Statement on Artists' Failing Careers. Agree or Disagree?

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

I was just reading an article from 2013 and in the article a record label executive was talking about artists careers and why a lot of them fall apart. 

The executive states this about first albums:

"Artists have a lot of help on their first albums, and they're open to a lot of help, and they are very smart collaborators and make great work." 

 

And then the executive says this about their albums that come after it:

"Time and again, they feel like they could have done it themselves, and if they had done it their way, it would have been even bigger, so they jettison the people who helped them get where they are and hire people who are less powerful, who let them do what they want."

 

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Perhaps it explains the sophomore slump and even slumps that come after that.

[Seeka 12,372]

I think being happy about your own work is far better than being popular.

Being popular while being happy is just a bonus.

And what you pulled out of the article just seems shady. Especially since there are people who become famous with nearly no help at all.

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

1 minute ago, Seeka said:

I think being happy about your own work is far better than being popular.

Being popular while being happy is just a bonus.

And what you pulled out of the article just seems shady. Especially since there are people who become famous with nearly no help at all.

i think the executive was just speaking in general. Its actually an article the compares Gaga and the Republican party in terms of the slumps they were both experiencing at the end of 2013. 

 

When i read that part I thought about albums that flop commercially and i found it to be kinda true, especially because of the sophomore slump. 

[SEANGT 4,905]

This paints the immense pressure the label puts on new artists as "collaboration" and the later parts of an artist's career where they take control as bad. I don't agree with this. 

[Seeka 12,372]

1 minute ago, DiscoHeaven23 said:

i think the executive was just speaking in general. Its actually an article the compares Gaga and the Republican party in terms of the slumps they were both experiencing at the end of 2013. 

 

When i read that part I thought about albums that flop commercially and i found it to be kinda true, especially because of the sophomore slump. 

The Republican party will be in a slump until they find a way to the remove the existence of George W. Bush's entire presidency from the minds.

That doesn't really stop people from listening to the music and enjoying it. Some people's least known albums are their best works. I think it is because people who insist sales are better than being happy kind of turn people off and away from the career in music they truly want, or force them to ignore pop music altogether while taking interest in a different branch of music.

[HANZ 4,380]

agreed

 

there was a time during the last days of the BTW era and the beginnig of the ARTPOP era when Gaga thought she could do everything by herself and that's not true, it's just impossible and we got the weakest music and videos so far and she was hiring her friends and only that instead of PROFESSIONALS that could have made her shine even more

one of the things I agree with Madonna is that she said in an interview that she doesn't like being the smartest one in the room, she wants to be the dumbest one and get around with smarter people that her,  at the end they have a massive amount of ideas and creativity for her, that's being smart imo

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

Just now, MARLON BRANDO said:

agreed

 

there was a time during the last days of the BTW era and the beginnig of the ARTPOP era when Gaga thought she could do everything but herself and we got the weakest music and videos so far and she was hiring her friends and only that instead of PROFESSIONALS that could have made her shine even more

one of the things I agreed with Madonna is that she said in an interview that she doesn't like being the smartest one in the room, she wants to be the dumbest one and be around smarter people that era so at the end they have a massive amount of ideas and creativity for her, that's being smart imo

i totally agree. it's that whole fame thing. There are many people that will work with celebrities for the money and notoriety and will never say no to them in fear of being fired or kicked out of the group. Some celebrities love never being said no too. 

Elton John even stated at that time,

"I'd like to be able to talk to her right now, but I can't get through to her, and there are times when you have to listen." 

"When your persona begins to take over your music and becomes more important. . . [when] you have people around you who don't question you, you're in a dangerous place."

[HANZ 4,380]

2 minutes ago, DiscoHeaven23 said:

 

"When your persona begins to take over your music and becomes more important. . . [when] you have people around you who don't question you, you're in a dangerous place."

Lady Gaga during the Born This Way era tbh

and ARTPOP and its messy era was the consequence of all of that

[Quartz 11,923]

It actually depends on the innate talent of the artist being talked about tbh

[v1br4ti0nz 8]

I think it depends.

Like, if you're someone who's worldly knowledgable, you can survive on your own for a while, but somewhere down the line you reach a point where you've become alienated from everything and everyone, including yourself, and then you're pretty much effed, unless you have the ability to miraculously recover and reinvent everything about yourself while still being you.

Being on your own is a double edged sword, IMHO, you see the world without the bias of your peers that ordinary people subconsciously factor into their perception of reality, and as well as having the infinite liberty to express, craft and cultivate a unique way of being, you also have the infinite potential mess up and jeopardize everything you have because of your own biases.

I think it's beneficial to be on your own once in a while, but only when you've attained an extraordinary level of self-awareness, otherwise you need your peers to keep you sane / grounded in reality.

Edit:

I have a really big ego, I'm pretty much just spouting to satisfy narcissistic tendencies here, so disclaimer I'm a really arrogant a---- and I'm working on it??? xp /logs off to prevent further embarrassment

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

1 minute ago, v1br4ti0nz said:

I think it depends.

Like, if you're someone who's worldly knowledgable, you can survive on your own for a while, but somewhere down the line you reach a point where you've become alienated from everything and everyone, including yourself, and then you're pretty much effed, unless you have the ability to miraculously recover and reinvent everything about yourself while still being you.

