MickyDolenz said:

Scorp said:

You said that the general public is never going back to whatever sound that was popular in the past but people from all walks are saying the reason they enjoy this artists music is for that exact reason...so which one is it...

One artist (Bruno Mars) being popular is no different than The Stray Cats being popular in the early 1980s and The Blues Brothers & Sha Na Na in the 1970s. It didn't make the mainstream start buying a bunch of rockabilly records that made the upper parts of the charts.

Scorp said:

when TV, particularly when color TV debuted on the scene and people were watching Milton Berle's show, Nat King Cole's show, Ed Sullivan show, and the American Bandstands of the world, people were in the same position where they were able to watch their favorite performers w/out buying the music, but they still bought records...people were listening to jukeboxes and were able to hear any song they wanted, the jukebox of the 50s and 60s was the equivalent of Youtube today, and what's crazy, people had to pay money to hear their favorite song at that moment, and they STILL bought the record

when MTV debuted on teh scene and all those music video shows became popular (Friday Night Videos)...the first 24 hour music station playing music videos non-stop, fans of MTV could watcha and see their favorite performer around the clock and they STILL bought records......cable stations were available too

There was no internet or streaming, so people had no choice but to buy records. Many people back then also had stereo systems & boomboxes & walkmans, where you needed to buy records & tapes to play on them. That is not the case today. Car manufactuers are not putting CD/tape players in their cars now as a default. Most record stores have closed down, and so have places that sell audio equipment. Department stores used to sell them too. Places like Wal-Mart only carry compilations and whatever is on the Top 10 in Billboard and then it's the clean versions. It's been reported recently that Best Buy is going to stop selling CDs. Since many of the most popular albums today are rap artists, and the audience usually want the CD with the parential advisory sticker, not the edited version. As I said technology killed that. Like "video killed the radio star".

When CDs came out, the labels eventually killed the 45 single. First it was the cassette single, then the CD single and then singles were pretty much eliminated altogether other than dance 12" singles for techno & house music remixes. So people were forced to buy albums in which acts decided to fill the 80 minutes when pre-CD albums averaged 30-45 minutes. CDs were also priced higher than records & tapes had been, so a lot of people (like teens) couldn't afford to buy them as much as before CDs were invented. Even in the past not everyone bought albums, they bought 45s because they were cheap and some only wanted the song on the radio, not the album. This is why Greatest Hits/Best Of albums were popular. Many people did not care about the rest of the material. The Eagles biggest selling album is a Greatest Hits. The general public is never going back to buying CDs, like they never went back to reel-to-reel & 8-track tapes. Even other types of stores are going out of business because of the internet like Radio Shack & Toys R Us. Some people are buying vinyl now, but since they average $20-$50 each, most people are not going to spend that much for 1 album. Most of the general public don't own a record player in the first place.

>

Music today is being hijacked, bought for pennies on the dollar by IT institutions. Tech is killing off the industry--all the signs are blazing in full neon, blinking splendor. The artists must diversify their efforts away from recording-for retail-sale, or change their art form into something that the IT companies cannot just take and manipulate--such as musical drama/theatrical--in order to make a living. I guess you could make any argument about a recording format turning obsolete as preventing sales, but the pricing of those things can be negotiated to make them accessible, and fact is, the music industry itself is withering by the IT speculations and their hijacking advertising enterprises.

>

Once people realize that they are being fed nothing but oldies and dumb music from the streaming services at the top of the chain, and music companies have gone broke, they will see that the bottom of the barrel of the latest trend has been reached. People will buy again, in whatever format--CD, cassette, 8-track, vinyl, download, whatever pleases their playback sensibility--strait from the source that can actually CREATE the stuff, once they're fed up with the upchuck that they will otherwise have left to choose from in their consumer ways.

<Edits--some glaring typos & grammatical fixes>

[Edited 3/23/18 11:16am]

Germanegro said:

Scorp said:

quoting from what was mentioned earlier....

the main idea is these young performers being encouraged to create their own music w/the backing of their record labels and the recording buying public that gravitates to them

it's both realms......

It is most importanly. like what Scorp is trying to say, and what babynoz agrees upon, the simple point of putting your cash into what you want to support. Like Prince was trying to enncourage once he came hip to the fact--be independent. Be creative. Negotiate fair contracts with record companies when you need to--go hard if you can, and sell independently whenever you can. The idea is kind of old, basic, and simple. The challenging part is the artist finding where the best support exists, and that knowledge can be obfuscated in the large music-biz game. Show up where the artists show up and show them the love. Give them the love. Give THE ARTIST your cash!

>

Bruno appears to have tapped into the big-biz network, and has teams of support within that realm, so I guess his thing is working for him? As far as he the individual repping "Black" music forms, I think he's doing alright, & if he passes his success back to the community in different ways It'd be appreciated and Bro's & Sis's would give him less of a hard time.

Somebody gets it.....THANK YOU!

At some point we have to take some responsibility and participate in the process if we hope to influence the market. Yearning and wishing and hoping that the public will magically gravitate in a certain direction won't cut it.

