MikeMatronik said:

i know, you can pretty much take an eraser and erase everyones name. Joni Mitchell,Bob Dylan,john mellencamp,Stevie Wonder,Marvine Gaye etc...there wouldnt be patience to wait for these artists to sell, they would have to sacrifice their artistic merit and be placed into a "sell now" mode.

lastdecember said:

I wish someone had the galls to fire these mothafuckas for the poor jobs they're doing, shit.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

They didn't dub him "the hardest working man in show business" for nothing. lol

shesoffthewall said:

Don't forget all those one-nighters he did. I don't think today's entertainers know what the hell a one-nighter IS.

Most of the big acts wouldn't have made it. Springsteen's songs would have been considered too wordy and too complex and we probably wouldn't have heard anything from him after "Nebraska." Hendrix wouldn't have made it because he wasn't a great singer. Elton & Prince would have been too gay and niche. The Beatles would have been laughed out of the office for coming in with something like Sgt.Pepper or the White Album.

The fact that it's now the Business of Music instead of the Music Business is the problem. What's the difference? In the former, business comes first. But that's America now, it's a country run by business, and that extends to a lot of things

Everybody would've been clones, lol.

Timmy84 said:

well i always will go back to the words that Elton John said recently. And he said "i would hate to come up now, because there is too much pressure to sell and succeed on that level from day one, that you cannot grow in that enviroment"

That sums up every issue we all may have with everything that goes on, no matter what the issue it all stems from what he was just saying. And the root of that statement comes from the day that Soundscan took over, plain and simple. Because then it became a "Game" it became bragging rights, "hey look i went platnum" "hey look i debuted at number one" i mean can you imagine Stevie Wonder going on 106th and park and saying "we just went platnum, we sold a million in a day etc.." I got sick to my stomach the other day from 2 minutes of watching 106th and park, i heard Ludacris say that Tpain is the greatest songwriter thats out there now? (of course tpain was standing with him when he said that) then when tpain starting talking about his album it was all about whats it going to sell, he talked nothing but the "sales", that sums it all up.

Timmy84 said:

Someone NEEDS to.

The whole industry should be scrapped and be forced to just start over, with the focus on art IMO. Contrary to what the suits seem to believe, it'll still be functional as a business model. Sure, they make more immediate money the way they're running things now. But look who's pulling in the big money with stadium tours. Prince, the Stones, Springsteen, Madonna, MJ would if he ever tours again....etc. and more -but they all have one thing in common: They're all established and well-loved performers with a loyal fanbase. Twenty years from now if Princey's still playing, he'll still be packing in stadiums, which is not something that can eb said for much of today's current crew of performers.

Didn't Kelly Clarkson not too long ago have to actually cancel tour dates due to lack of sales? That, to me, speaks volumes about the failings of the current music industry. If someone who is alledgedly at the top of the game can't even get people to spend their money on a live show....

meow85 said:

Yeah these fools only care about how much money they want in their pockets. But once numbers don't come up and a platinum artist starts doing 100K for their albums overall. People need to start laying off presidents of music companies. Hell people are laying off workers in non-entertainment jobs, why can't they do the same in the entertainment business. Fire most of the Disney fools first.
[Edited 11/16/08 10:36am]

Timmy84 said:

Oh, God. I know a lot of people don't have a very high opinion of pop music in the first place, but Disney has almost single-handedly managed to bastardize any good there was out of it. They'll be the first ones whose jobs are axed, if I ever get my way.

meow85 said:

Disney is single-handedly DESTROYING pop music for the future.

Man, as an Artist myself, this thread is really depressing.

Great topic, LD!

I don't think many musical icons would have made it past their second albums if they had to go by today's music industry standards, but thank God it used to be different and better at one point. Many of these musical legends played by their own rules and had a record label that supported them most of the time. Now the music industry is filled with accountants and business majors instead of people who themselves either worked closely with music or wanted to be an artist or a musician at some point in their lives, but I don't believe it's 100% the music industry's fault for the terrible state of music today either.

