and I think we all agree...basically, the consumer is free to make their choice based on what they like, and long term success is unlikely for an artist who is not genuinely and consistently good..


However, I think what we're talking about is the process that gets the choice in front of the consumer, and the things corporations do to influence the consumer's buying decision.


In general, corporations will use all kinds of questionable tactics to persuade folks to buy. This is known fact, and the reason we know all about Caveat Emptor.


So what I'm trying to learn\uncover\share here is...how does the music industry manipulate the general public into buying music they would not otherwise buy...and how do they get the public to "like" and buy something that, to the trained ear, and to the experienced musician, is sub par?

John,

That would be a great secret to learn. Would save a lot of record companies, publishing companies, advertisers, corporations, a LOT of money on products, artists,songs, etc. that don't sell and lose money. Find out how they manipulate the public and force them to buy stuff and we can sell that to the competitors who lose money on their projects.

MAB

Ahaha! Seriously?
You mean they're in it for the money?
I'm flabbergasted!

Ha!!!! YOU always crack me up!

Good one! Yeah,,,,like it's NOT a "business".
Business schools as far I know, teach about the bottom line. Many tactics used by any business. If not, it's most likely their "love", that won't pay the bills all that much.

HAHA I concur business is not the path itself business follows the path created by consumers.

Some of us have the cart before the horse here. Yeah business is about supply on demand.... finding out what the public want and need.....BUT the really clever businesmen are the ones who create a demand from nothing. They turn impulse buying into an art form. They make us buy the crappy useless things that we thought was a great idea at the time but ends up lying in the back of a drawer. People can be really stupid..... they will buy something they do not really like, do not need or cannot really afford. Watch any woman in a fashion shop during a sale or watch a kid buy the latest pop record they have not even heard yet just to be part of the gang. People will buy anything at any price if they are given a good enough motive.

....Business creates the path for consumers to buy. Using the best psychology they create desire, meet need, meet greed and make us feel they are looking out for us when in reality they are only looking out for themselves..

A magician at a kids party has the kids believing he can do magic. The adults can work out how he does the tricks but the kids fall for it.
A hypnotist I saw once had a guy eating a raw onion. The guy thought and believed it was a juicy red apple. Now the audience knew it was an onion but the guy believed it was an apple.

Sometimes we are like hypnotised kids when we buy things.....we cannot see that we are being conned. As long as there are stupid gullible people there will always be businessmen ready to pull the wool and prey on us.

In my experience it is usually the very ones who think that they are not stupid and easily conned that are the most susceptible to being taken for a ride.

Mark;
Thanks for the great article!

Good post Mike....your opinion is FACT. We cannot generalise too much..... yes there is always the exception...... but.....money is the prime concern with ALL business especilly music. The labels will pick up an act or drop an act just for money reasons. Whilst I cannot see the talent sometimes I can see why the record companies go for a certain thing. I too have seen people who get to make records. They sell and you wonder why? Why do they got chosen rather than the hundreds of others who could do much better. Maybe it is just because of their long blonde hair and big boobies.

.

Reading through this made me wonder about something...

We all complain about "the state of music" and "how business has stuck its nose in"...I may have part of the explanation.

I may be out to lunch but it seems to me that part, and it may be a big part, of the problem is that large public companies now own the labels. What that means is that they are legally reponsible to deliver maximum returns to their shareholders.

This is, in fact, a legal requirement that developed out of Henry Ford's desire to distribute some of his profits to charity. His shareholders took him to court, and it ruled that the role of the corporation was to maximize wealth for its shareholders. This is often cited as a primary reason for corporate dysfunctionality and its irrational focus on quarterly earnings.

It is the days when individuals owned record labels, and had personal relationships with "their acts", that we often cite with nostalgia as a golden age of music. They loved music, loved their artists, and loved the business, and maximizing income and profit was not the highest item on their agenda.

These days accountants run corporations, label heads are routinely replaced, A&R folks are shuffled in and out.... it has become an impersonal bureaucracy administering a portfolio of contracts


On another note, the answer to "does the consumer drive the product or does the product drive the consumer", I think its a bit of both. There has to be an obvious need, but after that, its about maximizing sales...which is where the manipulation comes in.

