New topic
Printablekrayzie said: Dance said: Really troll? Troll? 
You know there will be a day when people will remember the good old days before internet era, when people used to buy records, when artists made millions of dollars selling records with no promotion The irony of the digital age is it has given exactly what artists have always wanted ("freedom") but in expense of revenues... Because companies are losing more and more money with the illegal downloading, it forces companies to take very little risk... That's why they have to find other ways to make money with these ringtones and pro-tool stuff... 
That's funny because 10 years ago, a lot of people thought that it would be the opposite... People forget that launching a new artist takes a lot of time and MONEY, but if companies don't make money anymore, how can you expect these companies to sign talented artist who don't necessarly fit the mainstream standard... Now they do the safe thing... Better signing an MJ impersonator that will guarantee revenues over a real artist that won't sell much... Back then Warner had no problem to support Prince, because on the same label there were other artists selling millions of records... So it wasn't problematic back then to take risk, and sign artists like Prince ... But now ? Prince would never be signed today, or at least not kept after 1 album, and neither would anyone else who came up in that time period who didnt have the commercial success right off the bat, bands like U2,Inxs,Depeche,Duran etc all would be dropped because all of them had at least 1-2 albums that though were critical darlings, they lost money, but the end result was "longevity" and artists that could provide catalog, something no artists can provide today. And solo artists like John Mellencamp,Billy Joel,Stevie, Elton,Bowie etc.. all who were also critical success and touring succes stories early on, were lucky to get close to a gold record and many of them sold about 100-200,00, that number today would be dropped, just imagine if Motown existed today with Stevie? how would they have to break him in? Give him some gimmick, through Tpain on a track, give stevie a clothing line and a reality show? "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: krayzie said: Troll?
You know there will be a day when people will remember the good old days before internet era, when people used to buy records, when artists made millions of dollars selling records with no promotion The irony of the digital age is it has given exactly what artists have always wanted ("freedom") but in expense of revenues... Because companies are losing more and more money with the illegal downloading, it forces companies to take very little risk... That's why they have to find other ways to make money with these ringtones and pro-tool stuff...
That's funny because 10 years ago, a lot of people thought that it would be the opposite... People forget that launching a new artist takes a lot of time and MONEY, but if companies don't make money anymore, how can you expect these companies to sign talented artist who don't necessarly fit the mainstream standard... Now they do the safe thing... Better signing an MJ impersonator that will guarantee revenues over a real artist that won't sell much... Back then Warner had no problem to support Prince, because on the same label there were other artists selling millions of records... So it wasn't problematic back then to take risk, and sign artists like Prince ... But now ? Prince would never be signed today, or at least not kept after 1 album, and neither would anyone else who came up in that time period who didnt have the commercial success right off the bat, bands like U2,Inxs,Depeche,Duran etc all would be dropped because all of them had at least 1-2 albums that though were critical darlings, they lost money, but the end result was "longevity" and artists that could provide catalog, something no artists can provide today. And solo artists like John Mellencamp,Billy Joel,Stevie, Elton,Bowie etc.. all who were also critical success and touring succes stories early on, were lucky to get close to a gold record and many of them sold about 100-200,00, that number today would be dropped, just imagine if Motown existed today with Stevie? how would they have to break him in? Give him some gimmick, through Tpain on a track, give stevie a clothing line and a reality show? One could argue that over reliance on and investing too much in those big names/catalog artists in the 60's through 80's at the expense of cultivating new acts beyond a hit single or album in the 90's is partly what got the labels into the mess they're in now. I'm missing my best friend Yes it was Incredible There's no reason to pretend | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Xcalibre said: One could argue that over reliance on and investing too much in those big names/catalog artists in the 60's through 80's at the expense of cultivating new acts beyond a hit single or album in the 90's is partly what got the labels into the mess they're in now. nah music industry was healthy until the digital technology took over everything. period this is what changed everything, not cultivating big names |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
krayzie said: Xcalibre said: One could argue that over reliance on and investing too much in those big names/catalog artists in the 60's through 80's at the expense of cultivating new acts beyond a hit single or album in the 90's is partly what got the labels into the mess they're in now. nah music industry was healthy until the digital technology took over everything. period this is what changed everything, not cultivating big names Having no new big names to take the place of the old ones that are jumping ship and going independent has certainly done its part to put them in the position they are in now. The mega-millions deals that they worked out to have prestige acts on their rosters (and to kiss their asses and inflate their egos) cut into the development of new artists. I'm missing my best friend Yes it was Incredible There's no reason to pretend | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
krayzie said: Don't want to repeat myself, but the public is responsible for that...