Bruno tapped a vein but it simply cannot be denied that if there wasn't an entire army of public support behind him he would have had a shorter shelf life.

Another example.....labels today take things like an artist's social media following into consideration. Some of these guys want an artist to already have a certain amount of followers before they are even willing to sign them. Therefore when your favorite artist goes in to negotiate a contract the size of their following helps determine how much leverage they have at the bargaining table. This is turn gives them more leverage regarding artistic freedom, which is a big deal for a real artist.

This is why I am trying to get people to understand why concrete support on our part is sooo very important. Prince would not have been as successful in taking a stand against the industry without us serving as his purple army, especially through the lean years when they wanted to blackball him. Independence is not easy and artist gotta eat too.

babynoz said:

Germanegro said:

It is most importanly. like what Scorp is trying to say, and what babynoz agrees upon, the simple point of putting your cash into what you want to support. Like Prince was trying to enncourage once he came hip to the fact--be independent. Be creative. Negotiate fair contracts with record companies when you need to--go hard if you can, and sell independently whenever you can. The idea is kind of old, basic, and simple. The challenging part is the artist finding where the best support exists, and that knowledge can be obfuscated in the large music-biz game. Show up where the artists show up and show them the love. Give them the love. Give THE ARTIST your cash!

>

Bruno appears to have tapped into the big-biz network, and has teams of support within that realm, so I guess his thing is working for him? As far as he the individual repping "Black" music forms, I think he's doing alright, & if he passes his success back to the community in different ways It'd be appreciated and Bro's & Sis's would give him less of a hard time.

Somebody gets it.....THANK YOU!

At some point we have to take some responsibility and participate in the process if we hope to influence the market. Yearning and wishing and hoping that the public will magically gravitate in a certain direction won't cut it.

Bruno tapped a vein but it simply cannot be denied that if there wasn't an entire army of public support behind him he would have had a shorter shelf life.

Another example.....labels today take things like an artist's social media following into consideration. Some of these guys want an artist to already have a certain amount of followers before they are even willing to sign them. Therefore when your favorite artist goes in to negotiate a contract the size of their following helps determine how much leverage they have at the bargaining table. This is turn gives them more leverage regarding artistic freedom, which is a big deal for a real artist.

This is why I am trying to get people to understand why concrete support on our part is sooo very important. Prince would not have been as successful in taking a stand against the industry without us serving as his purple army, especially through the lean years when they wanted to blackball him. Independence is not easy and artist gotta eat too.

award winning post

babynoz said:

Germanegro said:

It is most importanly. like what Scorp is trying to say, and what babynoz agrees upon, the simple point of putting your cash into what you want to support. Like Prince was trying to enncourage once he came hip to the fact--be independent. Be creative. Negotiate fair contracts with record companies when you need to--go hard if you can, and sell independently whenever you can. The idea is kind of old, basic, and simple. The challenging part is the artist finding where the best support exists, and that knowledge can be obfuscated in the large music-biz game. Show up where the artists show up and show them the love. Give them the love. Give THE ARTIST your cash!

>

Bruno appears to have tapped into the big-biz network, and has teams of support within that realm, so I guess his thing is working for him? As far as he the individual repping "Black" music forms, I think he's doing alright, & if he passes his success back to the community in different ways It'd be appreciated and Bro's & Sis's would give him less of a hard time.

Somebody gets it.....THANK YOU!

At some point we have to take some responsibility and participate in the process if we hope to influence the market. Yearning and wishing and hoping that the public will magically gravitate in a certain direction won't cut it.

Bruno tapped a vein but it simply cannot be denied that if there wasn't an entire army of public support behind him he would have had a shorter shelf life.

Another example.....labels today take things like an artist's social media following into consideration. Some of these guys want an artist to already have a certain amount of followers before they are even willing to sign them. Therefore when your favorite artist goes in to negotiate a contract the size of their following helps determine how much leverage they have at the bargaining table. This is turn gives them more leverage regarding artistic freedom, which is a big deal for a real artist.

This is why I am trying to get people to understand why concrete support on our part is sooo very important. Prince would not have been as successful in taking a stand against the industry without us serving as his purple army, especially through the lean years when they wanted to blackball him. Independence is not easy and artist gotta eat too.

True. But let's remember Prince would not have a purple army without the mainstream marketing support of WB in the 80s. Artists like Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Bruce Springteen had extended careers because of the major label support that allowed them to build a massive fanbase over 2 generations. Prince was selling out arenas even though he didn't have a hit album. Artists like Beyonce, Bruno, Rihanna, and Justin Beiber will have the same extended careers 15 to 20 years from now because of their large fanbase.

You can have a small, loyal fanbase, but that's not enough to sustain an artist because eventually some people will move on. And the artist won't have that touchstone legacy to build on. Record labels spend millions of dollars and use a network of connections to get maximum exposure for their artists. How does an artist compete if the label either doesn't sign them or refuse to give them full support?