I see a lot of people mentioning Motown (I highly recommend the book of the same name btw) and even they had a group of musicians and other music types, who would listen to songs every week and judge whether they were good enough to be released. There were probably a few great ones that never saw the light of day because that panel of individuals didn't like the sound they were hearing, so some real gems were probably passed over and shelved away, but they sure picked some outstanding ones in the process.

I think nowadays, record labels go alot on an artist's hype to help sell their music to the public, and hype is usually based off of the artist's public presence and on how much attention the general public gives to a certain artist, something that no record label or media outlet really has control over at the end of the day. Sadly, I feel that many artists nowadays are either just weak copies of the originals or overhyped puppets who want to call themselves artists when they are really more images than true musical talents.

I feel that if they're going to call themselves artists, than they should be doing more with their music than just standing in front of the popper and singing over a beat produced and composed by someone else with lyrics written by someone else. Personally, I'm sick of reading liner notes from artists who have been out for several years and released more than 3 albums in that span of time; and seeing them only listed as co-writing or co-producing on 2 or 3 songs. If the album had just 5 songs on it, than I would give them some props, even though I still think co-writing is a joke because they could have just changed one sentence around and added a few words and been given co-writing credit for that.

The longer an artist is in the business and the less creative input they add to their albums and sound speaks volumes to me on how I feel about them as an artist; and, many of them aren't worth their multi-million dollar contracts or all the praise they constantly receive, but that's just how I feel. I know some of the legends didn't do a lot of writing or producing on their albums, but, vocally, they put a large part of themselves into their music that helped in defining the songs. Most music nowadays is lifeless; and seems very profit-driven to me....and all this going to the voice altering sound is really starting to annoy me, because now many artists who have weak vocals don't have to worry about sounding good because we aren't going to hear their real voices anyway.

Personally, I believe that sales are down largely because of the digital age. People download whole albums and make copies for friends instead of going to the record store and buying the actual album, something that is stealing, but most albums are crap anyways, so no one really wins that one. I have to really like an artist to pay my hard-earned money on their album, because I've been extremely disappointed for years now with alot of artist's output. They'll have a 12 track album and only 4 or 5 good songs, which are usually the singles; and the rest of the album will be filler. I like to believe that many of the legends went into the album making process with the idea that every single song on their album was going to be equally great, at least that's what I hope their intentions were.

Quality over quanity seems to have gone out the window in the industry nowadays, which kinda helps explain to me why albums have bonus tracks and added remixes. Why not just have an album with 18 songs on it instead of 12 songs, 4 bonus tracks, and 2 remixes, like you're getting more for your money or something? I'm not even going to get into how disgusted I am with that whole re-releasing the album a few months later and calling that shit a "deluxe edition", because they add 2 or 3 tracks and a DVD. They aren't actors; they're artists, so why do I care to see what they did when they were on the way to the studio to lay down some vocals? For years, I didn't know which one was worse, actors trying to be artists, or artists trying to be actors, but now I realize that I would rather see Vanessa Williams make another album than see Beyonce make another movie, which is why many artists nowadays are being called overexposed. If you have an album, a movie, a perfume, a restaurant, and a new clothing line all out at the same time, of course you're going to be over-exposed....they're also going to be mad paid, so they need to make as much paper as they can before people get bored with them and move onto the next flavor of the month.

When artists like James Brown, Aretha Franklin, and Marvin Gaye were at the pinnacles of their careers, music videos hadn't been created yet. Most of the footage of them performing songs was live footage taken during their appearances on the TV shows of that time. I think over-priced music videos have really helped in the massacre of the music industry over the years. Even though very few 'music channels' really play videos nowadays, the ones that they do play get world premieres most of the time and are the ones constantly getting played when the videos do air. I've heard, way to often, many people saying, "That song sucks, but the video is great". I just can't overlook the fact that apparently many people seem to be buying the image more than the actual music and that's really sad to me, because that's what the label and the artist seem to rely on instead of making an all-around good quality album. Why make a great album, when you can have 3 decent singles with great music videos, since that's what seems to attract people's attention? I love a good video, but it's not what makes me want to buy the album in the end.

