It's a Brave New Music Industry

[Vito Corleone]

I suppose that's a valid point. I just have to wonder at the value of letting the public vote when they seemed to think that Taylor Hicks and Fantasia Barrino were better singers than Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson.

 

 

Two factors there:

 

1) It's a TV show. So it's not just about singing. It's about the personality, the back-story, etc. Taylor Hicks wins because he was entertaining and consistant every week.

 

2) Daughtry, like a lot of others, failed because he had a bad week. He got tripped up on "country week" or something similar that wasn't in his wheelhouse, IIRC. The nature of that show doesn't favor the single-style singers so well. Although I think they've tried to remedy that by having fewer theme weeks, or at least keeping them broader. And, if it means anything, two of the best pure singers they've ever had are in the top 3 this season although I doubt either of them will go on to do much. The 3rd guy, who isn't much of a 'singer', really, might though.

 

Sounds like I'm trying to defend the show, and I'm really not, except to say it's just a TV show. I enjoy the show. I enjoy the singing and enjoy following the contestants. But I've never purchased a CD from any of the contestants and I doubt I'll buy any of the CDs from any of these years contestants even though I think some are very, very good.

 

But you're right that the overall chances of success after being on one of those shows probably isn't much greater than other avenues. About 20% or so. It's just another way to get 'discovered'. I just finished watching the season finale of "Smash" where Katherine McPhee had a starring role and did quite well. She'd probably be a nobody if not for American Idol and some other nobody would have played that part. There's only so much room at the top regardless of which path you take, I suppose.

[indieleap]

This discussion assumes that being signed to a record label is a beneficial thing for ones career. Although it may be, I don't see that as a given. Anyway, if you are thinking of going on one of these shows, check out this episode of Music Business Radio.

http://blog.musicbusinessradio.com/2011/12/cas_haley.html

It's an interview with Cas Haley who came in second on the show America's Got Talent. I wouldn't say the story is all that surprising, but it is a good account from someone who went through it.

Seems to me if you go on one of these shows you are better off using the exposure yourself and forgetting the record label. In any case, lawyer up before-hand if at all possible.

Best of luck!

[nadinegressett]

And yet more and more people are going back to what they did in the 1950s and 60s- playing clubs both with bands and as duos and solos, getting week night work, cutting singles, getting local airplay and booking in odd venues that don't normally have music- bowling alleys, pizzerias, house parties...the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

I agree but the successful ones will always stand out. Now even more so than ever we are given more non-traditional examples to follow.

[sventvkg]

 

That's probably simply a function of the fact that there are a lot more runners-up than there are winners. I certainly don't buy into the theory that winning actually hurts any of these people. But, at the end of the day, they are singing contests and they are judged by people who watch and call in to vote. As we all know, being the best singer doesn't necessarily equate to being successful in the record business and being a contestant on a TV show voted on by (probably) mostly teenage girls and housewives doesn't necessarily mean that much either. Having said that, I think American Idol stepped it up a notch by adding Jimmy Iovine to the show who, is not only the guy who runs the record company that will sign them, but still seems to have a great ear and eye for what works and what doesn't in the business.

 

 

The winner isn't usually the best one..Just the most popular on American Idol at least..

[sventvkg]

 

This discussion assumes that being signed to a record label is a beneficial thing for ones career. Although it may be, I don't see that as a given. Anyway, if you are thinking of going on one of these shows, check out this episode of Music Business Radio. http://blog.musicbusinessradio.com/2011/12/cas_haley.html It's an interview with Cas Haley who came in second on the show America's Got Talent. I wouldn't say the story is all that surprising, but it is a good account from someone who went through it. Seems to me if you go on one of these shows you are better off using the exposure yourself and forgetting the record label. In any case, lawyer up before-hand if at all possible. Best of luck!

 

 

Yes, this is exactly what I think as well.

[indieleap]

Yes, this is exactly what I think as well.