^^ who pays you? and why? manipulation cuts both ways.

poppys said:

^^ who pays you? and why? manipulation cuts both ways.

What are you referring to?

Germanegro said:

Scorp said:

quoting from what was mentioned earlier....

the main idea is these young performers being encouraged to create their own music w/the backing of their record labels and the recording buying public that gravitates to them

it's both realms......

It is most importanly. like what Scorp is trying to say, and what babynoz agrees upon, the simple point of putting your cash into what you want to support. Like Prince was trying to enncourage once he came hip to the fact--be independent. Be creative. Negotiate fair contracts with record companies when you need to--go hard if you can, and sell independently whenever you can. The idea is kind of old, basic, and simple. The challenging part is the artist finding where the best support exists, and that knowledge can be obfuscated in the large music-biz game. Show up where the artists show up and show them the love. Give them the love. Give THE ARTIST your cash!

>

Bruno appears to have tapped into the big-biz network, and has teams of support within that realm, so I guess his thing is working for him? As far as he the individual repping "Black" music forms, I think he's doing alright, & if he passes his success back to the community in different ways It'd be appreciated and Bro's & Sis's would give him less of a hard time.

yes, these are some of the steps that can contribute to beginning to shift back the pendulum.

I believe the responsibility falls into this paradigm

1.) Record company

2.) Radio Station

3.) Artist

4.) Record buying public

and then everything else regarding the quality of music is the quality of music itself

The record company has to set the standard for and is the source where the music is gonna be released. Througout the modern era of music from the 50 to the present, many storied recording labels carried their own mantra, their own recognizable sound per se, Motown, Stax, TSOP, RCA, Capital, Casablanca, Columbia, Solar, Arista, Def Jam, CBS, Epic, Warner Bros, MCA, etc........all those labels often signed and represented artists who's talent was cultivated to often project a style of music those labels became known for......

The radio station has the influence and the ability to shape the kind of music their audience wants to here and prefer to hear...this is why it's so important to feature the full range of music for as the radio station offers that full range, their audience will gain the full range and won't be geared towards a single genre of music

the artist's career projectory (if they have a high degree of musical talent and has the potential to establish longevity) is shaped by both of these realms as a whole in terms of the quality of music they will become expected to offer (that's how it use to be before the decline started)

and the record buying public is a reflection of all three entities and where those three entities stand at any given moment.

babynoz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

babynoz said:

Somebody gets it.....THANK YOU!

At some point we have to take some responsibility and participate in the process if we hope to influence the market. Yearning and wishing and hoping that the public will magically gravitate in a certain direction won't cut it.

Bruno tapped a vein but it simply cannot be denied that if there wasn't an entire army of public support behind him he would have had a shorter shelf life.

Another example.....labels today take things like an artist's social media following into consideration. Some of these guys want an artist to already have a certain amount of followers before they are even willing to sign them. Therefore when your favorite artist goes in to negotiate a contract the size of their following helps determine how much leverage they have at the bargaining table. This is turn gives them more leverage regarding artistic freedom, which is a big deal for a real artist.

This is why I am trying to get people to understand why concrete support on our part is sooo very important. Prince would not have been as successful in taking a stand against the industry without us serving as his purple army, especially through the lean years when they wanted to blackball him. Independence is not easy and artist gotta eat too.

Agreed. However in order to have great fan support, one also must have great support of their record label. Major labels don't groom their talent or allow them to develop like they used too. They rarely if ever truly invest in an artist now and would rather thrive off of short term gains instead of taking a chance. It's somewhat understandable but these safe bets come at the expense of variety and the chance to make new stars that could possibly make tons of money down the line. Certain circumstances aside, the industry as it is today wouldn't let Prince reach the level of megastardom that he's remembered for. Warner Bros. probably would have cut him off after Dirty Mind and he'd have been lucky to have been a one hit wonder. Even the "stars" of today fail to actually feel like stars and instead are more like products that create LCD pandering music for easy money. A few people brought up a good point that you can't force people to buy or like something but at the same time, if there's only a small selection being offered to the general public, the vast majority are going to settle for it. The internet, even with its wide reach can only provide fledgling artists with so much without the big bucks and support of a major label. Indie labels are rising up and many are doing good with their limited resources as well as their rosters of artists who have what the creative control to make the music they want and get paid for it. Still, that's not enough to get their names on marquees and make them accessible to far more prospective fans.

Great comment. Prince was right when he said the internet is dead. Most people laughed it off, but he was saying the internet is not real viable option for an independent artist to make a living making music. Anyone can put their music on Itunes, Soundcloud, and Spotify, but it means little if no one knows you or your music exists.

I was reading a few articles about how it's more difficult than ever to be a working musician. Little revenue comes from digital sales and artists are being forced to tour more often which leads to audiences getting burned out seeing their artists too many times. They were saying future musicians will have to get 9 to 5 jobs and see music as a passionate hobby. Of course, it's been like that for most artists, but that might be an unavoidable option for even the top talent.

MotownSubdivision said:

babynoz said:

Somebody gets it.....THANK YOU!

