"Women have to be HOT to succeed in the music biz"

[Lee Flier]

you mixin up one a societys ills for another. Yah its true that THE MAN get off on control an manipulation and is threaten by a talent with opinon and paid fairly, but thats not how they make decision at Sony Music. Thats what they talk about at NOW. At Sony Music, if the artist can make em money, they get the deal. The artist have opinon and wanna get paid fairly? If they can make em money,, they couldnt give a rats ass, sign em up. Cant control or manipulate? If they can make em money, they dont give a rats ass, sign em up.

 

Yes I agree with that so far as it goes. BUT... if they have a choice between signing two artists, and one of them is seriously talented, the other is of marginal talent but is super hot looking, is willing to do whatever the label says in order to "get famous" and doesn't care about their pesky "artistic expression," and is willing to take much less money in royalties than someone else who may be more talented, well then the label is going to sign that person. They don't care anymore that in the long term the real talent might sell more in total or back catalog - they only care about immediate short term sales, and making as much money as possible right away, and in that scenario, the type of "artist" I mention will probably sell more faster.

 

Also, one thing that definitely HAS changed is that the major labels will NOT spend money on "artist development" which they used to. If your first record doesn't sell, you get dropped. And a lot of budding talent that might have been signed and allowed to "grow up" with a label (meaning their first few records might not sell real well but over time they would pay off for many years) would not be signed at all today.

 

An if they dont, blamin it on "OPINION" or "PAID FAIRLY" or "LEGIT TALENT" is the easy excuse. Im not sayin you use that excuse, I got no idea bout that, Im sayin you sayin thats the explination for rejection when it aint.

 

I have no idea whether anyone else uses it as an "excuse" either (I certainly don't). It just seems to be true based on what I said above.

 

Who you talkin about? What people? Mos people I know think jus the opposite.

 

People who don't see a lot of talent emerging in the mainstream (on major labels, TV, radio, etc.) which is quite a lot of people. Not everybody goes rooting around on MySpace or goes out to local venues.

 

You say "MTV" like its still a big deal. Video killed the radio star? Myspace killed MTV.

 

Totally agree with you here, but like I just said... not everybody does. There are a lot of people who still watch MTV and listen to mainstream radio and wonder why there isn't a lot of talent there.

 

The problem with the labels isnt that they change into idiots, its that they havent change. The lables are playin catchup. Everyone knows that.

 

Yes I agree (except for the artist development thing - that certainly HAS changed)... forgive me for stating the obvious.

 

These days a artist with LEGIT TALENT AN OPINION AN PAID FAIRLY is in much better shape than the labels.

 

Yep, I agree, again. I just think it's a ridiculous state of affairs, that's all.

[kurdy]

Getting back to that original article, I think it is really tripping over itself trying to apply a blanket statment to an industry where such a generalization really doesn't fit. This becomes more apparent with all the exceptions they listed. They can't all be flukes.

That said, I agree that good looks can help one get ahead in the entertainment industry, but since when is that a new thing?

[Lakisha]

I just think it's a ridiculous state of affairs, that's all.

 

What on Gods earth is not ridiculous? And now I gotta go buy me some shoes.

[LiveMusic]

{censored} janis joplin.

I lived in Beaumont, Texas awhile. One day, I saw a pic on the wall in a bar. I asked the bartender who it was. Janis. I was floored. She was anything but ugly. Quite the looker, actually. Although, she was young, maybe around 18 but I could hardly believe it.

[Lee Flier]

the idea that the labels gonna sign a artist over another cause a royalty issue is false as false can be. The decision to sign a artist, however much you think thats fukked up, has nothin to do with a royalty. the label always negotiate to get the best deal. But the range a royalty for a artist is small to begin with so thats never gonna make it or brake it for the deal. The label share gonna be so big anyway, the royalty dont matter.

 

I think the way the major labels are doing nowadays (poorly), everything matters. They'll do anything to save a buck. But I think the "control" thing is an even bigger factor... if they think they have a proven "formula" for making hits and they have an artist who'll willingly follow that formula as opposed to one who might protest, they'll take the one they can control.

 

But steppin back, like Kurby say, you makin this generalization. An you choppin up singers into ugly an good verses hot an bad willin to do anything.

 

Where did I do that? So far you've put an awful lot of words into my mouth that I didn't say. Quit assuming I'm saying something that I'm not, OK? Just read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

 

That's all well and good if somebody's hot looking AND talented. I think it goes without saying that those people aren't gonna have a problem getting signed if that's what they want. But that's a pretty small number of people and there are more people that get signed than have both of those qualities!