I'm not one to crucify an artist if they are overexposed until I hear their raved about, and oft times overhyped, material and then that's when the overexposure adds to my list of reasons why I don't care for them. Shows like 'American Idol', have proven that you don't have to have a big name to have a hit album. Artists are seeing these shows and probably realizing that they can be easily replaced if they don't do something excessive to keep the public's attention on them, so they put themselves in the public eye non-stop to keep from being overlooked and replaced. Sad, because if they are as great and talented as they are hyped up to be, that shouldn't be a problem for them, but I guess it is.

Bishop31 said:

Don't be down. Just rebel and do your thing. Even if those corporate college-graduated chumps don't wanna hear you, fuck it.

Timmy84 said:

No. Doubt.

estelle81 said:

Yeah music videos was the beginning of the end of radio. "American Idol" is only there for corporate reasons to make you safe to the public, if you decide to take risks, they disown you or they'll disown you as soon as your record flops. Reuben and Taylor are reasons why.

"American Idol" is for pussies anyway. No offense to those who wanna be on the show, but them fools don't care about you or me.

Timmy84 said:

When I hear that a music video cost a million dollars to make, I have to keep myself from throwing up. A million dollars!?!?! It's less than 5 minutes long and they dropped a milli on that? Then you hear the album and you're like, "Why didn't they just save the millions spent on the videos and make this shit better?" The album spawns three videos costing $500,000 or more and the album itself sounds like it cost less than $5,000 to make.

"American Idol" is a disturbing production, but it's garnering millions of viewers and that's mind-blowing and sad all at the same time. It's sad when you hear regular people with very good voices having to lower themselves to do this show because they can't get the attention of a record label otherwise. As much as I dislike the show, it does put people who don't have this big image in the spotlight for being singers...unfortunately, it ends up making them images in the end. It's got it's good and bad, mostly bad, elements to it. The contestants sing covers of many great songs that young audiences would never think to listen to so it's good in that aspect, but then many of the contestants butcher the song, so that's bad for them and could be bad for the song also.

I don't agree with big business, but I see the basis behind their reasoning on alot of things. Nobody is going to invest hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars on something that isn't going to sell and turn a profit...unless that person is an idiot of course. Even back when the music industry seemed to focus more on music than business, this was something that was still considered to be extremely important. The major difference I can see nowadays is that many record labels don't take as many chances as they used to and go with what's popular and trendy, because it's likely to sell something. It's all about staying in the safety zone and record companies aren't the only ones guilty of that in the music biz.

estelle81 said:

Great response! I agree on your points and have some more to add.

I know for a fact that all the bands that i love and grew up on and now STILL record would never have made it past their first or second album. a-Ha which is my favorite band, to most, were a hit out of the box with their first single, but what most dont know is that the song "take on me" was released 3 times and never sold more than a 1,000 copies. It wasnt till they met with an exec at warner and got paired with a new video technique that they were given a shot, and despite being labelled a "video" band they were allowed by their label to keep recording despite not being given airplay in the USA, WB allowed them to grow and keep recording and that kind of belief allowed them to this day still be innovative and create. And that is true with almost every band from that time period, Inxs, U2, REM never really "sold" they just built the following but had people at the labels that werent afraid to maybe LOSE because in the long run you win by putting out a great band with a great body of work.

Artists today have their hand in so many things that you will see alot of 3-4 album "careers", i mean come on now, can you imagine Prince only having his first 3 albums? I mean he would have never gotten to embrace and challenge his listeners and make them better versed in music in general.

Dont get me wrong there are still old school beliefs still out there, I mean Ryan Adams sticks out to be that kind of guy who will put out 20 albums and he has the backing of a label to release them. and there are others too. The overexposure thing usually aimed at Beyonce can also be applied to others , mainyl because they are not just singing, they are in movies, they are at every party, they have clothing lines,and then they are on commercials. So what overexposure you are getting really has nothing to do with music for the most part.

And the last thing would be the competition, its not there today. though the internet has tons of music out there, there is no competition at all. You dont have the likes of Elton,Billy Joel,Stevie Wonder,Marvin,Diana,Paul Simon,David Bowie and all the great bands of that day putting out records at the SAME TIME. Now a label looks at a release schedule and if it sees "competition" they pull a record back and wait for a clear day.

bboy87 said:

Donna Summer released an album and a double album in 1977 (so about 3 albums). In recent times, it took her 17 years to get a studio album out there. Partially, that is her "fault" (family, working on a play that never saw the light of day, greatest hits with one offs, etc.) but bad labels towing with her only to try and capitalize on her.