At some point we have to take some responsibility and participate in the process if we hope to influence the market. Yearning and wishing and hoping that the public will magically gravitate in a certain direction won't cut it.

Bruno tapped a vein but it simply cannot be denied that if there wasn't an entire army of public support behind him he would have had a shorter shelf life.

Another example.....labels today take things like an artist's social media following into consideration. Some of these guys want an artist to already have a certain amount of followers before they are even willing to sign them. Therefore when your favorite artist goes in to negotiate a contract the size of their following helps determine how much leverage they have at the bargaining table. This is turn gives them more leverage regarding artistic freedom, which is a big deal for a real artist.

This is why I am trying to get people to understand why concrete support on our part is sooo very important. Prince would not have been as successful in taking a stand against the industry without us serving as his purple army, especially through the lean years when they wanted to blackball him. Independence is not easy and artist gotta eat too.

Agreed. However in order to have great fan support, one also must have great support of their record label. Major labels don't groom their talent or allow them to develop like they used too. They rarely if ever truly invest in an artist now and would rather thrive off of short term gains instead of taking a chance. It's somewhat understandable but these safe bets come at the expense of variety and the chance to make new stars that could possibly make tons of money down the line. Certain circumstances aside, the industry as it is today wouldn't let Prince reach the level of megastardom that he's remembered for. Warner Bros. probably would have cut him off after Dirty Mind and he'd have been lucky to have been a one hit wonder. Even the "stars" of today fail to actually feel like stars and instead are more like products that create LCD pandering music for easy money. A few people brought up a good point that you can't force people to buy or like something but at the same time, if there's only a small selection being offered to the general public, the vast majority are going to settle for it. The internet, even with its wide reach can only provide fledgling artists with so much without the big bucks and support of a major label. Indie labels are rising up and many are doing good with their limited resources as well as their rosters of artists who have what the creative control to make the music they want and get paid for it. Still, that's not enough to get their names on marquees and make them accessible to far more prospective fans.

Yesssssssssssssssssssssss,

This is the problem, this is the root of why so many of the current generation of artists find themselves gravitating back to yesterday while at the same time, the audience majority of today are gravitating to them exclusively.......because something is missing

it's not about what a person likes per se...I may like something that somedoby else don't like.....that's not the problem......

But if you're presented w/the full range, the full gamut, you'll wind up liking more than what you currently like, THIS is what today's music fan as a whole is not being given the opportunity to experience........when the full range is there, the creativity is there......when the full range is no longer present, the creativity becomes stagnant.....

those luminaries from yesterday, even though they may have been known for a particular genre of music, they were able to excel, be authentic, and come of age, and develop their own style is because they were exposed to the full gamut....the full spectrum of music

if today's artists were exposted to the full gamut, they can create another golden age of music.....

MotownSubdivision said:

Warner Bros. probably would have cut him off after Dirty Mind and he'd have been lucky to have been a one hit wonder.

I'm not sure think a male singer wearing underwear & stockings would catch on as easily today with the mainstream and especially not on R&B/hip hop radio. I don't think the Adult R&B audience would accept him dressed like that either. Look at the big fuss a little while back about Jaden Smith wearing a dress and jokes about guys wearing "skinny jeans". The hotep type people who make videos like the Bruno Mars appropriation one will have a field day with theories about Hollywood people trying to emasculate black men by having them wearing a dress, makeup, and acting feminine (ig. Umar Johnson). Then there's Wendy Williams always trying to out celebrities on her TV show or saying they're "down low". People like Prince, Annie Lennox, & Boy George would likely be rejected by the modern mainstream audience if they were new acts now. Prince might get the Afropunk alternative crowd though.

lrn36 said:

babynoz said:

Somebody gets it.....THANK YOU!

At some point we have to take some responsibility and participate in the process if we hope to influence the market. Yearning and wishing and hoping that the public will magically gravitate in a certain direction won't cut it.

Bruno tapped a vein but it simply cannot be denied that if there wasn't an entire army of public support behind him he would have had a shorter shelf life.

Another example.....labels today take things like an artist's social media following into consideration. Some of these guys want an artist to already have a certain amount of followers before they are even willing to sign them. Therefore when your favorite artist goes in to negotiate a contract the size of their following helps determine how much leverage they have at the bargaining table. This is turn gives them more leverage regarding artistic freedom, which is a big deal for a real artist.

This is why I am trying to get people to understand why concrete support on our part is sooo very important. Prince would not have been as successful in taking a stand against the industry without us serving as his purple army, especially through the lean years when they wanted to blackball him. Independence is not easy and artist gotta eat too.

True. But let's remember Prince would not have a purple army without the mainstream marketing support of WB in the 80s. Artists like Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Bruce Springteen had extended careers because of the major label support that allowed them to build a massive fanbase over 2 generations. Prince was selling out arenas even though he didn't have a hit album. Artists like Beyonce, Bruno, Rihanna, and Justin Beiber will have the same extended careers 15 to 20 years from now because of their large fanbase.