To maximize their revenues corporations GENERALLY

1) deceive\mislead by lying about benefits, effectiveness, warranties, product details
2) omit important details..."the fine print",
3) use high pressure tactics based on greed, fear, deprivation
4) upsell high margin\high price items at point of sale
5) manipulate the supply chain

I think we can draw parallels here. Lying about product details...back to Milli Vanilli; fear and eprivation...street teamers and influencers inferring that all your friends are listening to\love "X" and you're just not with it if you don't ; are the obvious parallels

Insiders...what else do you see?

John you have pretty much nailed it as far as I am concerned.
The way I see it is this. This business has always been very cut throat and competetive. Today is not any different. However in yesteryear there were fewer musicians and wannabe recording stars about. Few people got to hear their own voice on record therefore fewer demos etcand there was almost a mysticism about being famous and performing. There were lots of labels and the standard was pretty high because of the competition with each other.
That all changed with Karaoke and cheap digital recording equipment and reality TV shows. It meant that all of a sudden everyone could instantly be a performer and record records. Soon everybody wanted to write songs and be a star. The sad thing is that most do not have the talent or have learned to play and perform properly. All of a sudden there was a flood of mediocre acts singing mediocre songs trying to flood the market. This might explain why the bar has been lowered IMO and why there are so many trying for so few places.
All the small indie record labels had been bought out and there is now a virtual monopoly which stifles the broad scope that the indies made. As you say they want to make the most money and therefore will only promote a few records but will spend lots on that few to guarantee success.
It is like going to a large supermarket now. There is no locally produced stuff of quality. Everything is pre packed and complies with the regs as stated by the chain with no individuality allowed. We have to buy the brand names they sell. If it is not on the planogram that every other store has it cannot be bought. Whilst the stuff is OK it is not the best quality and not perhaps in the quantity we want to buy it.

The music industry is ... an industry. In any industry, there are people who want to keep their jobs and get paid, money is spent on projects and advertising and you must make some profit because shareholders invest and keep investing at this only one condition.

So you can say music industry is led by the dollar.

But the music industry is about ... music. You have to produce music that's going to please people. A lot of people. People are not so easily satisfied. Some of them may have questionable tastes, but all of them are - in this day and age - spoiled children accustomed to luxury productions and shows. They claim the giant screens, the special FXs, the monster theatricals and mega subwoofer Dolby sound as their due. They feel entitled to all that. And that costs a lot of money.
To make more money than what it cost, you now have to pack stadiums with customers, you have to sell tens of million records. So you'd better find artists who have the TALENT to please a crowd. Some musicians have the talent to play their butts off on their instruments. But do they have the talent to please a crowd? If so, their name is Prince ;-)

So we can cay that music industry is led by talent.
The talent to make big bucks because millions of people want to see you and listen to you. Not everybody can do it. Very few people can do it, actually. So why wouldn't this be called a TALENT?

Yes it is talent.....But it is manufactured mass produced and disposable that lacks any originality or real musical prowess.
I can sum it up by saying processed cheese.

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE. You give record company execs FAR too much credit.

Jim, If you had a bait shop, and you knew people caught more fish at the local lake with fake purple worms than plugs, what would you stock in your store? Would you decide to sell more plugs because YOU, Mr. ‘fish expert’, were married to the idea that plugs SHOULD catch more fish, and by golly you were going to get your way? Of course not!!! Why not? Because you're not a stupid idiot, that's why! If you did you’d go out of business!!! Record companies and radio stations have gone out of business for years trying to sell us quality music. Just look at radio! Now it sucks, but believe it or not they’re selling what MOST of us want to hear. Not me, not you, not the music people on these boards. We’re the minority. They don’t care about us because we’re a small demographic. It’s simple statistics Jim, and the ones that stay in business are the ones that play the stats. They sell what the MASS AUDIENCE wants to hear. If they catered to purists like your self they’d lose their butts. Many have tried. They don’t want to make a musical statement. They want to make money. For anyone to think otherwise is hard for me to understand.