We wouldn't complain about that if the public was more into real artists.... Not true. People are sheeple. They eat what they are fed. I've been preaching this same sermon for years and years on this board and others as well. Frankly, I've grown tired of how much of creatures of habit people are. There are a few very powerful corporations controlling the exposure of artists to the mass public. If you don't go out and look for good music or someone doesn't pass the word along, you most likely won't get much of it from the mass media. Labels have been selling fluff for some time now and people have gotten used to McMusic instead of the good stuff. People love it and see no reason to change because they have been conditioned BY THE INDUSTRY to buy whats put in front of them and led to believe that they are the ones in control. You can't buy a water powered Mercedes Benz. Why? Because its not available to you. Could someone make one? Yes. Mercedes could. Since its not available to you, you can't buy it. You can buy a gas powered one that costs $4 a gallon to keep on the road. Who's in control? Peoples' attention spans have been reduced to tolerate about half the length of a what a song would be 20 years ago. That's no accident. People don't control a damn thang other than the choice to watch or listen or to not watch or listen and even that option is limited. Anyhere you go, you'll hear music and see media. Video screens are in every mall and music is in most stores. Unless you live out in the boonies, they got yo azz. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Red said: This rant might be getting old. I believe it has never been easier to find good music and good art of all kinds. OMG, there is sooooo much out there - just click. It’s pretty dayum easy to be target specific with your searches, so it shouldn’t take long to find what you’re looking for.
Yes, the music business has been laid to rest, at least as we knew it and that’s a gtreat thing. The days of labels ripping off artist are gone, so are overpriced CD's. No longer are visual artists forced to pay galleries 50%+ to sell their work. If you’re talking about what you hear on your local radio station - why listen unless you’re looking for local news, weather and traffic. Internet radio is wild, enabling one to dial up any genre, song, artists desired...and it couldn't be better for independents/emerging artists. Music is going to have to be packaged differently to attract consumers enough to want to buy/have whatever it is they are offering. Artists with flash drives, subscriptions, goodies and exposure will do just fine. Managers, lawyers and accountants will start working in favor of the Artist. Conventional radio, as well as it does with advertisers who still haven’t quite figured out internet advertising will eventuallky abandon local radio. Radio knows this. It can’t compete. Anyone remember the Transistor radio? It’s back!! Itg’s called Daisy, with a rechargeable battery for 20 hours of wifi, supports all internet formats and can access over 6,000 stations around the globe. And that's just the beginning. The fair trade/cost of music will eventually sort itself and labels are starting to offer P2P downloads of their catelogues. I would say - move on and enjoy the arts. As for the Star system - it will NEVER be the way it was - and that’s a good thing. It was and still is way over the top. It urks me to see these below average so called 'stars' flaunting their wealth. Every part of the entertainment business, film included is going to get knocked down a peg... and who's in the drifver's seat. WE are and that's the beauty of it, YOU can simply ignore or support what you want to - and the industry will cater to you. S’all good. Click away. It really is a Brave New World. I agree. . .  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The music is there. The initiative to look for it is not for most people. Most people get music the same way they've been getting it - they watch videos, hear songs in clubs, hear songs on the radio. Of course the younger generation gets a lot more from the web but its still random and reckless because there are too many options...and people are by nature lazy (especially us Americans). We want it delivered and quick and we don't want to wait on the next release. We want it all and we want it now.
The "megastar" era is over but it delivered some great artists (Prince and MJ for example). The industry got greedy and so did the artists in it. That's why its failing. There is still great music but everyone's clamoring for the public's attention. The big companies get more of it because they have the means to do so. That's why they are running shit and sitting pretty even though the industry itself is crumbling. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
vainandy said: Well, if dancing and fucking is what they are wanting, they certainly aren't going to find it in today's music. It's too slow to dance to and too fast to fuck to. You're right about having it for background music. It would be perfect to play in the background at a dog fight. Classic! I swear, you're like my brother from another mother. (We definitely ain't got the same daddies )...but you always know what time it is. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: krayzie said: Don't want to repeat myself, but the public is responsible for that...
We wouldn't complain about that if the public was more into real artists.... Not true. People are sheeple. They eat what they are fed. I've been preaching this same sermon for years and years on this board and others as well. Frankly, I've grown tired of how much of creatures of habit people are. There are a few very powerful corporations controlling the exposure of artists to the mass public. If you don't go out and look for good music or someone doesn't pass the word along, you most likely won't get much of it from the mass media. Labels have been selling fluff for some time now and people have gotten used to McMusic instead of the good stuff. People love it and see no reason to change because they have been conditioned BY THE INDUSTRY to buy whats put in front of them and led to believe that they are the ones in control. You can't buy a water powered Mercedes Benz. Why? Because its not available to you. Could someone make one? Yes. Mercedes could. Since its not available to you, you can't buy it. You can buy a gas powered one that costs $4 a gallon to keep on the road. Who's in control? Peoples' attention spans have been reduced to tolerate about half the length of a what a song would be 20 years ago. That's no accident. People don't control a damn thang other than the choice to watch or listen or to not watch or listen and even that option is limited. Anyhere you go, you'll hear music and see media. Video screens are in every mall and music is in most stores. Unless you live out in the boonies, they got yo azz. I don't quite buy that theory, people listen to what they like and nobody can change that, You can tell all those Millions Of MJ fans that they were force fed. They like it and nobody can tell them they don't. Millions of records, millions of dollars forced? Nobody can predict what's going to be popular with the masses. Don't tell me Prince didn't have the benefit of Payola and marketing, and being a household name after 84?, and he still faltered sales wise afterwards. I have a friends that like Michael Bolton and Cher, I try to turn them on to Radiohead, ColdPlay, U2, my jazz records you name it, but no, they want to listen to what they like, REO Speedwagon, gangsta rap You cant force feed music, it doesn't work. How does someone dictate taste, and who's. Granted People gravitate to what they are familiar with, for kids it may be Miley Cyrus, for their parents Brooks & Dunn,....mostly whatever is easy and catchy to digest for whatever demographic. And the suits will market the hell out of whatever they think that is. And THAT is what sells. [Edited 5/25/08 21:30pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said:[quote]krayzie said:[quote]
You know there will be a day when people will remember the good old days before internet era, when people used to buy records, when artists made millions of dollars selling records with no promotion. Well, I guess that day is here for some, but U can only bemoan how it was for so long unless you get stuck in a groove like a bad needle on vinyl. And did U just say no promotion? U must be joking. U wanna talk the old days, fun days - IT WAS ALL promotion. The irony of the digital age is it has given exactly what artists have always wanted ("freedom") but in expense of revenues... [ b]There has always been an expense for the artist. Up front $ comes off the top before one penny of profit. Artists pay for it. And we all know how that worked...for the labels. Just because an artist has no label, doesn't mean there isn't an interested party/backer out there.[/b] Because companies are losing more and more money with the illegal downloading, it forces companies to take very little risk... That's why they have to find other ways to make money with these ringtones and pro-tool stuff...