You can have a small, loyal fanbase, but that's not enough to sustain an artist because eventually some people will move on. And the artist won't have that touchstone legacy to build on. Record labels spend millions of dollars and use a network of connections to get maximum exposure for their artists. How does an artist compete if the label either doesn't sign them or refuse to give them full support?

So you believe that WB just up and gave Prince marketing support because he asked for it? He did a bit of showing and proving before that budget was given to him.

This is somewhat of a circular chicken and egg argument the way you guys are framing it. What do you guys think that the labels base their decision on when they decide to put major $$ into promoting an artist???

At any given time there are a number of very talented artist out there who never get signed if no label thinks the public will support them.

Who do you people think kept Prince afloat through the lean years? If we keep selling ourselves short with the victim mindset that we are somehow powerless without a major label dictating who we should like, then we dishonor everything that Prince ever fought for, which is truly sad.

MotownSubdivision said:

babynoz said:

Somebody gets it.....THANK YOU!

At some point we have to take some responsibility and participate in the process if we hope to influence the market. Yearning and wishing and hoping that the public will magically gravitate in a certain direction won't cut it.

Bruno tapped a vein but it simply cannot be denied that if there wasn't an entire army of public support behind him he would have had a shorter shelf life.

Another example.....labels today take things like an artist's social media following into consideration. Some of these guys want an artist to already have a certain amount of followers before they are even willing to sign them. Therefore when your favorite artist goes in to negotiate a contract the size of their following helps determine how much leverage they have at the bargaining table. This is turn gives them more leverage regarding artistic freedom, which is a big deal for a real artist.

This is why I am trying to get people to understand why concrete support on our part is sooo very important. Prince would not have been as successful in taking a stand against the industry without us serving as his purple army, especially through the lean years when they wanted to blackball him. Independence is not easy and artist gotta eat too.

Agreed. However in order to have great fan support, one also must have great support of their record label. Major labels don't groom their talent or allow them to develop like they used too. They rarely if ever truly invest in an artist now and would rather thrive off of short term gains instead of taking a chance. It's somewhat understandable but these safe bets come at the expense of variety and the chance to make new stars that could possibly make tons of money down the line. Certain circumstances aside, the industry as it is today wouldn't let Prince reach the level of megastardom that he's remembered for. Warner Bros. probably would have cut him off after Dirty Mind and he'd have been lucky to have been a one hit wonder. Even the "stars" of today fail to actually feel like stars and instead are more like products that create LCD pandering music for easy money. A few people brought up a good point that you can't force people to buy or like something but at the same time, if there's only a small selection being offered to the general public, the vast majority are going to settle for it. The internet, even with its wide reach can only provide fledgling artists with so much without the big bucks and support of a major label. Indie labels are rising up and many are doing good with their limited resources as well as their rosters of artists who have what the creative control to make the music they want and get paid for it. Still, that's not enough to get their names on marquees and make them accessible to far more prospective fans.

I think we are getting our wires crossed here.

The way the labels operate is not in dispute nor is the fact that cheaply produced tripe is widely promoted over those artists that some of us feel are more deserving.

We already know what is wrong with the industry. We have had thread after thread about it over the years.

Where I differ is the belief that WE are not doing nearly as much as we should to change things because too many people embrace powerlessness. We remain content to talk it to death and do nothing. That is the reason I said that Germanegro gets it.

Prince did a whole helluva lot more than just talk about what was wrong with the industry. He put his ass on the line, put his money where his mouth was and led by example.

Which is one of the reasons I had a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for him.

lrn36 said:

MotownSubdivision said:

babynoz said: Agreed. However in order to have great fan support, one also must have great support of their record label. Major labels don't groom their talent or allow them to develop like they used too. They rarely if ever truly invest in an artist now and would rather thrive off of short term gains instead of taking a chance. It's somewhat understandable but these safe bets come at the expense of variety and the chance to make new stars that could possibly make tons of money down the line. Certain circumstances aside, the industry as it is today wouldn't let Prince reach the level of megastardom that he's remembered for. Warner Bros. probably would have cut him off after Dirty Mind and he'd have been lucky to have been a one hit wonder. Even the "stars" of today fail to actually feel like stars and instead are more like products that create LCD pandering music for easy money. A few people brought up a good point that you can't force people to buy or like something but at the same time, if there's only a small selection being offered to the general public, the vast majority are going to settle for it. The internet, even with its wide reach can only provide fledgling artists with so much without the big bucks and support of a major label. Indie labels are rising up and many are doing good with their limited resources as well as their rosters of artists who have what the creative control to make the music they want and get paid for it. Still, that's not enough to get their names on marquees and make them accessible to far more prospective fans.

Great comment. Prince was right when he said the internet is dead. Most people laughed it off, but he was saying the internet is not real viable option for an independent artist to make a living making music. Anyone can put their music on Itunes, Soundcloud, and Spotify, but it means little if no one knows you or your music exists.