Unfortunately, I believe they have you sign over an option on a record deal before you even go on the show. I think you lose control of your music by even considering appearing on one of these shows. Lawyer, lawyer, lawyer...

[Matximus]

I don't know. None of this is new. American Idol's been around 10 years or something. Before that you had Star Search or whatever and other similar tripe going back to the 50's - TV talent contests have always been popular. and I'm not knocking them: Music should be on TV that way. Why the {censored} shouldn't it?

Music is a fungible form of entertainment. Someone saw the Beatles movie and said: Holy {censored}, let's make a TV show like that. Good idea! And it was: Monkees were awesome TV and they made some dynamite records, strange enough.

Tell me how American Idol's tour of Top 9 is different than an Alan Freed Big Beat Tour with the Big Bopper and Clyde McPhatter or whatever in the late 50s? Sides the ratio of suck-ass no-name no-skill musicians being way way way higher on them Idol Tours? No difference outside that. Watch the TV show now come see em Live. Very, very old idea. The good ones generally are.

And this is what lots of people are remembering after the record boom got people into this boxed way of thinking that music was mainly just a consumer product sold off the shelf: It can be that, but it don't gotta be. It can be tons of things: Video games, home-made videos, backround music for Soda ads, Karoake contests on TV... you name it. All of that is valid musical entertainment as Zeppelin Live or Beatles on Record.

Good {censored} is good {censored}. American Idol in its hey dey was good {censored}, {censored} any snobs that say otherwise. Voice is da bomb right now too.

But also: there's TV shows, there's records, there's performing: It's three different things. Just cause you are a musician compelling in one of them don't necessarily translate to another. Ruben vs. Clay was great TV: It really was. Their records blow and they're probably boring as {censored} live. Put em in one medium, it's great entertainment. Put em in another, its dog{censored} on display. It's all different stuff. Always has been. What is cool now is there is broader acceptence and more avenues of exposure for people to try their luck extracting coin from their musical entertainment leanings. That's great. It really is.

[daddymack]

I don't know. None of this is new. American Idol's been around 10 years or something. Before that you had Star Search or whatever and other similar tripe going back to the 50's - TV talent contests have always been popular. and I'm not knocking them: Music should be on TV that way. Why the {censored} shouldn't it? Music is a fungible form of entertainment. Someone saw the Beatles movie and said: Holy {censored}, let's make a TV show like that. Good idea! And it was: Monkees were awesome TV and they made some dynamite records, strange enough. Tell me how American Idol's tour of Top 9 is different than an Alan Freed Big Beat Tour with the Big Bopper and Clyde McPhatter or whatever in the late 50s? Sides the ratio of suck-ass no-name no-skill musicians being way way way higher on them Idol Tours? No difference outside that. Watch the TV show now come see em Live. Very, very old idea. The good ones generally are. And this is what lots of people are remembering after the record boom got people into this boxed way of thinking that music was mainly just a consumer product sold off the shelf: It can be that, but it don't gotta be. It can be tons of things: Video games, home-made videos, backround music for Soda ads, Karoake contests on TV... you name it. All of that is valid musical entertainment as Zeppelin Live or Beatles on Record. Good {censored} is good {censored}. American Idol in its hey dey was good {censored}, {censored} any snobs that say otherwise. Voice is da bomb right now too. But also: there's TV shows, there's records, there's performing: It's three different things. Just cause you are a musician compelling in one of them don't necessarily translate to another. Ruben vs. Clay was great TV: It really was. Their records blow and they're probably boring as {censored} live. Put em in one medium, it's great entertainment. Put em in another, its dog{censored} on display. It's all different stuff. Always has been. What is cool now is there is broader acceptence and more avenues of exposure for people to try their luck extracting coin from their musical entertainment leanings. That's great. It really is.

no, you are correct, none of it is new, just repackaged retreads. As to the difference about the tours...Ted Mack didn't trot his wannabe's out on tour...and the Alan Freed tours were based on artists who were selling records already, on their own, some were fairly well known. MoTown toured their stable too...that was how they promoted because they could barely get on national TV (thankfully, guys like Dick Clark broke the color barrier, and finally there was Soul Train). But these were all touring to support hits on the charts...not to just fatten the wallets of the show's producer directly. I've never gone, but I will venture a guess that any and all merchandising rights for all the sales on those tours goes to the AI owners...

