I've often heard that the entertainment industry is pretty vicious and cutthroat and I have also heard that in all divisions of the industry that the music business was the worst when it comes to being sleazy. For those of you who have or are currently working in the industry, why does the music business get such a raw reputation compared to TV, Radio, Film, etc.?

This is an interesting post - I think it has to do with the surly, unpleasant demeanors of creative types that are more prone to "act" than be themselves. Or they need to "act" to protect their art, their persona, etc.

.

Also the modern "music industry" can be traced in an evolutionary style from the new internet model, to labels and retail, to showcases, to radio, right back to vaudeville and traveling performers. We worship these beautiful, monolithic, infallible "stars" nowadays but many would be toothless banjo players or washboard players given the right historical perspective or economical circumstances. I think that is what makes it so sleazy, literally anyone COULD do it only a few actually can. Its alot of fakery.

In simple terms:

The music business has more moving parts so 2 speak.

Most singers get paid royalties on the back end..........

Actors get paid 2 act even if the movie doesn't come out. There are exceptions 2 every rule, but in general, that is how it works 4 actors.

In the music business, they are multiple songs, producers, writers, musicians...............on a single project. Music is more disposable. There are 1,000's of released projects a year. I don't know the ratio of TV/movies 2 songs but I'll bet it's quite high. With so many songs and moving parts....i can see how it would be easy for an artist 2 sign a bad deal.

Graycap23 said:

In simple terms:

The music business has more moving parts so 2 speak.

Most singers get paid royalties on the back end..........

Actors get paid 2 act even if the movie doesn't come out. There are exceptions 2 every rule, but in general, that is how it works 4 actors.

In the music business, they are multiple songs, producers, writers, musicians...............on a single project. Music is more disposable. There are 1,000's of released projects a year. I don't know the ratio of TV/movies 2 songs but I'll bet it's quite high. With so many songs and moving parts....i can see how it would be easy for an artist 2 sign a bad deal.

Also I guess you have to consider that there are so many wannabe folks out there that it makes it ripe for a situation where everyone is just in it for themselves.

SeventeenDayze said:

I've often heard that the entertainment industry is pretty vicious and cutthroat and I have also heard that in all divisions of the industry that the music business was the worst when it comes to being sleazy. For those of you who have or are currently working in the industry, why does the music business get such a raw reputation compared to TV, Radio, Film, etc.?

What business or industry in capitalism isn't sleazy? We're talking about money, which means
people will do anything they can to get more of it. I don't care if it's a lemonade stand run by
a twelve year old up to the suits who brokered the big pharma deal today: people will cut your
throat to get an extra buck.

I heard it can be a sexually hostile working environment for women. It's still mostly old male executives that run the show and hold the power. Not that this is unique to the music industry, but it is something that does pertain to the music industry.

duccichucka said:

suits who brokered the big pharma deal today: people will cut your throat to get an extra buck.

If you eat chocolate or wear diamonds, there's a chance unpaid slave labor is behind it or sweatshops behind certain clothes & other products. As far as acting goes, there's always been the casting couch, which is in the music industry too. The mafia has had its hand in all of the entertainment in the USA. Same with the triads in Hong Kong entertainment.

Every business is sleazy.

You only hear more about the music industry it because artists can complain in the press.

MickyDolenz said:

duccichucka said:

suits who brokered the big pharma deal today: people will cut your throat to get an extra buck.

If you eat chocolate or wear diamonds, there's a chance unpaid slave labor is behind it or sweatshops behind certain clothes & other products. As far as acting goes, there's always been the casting couch, which is in the music industry too. The mafia has had its hand in all of the entertainment in the USA. Same with the triads in Hong Kong entertainment.

Does the mafia still control a lot of the entertainment industry as before?

Cinny said:

I heard it can be a sexually hostile working environment for women. It's still mostly old male executives that run the show and hold the power. Not that this is unique to the music industry, but it is something that does pertain to the music industry.

Sup Cinny!! Well, it is kind of funny to picture a bunch of old, bald guys sitting around listening to artists like Fetty Wap and deciding if they are going to be the next big act LOL Kids think that music decisions are made by other kids but it's the total opposite. It's old guys sitting around the boardroom deciding who will be the next big thing in the industry. It's quite odd really.

g

[Edited 12/7/15 14:32pm]

Ego101 said:

In My experience (and i have much more than most) ..

Talent and the people who market/SELL that Talent have completely different agenda's..

Most artists want to be successful and sell records..

But ALL label executives/A&R people ect, are out for the Money first and foremost..

Back in the days it was acceptable that an Artist may need 2-3 albums to develop a fan base

and generate Hits...

Nowadays You dont get in the door without a guarantee that you will be an instant 'earner'-

People lose jobs for signing acts that dont sell/produce Hits..

So its kinda shifted ..

As soon as labels caught on to the fact that the days of the (5 year plan)

are over and it became all about the Quick $$$ ...

People with the 'Look' minus the talent started getting promoted more than real artists...

Who care's if a HOT teenage girl/boy who can barely sing gets her/his hits from Pharrell?

The bottom line is the HITS! so.. You get lots of people who have no business in the industry

Running things because they have an eye for a pretty face or a big ass!

This is the simplified version but its the basic deal.

That's interesting because I'm sure we're probably not even exposed to the best talent out there then. I'm sure there are a few exceptions to this but I think we probably are being cut short when it comes to the diversity of music out there...

SeventeenDayze said:

Cinny said:

I heard it can be a sexually hostile working environment for women. It's still mostly old male executives that run the show and hold the power. Not that this is unique to the music industry, but it is something that does pertain to the music industry.

Sup Cinny!! Well, it is kind of funny to picture a bunch of old, bald guys sitting around listening to artists like Fetty Wap and deciding if they are going to be the next big act LOL Kids think that music decisions are made by other kids but it's the total opposite. It's old guys sitting around the boardroom deciding who will be the next big thing in the industry. It's quite odd really.

I am sure there is some marketing research behind it, but yeah

When the bean counters took over. Record executives used to be music fans. No more. The whole Clive Davis thing is kaput.

A lot of drugs too.

2freaky4church1 said:

A lot of drugs too.

Really? Anything you care to elaborate on?

SeventeenDayze said:

2freaky4church1 said:

A lot of drugs too.

Really? Anything you care to elaborate on?

They are simply not taboo in the music industry, and lots of performers depend on performance-enhancing drugs, and not the kind you find in the Olympics.

Cinny said:

Go to any Church in America thats known for having a slamming Choir..

95% of the people there will kill anyone who's in the top 10 on the charts!

SeventeenDayze said:

That's interesting because I'm sure we're probably not even exposed to the best talent out there then. I'm sure there are a few exceptions to this but I think we probably are being cut short when it comes to the diversity of music out there...

Ego101 said:

Go to any Church in America thats known for having a slamming Choir..

95% of the people there will kill anyone who's in the top 10 on the charts!

SeventeenDayze said:

That's interesting because I'm sure we're probably not even exposed to the best talent out there then. I'm sure there are a few exceptions to this but I think we probably are being cut short when it comes to the diversity of music out there...

That's a good point. I remember a guy once told me a few years ago that BeYAWNce is no better than the average singer in a gospel choir...

Isn't there something to be said regarding the power of multiple voices versus the "star"?

.

Even in the days of the Beatles and the Jackson Five, there was this force pulling one or more out of the group and into the forefront. Beyonkey is another one though some could argue Destiny's Child was literally a vehicle for Beyonkey to achieve superstardom by pairing her with what was an accepted rotating cast of lackluster Supremes.

.

This is why I get pissed off when people call One Direction a band.

GREAT thread! Y'know what I THINK is sleazy about the recording industry? ... Albums back in the day would drop three weeks after a first single would premiere. If the single didn't do well, the album would drop ANYWAY. Maybe the 2nd single would help boost album sales, maybe NOT. Finally, a third single might have dropped and would be a hit, thus propelling sales. If NOT, the album would be a flop and u wouldn't hear from or about the artist for another year until their next project would drop.

Today, it's 4 singles before the album even comes out and if it doesn't sell, then there are amped up DELUXE versions of the same album featuring bonus tracks. Then, there are the International versions, the Target Deluxe versions with 4 bonus tracks, the Best Buy deluxe version with 2 bonus tracks and the Walmart Deluxe verions with 6 bonus tracks. PICK one or buy all 10 and have all the bonus tracks u WANT! Fact is, if the recording industry wasn't so sleazy, they'd've gotten it rite the FIRST TIME AROUND and bestowed upon the fans/consumers ALL of the bonus tracks in ONE version. PERIOD. Makes me SICK. I refuse 2 subscribe 2 it. I'll buy the deluxe version from Target and that's IT. If more people resisted the urge 2 subscribe to this constant robbery, you'd see JUST HOW FAST the "sleaze" would EAZE. Somehow, Beyonce comes 2 mind here. Don't SHOOT. I'm merely stressin' a point.

It's sleazy because of pig album covers

JKOOLMUSIC said:

Isn't there something to be said regarding the power of multiple voices versus the "star"?

.

Even in the days of the Beatles and the Jackson Five, there was this force pulling one or more out of the group and into the forefront. Beyonkey is another one though some could argue Destiny's Child was literally a vehicle for Beyonkey to achieve superstardom by pairing her with what was an accepted rotating cast of lackluster Supremes.

.

This is why I get pissed off when people call One Direction a band.

JKOOLMUSIC said:

Isn't there something to be said regarding the power of multiple voices versus the "star"?

.

Even in the days of the Beatles and the Jackson Five, there was this force pulling one or more out of the group and into the forefront. Beyonkey is another one though some could argue Destiny's Child was literally a vehicle for Beyonkey to achieve superstardom by pairing her with what was an accepted rotating cast of lackluster Supremes.

.

This is why I get pissed off when people call One Direction a band.

I think with them it was different. Bands like Beatles and Jackson 5 were real groups. Each of the members contributed something some way in order for it to be successful. These group wasn't designed for one member to break solo in particular. It just so happen MJ for example eventually became a big solo act but by his own merit and yes of course it helped he was in J5. Remember, Joe wanted them to stay a family act, it was never intended for them to go solo.

Beyonce's situation is a little different.

Destiny's Child was specifically designed to propell Beyonce's solo career, nothing more and nothing less. This is why DC is not really looked at as a real group and more so Beyonce's "humble beginnings". It was pretty much designed to make her the super star she is now. She had the better clothes, hair styles, sung lead on all the songs, was front in center on stage, was always in the middle out of all the group members etc. When her father tried to audition her as a solo act, executives said she was not ready and instead insisted she should be in a group first.

The problem with today's industry is that it is not based on talent or quality music. For one thing it is not really a MUSIC industry. It is primarily driven by social media and internet culture. If social media did not exist, half these artists would not nearly be as popular or relevant. The industry seems to be more focused on image, money, influence and popularity than on quality and artistry.

[Edited 11/24/15 19:24pm]

mjscarousal said:

JKOOLMUSIC said:

Isn't there something to be said regarding the power of multiple voices versus the "star"?

.

Even in the days of the Beatles and the Jackson Five, there was this force pulling one or more out of the group and into the forefront. Beyonkey is another one though some could argue Destiny's Child was literally a vehicle for Beyonkey to achieve superstardom by pairing her with what was an accepted rotating cast of lackluster Supremes.

.

This is why I get pissed off when people call One Direction a band.

I think with them it was different. Bands like Beatles and Jackson 5 were real groups. Each of the members contributed something some way in order for it to be successful. These group wasn't designed for one member to break solo in particular. It just so happen MJ for example eventually became a big solo act but by his own merit and yes of course it helped he was in J5. Remember, Joe wanted them to stay a family act, it was never intended for them to go solo.

Beyonce's situation is a little different.

Destiny's Child was specifically designed to propell Beyonce's solo career, nothing more and nothing less. This is why DC is not really looked at as a real group and more so Beyonce's "humble beginnings". It was pretty much designed to make her the super star she is now. She had the better clothes, hair styles, sung lead on all the songs, was front in center on stage, was always in the middle out of all the group members etc. When her father tried to audition her as a solo act, executives said she was not ready and instead insisted she should be in a group first.

The problem with today's industry is that it is not based on talent or quality music. For one thing it is not really a MUSIC industry. It is primarily driven by social media and internet culture. If social media did not exist, half these artists would not nearly be as popular or relevant. The industry seems to be more focused on image, money, influence and popularity than on quality and artistry.

[Edited 11/24/15 19:24pm]

I agree with everything you said. It seems that everything is about an "instant hit". I mean, you have college students who graduate and instantly expect to make tons of money without much effort. It's crazy. I know people who assume that for the simple fact that I have a few college degrees that I should be feasting on milk and honey, so to speak, but they are freaking CLUELESS about the reality of the job market and how it's changed since the stone ages when they were looking for work. So, I said all of that to say that each generation experiences a change and the music business of old days is just that....old days. We have superstars who pop up for a short time and become successful and enjoy the 15 minutes of fame but then most kind of fade away. For example, remember that homeless guy that was "discovered" who had that amazing, old school baritone radio broadcaster voice? He was all over the news for weeks on end a few years ago but does the media talk about this guy anymore? Nope but he was once "famous"....Fame is so cheap these days, you even have soccer moms who probably feel a sense of self-importance if they have 1,000 "friends" on Facebook...

^ Although the industry had darlings, it seems rather cliquish now. Pop stars need a platform and the industry provids them that backing. When you don't have that, you have nothing. However, It appears the industry is only supporting certain acts over others. There is only a specific group of pop stars that get this backing and you can count them on one hand...why is that? Beyonce hasn't had a number one hit in 7 years but she is still given this platform. Adele has been out of the spotlight for 5 years but, comes back and instantly gets a number 1 hit. I think the masses wants variety and different acts despite what is often promoted. This is what is reflected when these type of successes occur. I think that is why Rihanna is taking a while to release her next album. None of the singles have went to number one so they are going back to the drawing board. People are tired of these overrated acts. There is a lot of shady things that goes on behind the scenes. When you look at these receipts it shows something else.. None of the acts of today will make the same impact or have a long lasting legacy as the artists before them.

mjscarousal said:

^ Although the industry had darlings, it seems rather cliquish now. Pop stars need a platform and the industry provids them that backing. When you don't have that, you have nothing. However, It appears the industry is only supporting certain acts over others. There is only a specific group of pop stars that get this backing and you can count them on one hand...why is that? Beyonce hasn't had a number one hit in 7 years but she is still given this platform. Adele has been out of the spotlight for 5 years but, comes back and instantly gets a number 1 hit. I think the masses wants variety and different acts despite what is often promoted. This is what is reflected when these type of successes occur. I think that is why Rihanna is taking a while to release her next album. None of the singles have went to number one so they are going back to the drawing board. People are tired of these overrated acts. There is a lot of shady things that goes on behind the scenes. When you look at these receipts it shows something else.. None of the acts of today will make the same impact or have a long lasting legacy as the artists before them.

I agree. I also think Rihanna is probably caught up in a "creative differences" type of dispute, I imagine, because once an artist starts to be more established they believe they can start calling more shots. Heck, for all we know she might be trying to get out of her contract, trying to start her own label (as Janelle Monae did) or perhaps she's trying to find a creative way to end her obviously orchestrated faux-relationship with up and coming rapper Travis Scott. LOL I look at pictures of those two and it's so obvious that this is a relationship set up by their teams to promote the lesser known of the two...what a scam! LOL!