I was reading a few articles about how it's more difficult than ever to be a working musician. Little revenue comes from digital sales and artists are being forced to tour more often which leads to audiences getting burned out seeing their artists too many times. They were saying future musicians will have to get 9 to 5 jobs and see music as a passionate hobby. Of course, it's been like that for most artists, but that might be an unavoidable option for even the top talent.

And yet even Prince had social media accounts before he passed, remember???


Furthermore, any artist who is whining about having to tour more can cry me a river. Life for any artist is not an easy life. That is true whether you are a musician, a writer, actor, dancer, etc. People, including many aspiring artists have a very unrealistic expectation of what earning a living in entertainment is really like.

What they need to understand is that this is a grind just like anything else worth pursuing.

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

MickyDolenz said:

I'm not sure think a male singer wearing underwear & stockings would catch on as easily today with the mainstream and especially not on R&B/hip hop radio. I don't think the Adult R&B audience would accept him dressed like that either. Look at the big fuss a little while back about Jaden Smith wearing a dress and jokes about guys wearing "skinny jeans". The hotep type people who make videos like the Bruno Mars appropriation one will have a field day with theories about Hollywood people trying to emasculate black men by having them wearing a dress, makeup, and acting feminine (ig. Umar Johnson). Then there's Wendy Williams always trying to out celebrities on her TV show or saying they're "down low". People like Prince, Annie Lennox, & Boy George would likely be rejected by the modern mainstream audience if they were new acts now. Prince might get the Afropunk alternative crowd though.

That's not the point I was trying to make. I was just using Dirty Mind as a reference in time to show how quickly Prince would get dropped by a major label today. It doesn't have to do with the explicit nature of the album but rather its commercial performance and it's significance in P's development as an artist. A major today wouldn't have let Prince realize his full potential because he wasn't an immediate success although Prince was very blessed to be granted the freedom he had by WB anyway.

great points

babynoz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

babynoz said:

I think we are getting our wires crossed here.

The way the labels operate is not in dispute nor is the fact that cheaply produced tripe is widely promoted over those artists that some of us feel are more deserving.

We already know what is wrong with the industry. We have had thread after thread about it over the years.

Where I differ is the belief that WE are not doing nearly as much as we should to change things because too many people embrace powerlessness. We remain content to talk it to death and do nothing. That is the reason I said that Germanegro gets it.

Prince did a whole helluva lot more than just talk about what was wrong with the industry. He put his ass on the line, put his money where his mouth was and led by example.

Which is one of the reasons I had a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for him.

I gotcha. I actually touched on what you were getting at in one of my earlier posts; about how we always talk about the change we'd like to see but nothing changes. That extends to society at large today but in relation to music, none of today's artists have the balls to buck the system and risk their fame; none are willing to take the risk and most only speak up when it's popular or convenient to do so. Even then it leads to nothing. We as music enthusiasts do play a role in this by supporting our favorite artists, something we neglect to do. We as the people could make a difference but that requires widespread unity, something we only seem to be preaching and not practicing. Even so, with how streaming is utilized it only serves the top 1% of artists; they're the ones who benefit from this system but at the expense of up and comers trying to climb the ladder. We can do our part and monetarily support our favorites but even that can go so far.

That's all I'm trying to say.

There is only one way to find out how far we can go and that is by taking action.

Going off topic to make a point, I am sitting here looking one million plus teens who never got the memo that they couldn't take on the gub'ment cowards and the arms manufacturers who control the NRA. That fight is a whole lot more important than this discussion but still.....


Never tell youself or try to convince anybody else that we are powerless.

MotownSubdivision said:

That's not the point I was trying to make. I was just using Dirty Mind as a reference in time to show how quickly Prince would get dropped by a major label today. It doesn't have to do with the explicit nature of the album but rather its commercial performance and it's significance in P's development as an artist. A major today wouldn't have let Prince realize his full potential because he wasn't an immediate success although Prince was very blessed to be granted the freedom he had by WB anyway.

It's related because Prince's image & look he had at the time, would hinder his chances on becoming popular today, which might result in what you said about WB dropping him. They would have a hard time trying to market him to today's Top 40 audience. I wasn't really talking about the music. Prince could have made the same album as Adele, Beyoncé, or Justin Bieber, but the mainstream (at least in the US) probably would not accept him in order to become a superstar. Even in the late 1980s, some stores would not stock Lovesexy, and some people did not want to be seen owning an album with that cover, so the album did not sell that well in the US. Image is important in breaking an artist now, especially after MTV. If Bruno Mars was dressed like the Dirty Mind era Prince or wore a lot of makeup, it's unlikely Bruno would be a big thing now. He could have an audience, but not a big mainstream one.

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

That's not the point I was trying to make. I was just using Dirty Mind as a reference in time to show how quickly Prince would get dropped by a major label today. It doesn't have to do with the explicit nature of the album but rather its commercial performance and it's significance in P's development as an artist. A major today wouldn't have let Prince realize his full potential because he wasn't an immediate success although Prince was very blessed to be granted the freedom he had by WB anyway.