And I'm not a snob, but honestly, anything (not just music)that is on network TV, as far as I'm concerned, is watered down, sanitized and targeted to the lowest common denominator, because tha tis where the $ is. You think something on network TV is great, glad to hear it, but frankly...if HBO (or any payservice) did it, imagine the talent pool when they aren't sweating offending anyone...

[Vito Corleone]

 

But also: there's TV shows, there's records, there's performing: It's three different things. Just cause you are a musician compelling in one of them don't necessarily translate to another. Ruben vs. Clay was great TV: It really was. Their records blow and they're probably boring as {censored} live. Put em in one medium, it's great entertainment. Put em in another, its dog{censored} on display. It's all different stuff. Always has been. What is cool now is there is broader acceptence and more avenues of exposure for people to try their luck extracting coin from their musical entertainment leanings. That's great. It really is.

 

 

This nails it. It's good entertainment and it's music-based entertainment which is all the better, IMO. Yeah, I don't really get the snobs either. I don't know what they think these shows SHOULD be or why they are upset that they only are what they are. Is American Idol, or Taylor Hicks or the fans of the show a "fail" because Hicks didn't go on to sell a gazillion records? I NEVER thought the guy was "music business star" material, but watching him every week was good entertainment and I certainly wasn't surprised that he won that season. Week in and week out he was the most consistantly entertaining performer which is what that show is about. The idea that the only "good" music or the only "winners" in this business are those that either impress other musicians and/or are able to sell tens of millions of CDs is pretty short-sighted.

 

In this day and age especially, however you can get yourself noticed and however you can make a living for yourself through the use of music? It's ALL good, IMO.

 

And, as a music fan, I'm GLAD there's so much music on TV these days--AI, The Voice, America's Got Talent, So You Think You Can Dance, Glee, Smash....I think it's all great. If it keeps people, and especially kids, interested in performing--how can that be a BAD thing? So it's not The Beatles or the Miles Davis Quintet. Few things ever were. And there's almost certainly not enough of that level of talent to fill hundreds of hours of TV every year anyway. But if the next Beatles or Miles is able to use one of the shows as a springboard for their career---or even if they are just more inspired to become performers based on watching these sorts of show--then that's freakin' awesome, IMO.

[Vito Corleone]

 

The winner isn't usually the best one..Just the most popular on American Idol at least..

 

 

"best" is subjective at best. Cute guys and country singers tend to be favored it seems, so that tells you who's most apt to use speed-dial to vote 50 times a night. But hey...that's all part of the real-world business as well. The hands-down best pure singer didn't win? What else is new? The fact they had to resort to auditioning for singing-contest TV show in the FIRST place shows you how {censored}ed up the music business is and always has been.

 

Joshua Ledet is one of the best singers I've ever seen anywhere. Ever. He's probably going home tonight because he was a bit 'off' last night. Such is life. He'll get a record deal anyway. And his recording career will likely fizzle because I can't really see where he fits in the modern music business. Again, what else is new?

 

I dunno what's worse---that somebody 'not as good" as him will probably win the singing contest TV show, or that without this singing contest TV show, a guy with THAT much talent would probably just go completely unoticed living his life out in Bum{censored}, MI or wherever he's from....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4babjH3QF8

[daddymack]

if talent were only enough...but, IMHO, it isn't. The old model meant getting off your ass, and learning how to work with a band (other actual musicians), learning how to craft your performance, and mastering your art.