That's funny because 10 years ago, a lot of people thought that it would be the opposite... Then they weren't paying attention to Marshall McLuhen et al. People forget that launching a new artist takes a lot of time and MONEY, but if companies don't make money anymore, how can you expect these companies to sign talented artist who don't necessarly fit the mainstream standard. What's mainstream anymore. That's what the internet has done. Fragmented everything. There is no mainstream - And that is creating a little wrinkle for both the artist and the consumer right now. It's all fine tuning. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: I don't quite buy that theory, people listen to what they like and nobody can change that, You can tell all those Millions Of MJ fans that they were force fed. They like it and nobody can tell them they don't. Millions of records, millions of dollars forced? Nobody can predict what's going to be popular with the masses. Don't tell me Prince didn't have the benefit of Payola and marketing, and being a household name after 84?, and he still faltered sales wise afterwards. I have a friends that like Michael Bolton and Cher, I try to turn them on to Radiohead, ColdPlay, U2, my jazz records you name it, but no, they want to listen to what they like, REO Speedwagon, gangsta rap You cant force feed music, it doesn't work. How does someone dictate taste, and who's. Granted People gravitate to what they are familiar with, and what is easy and catchy. And THAT is what sells. [Edited 5/25/08 20:44pm] Its not a theory. Its fact. You completely bastardized what I said. The control the consumer has is preference. I never said you have no control over your preference. What consumers have little control over is selection. You don't get a huge selection from the majors. They sell you who they want you to hear. Theory? Here's a theory for you. Try to play the full version of "Get It Up" in an contemporary R&B or hip-hop club full of early 20-somethings in the middle of spinning a set. After 4 or 5 minutes, I'd bet the dance floor will practically clear. You WILL get requests to put on something else and you WILL get comments about how the song seems to be dragging on and on. That generation is not used to long songs. When I was young, the DJ would put on "Planet Rock", go eat, smoke and come back with plenty of time to change the record and people wouldn't even notice. The genres are clear cut now. Labels pump their own artists and pay DJs to play shit. Those are not theories. Check the charts and see how divided the genres are. Those are not theories. Its subtle but it has been going on for years. People have been conditioned and they don't even realize it. Music has been dumbed down. Why do you think the music selling the most units is so simple? You think its coincidence? Come on. This goes above and beyond music. Our entire society is being dumbed down. Reality television, the music, the arts...its happening all across the board. "Nobody can predict what's going to be popular with the masses"-----BULLSHIT. Its math, baby. You're just not hip to it, that's all. Its called probabilities. The labels have it down to a science. The whole system is designed to let people THINK they are controlling things or else it wouldn't be effective if they didn't. They don't want you to like one artist, they want to be able to sway you towards a set of selections and get you to buy any of them - or even all of them if you would. How do you think no-talent artists sell millions of records? By accident? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: violetblues said: I don't quite buy that theory, people listen to what they like and nobody can change that, You can tell all those Millions Of MJ fans that they were force fed. They like it and nobody can tell them they don't. Millions of records, millions of dollars forced? Nobody can predict what's going to be popular with the masses. Don't tell me Prince didn't have the benefit of Payola and marketing, and being a household name after 84?, and he still faltered sales wise afterwards. I have a friends that like Michael Bolton and Cher, I try to turn them on to Radiohead, ColdPlay, U2, my jazz records you name it, but no, they want to listen to what they like, REO Speedwagon, gangsta rap You cant force feed music, it doesn't work. How does someone dictate taste, and who's. Granted People gravitate to what they are familiar with, and what is easy and catchy. And THAT is what sells. [Edited 5/25/08 20:44pm] Its not a theory. Its fact. You completely bastardized what I said. The control the consumer has is preference. I never said you have no control over your preference. What consumers have little control over is selection. You don't get a huge selection from the majors. They sell you who they want you to hear. Theory? Here's a theory for you. Try to play the full version of "Get It Up" in an contemporary R&B or hip-hop club full of early 20-somethings in the middle of spinning a set. After 4 or 5 minutes, I'd bet the dance floor will practically clear. You WILL get requests to put on something else and you WILL get comments about how the song seems to be dragging on and on. That generation is not used to long songs. When I was young, the DJ would put on "Planet Rock", go eat, smoke and come back with plenty of time to change the record and people wouldn't even notice. The genres are clear cut now. Labels pump their own artists and pay DJs to play shit. Those are not theories. Check the charts and see how divided the genres are. Those