Dude, if you had any idea how many acts are put out there by the record companies that DON’T sell, you’d change your mind on your above statement SO FAST that when it was done you wouldn’t even be sure if it was still you living in your own body. Less than 1% of acts that record companies develop even crack the charts. Which ones move up the charts? The ones that people like and that’s defined as the ones that people buy. It’s the ones that get requested by the 14 year old girls who put their phones on speed dial to request the new Keith Urban single. Not the suits Jim. To think that is simply naive.

As for Payola, (I mentioned this in the Gaga thread but way toward the end) J.Lo shuts your theory down pretty quick I’d say. Yeah, she paid and got on the radio…and then she was gone. Now it’s J who? Gimme a break dude…open thine eyes and see. If only it were that simple the record companies wouldn’t all be going out of business!!!! How can you actually believe that? I don’t get it.

Yes, industry gives their acts every possible competitive advantage they possibly can. Yes, they do get away with some crap. But the lion’s share of acts that make a presence and KEEP a presence aren’t products of record company hype. I believe in your heart you know that and you just don’t want to admit it. It’s not communism…it’s democracy at it’s finest…and yes, there’s lobbies, favors, buddy systems, insider crap like crazy, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS. But in the end the quality of the product always has and always will win the day…or should I say year…under your theory there are those that win the day from time to time…but that’s about it.

You insult the world and say we’re all stupid and thank goodness you’re not. I ask you, why do you think the music business is different from any other business in the universe???? It’s the most cookie cutter formula business out there. Sell what sells and lose the rest!!!! When it comes down to brass tacks do you run your business by trying to sell what you know people want? Or do you try and sell what you think people should buy? If the latter, how’s that workin out for ya?


bill Renfrew
http://www.writethismusic.com

When I read this I got very angry. Like who are you to say this about....everyone????!!!!!

Then I realized what the problem is. You just listen to too much crappy music, that's all. You just need to get better quality CDs on your player.

I have good news though. That's not the record company's fault so you can stop blaming them...and I'm not mad anymore because I totally understand how you feel.

Bill Renfrew
www.writethismusic.com

Maybe we all need better digital to audio converters to catch the nuances better

Different opinions of this is why these discussions are fun, though.

To me it looks like the record companies are putting out CD's from anyone, regardless they can sing or not. So it's not like they are not giving PERFORMERS a chance!

What dertermines the whole thing is focus groups, and marketing tests, just like in the movie business. In fact, the whole IDOL concept is such a thing. Yes, the "winner" gets a poor record deal when he/she wins, but before that the tv show has developed the artist AND marketed the artist to the public to suchan extent, that it's really a no-brainer deal for the record companies.

It makes sense that to be able to sell to a mass audience, you need to have universal lyrics and genre references. 'Universal' can mean a number of things, but one of them is certainly 'standarized' in the sense that there should be no, even slightly, off putting elements in a hit song.

Therefore the ARTISTS are out of the hit formulas, as artistry usually means the music has some edge and uniqueness to it. In this day of age, those qualities are not vastly appreciated by the general public.

I don't think you can blame capitalism or the record companies for that. It's the way of our contemporary mass culture, and has been so for several decades. "It's just that way" as Alan Jackson put's it http://www.alanjackson.com/video.html (a brilliant example of a contemporary cultural statement, if you take one step up from the entertainment 'wrapping' IMO).

That's why I'm not critical towards the current pop music, as it is by large a cultural mass product, and not just the work of a chosen few. I'd like to make dollars as much as anyone, and I don't feel guilty, it's been the ways of the world since ancient times, and that's part of the FUN!

If we really are that concerned about the state-of-the-art, it makes way more sense to critique the ways of our western culture and current versions of capitalist politics IMO

Music is just entertainment and a mirror of what is. And if the music is superficial, it really is an annoying image of the real world, many of us have a hard time liking. But the music is not less REAL for that matter IMO..

Anything that a mind can come up with is "real" (meaning a materilization of 'nothing')..

My wife & I had the radio on in the car for a while, and it was excruciating

The reason so many of us dislike current pop music is very simple to understand.