Being on your own is a double edged sword, you see the world without the bias of your peers that ordinary people subconsciously factor into their perception of reality, and as well as having the infinite liberty to express, craft and cultivate a unique way of being, you also have the infinite potential mess up and jeopardize everything you have because of your own biases.

I think it's beneficial to be on your own once in a while, but only when you've attained an extraordinary level of self-awareness, otherwise you need your peers to keep you sane / grounded in reality.

very well thought out explanation 

[StrawberryBlond 14,102]

It's harsh, but it's somewhat true...but there's two bigger issues at hand that aren't addressed.

It's a good concept: "I'll sell out just to get famous and then once I've got a fanbase, I can show the world how good I really am." That's what Gaga did. Yes, she went down a bit but she's coming back now and she can have a comeback because she has star quality. And that's exactly what a lot of new artists don't have. Labels simply aren't signing the right people anymore. As I review music, I'm always encountering music by new artists who are criminally bland...yet they get some success. And I think: "It's so ironic because after this album, no one's going to give two hoots about them." And most of the time, I'm completely right. Bland artists rarely garner success past one album because the public can only support blandness for one moment in time.

And secondly, so many labels weirdly seem to drop all support after the debut. Don't ask me why. Even if the debut is a massive success, you rarely see much promotion or push for the second album, so the artist starts fading away. Jessie J was everywhere for her debut (kinda why people got sick of her, honestly) and she sold millions because of it. Second album...she's basically nowhere to be found. Seriously, apart from one appearance at the Chime For Change festival and a slot on Strictly Come Dancing, I never saw her during that time. Same story for the next album, but even worse as she was stationed in America for basically the whole era. Xtina is the poster child for how lack of promo can ruin one's career. RCA are one of the worst labels for promoting their artists too - their roster is like a list of has been's and never weres. And the only artist that Roc Nation seem to care about is Rihanna. And then the labels have a cheek to blame the artist for the poor performance?

These labels need to take a long look at themselves to see where the real problem is. This is why I get so frustrated at these artists who go to war against streaming sites and any way to listen to music for free. It's your record labels that are to blame if you aren't as big as you once were or you aren't selling as well. Fight the real enemy.

[Creyk 17,001]

49 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

It's harsh, but it's somewhat true...but there's two bigger issues at hand that aren't addressed.

It's a good concept: "I'll sell out just to get famous and then once I've got a fanbase, I can show the world how good I really am." That's what Gaga did. Yes, she went down a bit but she's coming back now and she can have a comeback because she has star quality. And that's exactly what a lot of new artists don't have. Labels simply aren't signing the right people anymore. As I review music, I'm always encountering music by new artists who are criminally bland...yet they get some success. And I think: "It's so ironic because after this album, no one's going to give two hoots about them." And most of the time, I'm completely right. Bland artists rarely garner success past one album because the public can only support blandness for one moment in time.

 

So does Selena Gomez have star quality? What do you think about her?

[StrawberryBlond 14,102]

Bit random, but no, I don't think she has star quality exactly. Hardly the best singer (though she's certainly improved from her disastrous teen beginnings). I think she's got to where she is based on being endorsed by Disney, dating Justin and her looks (looks are usually mistaken for star quality, I find). I honestly don't see her lasting much longer. And that's not being nasty, I'm just a realist. She had surprising success recently, but it's no sign that it'll continue. Similar to how Justin's come back strong but it could be a one off considering his career looked like it was over 2 years ago. Now he's peaked, it'll all be downhill from here.

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

3 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

It's harsh, but it's somewhat true...but there's two bigger issues at hand that aren't addressed.

It's a good concept: "I'll sell out just to get famous and then once I've got a fanbase, I can show the world how good I really am." That's what Gaga did. Yes, she went down a bit but she's coming back now and she can have a comeback because she has star quality. And that's exactly what a lot of new artists don't have. Labels simply aren't signing the right people anymore. As I review music, I'm always encountering music by new artists who are criminally bland...yet they get some success. And I think: "It's so ironic because after this album, no one's going to give two hoots about them." And most of the time, I'm completely right. Bland artists rarely garner success past one album because the public can only support blandness for one moment in time.

And secondly, so many labels weirdly seem to drop all support after the debut. Don't ask me why. Even if the debut is a massive success, you rarely see much promotion or push for the second album, so the artist starts fading away. Jessie J was everywhere for her debut (kinda why people got sick of her, honestly) and she sold millions because of it. Second album...she's basically nowhere to be found. Seriously, apart from one appearance at the Chime For Change festival and a slot on Strictly Come Dancing, I never saw her during that time. Same story for the next album, but even worse as she was stationed in America for basically the whole era. Xtina is the poster child for how lack of promo can ruin one's career. RCA are one of the worst labels for promoting their artists too - their roster is like a list of has been's and never weres. And the only artist that Roc Nation seem to care about is Rihanna. And then the labels have a cheek to blame the artist for the poor performance?

These labels need to take a long look at themselves to see where the real problem is. This is why I get so frustrated at these artists who go to war against streaming sites and any way to listen to music for free. It's your record labels that are to blame if you aren't as big as you once were or you aren't selling as well. Fight the real enemy.

I LIVE for your responses