Two weeks ago J. Beiber broke a new soundscan/billboard record by having the lowest selling number one album in the history of the charts, selling only 60K.

Back in the 60's & 70's singers/groups didn't seem to care about how many records they sold, they did it because they loved it and the fame that went with it. If the money came, then it was icing on the cake. I miss the singer/songwriters. Some of the labels had staff writers for the artists who had talent but couldn't write, but it all seemed to work. It was like a machine.

Now that we get music for free and we can share more easily, are artists more reluctant to produce new material because they won't see a dime from all the hard work that goes into recording an album? I would like to hear from some of the recording artist on this topic. I hate to think they are only in it for the money, but I know it's a sad truth.

YOU BETTER MOTHERFUCKING PREACH!!!!

PREEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAACH!!!!!!

wasnt it always about the money?

you preach TOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

I hate it to break it to you, but artists have always cared about making money. Do you seriously think artists back in the 60's and 70's didn't care about making money? It's their job. Don't you care about making money at your job?

Artists have bills and families like the rest of us. Why is it so wrong to care about making money or having success?

Yes, artists care about what they do and love what they do, but I think it's very unrealistic and unfair to want them to not care about making the money they need to live.

I just find this whole artists should only care about the art and not money or careers very hypocritical.

We hold artists to a standard we don't hold ourselves to at our jobs.

It was just that back then it was easier to make money through making new records. Now because of illegal downloading they can't really do that and it's all about touring.

People criticize artists for not caring about making new music, but how many fans cheer and cheer when artists play their older hits, but are silent when they do a new song. So us as fans are as much to blame as the artists.

PurpleDiamond2009 said:

wasnt it always about the money?

No, it wasn't.

When artists like Carole King, James Taylor, Joni Mitchell, Judy Collins, Billy Joel, Carly Simon, and the like were popular, it was more about making music, and screw the record companies.

A favorite artist of mine, Melanie, never really broke into the mainstream except with one hit single, and she played small clubs...yet she's churned out over 20 albums over the years, and is still recording. That is someone who cares about the music she creates.

I think the generation of singer/songwriters has gone, because nowadays you get marketed for the money, and so the music usually suffers. Occasionally, there's a Madonna or a Michael Jackson, who have the talent to back the popularity, but usually it's people like Justin Biebler and Miley Cyrus, who suck and couldn't sing their way out of a paper bag...yet people buy their albums like crazy (or illegally download them.)

Why do you think shows like American Idol became so popular? People WANT to see unknowns become superstars, and the unknowns WANT to become superstars, because they see people like Paris Hilton (who are rolling in the dough), and want to live that spoiled, rich life. They don't realize that, in turn of becoming a popular artist, there comes a lot of responsibility and frustration, and not every person is adequately fit to deal with that.

Nowadays, it's more common to see talent in the independent or popular rock bands, than in the pop artists. Sure, they can sing, but can they play an instrument, or write a song? And if someone took away their autotune, would they be able to still sound good?

PurpleDiamond2009 said:

wasnt it always about the money?

Unfortunatly the "Music industry" term didn't come out of thin air.

Back in the 60s/70s it was cheaper to record and produce music, now its more expensive.

The indie artists who are more hungry to produce music are bullied by the coperate games, and the ones who are already signed don't have a say on the type of music they want/when/how to release. Prince wasn't so crazy when he wrote "slave" on his cheek, after all.

On the flip side, back in the 60s/70s the music was WAY less visual, all the energy folks put on image and videos nowadays were perserved on the music.

[Edited 6/4/10 14:32pm]

Probably more uninspired that they won't be heard in the 2010s.

Harlepolis said:

The indie artists who are more hungry to produce music are bullied by the corporate games, and the ones who are already signed don't have a say on the type of music they want/when/how to release.

DING!

shipoffools said:

PurpleDiamond2009 said:

wasnt it always about the money?

No, it wasn't.

When artists like Carole King, James Taylor, Joni Mitchell, Judy Collins, Billy Joel, Carly Simon, and the like were popular, it was more about making music, and screw the record companies.

A favorite artist of mine, Melanie, never really broke into the mainstream except with one hit single, and she played small clubs...yet she's churned out over 20 albums over the years, and is still recording. That is someone who cares about the music she creates.

I think the generation of singer/songwriters has gone, because nowadays you get marketed for the money, and so the music usually suffers. Occasionally, there's a Madonna or a Michael Jackson, who have the talent to back the popularity, but usually it's people like Justin Biebler and Miley Cyrus, who suck and couldn't sing their way out of a paper bag...yet people buy their albums like crazy (or illegally download them.)

Why do you think shows like American Idol became so popular? People WANT to see unknowns become superstars, and the unknowns WANT to become superstars, because they see people like Paris Hilton (who are rolling in the dough), and want to live that spoiled, rich life. They don't realize that, in turn of becoming a popular artist, there comes a lot of responsibility and frustration, and not every person is adequately fit to deal with that.

Nowadays, it's more common to see talent in the independent or popular rock bands, than in the pop artists. Sure, they can sing, but can they play an instrument, or write a song? And if someone took away their autotune, would they be able to still sound good?

I like where your going with this and agree to a point. It's a fine line I guess. You have established artists like Whitney, Mariah, Janet, Madonna, Prince who are still recording, but the songs are boring or their talent isn't what it was. On the other hand, no one seems hungry to really put their heart and soul into the music, because they won't make any money, the record labels won't make money, the distributors won't make money, the publishers won't make money, the tour managers won't make money...... ok ok, I see your point.

[Edited 6/4/10 14:55pm]

industry has always been about money. no matter what field.

i think when cheques, and record sales got enormous, then followed multi million dollar and multi album deals, then followed by even bigger egos, is when things started to crumble. it wasn't so much about making music and making a living, it was about becoming a brand. which is where it's at now.

but i think ultimately it falls (or fell) on two things. record execs/companies voracious greed, and so called fans feeling that they were entitled to steal music.

and yes, i think there are several artist who fall into the catagory of only wanting it for the money.

that's where you also get artist who think because they once were on top, can come back with a shite album and expect it to be a hit. they just don't even try, or so it seems.

everyone, in some way or another, have taken part in shooting themselves in the foot. artists, record companies, and the fans.

The funniest corporate game is the carrot they dangle that says you will have more creative control/expression later. Wait a sec, didn't you sign the artist because you believed in the work they produce? Nope.

something i think speaks for itself...

when an artist doesn't sell out a venue and then decide to cancel the show or entire tour, instead of maybe booking a smaller venue. what about those who DID buy a ticket? so yeah...it's all about the mone for many...unfortunately.

Cinnie said:

Harlepolis said:

The indie artists who are more hungry to produce music are bullied by the corporate games, and the ones who are already signed don't have a say on the type of music they want/when/how to release.

DING!

Bottom line.

Did Stevie Wonder record "Songs In The Key Of Life" for the money?

Did Pink Floyd Record "Dark Side Of The Moon" for the money?

Did Joni Mitchell record "Court & Spark" for the money?

Did Marvin Gaye record "What's Going On" for the money?

Did Prince record "Dirty Mind" for the money?

Did anything The Beatles laid down on tape, did they do it for the money?

When an artist creates something special and we recognize that and want to buy because it's special and touches our ears, heart and soul, and they make money from that, then it's ok.

What about the ones who "made it" but were in it for only the money? They are now actors!

Cinnie said:

The funniest corporate game is the carrot they dangle that says you will have more creative control/expression later. Wait a sec, didn't you sign the artist because you believed in the work they produce? Nope.

It became a foreign concept, unfortunately.

The thing that I don't get though is, when an artist has all the creative control to produce a certain album and it succeeds, how come does it take long for them to release a follow up?

Like Lauryn Hill or D'Angelo'scases, they stumbled on a pot of gold for both of their albums but when they were ready to release another album, the record company wanted them to be formulaic instead of spontaneous,,,,isn't it a proof enough that giving them the creative control they deserve generates more success than your so-called guidance?

Bulldog said:

Two weeks ago J. Beiber broke a new soundscan/billboard record by having the lowest selling number one album in the history of the charts, selling only 60K.

Back in the 60's & 70's singers/groups didn't seem to care about how many records they sold, they did it because they loved it and the fame that went with it. If the money came, then it was icing on the cake. I miss the singer/songwriters. Some of the labels had staff writers for the artists who had talent but couldn't write, but it all seemed to work. It was like a machine.

Now that we get music for free and we can share more easily, are artists more reluctant to produce new material because they won't see a dime from all the hard work that goes into recording an album? I would like to hear from some of the recording artist on this topic. I hate to think they are only in it for the money, but I know it's a sad truth.

You know they need to make a living like anyone else. So I don't blame them for slacking off on recording since no one is motivated to support the music by puchasing it. I do wish more artist would get out on the road and tour at least they could make up for some of the finacial lost by touring but some of then don't even want to tour.

Kylie also discussed her decision to hit the road stateside last fall, despite not having an album to promote. The trek, which stopped in cities including Oakland, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and New York, was well worth it, the pint-sized blonde said.

“It was a micro-tour, but I’ve got to tell you it was so rewarding,” she said. “It was a mission from the heart… It was like… setting my wallet on fire because basically it just made no financial sense to do it, but I just reached a point where I thought, ‘That’s it! I just wanna!’

Musicians like to eat, too mutha f*ckas!

Bulldog said:

Did Stevie Wonder record "Songs In The Key Of Life" for the money?

Did Pink Floyd Record "Dark Side Of The Moon" for the money?

Did Joni Mitchell record "Court & Spark" for the money?

Did Marvin Gaye record "What's Going On" for the money?

Did Prince record "Dirty Mind" for the money?

Did anything The Beatles laid down on tape, did they do it for the money?

I truly miss artists doing it for the art.

Kids today just have no idea, do they?

Reminds me totally of people like Carole King and James Taylor, both of whom I've been listening to a lot lately. Together as well on their Live at The Troubadour CD/DVD. SO many songs that King wrong which other artists have used that we never think about. "Natural Woman", "I Feel The Earth Move", "Will You Love Me Tomorrow", "You've Got A Friend" (a Taylor staple), tons more. These guys do it because it's their expression, their art. Sure artists want to get paid for their work, but they work because they love it.

"Find something to do that you love, and you'll never work a day in your life again."

Bulldog said:

Two weeks ago J. Beiber broke a new soundscan/billboard record by having the lowest selling number one album in the history of the charts, selling only 60K.

He didn't break the record. He outsold the Dreamgirls soundtrack by a few hundred copies. [/chartfollower]

Here is the list:

60,064 Dreamgirls (1/27/07)
60,343 Justin Bieber - My World 2.0 (5/29/10)
60,519 Alicia Keys - As I Am (2/2/2008 )
61,259 Alicia Keys - As I Am (2/16/2008)
62,272 Taylor Swift - Fearless (3/7/2009)
62,575 Taylor Swift - Fearless (2/7/09)
62,947 Glee Cast - Vol. 3 (6/12/10)
63,301 Tayor Swift - Fearless (1/31/09)
64,831 Juno (2/9/2008)
65,398 Daughtry - Daughtry (2/3/07)
66,355 Dreamgirls (1/20/07)

[Edited 6/5/10 11:47am]

[Edited 6/5/10 11:47am]

PS I found this post funny because I use a Mozilla Firefox plugin that puts a black box over the name "Justin Bieber". I all I saw was "J. " then a black box over his name. hahahahahah I wish they'd make one for Lady Gaga.

There's another that puts a tiny "oil spill" over the words "BP" too, but I don't have that one.

in general, many artists are just uninspired and therefore uninspiring...

The main problem is once again the public, they are freaking ZOMBIES when it comes to these bullshit numbers, who the fuck cares its not relevant. One thing people need to do is first look at what is being said...this kid has a number one album and people are complaining about "sales" well theres your first issue. The way we think now, its all numbers and thats how the label thinks. He sold 60,000, did anyone know that "Slippery When Wet" by Bon Jovi during its PEAK sales in 1987 wasty selling 100,000 barely a week, now that was its peak for weekly sales most of the times much less and it was one of the biggest albums of the decade. The thing was U had competiton then, and was VARIETY then, there isnt variety now, give me a fucking break. Plus labels cant handle more than one artist at a time for Promo, if you want to look something up look at a chart in those 80's and look at the variety, look how the connection was everywhere, meaning for the most part you had your album and singles move and also you were a popular touring artist, it all connected. NOW the artists that sell albums consistently never get played, and the ones that get played and sell singles, no one pays money to go see in concert.

So YES its money, but we have a Music Industry that is not what it was, today its a MEDIA merged industry, where MILLIONS and MILLIONS are at times invested in artists, back then it was just a label no media, and labels got behind there artists because you had to move music, now, you dont, now you have to move a single, a look, a video, a magazine etc....

lastdecember said:

did anyone know that "Slippery When Wet" by Bon Jovi during its PEAK sales in 1987 wasty selling 100,000 barely a week, now that was its peak for weekly sales most of the times much less and it was one of the biggest albums of the decade.

That actually gives perspective on sales numbers.

ernestsewell said:

"Find something to do that you love, and you'll never work a day in your life again."

I'm reading that a lot lately.

Artists create for the love of creating and that will never change.

Thankfully technology also allows artists to create music and art on the cheap too.

Nobody is going to sink millions of dollars into a project like the Beatles Sgt. Pepper with full orchestras etc. or quality productions like MJ's Quincy Jones disks. Those days are over for most artists.

But maybe there will be a resurgence of the live bands, and everything goes back to the way it was before MTV and the internet with bands constantly touring and live performances were the major events they were before the lip sync dance generation. I hear some artists make most of their money on the stage anyway. Either way, hopefully artist can make a living doing what they love.

[Edited 6/6/10 21:04pm]

Do you mutha suckas get up and go to work SOLELY for the love of what you do or do you go to work to make sure you have enough money to have a place to live and food to eat?

Break bread, bytches.

[Edited 6/7/10 0:49am]

BlaqueKnight said:

Do you mutha suckas get up and go to work SOLELY for the love of what you do or do you go to work to make sure you have enough money to have a place to live and food to eat?

Professional musicians may love what they do but they GET PAID FOR THEIR WORK. In an industry that is failing, its easy to get uninspired when you have little incentive to do what you do. The bills don't stop but the money does. Don't just blame musicians - BLAME AMERICA. America has lowered its standards of what is accepted as "good" music to be in direct affiliation with whomever is "popular" at the moment. Niche markets aren't supporting their artists like they used to. Music in general has been devalued in this country. Get off ya asses and go to some shows instead of watching youtube clips and acting like you went to a concert. That artists do it "all for the love" IS SOME BULLSHIT. Would creative people keep creating if they were broke? Yes. Of course. Would there be better music if you PAID THEM? Yes, of course. MONEY provides the MEANS for artists to operate free of STRESS. When a mutha sucka has to worry about the light bills or a mortgage, that does not bide well with freeing up the creative mind.

In other words, PAY YOUR FAVORITE ARTISTS. $upport them DIRECTLY instead of waiting on the radio to tell you what to do.

Break bread, bytches.

[Edited 6/7/10 0:49am]

Artists and musicians have always struggled to make ends meet this is nothing new, only a tiny percentage have ever made a name for themselves and made a decent living at it no matter how talented you were. This is a profession where you do it because of the love of art dont kid yourself. The only difference now is that even the most famous recording artists are struggling to make money at it. If you want to make money you become a doctor or a plumber.

I have railed against piracy, youtube, and all the internet goodness that makes taking digital content so fast and easy. But whether its Prince or Steve Jobs, people dont like someone tring to to defend their right to make a living and limiting how content is shared. people have a sense of entitlement or have devalued the effort, sweat, inspiration and the money it takes to create the content they enjoy while lounging around. People dont seem to care, they find every reason to justify it taking content without paying for it, we take it for granted now.

You are right, It is a problem with American thinking as a whole, because we dont like taxes or government but want nice schools, roads, fire, health and social services, we demand instant gratification and demand instant cleanup of the environmental, economic and political disasters we create. We love the high but dont want to pay for it, and dont like the consequences.

We have become a nation of spoiled obnoxious unrealistic brats and the last thing you better do is take away our internet connection and our Youtube.

[Edited 6/7/10 6:45am]