1 - It's NOT our music, and we are NOT who the labels are targeting. They do not care what we think, feel or want.

2- All the styles of music you grew up on is GONE from the main chart, and with it most all the instruments you have grown to know and relate two. The most popular music now has very little range..

3- HIP HOP , Rap Dance Electronic Music RULES this planet. If you have payed any attention to the chart you could see this happening over the past two decades.
Naturally you have the individual charts but I'm talking about the MAIN one, the one that counts the most, and the most to record labels. The Top Hot 100 Chart. This is where all popular music is mixed in against each other.

It's a hip hop nation, go to a high school for a day and see how kids act, talk and what they relate to. Then you'll understand.
There are always gonna be the kids who just follow the radio for what ever they play. Those kids will like The Jonas Brothers, and Kelly Clarkson, Beyonce, Taylor Swift and Hanna and whatever band has chart topper that month, Kings Of Leon then mext month American Rejects...
The more CLICK kids are into Hip Hop & Rap and naturally dance music is on the radio more than ever.

When I was in school it was ROCK, rock ruled the planet, without question. So while there were kids who liked Olivia Newton John and a hosts of other Pop artist the majority were Rock freaks.
Rock is out, of course there are kids who like the old stuff and the Metal clicks will always be there.. But do not compare it to Metal heads in the 80's... That was MAINSTREAM stuff!

One huge difference is Rock is the most diverse of ALL popular music ever... So the range was very very broad. Now the most popular music on the planet has very very little range.

So..... basically that is it, very simple the labels are NOT about to start playing Blues, New classical music or Jazz on the same station as Shakira & Taylor so KIDS will NEVER hear it. And without Rock who used all those styles they will certainly never hear it.

People remember COMEDY ALBUMS!!! Lol

It's 2010 if your a music lover you'll always find some cool stuff out there to dig. If your a pop music only fan then your enjoying yourself just like my Donnie Osmond Friends did.. Have Fun! If your a songwriter or musician who is TRYING to break into the business and get cuts well you better be paying attention to what's really happening - Like it OR not!

Peace
Sub

Bill your defense of the industry is admirable. Your attacks on me are not so good. I only speak my mind and see it as I see it. Perhaps we are talking about different things and from different experiences. I see crap aimed at the masses. I see the same old time after time. Few of these kids can sing and now they are aiming sex at thirteen year olds. Yeah the production is great and yeah they have a very professional stage presence and yeah they are mildly entertaining to a degree and yeah thank God for Melodyne and lip sync. But you miss my point entirely. It is mass produced crap they are all a product of the system and are disposable. They do not let originality and real talent flourish. If this is the top 1% that we are talking about god help us if we ever have to listen to the other 99%
I do not aim personal insults at you BUT you have made me angry. I could say that I have great Hi Fi and studio equipment and can listen to music the way it should be heard. I could also say that people need their ears cleaned if they think the current pop charts music are mostly well written songs performed by great singers. I think I would be mostly correct. Why do you get so angry when I say that most of these poprats have no real talent and people are gullible. That is clear to anyone but the silly thirteen year olds who buy their stuff. You know it and I know it. I hear what you say and I understand about money. That is the problem. The industry is money driven and not talent driven. I am generalising and wish you would not take what I say as personal. The record buying public consists mainly of adolescants who are easily led and easily parted from their and their parents money. They have been bombarded with so much mediocre music that it has become acceptable. Despite what you say THEY will fall for hype and a TV presence and will buy what they hear. The record industry must bear the blame.
The processed cheese is a great description of the industry. Have you ever seen or tasted processed cheese and seen how it is made and what it consists of....yurgh. Kraft made zillions from it. They recently bought out Cadburys a Brit company who have made quality chocolate for centruries and then despite saying they would not do it they closed down a plant in England immediately after buying the company. There is a music business analogy in that fact if there ever was one.

So you are saying that we should allow our sons and daughters to be corrupted by bad music and lewd behaviour just so some suits can make big bucks. Mmmmm Capitalism at its best.