In 1994, she worked with Polygram (who bought up Casablanca, her seventies label and the one she released the contractual 1983 hit album, "She Works Hard...", for) for the rerelease of her albums on CD plus a greatest hits ("Endless Summer") with two new tracks and "Christmas Spirit". I believe the hopes where that she would release a new studio album.

1999, with Epic (Sony) she releases "Live and More Encore" with two new studio recordings, both dance #1s (one making an OK but not impressive mark on the pop charts). This time, she really started working on an album and the tracks that leaked (through single releases and 30 second snippets on her site) were really good. Sadly, she was dropped or left perhaps when Tommy, who was very pro-Donna, went.

2003. Back to Polygram for "The Journey: The Very Best of Donna Summer". As I believe the Millie Jackson album is titled, "Back To the Shit". Not sure what it was called at this time...maybe Def Jam...Island? Again, two more tracks plus a truly "previously recorded" song titled "You're So Beautiful", intended for that Sony. Smart cookie, I believe Donna owns these "Sony" songs. A surprising stand alone single release in 2004, "I Got Your Love", from those same sessions came out. One of the worst stringings along but thankfully short but thankfully she rebounded nicely with "Crayons"....5 years isn't super long considering the 12 before!

I know Donna might not be as respected as Stevie Wonder or some of the other names mentioned, but I consider her a legend, especially in her genre. When it comes to releasing new music, certainly don't treat the legends we have well. The industry should be ashamed for this, too. But on top of that, of course, the fact that competition is decreasing and letting artists have more freedom is out of the question, too, we probably won't see anyone from this generation become like anybody from the 60s or 70s...let alone the 80s!

estelle81 said:

Michael's "Scream" video is in the books for costing like $7 million.

VinnyM27 said:

Exactly. From 1974 to now, Donna Gaines Sudano, aka Donna Summer worked hard. Still does. And her new album shows she can take risks, not everybody has to like it but hell, I wish every artist today was like that instead of trying to create "hits".

VinnyM27 said:

I gotta go and get her new album soon. I'm still crushing on "Stamp Your Feet"!

Timmy84 said:

Why?!?!? I mean I can see it's got alot of special effects, but really was some of that money Janet's fee or something, because it doesn't look like it should have costed that much to me. The 'Blair Witch Project' was made on less than $100,000 budget I believe and it made hundreds of millions of dollars and it's a movie.

estelle81 said:

I don't even know if Janet had a fee on it. But that was too much money.

lastdecember said:

Thank you for presenting such a great topic to discuss.




That's crazy that they had released the song 3 times before it hit home, and it's always been such a great song. I don't mind music videos when they have a creative concept like their video had, because the video and the song complimented each other instead of the video overshadowing the song like soo many of them tend to do nowadays.

WB gave Prince his start and agreed to alot of things that were out of the norm for that time with any new artist; but, in the end all the originals who signed Prince left and the money-hungry, non-music minded execs took over. Many labels back in the day seemed to be open to new sounds, but now that money is a driving factor in many things in the entertainment industry as a whole, we get more of what sells...same thing goes for movies. I love indie films more than box-office blockbusters sometimes, so it's great when an indie film makes just as much money as a big box-office blockbuster does...it's inspiring to me.

Sadly, money rules the world. People may not like Lil Wayne, but he sold a million copies of one album in a week, something that very few artists have been able to pull in the last few years, so the labels and the artists are going to follow the popular sound in hopes that they can get a platinum album in their debut week. It's sad to me that that seems to be all that matters now to artists. Gone are the days when an artist could remain at number 1 for more than one week because the album was a great album with alot of heart put into it. Now, if they debut at number 1 the first week of release, than it's something to congratulate them for even though the album usually drops from number 1 by the following week. Congrats on being number one for seven days I guess. Personally, if I hear songs from an artist's new album and all I can think is, "Wow, this sounds just like the last album", I most likey will not be buying it or even praising it for that matter.

I have to use Beyonce and Britney as two prime examples in this case because neither of their new material sounds much different from their previous albums to me; but that's just me. If an artist has the time to take 3 or more vacations in a year, because I guess their lives are extremely stressful somehow , than wouldn't it be nice to try to learn how to write some songs or learn to play an instrument while you're lounging by the pool, so they can offer something new to their fans? I love Janet, but I'm upset with her for this same reason, as are many other people. It's fine if people want to say how much they don't like Janet for that reason, yet some people want to praise these two and dog Janet when they should really be fair about the whole thing and dog all three of them for not growing as artists. If they're not growing, I'm not interested.



Prince was just getting started after his first 3 albums. If WB had dropped him after they saw those numbers (none of them big sellers), we would never have seen 'Purple Rain'. But, Prince has always grown as an artist, something that very few artists of this day and age seem to know how to do or are willing to try. Some of them seem content in being handed material that has been made by other people. If they want to continue to be mindless puppets, than they don't deserve the 'artist' title IMO. Honestly, I have gotten to the point of being very stingy with how I use that word. Nowadays, many of these people are either vocalists, entertainers, or images with a soundtrack. Artist is a title I reserve for those individuals who decide, on their own, to either take a risk by doing something different or put more into their music, ie songwriting, instrument playing, composing, producing, etc. Anyone can stand in front of a microphone and sing something; but a real artist is going to go those extra steps to become truly great all around.



I agree. Beyonce is not the only one who is overexposed. I'm not a big fan of hers, but at least she's overexposed because she's working her ass off. Some of these people are overexposed because they are always on the covers of magazines because of the way they live their lives. If a celebrity isn't putting out any product, yet they are constantly on magazine covers and in the spotlight, than that's what true over-exposure is IMO.



Yeah, I hate that. Changing release dates to avoid another popular artist is soo pathetic to me. I just shows that many labels don't have much faith in the artists that they are promoting and paying. which is really sad to me. Of course, the artist allows them to do this so, they are just as much deserving of the guilt when it comes to this.

estelle81 said:

You do! It's not her best and I would even say that I prefer many of her one off tracks from the nineties onwards but it's good and has a variety of styles, strong vocals and some good hooks. It's sales I believe were below expectations (I think they excepted 100K in the US and where probably crossing their fingers for big numbers). If you are in the US, try to pick it up at Circuit City with the bonus track "It's Only Love". If not, you can find that track on online music services. It's great chill out dance.

VinnyM27 said:

Thanks, I will have to hit up the Circuit City now. I've always loved her voice and she's just classic all around, so I may have to get some of her older albums as well. It's sad that her label wants to turn her into numbers, because she's an icon and deserves more than that. She looks great for being 60 to.

estelle81 said:

But you know what else is gone....BIG ALBUMS. you know how vh1 does its classic albums series, thats not gonna happen anymore. And when i say BIG album its not about selling, though alot of them in the series did, alot of them didnt. No longer will you have a "faith" album, or a "thriller" or a "purple rain" and what i mean by that is that you wont have "defining" records anymore, even if these werent the best records from these artists, they were defining, they took over everything, thats gone, how sad that no one can do that again.

lastdecember said:

I agree with you. I can't even listen to an album all the way through anymore because of all the filler tracks. I always hold out hope that someone will make an iconic album someday soon, but that hope is fading as I see that the music industry seems to be filled with more copycat followers than innovative leaders. Most of these albums were released by artists who were willing to step out of their safety zones and take a risk. I'm at the point where I just want to hear someone do something completely off the wall. If someone was to release an album that was a combination of disco, techno, and jazz, sure it would probably be really weird, but at least it would be different.

estelle81 said:

I mainly blame "filler" on cds. There came a time in the 90's when it was almost a rule you had to fill the damn thing up. And another great quote from Elton John recently, where he said that he loved going to the store and buying a cd but he feels that alot of times artists say "too much" because cds are too long. Back in the 70's you didnt get hit with these marathon 14-18 cut records, which was why you got artists doing a couple of records a year, but at the same time, they were doing perfect records for the most part.