It's related because Prince's image & look he had at the time, would hinder his chances on becoming popular today, which might result in what you said about WB dropping him. They would have a hard time trying to market him to today's Top 40 audience. I wasn't really talking about the music. Prince could have made the same album as Adele, Beyoncé, or Justin Bieber, but the mainstream (at least in the US) probably would not accept him in order to become a superstar. Even in the late 1980s, some stores would not stock Lovesexy, and some people did not want to be seen owning an album with that cover, so the album did not sell that well in the US. Image is important in breaking an artist now, especially after MTV. If Bruno Mars was dressed like the Dirty Mind era Prince or wore a lot of makeup, it's unlikely Bruno would be a big thing now. He could have an audience, but not a big mainstream one.

IF you believe that the billboard charts and a spreadsheet can explain how the music business works now, and clearly before you were born - then fine. Otherwise, that's a whole lot of koolaid yer drinkin there.

babynoz said:

Going off topic to make a point, I am sitting here looking one million plus teens who never got the memo that they couldn't take on the gub'ment cowards and the arms manufacturers who control the NRA. That fight is a whole lot more important than this discussion but still.....


Never tell youself or try to convince anybody else that we are powerless.

poppys said:

IF you believe that the billboard charts and a spreadsheet can explain how the music business works now, and clearly before you were born - then fine. Otherwise, that's a whole lot of koolaid yer drinkin there.

How the music business works or Billboard doesn't really have anything to do with who the mainstream audience will accept or not. Billboard tracks what sells and/or airplay, but does not make anything popular. It's like the video the thread is about has nothing to do with Billboard. The lady in the video rejects Bruno because she thinks he is a "culture vulture" and that he is only popular because he's not black. People in the past have said the same thing about Elvis Presley and other white singers. So it's not a new thing, except now people can make videos and blogs about it. That's why I said the current mainstram audience is less likely to accept Prince or Boy George now like the one did in the 1980s. That comment had nothing to with Billboard, and I didn't mention it in that comment. Most of my commensts in this thread has to do with mainstream audiences, not about how the music business works. The Top 40/Hot 100 in Billboard is the mainstream chart. Billboard has a jazz chart and a classical chart, but I did not talk about those, because they're not the mainstream chart. So there is nothing wrong in what I said if I'm talking about the mainstream. Bruno is a mainstream act.

babynoz said:

Going off topic to make a point, I am sitting here looking one million plus teens who never got the memo that they couldn't take on the gub'ment cowards and the arms manufacturers who control the NRA. That fight is a whole lot more important than this discussion but still.....


Never tell youself or try to convince anybody else that we are powerless.

True, but it still took almost 20 years for this to happen after Columbine and decades after the rise of gun violence in general. Sometimes, it takes years and years of making enough people aware of problem in order to start the process of changing it. Most of those kids said they were never political active, but have a personal experience with gun violence forced them to action. That's often how it goes. There has to be a consensus of enough people to get things to change. I think talking about these issues is an important step to making change.

MickyDolenz said:

poppys said:

IF you believe that the billboard charts and a spreadsheet can explain how the music business works now, and clearly before you were born - then fine. Otherwise, that's a whole lot of koolaid yer drinkin there.

How the music business works or Billboard doesn't really have anything to do with who the mainstream audience will accept or not. Billboard tracks what sells and/or airplay, but does not make anything popular. It's like the video the thread is about has nothing to do with Billboard. The lady in the video rejects Bruno because she thinks he is a "culture vulture" and that he is only popular because he's not black. People in the past have said the same thing about Elvis Presley and other white singers. So it's not a new thing, except now people can make videos and blogs about it. That's why I said the current mainstram audience is less likely to accept Prince or Boy George now like the one did in the 1980s. That comment had nothing to with Billboard, and I didn't mention it in that comment. Most of my commensts in this thread has to do with mainstream audiences, not about how the music business works. The Top 40/Hot 100 in Billboard is the mainstream chart. Billboard has a jazz chart and a classical chart, but I did not talk about those, because they're not the mainstream chart. So there is nothing wrong in what I said if I'm talking about the mainstream. Bruno is a mainstream act.

MTV had a lot to do with the success of artists in the videos. Visuals were becoming just as important as the music. Artist needed a unique look to grab people's attention. MJ, Prince, Boy George, and Madonna had it. It's more than likely what drove the over the top fashion of the 80s. Even artists like Phil Collins and Bruce Springteen had a ton of charisma that made up for a lack of a unique look.

In the age of social media, audiences want their artists to look more like them. They want a reflection of their own experience. There's more of a subtle line artists have to draw between being unique and coming off as too weird.

[Edited 3/25/18 11:48am]

lrn36 said:

babynoz said:

Going off topic to make a point, I am sitting here looking one million plus teens who never got the memo that they couldn't take on the gub'ment cowards and the arms manufacturers who control the NRA. That fight is a whole lot more important than this discussion but still.....


Never tell youself or try to convince anybody else that we are powerless.

True, but it still took almost 20 years for this to happen after Columbine and decades after the rise of gun violence in general. Sometimes, it takes years and years of making enough people aware of problem in order to start the process of changing it. Most of those kids said they were never political active, but have a personal experience with gun violence forced them to action. That's often how it goes. There has to be a consensus of enough people to get things to change. I think talking about these issues is an important step to making change.

Good point.

lrn36 said:

MTV had a lot to do with the success of artists in the videos. Visuals were becoming just as important as the music. Artist needed a unique look to grab people's attention. MJ, Prince, Boy George, and Madonna had it. It's more than likely what drove the over the top fashion of the 80s. Even artists like Phil Collins and Bruce Springteen had a ton of charisma that made up for a lack of a unique look.

In the age of social media, audiences want their artists to look more like them. They want a reflection of their own experience. There's more of a subtle line artists have to draw between being unique and coming off as too weird.

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Janelle Monáe. That might be a reason her music hasn't really blown up big. Erykah Badu was on the Tonight Show about a month or 2 ago and her hair was like Coolio. The video has been taken down on Jimmy Fallon's Youtube channel, but there were comments about her as being weird, and others saying they never heard of her. I think being weird is not really in now for a large audience. Maybe one factor is that a lot of schools have uniforms now, so everyone looks the same. There's less of a way to pick out the goth kids or the metalheads. The biggest selling modern artist is Adele, and I wouldn't say there is anything weird about her music or her image. Adele can appeal to a wider variety of people than Lady Gaga and her meat dress. There's always been the safe artists like The Carpenters, Barry Manilow, & Whitney Houston who were really popular and sold a lot of records. That's what Pat Boone was. Whitney sold a lot more than Grace Jones. Clive Davis gave Whitney adult contemporary style songs and a clean cut image. Even Madonna's 1980s music was mostly clean cut. She had a bad girl image, but not really a weird image. That might be why Cyndi Lauper's popularity didn't last that long, she had a kind of a weird goofy image and hung out with wrestlers.

lrn36 said:

babynoz said:

Going off topic to make a point, I am sitting here looking one million plus teens who never got the memo that they couldn't take on the gub'ment cowards and the arms manufacturers who control the NRA. That fight is a whole lot more important than this discussion but still.....


Never tell youself or try to convince anybody else that we are powerless.

True, but it still took almost 20 years for this to happen after Columbine and decades after the rise of gun violence in general. Sometimes, it takes years and years of making enough people aware of problem in order to start the process of changing it. Most of those kids said they were never political active, but have a personal experience with gun violence forced them to action. That's often how it goes. There has to be a consensus of enough people to get things to change. I think talking about these issues is an important step to making change.

Who said it was going to be easy or fast? Change never is and that is still no excuse for not doing anything but talking. We have been talking about this for at least twenty years already. That's my point.

lrn36 said:

babynoz said:

Somebody gets it.....THANK YOU!

At some point we have to take some responsibility and participate in the process if we hope to influence the market. Yearning and wishing and hoping that the public will magically gravitate in a certain direction won't cut it.

Bruno tapped a vein but it simply cannot be denied that if there wasn't an entire army of public support behind him he would have had a shorter shelf life.

Another example.....labels today take things like an artist's social media following into consideration. Some of these guys want an artist to already have a certain amount of followers before they are even willing to sign them. Therefore when your favorite artist goes in to negotiate a contract the size of their following helps determine how much leverage they have at the bargaining table. This is turn gives them more leverage regarding artistic freedom, which is a big deal for a real artist.

This is why I am trying to get people to understand why concrete support on our part is sooo very important. Prince would not have been as successful in taking a stand against the industry without us serving as his purple army, especially through the lean years when they wanted to blackball him. Independence is not easy and artist gotta eat too.

True. But let's remember Prince would not have a purple army without the mainstream marketing support of WB in the 80s. Artists like Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Bruce Springteen had extended careers because of the major label support that allowed them to build a massive fanbase over 2 generations. Prince was selling out arenas even though he didn't have a hit album. Artists like Beyonce, Bruno, Rihanna, and Justin Beiber will have the same extended careers 15 to 20 years from now because of their large fanbase.

You can have a small, loyal fanbase, but that's not enough to sustain an artist because eventually some people will move on. And the artist won't have that touchstone legacy to build on. Record labels spend millions of dollars and use a network of connections to get maximum exposure for their artists. How does an artist compete if the label either doesn't sign them or refuse to give them full support?

Yes your right...however, IMO this is not solely because of their label backing. There had to have been some general demand or interest for them to reach the heights of success and stardom that they did.

I feel your label backing point is more appropiate for the artists out today who imo have way more label backing than MJ, Madonna, Prince, etc ever had. What is impressive about the afromentioned is that despite the limited label support they had compared to today's pop stars, they were more popular and successful than the artists of today. This is largely because they were created by the people and there was a geniune interest in them. Most of the acts out now are products that manufactured by the industry and not stars created by the people. They get all this hype but when you look at the commercial receipts it doesn't match up. So no its not the same and commercial backing doesn't necessarily mean you have a large fanbase.

Source: https://www.pinterest.com...375372157/