I think your outbursts against me actually go a long way to proving my point. We all know who really runs this business and how it is run. These people get away with it far to often not just every now and again as you would have us believe.

BTW the fishing analogy does not work...Where I am from certain baits and fishing methods are illegal, young fish if caught are released...to protect the fish. I fish from time to time as a hobby. I normally catch and release unless the fish is diseased or it is one for the pot. I am not greedy.

Finally you are correct I give the public what they want not what I necessarily want to perform...I do alright. That said without trying to sound big headed the music I perform even though mostly covers is the best from the 40s- current. I must add that even the folk I play to do not ask much for current crap.
I am of course in all of this referring to pop music and chart music. We in the Uk only have one chart for classical music and one for everything else. Country music is rarely played. In fact you may be surprised to know that most folk here in the UK including myself have never even heard of most of the names banded about on this forum which seemingly are great household names across the pond. I had never heard of Jimmy Buffet and a host of country stars that are always being mentioned till I joind JPF. I am considered more eclectic and more musically aware than most. I say that just in case you thought that my rants werre aimed at the country scene.

I think that talent and dollars are both important. It is often difficult to predict or determine why one artist makes it big and others don't.

Here is an example - Justin Bieber - who came out of nowhere to be at the top in a matter of just a few months.

Tom

Interesting reading on this thread...

This isn’t exactly spot-on the topic, but it definitely relates to the media mind-set relating to artists and all celebrities. And the quickest way to achieve fame and fortune.

There was an article in the December 21st. issue of Newsweek titled “Celebrity – The Greatest Show on Earth”. The drift of the story was how media exposure makes celebrities out of non-talented, everyday people with absolutely no achievements to substantiate the claim. Actually it was more about today’s meaning of the concept “celebrity/star”.

I couldn’t help but think about Kate Gosselin’s rise to fame and fortune. Her own show, talk show appearances, constant headlines, and now “Dancing with the Stars”. On Dancing with the Stars, professional dancers are teamed with stars. Thus, Kate Gosselin epitomizes (actually pity-mizes) today’s meaning of “star” – “celebrity”.

What happened to the days when achievers earned media exposure more than the non-achievers? Who gets more media coverage, extremely talented actress Meryl Streep or no talented Kate Gosselin? Why Kate and not Meryl? Because as great as Meryl Streep is, her life isn’t considered interesting by the media. At least not when comparing it to the Kate Gosselins of the World.

Anyway, the point is, media exposure is all-important in the quest for success in the entertainment realm. Though in my opinion, real talent will garner longevity.

How much success in the entertainment field do you think Kate Gosselin would have achieved on pure talent. It would be a joke in past eras. But today – media exposed, no talented fame seekers are just as valid as hard-working, talented achievers – more so.

Who would have ever heard of the celebrities Jaimee Grubbs, Mindy Lawton, or Jamie Jungers if it weren’t for their affairs (and media exposure) with Tiger Woods.

How people are rewarded with media exposure has little to do with talent and all to do if your life is deemed interesting by the media and in turn by the masses.

I'd also like to add that I think there is still plenty of exposed talent in the World. You just have to weed through the garbage to find it.

John

Now THAT is a relative statement!

And If one of Tigers girlfriends THAT week of nonsense put out a CD she would out sell ANYONE here, even if she has no musical talent whatsoever... We could never get exposure like that musically even for 15 minutes, naturally.

FINALLY! That is part of the point Jim is making and we are ALL making.

Some pop music artist are not much better than (any old body) making music. As long as the PRODUCER makes a hot track, that means a track that FITS for today. Think J Lo
Producers! run this industry on the creative inside, have been for a while now. They deserve all they can snag..

The most important creative things a young pop artist needs today all lead back to the "Three P's"

Producers
Pro-Tools
Pitch Correction

Press - could make it four P's LOL

That about sums up my take......talent does not make you a pop star it is the three, or more correctly, 4Ps....Shame cause ther is young talent out there I have heard it. Given the same treatment the music they could make would be so much better and maybe kids would want to learn to play instruments instead of lip sync.

In a better world (or an alternate universe), talent would be determinative but here it is just one factor.