Now the model is..be cute, be catchy, be whatever they ask you to be and get them to give you a golden ticket...sorry...I find the old way preferable in generating people with MORE than just talent...

 

Really, if 80%+ of the contestants for AI over the last five years or so* showed up to audition for a band I was in, they wouldn't have made it...Crystal Bowersox, Kat McFee, Jennifer Hudson, Fantasia Barrino and a few others might have qualified...

 

*which is roughly when I gave up watching regularly....

[Vito Corleone]

if *which is roughly when I gave up watching regularly....

 

 

Too bad, because, if anything, the show has probably become more "band singer" friendly in the last couple of years:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usn3o3kle44

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g54MScT9vK0&feature=relmfu

 

 

[Potts]

Hey Guido! Off topic but the version of "Whole Lotta Love" is an example of over doing the harmonies. They're almost too perfect. Remember when Page did them live? He mumbled them and they sounded great

[A. Einstein]

"making it" works still in the same way as it always worked in the past

[BlueStrat]

 

I dunno what's worse---that somebody 'not as good" as him will probably win the singing contest TV show,

 

 

Well, in the case of the modern music biz, singing ability is only part of it. You said yourself, Joshua is a great singer, but where does he go? He's an old school R&B guy, and the only place he'll find an audience is probably going to be gospel music-just like Reuben Studdard, who manage some moderate success there. The fact is, all these singing shows are much more than that- or less, depending on your viewpoint-and are more a total package deal. That's why this Phil Phillips kid has never been in the bottom three, despite the fact that he has a limited range, a narrow style, and basically sounds the same on every song. Nope, it's not his singing, it's his marketability. The fact is,the chicks dig him, and that's every bit as important as singing- maybe more so. Jessica Sanchez is an awesome singer, but seems incapable of not going over the top on every performance and using every song as a platform to showcase her chops, as opposed to just singing the damn song. Phil Phillips got tons of praise heaped on him for his rendition of that Bob Seeger tune on Wednesday- it was good, but the best performance of the season, as Randy Jackson proclaimed? From the standpoint of using one's voice to deliver the song, as opposed to using the song to deliver the voice, perhaps so.

[Vito Corleone]

Well, in the case of the modern music biz, singing ability is only part of it. You said yourself, Joshua is a great singer, but where does he go? He's an old school R&B guy, and the only place he'll find an audience is probably going to be gospel music-just like Reuben Studdard, who manage some moderate success there. The fact is, all these singing shows are much more than that- or less, depending on your viewpoint-and are more a total package deal. That's why this Phil Phillips kid has never been in the bottom three, despite the fact that he has a limited range, a narrow style, and basically sounds the same on every song. Nope, it's not his singing, it's his marketability. The fact is,the chicks dig him, and that's every bit as important as singing- maybe more so. Jessica Sanchez is an awesome singer, but seems incapable of not going over the top on every performance and using every song as a platform to showcase her chops, as opposed to just singing the damn song. Phil Phillips got tons of praise heaped on him for his rendition of that Bob Seeger tune on Wednesday- it was good, but the best performance of the season, as Randy Jackson proclaimed? From the standpoint of using one's voice to deliver the song, as opposed to using the song to deliver the voice, perhaps so.

 

 

I didn't get all the praise on "We've Got Tonight". I thought it was a good performance; nowhere near my favorite of the season. I thought this weeks show was the worst of the year actually. I didn't like much of any of it. Phillip Phillips has a shot at success, but only if he can write songs. There aren't really a lot of songwriters around who come up with material for Dave Matthews.

 

My predicition for Jessica Sanchez is she'll do well, but it probably won't be for a few years. Her voice to way to big for her to be a "teen star", and she's way too young for anyone to be considering 'sexy'. Plus, she isn't. She's just a little girl. She doesn't even drive. She needs to get laid first before she has anything to really sing about, you know? But I can only imagine what her voice might be like when she's 23-24.