are not theories. Its subtle but it has been going on for years. People have been conditioned and they don't even realize it. Music has been dumbed down. Why do you think the music selling the most units is so simple? You think its coincidence? Come on. This goes above and beyond music. Our entire society is being dumbed down. Reality television, the music, the arts...its happening all across the board. "Nobody can predict what's going to be popular with the masses"-----BULLSHIT. Its math, baby. You're just not hip to it, that's all. Its called probabilities. The labels have it down to a science. The whole system is designed to let people THINK they are controlling things or else it wouldn't be effective if they didn't. They don't want you to like one artist, they want to be able to sway you towards a set of selections and get you to buy any of them - or even all of them if you would. How do you think no-talent artists sell millions of records? By accident? lol, with all do respect there is no science!... you think "Vivas Las Vegas" or " I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is more sophisticated than whats on now?, That "Leave it to Beaver"is not as dumbed down as "HOUSE" and if people really had a voice they would be listening to Tchaikovsky or Miles Davis instead of Hip Hop or whatever? If there was a science and people could predict what we want to hear for gods sakes why wouldnt they force feed us what YOU like instead of Hanna Montana? lol, IF it was a science why would there be a conspiracy to market and make millions on what you say are no-talent artists as oposed to what you like? People have a say and a voice in whats out there,its called their money. If they dont wanna dance to Planet Rock, does that really say anything? When you were a kid at a club did you want to dance to what was hot 30 years ago? yea i could picture "Great Balls Of Fire" doing real good in the 80's club scene too! get real, lol [Edited 5/25/08 22:32pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"With all due respect", it seems like you misunderstood what I said, continued to reinforce what YOU thought I meant instead of understanding. You've missed the mark. And, you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you of what I already know. I'm just telling you. The fact that you got my "Planet Rock" point wrong is proof that you're not getting what I said or you simply choose to believe that I am saying something different than what I am. Believe what you want. The music business is more business than music and corporations control your choices to a great degree. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OK, all the music genres that we know of are set, all recorded music from the 20's to now, is available to everyone but people choose someone you dont like because corporations say so?
Youre telling me that corporations dictated that swing music would be more popular than lets say country western, that corporations and music labels would dictate that rock & roll, the devils music would be more popular,... not the kids listening or because of Chuck Berry or Elvis? That it wasnt the talent of the Beatles and the kids who prefered the Beatles to Elvis at some point in time? Now none of these cats were popular with the status quo at the time but youre saying that mathmaticians at EMI predited that the Beatles would sweep the country or that somone as out there as James Brown would be sure fire hit by someone? No i get your point but you are not giving the artists or the public any credit, and giving the A&R guys way too much. lol | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: OK, all the music genres that we know of are set, all recorded music from the 20's to now, is available to everyone but people choose someone you dont like because corporations say so?
Youre telling me that corporations dictated that swing music would be more popular than lets say country western, that corporations and music labels would dictate that rock & roll, the devils music would be more popular,... not the kids listening or because of Chuck Berry or Elvis? That it wasnt the talent of the Beatles and the kids who prefered the Beatles to Elvis at some point in time? Now none of these cats were popular with the status quo at the time but youre saying that mathmaticians at EMI predited that the Beatles would sweep the country or that somone as out there as James Brown would be sure fire hit by someone? No i get your point but you are not giving the artists or the public any credit, and giving the A&R guys way too much. lol A&R? There is no more A&R. You're talking the 80s music business. You can't even compare the business as it was 15 years ago with how it is now. It wasn't ALWAYS the way it is now. The labels don't care about who you like. They just want to sell you stuff - their stuff. You don't seem to get that. You think they care. If it was a thousand Mozarts on the charts, they wouldn't care - they'd just make being "Mozart" the standard for the artists they signed and would go on to make music videos and cut deals with advertisers so they could play Mozart at least twice an hour during prime listening hours when the CD is released. It doesn't matter what genre it is or how the artist sounds. You have still failed to explain why weak artists can sell millions. I already know. I'm interested in hearing why you THINK that happens. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
BlaqueKnight said: krayzie said: Don't want to repeat myself, but the public is responsible for that...