Tom

I agree Tom. The answer cannot be absolute because each case is different and subject to the various factors we're discussing to more or lesser degrees.

However, that does not take anything away from the question or the discussion, because in the end, I think the important factors will be uncovered...and we'll find most acts that are marketed will have their primary success\failure factors fall somewhere between the headings of talent, promotion and market acceptance....which is the lesson I have learned here so far.

The reality is that the industry makes a lot of similar products. They put roughly the same seed money into each. Some seem to take off, others do not.
But there is not the "long term' development that once was. So if something doesn't take off, it is jettisoned in favor of something that is working. They don't continue to drive artists like they used to.

Record companies now take things that have an existing fan base and build from that. Which is why reality television has taken over in the launching of artists. Huge fan base and interest. It is simple economics. But the music business has always been driven by profit. The only way it stays in business.

I would believe in the "manufactured manipulation" theory if I didn't see so many failures. There are so many (10 and 20 times) as many failures of artists, songs, bands, labels, publishers, etc. that COULD NOT MISS and money, time, and promotions simply did not allow for them resonating with the public.

Just a fact of the world.

MAB

All very true, and also there is a very very significant word that exists for a reason and that word is "Luck"

Luck is important, but it takes a certain level of skill to be lucky, as great skill attracts luck. It's not always those skills you would think is important, though

Feels comforting to me that the music business actually ARE driven, as someone might say it looks like a runaway train..

Magne I disagree..... it takes luck to be lucky. There is an old saying you make your own luck.....that is true to a certain extent if you doing everything to give yourself the best chance and that includes having the talent and creating a fan base and getting known and trying to be in the right place at the right time but at the end of the day it all boils down to luck.

Yes again very very true....

But I was thinking basically just two young pop singers the same singing abilities, dancing abilities, and both a hot look.
One becomes a mega star the other is dropped forever. Of course personal & business handleing all come into play as do other factors. But you could say one had better luck than the other.

That's a circular argument, Big. There's also an old saying that there are no such thing as luck..

I don't jump up and down with 'ahaa' revelations from business talk. I believe there are higher human qualities that can eliminate needs for Hollywood expressions like 'luck'..

I won't argue with using 'luck' like that in daily conversation, though..

But it's like looking at a photo and saying that's how the world looks like.. (sorry for staying cryptic, it's late, and it's the only way I can't be proven wrong )

To quote the one we can blame it all:

It's getting late and I know that's when I am weak
Funny how things have a way of looking so much brighter in the day light
I ought to go to bed and try to straighten out my head and just forget IT
Oh but it's midnight

Regardless of what anyone believes if some how everything starts falling on your head and destroying your life there is more than an excellent chance you will "use or think" of the words Luck or Fate.

And naturally if all starts going very well it's good luck

It's totally "Human"

I was thinking along the lines of Mike's explanation. The history books are full of examples of people bumping into a promoter or just happened to be playing when someone with influence hears them. The biggest piece of luck is to have famous parents who are pop stars or actors and actresses. Take Liza Minnelli? no doubting her talent fantastic but would she have made it as big without having been the daughter of Judy and shoved into the limelight by her. She did not even want to be a singer but her mother kinda forced her. These people all seem to have good luck. With great connections usually comes great luck.
I know of lots of people who have the talent, probably more talent and everything else needed to make it yet they have not made it.... Each case has to be taken but one thing for sure if you have luck and connections then you stand a better chance than anybody else.

"Luck", IMO, is circumstances lining up in the right way.

So "Luck" would be the right artist, with the right talent, character, drive, experience, looks, sound...

being in the right place at the right time, where they meet with the right person who can make their career....

But a lot of what is in this chain can be controlled

So the old saying

"The harder and smarter I work, the luckier I get"

rings true

As Lefty Gomez said: "I'd rather be lucky than good."

Actually, I'd rather be lucky AND good!

Ah C'mon Kevin Lefty Gomez stole it from me.

"There's also an old saying that there are no such thing as luck.."

Say that about the Powerball Lottery winners. 1 in 80 million chance of winning.

Sorry, back to topic...