 

Sure the label wanna fast money. But if they got a talent they think they can make money on they gonna sign it.

 

... if they got a talent they think they can make FAST money on, that is. That leaves out a lot of people.

 

Meanin the artist these days gotta buy they own drugs and dont get a limmo?

 

No, meaning they have to keep working a day job instead of being able to throw themselves into writing and rehearsing and recording and touring full time... which slows development down considerably and makes it tough to keep motivation high over the long run. Plus they don't have access to great studios, and all the infrastructure that goes along with that... talented producers, more established artists, publicists and other folks who typically took over a lot of the grunt work in an artist's career which helped them to develop creatively.

 

Lots of people do all that themselves these days (including me), but it IS a trade off. It would be nice if we still had some sort of functioning music industry and everyone didn't have to be completely indie to get off the ground... and I expect we will at some point, some of the more talented producers and A&R folks are already forming their own smaller companies to help develop artists. We just ain't quite there yet.

 

So they grow up on myspace. Everyone I meet is a so call "musician" with more at they fingertipps than a artist gettin "developed" by a labal back in the day. Miss Lee Flier, Welcome To The 21ST Century!

 

Again you're making a whole lot of assumptions that I'm somehow not in the 21st century and don't know this. Of COURSE lots of people "grow up" on MySpace and lots of listeners use MySpace and other music services to find new music. And it's great - I do that myself.

 

However there are not many people making a living from having marketed themselves on MySpace. I'm not talking limos and drugs and rockstardom - I'm just talking making a decent living. Almost no one is doing that because although there are more "artists" than ever putting music out on MySpace, audiences now have so many choices that very rarely can any one artist get enough attention to generate enough sales to make a living. Why? Because marketing still takes capital. It still takes good old-fashioned repeat advertising and blanket exposure to pull in enough ears to pay somebody's bills... and that's what's missing from the equation in today's biz. Either a major label does a total blitz and MTV and the whole 9 yards, which costs a fortune and they expect a fortune in return, or you're doing everything yourself and have little or no capital to do it.

 

There used to be a "middle ground" between being a major label artist and being totally indie and selling your homemade records on MySpace, and that middle ground has shrunk considerably. Like I said, I do think there are folks who used to work at major labels who will eventually step in to fill that middle ground, some are already doing it. But in spite of the fact that I think the "indie revolution" is a great thing, I don't like to pretend that we haven't lost anything in the process. Saying "Oh well, that's reality" when there might be things we can do to make up for what we've lost, seems defeatist.

 

Exactly why people DONT "still watch MTV and listen to mainstream radio."

 

Lots of people don't... but lots of people still do. There are so many options for music that lots of people are overwhelmed and don't have time/can't be bothered to look on MySpace. I know a lot of people that get on MySpace and listen to a few bands, don't think any of them are any good and either don't understand that you have to spend a lot of time looking for stuff you like, or simply don't have that time. So they just listen to the radio.

 

The missing things in the MySpace world are 1) "filters" - people whom the public trusts to be a good judge of what they should listen to (and sure we're not always gonna agree with their decisions, but the casual listener doesn't care), 2) capital for a decent ad campaign, etc. and 3) infrastructure in the form of manpower - producers, managers, publicists, road crew - all the people who ultimately make an artist sustainable and help them reach their real potential.

 

People underestimate the value of working with a lot of diverse talent. just as there's a lot to be said for sitting at home with your copy of Sonar and learning how to engineer, but I wouldn't have traded interning and "growing up" at big multi-room studios and getting to pick the brains of top engineers and producers and musicians, for anything.

 

I don't appreciate being dismissed as having a chip on my shoulder or making "excuses" or not being with the times for pointing this stuff out. I think it has value and there's really no reason it can't be incorporated into today's climate, except for lack of awareness - which is why I point it out. Not to sit and moan for the bygone days when people could be big rockstars with limos. That doesn't interest me at all and there are so many advantages to the way things are today. But it doesn't hurt to point out some of the weak points and try to come up with ideas to fill the gaps, either.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

No matter if male, or female artist, snow business is mainly cheese fondue and white wine

http://www.snowbusiness.com/

.

[franknputer]

Hey Lakisha - can you name five female artists with major-label contracts who are average-looking?

[Lakisha]

 

But it doesn't hurt to point out some of the weak points and try to come up with ideas to fill the gaps, either.

 

Ideas dont mean {censored} if you dont act on em. You gonna start your "middle ground" indie or just moon over the good ol days?

 

Yo edit: after I wrote that last thought I change my mind an had to come back to say I agree that sometimes ideas are good jus talkin about em.

[Lakisha]

 

Hey Lakisha - can you name five female artists with major-label contracts who are average-looking?

 

No I cant.

 

But I can name 100000000000000 average looking female artist w/o contracts who got a good chance to get the music out if its any good.

[Lee Flier]

The only time I know a royalty negotatiation gonna change a decision is on the opposite side a the biz when a top artist demand crazy money and all the labels tryin to get em.

 

There are sometimes bidding wars for new artists too. But whatever, this particular part of the argument is boring me so I'll bow out of it.

 

What you think they wire up a artist like the punk in Clockwork Orange and make a test for "who might protest" and "the one they can control"?

 

That's not necessary, I think most of us with any experience in the biz can tell within 5 minutes of talking to someone whether they're savvy about it or gullible. And it certainly is easy to tell someone who has definite artistic ideas from someone who's willing to be molded.

 

Gurl, not one person on the hole dam planet can tell the difference between "what someone wrote" an "what they think someone wrote."

 

Well that should be obvious... but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is a "straw man." Dig? Logic 101. A straw man is when you argue with a position that is not actually what the person said or wrote but is easier to knock down. In fact, your rebuttal above is a straw man because it attempts to dismiss what I actually said - which is that you were putting words in my mouth - with a philosophical point that is rather obvious.

 

So now what do I think you wrote? I think that sound like a cartoon, not real life. Sound like dividin the world into a "good guy" whos not gonna get signed cause "artistic expression" talent fair pay an all that. Then theres "bad guy" artist whose hot but cant sing, doesnt care about "artistic expression" money control you name it an gets to sign. In real life the artist I know dont look like that cartoon.

 

Well it certainly seems to me there are plenty of "artists" who fit the cartoon. Not everybody mind you, but enough to have made me turn off mainstream radio and TV quite awhile ago (and I think we're in agreement about that part.)

 

More often than not I here that cartoon as a excuse: so and so didnt get sign cause they toooo talented, didnt wanna be the labels little bitch etc.

 

Well like I said, I've never heard anybody specifically say they themselves didn't get signed for that reason. I just look at who's getting signed to major labels vs. who is unsigned or perennially indie, and it seems to me the majors are making stupider decisions than ever. It has nothing to do with being an excuse for anything, it's just an observation.

 

I guess that all depend on what you think is "hot" an "talented." Thats what the A&R gotta decide. If you ask me Id say the big label is lookin for both. Even in the indie lables looks matters.

 

Sure they're looking for both... but there aren't all that many people that are both... so oftentimes it's gotta be one or the other and in my observation it's generally looks that wins out anymore. Looks have always been a big help, but it didn't necessarily used to be required that you look like a model... which is the whole point of the original article.

 

gurl I can name you SO many acts that had to keep they day jobs AFTER they get signed to the label and AFTER they album come out.

 

Yeah, NOW that's the case. I didn't know too many in the 80's that couldn't quit their day jobs for at least a year or two, and they could stay that way if they toured enough. Still know quite a few people who got signed in the 80's and never had to go back to a day job, even if they now don't have a major label anymore, because they gained an audience from big-label marketing and those same people will still go back to see them on indie tours. They aren't living the rockstar lifestyle, they have to be frugal but they can still make their living from their music.

 

Fact is theres more opportunitys today for the unsign artist to develop that the artist from "the good ol days" could only dream about.

 

Yes, as I think I've already said several times, I agree. That doesn't have to mean it's all good now and it was all bad then, either.

 

Yeah I can think of some doin just that! But compare what you doin now with what you wouldve been doin in the old days. You think you woulda had a "development deal"? The difference isnt that youd had a label help in the past, its that you got computer help in the present.

 

Actually, even without label help I benefitted from the infrastructure that was around back then. And yes, the web is a huge help and getting to pick people's brains over the Internet is wonderful. I've personally benefitted a TON from that. But I still don't think it's a substitute for being there in person, that's all. I like both.

 

The way it sound to me is you stuck in the 20th c. I think you glorify ol skool "middle ground" an "what we've lost" when that middle ground in the 21st c. is bigger than ever an growin up from the bottom not comin down from the top.

 

I don't agree that the middle ground is bigger than ever. The bottom is bigger than ever, although the view from the bottom is better than it ever has been. That is, nearly anyone can create and distribute their own music without any music biz at all... but because so many people are now competing for ears, the number of ears anybody gets at the bottom is not much.

 

The middle may become bigger over the next few years but we'll have to agree to disagree that it is that way now. And I don't think it's "glorifying the past" to point these things out either. Either it is that way or it isn't.

 

Now you talkin! Thing is, some a this do exist and entrapaneurs makin it happen to. But comparin the present to the past, these have always been a issue. I think its a fantasy to say they all good in the past when the reality is more opportunity in the presetn.

 

Once again, I never said it was "all good in the past." There were plenty of problems with the biz in the past too. I am simply pointing out a couple of things that were better then that could be better now, but won't be if we don't acknowledge they exist.

 

Mos agree that the trade off is worth it. An elite group of pampered artists who hang at the big studio for 250/hour an not trading that good ol day experience "for anything" or millions a young musicians gettin the opportunity to make an distribute they own music! Yeah if you an elite who benefit from the ol system than dont trade that. But if you part a the millions who benefit from the new system, than welcome to the 21st century!

 

I am benefitting immensely from the new system and I also benefitted immensely from the old one. That's what you don't seem to get - it is possible to like both you know. Or different things about both. I wasn't part of any "elite" pampered group in the old days, and yet I still had opportunities to work in big studios and learn from some of the best in the biz. And when I try to help out young artists and engineers these days a lot of them wish they could do that, and probably would have been able to 20 years ago.

 

Again there are some independent enterpreneurs and producers who are trying to fill the gaps and I don't doubt they'll eventually succeed (and some have already). But not if everybody's in denial that there's a need for them and says everybody should just sit around at home with a computer and put their music on MySpace.

 

It do sound like to me you got that chip on the shoulder an glorify the good ol days.

 

Welp, you're wrong. There are things about the old days that I liked better than now, and things about now that I like better than the old days. There are things about the old days that I hated that don't exist now, and things that I hate about now that didn't exist then. Life isn't a cartoon.

 

Ideas dont mean {censored} if you dont act on em. You gonna start your "middle ground" indie or just moon over the good ol days?

 

I've got no intentions of starting a label if that's what you mean, no. Personally, I'm pretty happy with being in an indie band, and I do record young artists I believe in and try to help them out any way I can. And that's about all I can do, I don't believe it's in the cards for me to be an "industry person" per se and I'm fine with that.

 

That doesn't mean I don't have a right to an opinion on the subject. And it doesn't mean that the sharing of ideas on forums like this one has no value. Lots of people read these forums who ARE in the industry or are considering going into it, and if this discussion inspires them, great. That's why comments like "quit complaining" or "quit pining for the old days" are not very helpful or constructive.

[John Sayers]

So what is HOT??

I recently watched a program on the top 50 makeovers. I was amazed at what some of the so called "hotties" started out as before they learnt about fashion, style and how to take care of themselves. Just look at that trio from the mickey mouse club that started out as plain janes and became super hotties.

Someone mentioned that Janis Joplin was beautiful - maybe she was but she had her own style for the times - maybe today she might have approached it differently and become a hottie.

Success breeds confidence which breeds attraction. I've met so many artists that I thought were reallly beautiful only to find that they were average but extremely well presented.

[Lee Flier]

I recently watched a program on the top 50 makeovers. I was amazed at what some of the so called "hotties" started out as before they learnt about fashion, style and how to take care of themselves. Just look at that trio from the mickey mouse club that started out as plain janes and became super hotties.

 

Yeah, you're right, every woman should just watch a show about the top 50 makeovers (I think I'd rather have a root canal, thanks ), spend a {censored}load of money on the latest fashion, hair styles, makeup, boob job, whatever and then she'll be a "hottie." Nevermind that assuming she takes decent care of herself, the so called plain jane was probably pretty attractive to begin with.

 

And no Lakisha, the above comments do not mean I'm sitting around a campfire with hairy armpits singing angry folk songs about how much men suck.

[John Sayers]

Nevermind that assuming she takes decent care of herself, the so called plain jane was probably pretty attractive to begin with.

 

 

yeah - she probably was Lee but hey, as Alpha said - this is show biz. Personal presentation is a part of show biz - always has been, always will.

[Lee Flier]

 

yeah - she probably was Lee but hey, as Alpha said - this is show biz. Personal presentation is a part of show biz - always has been, always will.

 

 

Yep... but the above doesn't just apply to show biz, unfortunately. And I agree that presentation is important, but the specific standard that is being applied sure seems superficial and boring. I think one can have style without looking like a Barbie doll.

[John Sayers]

I think one can have style without looking like a Barbie doll.

agreed - not all the top 50 looked like Barbie Dolls either before or after.
One of those on the list was Fergie (the brits Duchess of something) who went from a frump to an extremely attractive lady, no plastic surgery or boob job, just takin care of herself and some help from Jenny Craig .

[Lakesidedave]

So what is HOT??

 

 

The reason I think that Lucinda Williams is 'hot' is because of her songs, what they're about, and the way she sings them, not because of her 'looks'.

Hey, I'm in my fifties, and so is she. 'Hot' has never been about 'looks' for me.

[RTSMUSIC]

I personally think hard work makes things work out for anyone and the proper mindset-If a woman has talent and works hard and practices- history shows they can prevail in the music industry-Just do not give up that is the Key-It is hard work and you need to punch at it and punch at it and never take no for an answer just find another route-Minority Blind people as an example have made it to the top by the quality of their music and hard work and practice-They had it and "I say they" worse than anything we can think of today-Keep a happy mind set and enjoy life and do not worry about the trivial stuff to bring you down-That is why most fail-Punch at it with a smile on your face and look at it in a posotive aspect and do not give up-If it was ment to be it will be- otherwise you had a great portion of your life you enjoyed and can think back on those times later-Just keep it posotive all the way

[Jimbroni]

Music is sexual. Therefore when the musicians, male or female are sexy, people are more inclined to give it a chance. Its the simple truth of our natural animal instincts. Those of us who are already inclined to enjoy music don't need that extra incentive though it helps. Dreams about Shakira.

[RockViolin]

Music is sexual. Therefore when the musicians, male or female are sexy, people are more inclined to give it a chance. Its the simple truth of our natural animal instincts. Those of us who are already inclined to enjoy music don't need that extra incentive though it helps. Dreams about Shakira.

 

 

Not ALL music is sexual. Sensual in one respect or another, perhaps. (Nora Jones nails me right in the heart, for instance.) The sexual bit belongs mostly to certain types of popular music of the last 100 years or so.

Music can hit a lot of places. Not just below the waist.

[Lee Flier]

 

The sexual bit belongs mostly to certain types of popular music of the last 100 years or so.

 

 

Yeah, and not just popular music. Pretty much everything in popular culture has been sexualized. Marketing people figured out that if you sexualize something people will pay more attention to it, so now we're at the point where everything is sexualized, and people feel the need to keep doing more and more outrageous stuff to get attention over everyone else who's doing the same thing.

 

Pretty silly really. Personally I don't find it sexy at all.

[Jimbroni]

Sexuality isn't isolated below the waist either. Sex and Music share a common bond in our primal core. The best sex occurs when you're connected to your partner at the core essence of your spiritual being, just like the best music is created when you are connected to the musicians or music that you are creating by the core of your spiritual being. This connection is every bit as important as eating and breathing. I believe this connection to be spiritual in nature others may argue it mental in nature. Either way sexual desire is a fundamental building block in the mystery of life, music is the only language we have to describe it at the fundamental level.

[Jimbroni]

Yeah, and not just popular music. Pretty much everything in popular culture has been sexualized. Marketing people figured out that if you sexualize something people will pay more attention to it, so now we're at the point where everything is sexualized, and people feel the need to keep doing more and more outrageous stuff to get attention over everyone else who's doing the same thing. Pretty silly really. Personally I don't find it sexy at all.

This coming from a girl who's favorite band is the Stones.

[RockViolin]

Either way sexual desire is a fundamental building block in the mystery of life, music is the only language we have to describe it at the fundamental level.

 

 

Visual Art, Photography, Dance, (sans music even). They can all getcha there. My point stands I think. If I get all choked up listening to something, that's not a sexual experience for me. If it makes me wanna bump and grind. Bingo, fundamental sexual response.

[RockViolin]

Pretty silly really. Personally I don't find it sexy at all.

VERY SILLY. The absurdity of it can be mindblowing. This world, like it is, perhaps like it ever was. But Bettyliscious has an appointment to get her butt injected into her lips today.

[Jimbroni]

Visual Art, Photography, Dance, (sans music even). They can all getcha there. My point stands I think. If I get all choked up listening to something, that's not a sexual experience for me. If it makes me wanna bump and grind. Bingo, fundamental sexual response.

 

 

That's just it. Our world has lead us to believe sexuality is all about bump and grind. I disagree with that. Sexuality is about connections at a spiritual level.

If you think about the origins of music, it comes from our indigenous roots, where primal rythmns and dance entrance the people into that connection. Its same connection that we experience when in love. You can't possibly believe that sexuality in music is limited to last 100 years. Look to South American music, african music, island music its all sexual and its the very root of modern music. Now days though, because we have all this visual stimuli, the music doesn't have to embody this sexual essence. However, at its root those rythmns are still there it just that Nelli doesn't have to put his heart and soul into his music because he has strippers to do that for him.