We wouldn't complain about that if the public was more into real artists.... Not true. People are sheeple. They eat what they are fed. I've been preaching this same sermon for years and years on this board and others as well. Frankly, I've grown tired of how much of creatures of habit people are. There are a few very powerful corporations controlling the exposure of artists to the mass public. If you don't go out and look for good music or someone doesn't pass the word along, you most likely won't get much of it from the mass media. Labels have been selling fluff for some time now and people have gotten used to McMusic instead of the good stuff. People love it and see no reason to change because they have been conditioned BY THE INDUSTRY to buy whats put in front of them and led to believe that they are the ones in control. You can't buy a water powered Mercedes Benz. Why? Because its not available to you. Could someone make one? Yes. Mercedes could. Since its not available to you, you can't buy it. You can buy a gas powered one that costs $4 a gallon to keep on the road. Who's in control? Peoples' attention spans have been reduced to tolerate about half the length of a what a song would be 20 years ago. That's no accident. People don't control a damn thang other than the choice to watch or listen or to not watch or listen and even that option is limited. Anyhere you go, you'll hear music and see media. Video screens are in every mall and music is in most stores. Unless you live out in the boonies, they got yo azz. Nope, not at all... People are not sheeple. The public buys what they want... There are way to many examples that show that the public always decides what they want... There have been a lot of artists who have sold millions of records surprisingly with little promotion, and they've been a lot of artists who failed miserabily to sell despite huge promotion and exposure... Big promotion and exposure don't guarantee you success... The job of record companies is to satisfy the public, to know what they want, to give them what they want... Period Of course the dream of labels is to control the public, but nobody can't... As far as back when Rock and Roll started, the media tried to stop it, the politics tried to ban it, the labels tried to ignore it, but the public want it, same thing for gangsta rap... Or grunge, or punk or Disco... Every music genre started in the streets without the help of labels... But labels don't shape the tastes of the public, that's false, that's inaccurate, that's a myth... [Edited 5/26/08 0:11am] |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: violetblues said: OK, all the music genres that we know of are set, all recorded music from the 20's to now, is available to everyone but people choose someone you dont like because corporations say so?
Youre telling me that corporations dictated that swing music would be more popular than lets say country western, that corporations and music labels would dictate that rock & roll, the devils music would be more popular,... not the kids listening or because of Chuck Berry or Elvis? That it wasnt the talent of the Beatles and the kids who prefered the Beatles to Elvis at some point in time? Now none of these cats were popular with the status quo at the time but youre saying that mathmaticians at EMI predited that the Beatles would sweep the country or that somone as out there as James Brown would be sure fire hit by someone? No i get your point but you are not giving the artists or the public any credit, and giving the A&R guys way too much. lol A&R? There is no more A&R. You're talking the 80s music business. You can't even compare the business as it was 15 years ago with how it is now. It wasn't ALWAYS the way it is now. The labels don't care about who you like. They just want to sell you stuff - their stuff. You don't seem to get that. You think they care. If it was a thousand Mozarts on the charts, they wouldn't care - they'd just make being "Mozart" the standard for the artists they signed and would go on to make music videos and cut deals with advertisers so they could play Mozart at least twice an hour during prime listening hours when the CD is released. It doesn't matter what genre it is or how the artist sounds. You have still failed to explain why weak artists can sell millions. I already know. I'm interested in hearing why you THINK that happens. Goodness, The music bussiness simply exploit someone, something a trend, They do not create, or dictate anything, each generation does. There is no scientific math involved other than educated guess's and to total money spend, profits or losses. Because YOU think Hanna Montana is a weak artist doesnt mean your little neice doesnt think she's great and thinks that your long version of "Get It Up" is old people music. A hit show is popular and they exploited it in "Hanna Montana" If thats the formula why isnt there hundreds of others making that kinda of cash? If We know John Lennon sells, heck why not get more just like him on the market? and thats what they do they exploit, not create....they guess and try to make more money than they loose. It not science, and why do you think you or i can dictate what we think is good? and whats weak? thats just crazy! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
krayzie said: Nope, not at all... People are not sheeple. The public buys what they want... There are way to many examples that show that the public always decides what they want... They've been a lot of indie artists who have sold millions of records with no promotion, and they've been a lot of artists who failed miserabily to sell despite huge promotion and exposure... Big promotion and exposure don't guarantee you success... The job of record companies is to satisfy the public, to know what they want, to give them what they want... Period Of course the dream of labels is to control the public, but nobody can't... As far as back when Rock and Roll started, the media tried to stop it, the politics tried to ban it, the labels tried to ignore it, but the public want it, same thing for gangsta rap... Or grunge, or punk or Disco... Every music genre started in the streets without the help of labels... But labels don't shape the tastes of the public, that's false, that's inaccurate, that's a myth... There are even more examples of one-hit-wonders and acts that should have never sold but did. It has nothing to do with "history" and you, like Violetblues are mising what I am saying. You also seem to be of the belief that they care who or what you listen to. They don't. They control peoples' selection by being the primary source from which people choose their music. Wow. You people really don't get it, do you? Who sells the most music? Wal Mart? Target? It doesn't matter. Who chooses the CDs that sit on the shelves? Do you think you can get a CD on the shelves of every Best Buy, Target or Circuit City in the country? You can't. Even if you could, how many sales would you get from "risk buyers"? Probably a few but not many. Why is that? Nobody would know who the hell you are. At the same time, the monitors and t.v. screens in Target are playing samples of Sony's latest new artists across various genres. Why is that? Sony PAID for them to. For every Ok-Go, there are thousands of premeditated artists. People GENERALLY pick from what's laid before them. I never said its ALWAYS that way. It doesn't have to be. If there's an artist or group that's not signed that's selling, they will go and get them. They don't CARE what people like, they only care that THEY sell them to you. There are no "rules", just "guidelines". You can't discount facts and numbers. They don't lie. Believe what you want. Its not a coincidence that everything is divided into musical categories much more so now than a few years ago. Its a different ball game. The fact that Puffy's group Danity Kane and those guys....something 26 or whatever can come out of the gate at #1 serve as examples of who's got the juice. As long as an artist falls within certain parameters, they can market them. There's always a percentage of people who succomb to media bombardment. All they need is for people to believe the hype. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight i love they you write, much better than I ever will, but you see things from an outside view, as in the BIG POWERFULL CORPORATIONS.