 

Sometimes they grab these kids a bit too young. It seems like it's just now that Jordan Sparxx is starting to come into her own.

 

As far as Jessica always been just way over the top, I thought this one was pretty nice. For the life of me, I still can't figure out how that voice comes out of a 16-year old girl who can't be more than 70 pounds soaking wet:

 

 

[video=youtube;WN93rh__-uo]

[BlueStrat]

 

I thought this weeks show was the worst of the year actually.

 

 

That's what my wife thought too- she's a diehard fan and never misses it, I only watch it once every few weeks or so when I'm sitting at the computer and it'on in the background.

 

I agree with your assessment of Jessica as well. Go get your heart broke, go have some personal crises, go get beat up by life for awhile- and then come back and use your voice to express your feelings, and not to just show off your techniques.

[indieleap]

To the point of the OP... I would add that this is only one aspect of the new music industry. There are other avenues to travel down.

 

The reality show phenomenon is really just a testament to the inability (or lack of desire) of the record labels to break an artist in today's music consumer climate. Record labels don't want you unless you have a solid fan base developed already. These shows are platforms to develop a fan base for artists in a relatively short period of time so that the record label doesn't have to take as many risks. Not only that, but they weed out the artists that have a decent sound but don't seem, for whatever reason, to be gaining traction.

 

Recent YouTube stars have gotten the same attention from record labels. What is all but dead about the old music industry model is the idea of being picked up as a nobody and then turned into a huge star. Huge widespread print and TV marketing campaigns are too expensive versus the risk of an unsuccessful campaign. Furthermore, monetization strategies rarely extend beyond CD + T-shirt sales. In my experience, developing relationships with people who enjoy your music is the most effective approach. This seems to open up doors to creative monetization, successful kickstarter campaigns and people just donating money to your efforts just because they like you. Not only do labels have no idea how to do that, they can't be you for you. Artists who are finding success with social media platforms like Daria Musk, who has the title of being the first G+ music star, do a much better job with engagement then the labels do . If a record deal is what you are after, you will have to develop a following yourself first (or have a TV show do that for you). Then you will be attractive to the label. Then, of course, the question is... do you need the label at that point? Possibly, but not necessarily.

[Vito Corleone]

What is all but dead about the old music industry model is the idea of being picked up as a nobody and then turned into a huge star.

 

 

Largely because it's no longer the most cost-effective way to launch a career. In the old days, there wasn't much that existed to get people excited about a new artist or record beyond touring and local radio play/record sales. Not only is it nearly impossible to break an artist locally anymore in the world of every radio station owned by Clear Channel and the only place selling CDs being Best Buy and WalMart, but why would you want to even if you could when you've got the whole world at your disposal via the internet and television.

 

And even television is tied to the internet. Sure, American Idol is a huge show but the success of the singers is spread that much further by people like us talking about them online and posting video clips. The ability of such things to help a career so far exceeds, say, Jessica Sanchez playing some local gigs and having her record played on a San Diego radio station that it really is no wonder at all that labels aren't looking at those 'traditional' ways to break an artist any longer.

 

But, like you said, with all that available these days, how much do you even NEED the label anymore?

[sventvkg]

That Dave Mathews Clone kid...It ASTOUNDS me he stayed in this far let alone is in the top 2....He's a BLATANT rip off of DM and couldn't possibly have a career other than in Vegas..His guitar playing style, singing, moves on stage...I mean...There is NOTHING there original and his voice is very mediocre......The Best Voice DID win on THE VOICE for what it's worth because the judges had the final say as it should be. Just saying.

[Vito Corleone]

Best Voice DID win on THE VOICE for what it's worth because the judges had the final say as it should be. Just saying.

 

 

Actually, I didn't think that guy had the best voice (I thought Jamar Rodgers was better--and Juliet Simms as well, for that matter) and the judges had no final say in the last vote. Just saying.

 

To suggest there is some objective standard of who is the 'best' singer on these shows that the audiences are incapable of determining and therefore that makes the whole concept invalid is pretty absurd.

 

A) "best" is subjective.

 

B) that's a good thing. If there were some simple objective standard, then there would be no need for contest. It would be like having a "who's the tallest person" competition. I guess we'd all get to find out who would be the tallest, but it would hardly be compelling television.

[daddymack]

He's a BLATANT rip off of DM....

 

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

That Dave Mathews Clone kid...It ASTOUNDS me he stayed in this far let alone is in the top 2....He's a BLATANT rip off of DM

 

 

Yeah, but who isn't a rip-off of somebody in one form or another in this business? So he sounds just like Dave Matthews? Everyone sounds just like somebody. Geez, if I have to hear one more song on the radio by someone that sounds just like Norah Jones, I'll probably puke. Or Whitney Houston. Or Bob Dylan. Or John Lennon. Or on and on and on.

 

It isn't what you SOUND like that matters in this business so much, but what you do with it. He can sound just like DM all day long, but if he can write and/or sing some great songs and make some good records, nobody is going to care. THAT'S going to be what determines his long-term success or not.

[kurdy]

 

It isn't what you SOUND like that matters in this business so much, but what you do with it. He can sound just like DM all day long, but if he can write and/or sing some great songs and make some good records, nobody is going to care. THAT'S going to be what determines his long-term success or not.

 

 

That's the thing...Steven Tyler told him during one of his critiques that he hopes he'll write his own songs. Which gives me the impression that he never has. So assuming that's the case, if you've got a mediocre voice and just OK stage presence, with little songwriting experience, then what's left? A cute guy who can sorta sing? Not sure that's enough to carry a career...remember the past three seasons all had winners that were strikingly similar to this guy in more ways than one, and all went nowhere. Scotty from last season had some potential due to the fact that country artists tend to have more post-Idol success. His CD actually did quite well. But then he chose to go to college. Which actually may not have been a bad move on his part.

 

So if the particular type of contestant that has won the last three seasons is more "marketable", yet everyone forgets about them a year later, then who are they being marketed to? Apparently someone isn't buying it.

[Vito Corleone]

That's the thing...Steven Tyler told him during one of his critiques that he hopes he'll write his own songs. Which gives me the impression that he never has. So assuming that's the case, if you've got a mediocre voice and just OK stage presence, with little songwriting experience, then what's left? A cute guy who can sorta sing? Not sure that's enough to carry a career...remember the past three seasons all had winners that were strikingly similar to this guy in more ways than one, and all went nowhere. Scotty from last season had some potential due to the fact that country artists tend to have more post-Idol success. His CD actually did quite well. But then he chose to go to college. Which actually may not have been a bad move on his part.

 

 

Country guys also don't need to write. There's that whole Nashville machine there.

 

I think one of the more interesting aspects of this show---and why I like the fact that Jimmy Iovine is such a big part of it now---is HE'S the guy who signs the acts and will produce their albums. He's got these great vehicles handed to him: great singers with a built-in fan base. Now it's up to HIM to find them songs and make their careers take off. Sure, if Phillip Phillips can write great songs, he becomes a major star all on his own. But there's nothing saying there can't be songs written for him just because of his style. These kids are just there to win a singing contest. What happens next is largely up to Iovine and Interscope. If he can't figure out a way to make a million dollars out of any of those three...who's fault is that?

 

BTW---the one who probably WILL stick around from this bunch....Rockin' Country Girl Singer. Can't remember her name. I'm thought she might win the whole thing. If Kellie Pickler can have a decent career, this girl should be a shoe-in.

 

 

So if the particular type of contestant that has won the last three seasons is more "marketable", yet everyone forgets about them a year later, then who are they being marketed to? Apparently someone isn't buying it.

 

 

I don't think they are necessarily more "marketable". They just have what it takes to win that singing contest. Taking it to the next level? Again, that's on Iovine, I think.