But lol, its not like that at all, its one or two guys there that have a good ear, or pulse of what buyers want one guy that’s good at marketing and a whole bunch of office people that just shuffle paper. It's the talent of a few great artists that gets discovered to take a shot at stardom or that go nowhere, and just people trying to exploit whatever, whomever to make more than just a good living. Having worked for big companies, who are always looking to hire some ONE, a young Clive Davis for example, it’s always about the individual, not monololithic evil companies. It’s a lot more down to earth than you make it seem. Kids like something,...someone…. and then its "quick lets do something just like that" to make a buck. The kids, and music buyers wag the tail not the other way around. It’s about that buck, not whether the artist is weak or another John Lennon. ....and forget WallMart and Target,..... iTunes is the big shot now. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: BlaqueKnight i love they you write, much better than I ever will, but you see things from an outside view, as in the BIG POWERFULL CORPORATIONS.
But lol, its not like that at all, its one or two guys there that have a good ear, or pulse of what buyers want one guy that’s good at marketing and a whole bunch of office people that just shuffle paper. It's the talent of a few great artists that gets discovered to take a shot at stardom or that go nowhere, and just people trying to exploit whatever, whomever to make more than just a good living. Having worked for big companies, who are always looking to hire some ONE, a young Clive Davis for example, it’s always about the individual, not monololithic evil companies. It’s a lot more down to earth than you make it seem. Kids like something,...someone…. and then its "quick lets do something just like that" to make a buck. The kids, and music buyers wag the tail not the other way around. It’s about that buck, not whether the artist is weak or another John Lennon. ....and forget WallMart and Target,..... iTunes is the big shot now. I'm not disagreeing that there are always those "Clive Davis" types that make a business work better but that's not how its done NOW. The industry isn't waiting around for the next MJ to pop up nor are they waiting around for a Clive Davis to sniff out the next big thing. They don't need to. The math I spoke of is probabilities and most business use it to determine if anything will sell. For instance, if the average new R&B artist sells 400,000 units on the 1st week of release, they know exactly how much money to invest in the new average artist to make that happen from looking at what it took to sell previous artists and surveying what appeal that artist had. Then they make another one - the same but different until that "type" stops selling. If it doesn't happen for whatever reason on the week of the artist's release (the Newest video game drops or whatever), then they chalk it up to "shit happens" and move on. They know that if they play a certain new artist for a certain demographic that either that artist will sell or they won't. The point is not about the individual artist as you are laying it out to be, the point is that THEY are the ones distributing the artists...ALL OF THEM. Do you realize that there are only four majors left? They control the distribution. There are a few men controlling the whole ball game. The Mays brothers control Live Nation. They have the concert venues on lockdown. I could go on but why bother? What's the biggest complaint people have about music these days? "There's no good music out" Yes there is. The industry is collectively controlling the choices by holding the cards on how people are exposed to new music. The internet is taking over but they still have a major influence on what people hear. There's no denying this. Its tiring typing all of this. I'm done. Fuck it. Peace. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
http://www.youtube.com/wa...gqTS3XcAuI
http://www.youtube.com/wa..._awEEA80uw [Edited 5/26/08 2:50am] "The first time I saw the cover of Dirty Mind in the early 80s I thought, 'Is this some drag queen ripping on Freddie Prinze?'" - Some guy on The Gear Page | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Like you said, companies only have so many options out there for consumers, but it’s not a conspiracy for them to manipulate what the consumer buys,
Its just what’s cost effective for them to produce. My company, makes 50 products, and I offer each in six different colors, and out of those 50 products at any given time, three become huge sellers, and the colors customers choose are probably the same ones too. I don’t tell the customer what to buy, the customer tells me, and I make what they want. If I’m going to stay in business I have to be on top of that. If sales are down, we look over our shoulder at what the customer is buying, the economy, changing trends. For everything that you hear on the radio, there are a ton more flops on a shelf. The only mathematical equation worth talking about when signing either a proven "star" like Prince now, or a fresh young starlet is on their paystub and the bottom line they “predict” [Edited 5/26/08 8:12am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The music "business" does not exist anymore, it was hijacked when Soundscan entered the picture, so that is where it ended, when MTV was sold back in the later 80's and then BET and Soundscan and labels all got bought up and its all under one freaking umbrella, the fact that people think "soundscan" is NOT manipulated and in bed with labels and somehow is independant, you are smoking some serious marley joints.
Now the argument is always, well "the labels always wanted to make money" but shit its alot deeper than that folks, everything is not so cold cut and dry. But its all changed, look at the sports world, back 20-30 years ago in Baseball there were players that during the off season had to work regular jobs because the base salary was 16,000 dollars and they had to pay their own travel at times, now their BASE salary is no less than 250,000, and thats for a guy who doesnt even play, and your average guy gets 3.5 million a year, and thats the deal in all sports. And the same goes for your label execs, dont be fools and think when they say "we are losing money" that they are losing money, they ARENT. The industry will always exist, the business we know is dead, it died when soundscan entered the equation, but the industry exists and is making tons of money. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: For everything that you hear on the radio, there are a ton more flops on a shelf.
Pretty much everything you hear on the radio is there because some company pays for it to be there. The music business is not in the business of selling music. They are in the business of creating celebrities to use to sell products. There's no such thing as an artist selling or not selling. They manufacture music careers if they think they've got a great commercial. Those "flops" are people that didn't do well in testing. They're the ones that don't warrant spending millions to flood media with their image and cheap, easy nonmusic. People didn't wake up one day and decide they wanted all nonmusic. Companies watched some people respond to certain performers, types of nonmusic, and images/ideas. When the industry went the way of every other industry(corporate disease), they figured out what was best for their bottom line and how to manufacture pop stars. [Edited 5/26/08 12:12pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: The music "business" does not exist anymore, it was hijacked when Soundscan entered the picture, so that is where it ended, when MTV was sold back in the later 80's and then BET and Soundscan and labels all got bought up and its all under one freaking umbrella, the fact that people think "soundscan" is NOT manipulated and in bed with labels and somehow is independant, you are smoking some serious marley joints.
Now the argument is always, well "the labels always wanted to make money" but shit its alot deeper than that folks, everything is not so cold cut and dry. But its all changed, look at the sports world, back 20-30 years ago in Baseball there were players that during the off season had to work regular jobs because the base salary was 16,000 dollars and they had to pay their own travel at times, now their BASE salary is no less than 250,000, and thats for a guy who doesnt even play, and your average guy gets 3.5 million a year, and thats the deal in all sports. And the same goes for your label execs, dont be fools and think when they say "we are losing money" that they are losing money, they ARENT. The industry will always exist, the business we know is dead, it died when soundscan entered the equation, but the industry exists and is making tons of money. You can't blame SoundScan for this stuff. Yeah, there are problems with it and ways to manipulate the numbers, but SoundScan was actually the first time that there was ACCURATE reporting of what was actually sold at the point of purchase. Which is why rap, r&b, and country suddenly become recognized as major forces. It ended up topping the charts because they looked at just how much of this stuff was being sold and realized there was no justification for keeping the charts, etc., so segregated when r&b/rap and country were actually the dominant genres. Prior to SoundScan, it was a LOT easier for the labels to rig what was on the charts, and therefore influence the direction of people's tastes. Because in those days, retail and radio outlets filled out, by hand, a weekly survey of what was sold/played and it was a lot easier to shmooze a single guy at the bottom of the chain and to say "Hey, if you say you sold XXXX amount of this album/single, then...." Now that it's all automated, it's much, much more accurate. And yeah, the labels pretty quickly found a way to manipulate those numbers (drastic discounts of albums and singles to get more of them sold), but that's hardly SoundScan's fault. I'm missing my best friend Yes it was Incredible There's no reason to pretend | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Xcalibre said: lastdecember said: The music "business" does not exist anymore, it was hijacked when Soundscan entered the picture, so that is where it ended, when MTV was sold back in the later 80's and then BET and Soundscan and labels all got bought up and its all under one freaking umbrella, the fact that people think "soundscan" is NOT manipulated and in bed with labels and somehow is independant, you are smoking some serious marley joints.
Now the argument is always, well "the labels always wanted to make money" but shit its alot deeper than that folks, everything is not so cold cut and dry. But its all changed, look at the sports world, back 20-30 years ago in Baseball there were players that during the off season had to work regular jobs because the base salary was 16,000 dollars and they had to pay their own travel at times, now their BASE salary is no less than 250,000, and thats for a guy who doesnt even play, and your average guy gets 3.5 million a year, and thats the deal in all sports. And the same goes for your label execs, dont be fools and think when they say "we are losing money" that they are losing money, they ARENT. The industry will always exist, the business we know is dead, it died when soundscan entered the equation, but the industry exists and is making tons of money. You can't blame SoundScan for this stuff. Yeah, there are problems with it and ways to manipulate the numbers, but SoundScan was actually the first time that there was ACCURATE reporting of what was actually sold at the point of purchase. Which is why rap, r&b, and country suddenly become recognized as major forces. It ended up topping the charts because they looked at just how much of this stuff was being sold and realized there was no justification for keeping the charts, etc., so segregated when r&b/rap and country were actually the dominant genres. Prior to SoundScan, it was a LOT easier for the labels to rig what was on the charts, and therefore influence the direction of people's tastes. Because in those days, retail and radio outlets filled out, by hand, a weekly survey of what was sold/played and it was a lot easier to shmooze a single guy at the bottom of the chain and to say "Hey, if you say you sold XXXX amount of this album/single, then...." Now that it's all automated, it's much, much more accurate. And yeah, the labels pretty quickly found a way to manipulate those numbers (drastic discounts of albums and singles to get more of them sold), but that's hardly SoundScan's fault. Actually it is soundscans fault and a combo of alot of things with it, just like its Mtv's fault for allowing itself to be taken over, and why its BET's fault for totally selling out black music. Soundscan is nothing more than another form of corruption, and another arm of the media, its that simple. Its accuracy is no more greater than any other form, dont be fooled, by what they say. Its actually easier now to manipulate because there is no form of regulation, theres no one to answer to. Its funny that everyone forget the whole BIG payola scandal from a few years back that included BMG/SONY basically getting caught for paying for their airtime and numbers at retail, they are still paying out this lawsuit, but of course that is never spoken of. The death came when the "Science" of week 1 numbers became an issue, thats when you dumbed down the whole industry, thats when the shelf life of a record became a 2-3 week thing, thats why peoples attention spans or for soundbytes only, its all one big thing, media+labels+soundscan=what you have. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: Xcalibre said: You can't blame SoundScan for this stuff. Yeah, there are problems with it and ways to manipulate the numbers, but SoundScan was actually the first time that there was ACCURATE reporting of what was actually sold at the point of purchase. Which is why rap, r&b, and country suddenly become recognized as major forces. It ended up topping the charts because they looked at just how much of this stuff was being sold and realized there was no justification for keeping the charts, etc., so segregated when r&b/rap and country were actually the dominant genres. Prior to SoundScan, it was a LOT easier for the labels to rig what was on the charts, and therefore influence the direction of people's tastes. Because in those days, retail and radio outlets filled out, by hand, a weekly survey of what was sold/played and it was a lot easier to shmooze a single guy at the bottom of the chain and to say "Hey, if you say you sold XXXX amount of this album/single, then...." Now that it's all automated, it's much, much more accurate. And yeah, the labels pretty quickly found a way to manipulate those numbers (drastic discounts of albums and singles to get more of them sold), but that's hardly SoundScan's fault. Actually it is soundscans fault and a combo of alot of things with it, just like its Mtv's fault for allowing itself to be taken over, and why its BET's fault for totally selling out black music. Soundscan is nothing more than another form of corruption, and another arm of the media, its that simple. Its accuracy is no more greater than any other form, dont be fooled, by what they say. Its actually easier now to manipulate because there is no form of regulation, theres no one to answer to. Its funny that everyone forget the whole BIG payola scandal from a few years back that included BMG/SONY basically getting caught for paying for their airtime and numbers at retail, they are still paying out this lawsuit, but of course that is never spoken of. The death came when the "Science" of week 1 numbers became an issue, thats when you dumbed down the whole industry, thats when the shelf life of a record became a 2-3 week thing, thats why peoples attention spans or for soundbytes only, its all one big thing, media+labels+soundscan=what you have. So you'd prefer to go back to the days when the sales numbers were basically made up because the label asked the manager of a Sam Goody to fudge them in favor of them or whoever was filling out the weekly numbers was too lazy and just wanted to go home at the end of the day and really didn't give a damn what single or album was at the top of the chart? I mean, it makes no difference to me, but you can't blame the source of accurate data for the reaction to it. I'm missing my best friend Yes it was Incredible There's no reason to pretend | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Exactly!
The good'ol days some reminisce about, before soundscan was when the big money really had a bigger control the market, and outright fraud in many cases. With soundscan the change was night and day, all of sudden Garth Brooks was the Biggest selling artist!, rap was now regularly charting in the top ten! [Edited 5/26/08 14:19pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Labels buy records.
Soundscan, charts, lists...these are all bought...these are all total jokes This machine uses every possible tool to create careers to convince some of the public that someone is "hot" or respected or whatever they need to paint them as in order to manipulate people. These people operate the same way just about any other industry does as far as using every trick that exists and that comes along as well as creating new ones in order to bleed consumers. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Xcalibre said: lastdecember said: Actually it is soundscans fault and a combo of alot of things with it, just like its Mtv's fault for allowing itself to be taken over, and why its BET's fault for totally selling out black music. Soundscan is nothing more than another form of corruption, and another arm of the media, its that simple. Its accuracy is no more greater than any other form, dont be fooled, by what they say. Its actually easier now to manipulate because there is no form of regulation, theres no one to answer to. Its funny that everyone forget the whole BIG payola scandal from a few years back that included BMG/SONY basically getting caught for paying for their airtime and numbers at retail, they are still paying out this lawsuit, but of course that is never spoken of. The death came when the "Science" of week 1 numbers became an issue, thats when you dumbed down the whole industry, thats when the shelf life of a record became a 2-3 week thing, thats why peoples attention spans or for soundbytes only, its all one big thing, media+labels+soundscan=what you have. So you'd prefer to go back to the days when the sales numbers were basically made up because the label asked the manager of a Sam Goody to fudge them in favor of them or whoever was filling out the weekly numbers was too lazy and just wanted to go home at the end of the day and really didn't give a damn what single or album was at the top of the chart? I mean, it makes no difference to me, but you can't blame the source of accurate data for the reaction to it. First of all if you all believe "soundscan" is this number of exactly what the public is buying you are smoking, it is not over the counter sales. Why is not over the counter sales, well put it this way, would the industry trust a cashier getting paid 7 bucks an hour to make sure they were ringing up Kanye West cds and not faking it. Your numbers are what comes into the store, and what gets re-ordered, done deal. The Riaa was a shipping and printing accounting, these two systems are fairly similar and neither is accurate. And its so funny how everyone calls it a scam and fake the way RIAA operated and yet when they hear MJ's not the biggest selling album in history they cry foul. The truth is there was MORE regulation before and not less, i worked under both systems and after 92 and especially in the later 90's with POP this shit was all bought and sold, you were told what to order, what to position up front, what to play, what to keep in your stock room and not sell, who to give your window space too, who's sale price not to honor, what discount you would get on another cd if you bought an extra 5,000 copies of the Rkelly/Jay Z cd so they could debut at number one, sorry but this shit all went down. Call one corrupt, but this one is worse. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |