Reject False Icons 4,490 Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago (edited) Bonnie McKee posted some unreleased photos from her first music project in 2004, but this chart picture caught my attention it got me wondering if 20 years ago, these detailed graphs were done on pop artists, how much more corporative complex has it become now to study a singer’s perception to propel new popstars I know it’s logical to study a artist image but it’s not too far from the ridiculed “little managers” analysis I feel like looking at that chart reminded me that everything is more calculated than what it seems, specially the “authentic ones” and makes me wonder if the bar is much higher now why newer singer’s careers last so little Edited 4 hours ago by Reject False Icons Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 56,867 Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago Not only is the bar much higher, but you can't even get signed these days unless you already have a 50-100k follower count on tiktok. Purr more, hiss less. 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHALLOW 15,063 Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago 3 minutes ago, FATCAT said: Not only is the bar much higher, Not when it comes to quality tho. That's quite the opposite Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weed 68,823 Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago It is very interesting, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for artists of such a high caliber. MJ controversy, Taylor after the Kim phone call leaked, Drake after Kendrick, etc. Millions, maybe hundreds of millions, on the line! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helxig 40,454 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago (edited) F.ucking hate how the industry works behind the scenes A whole bullet point discussing in business terms the usefulness of her sex appeal and a pie graph about it We need some Billionaires to create labels that focus on artistic integrity and other kinds of marketting than this bullshit Edited 2 hours ago by Helxig I'll be myself until they fūcking close the coffin. 1 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshie S 5,667 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago Yes. It's sad, however, the industry views music and the artist as a product, and to sell that product, they must analyse what sells and what doesn't. It's disgusting it has to be done in such perverted ways, however if the artist isn't as talented, unfortunately according to them, that's what they must focus on to become profitable. Look at Katy. Imagine what Gaga's analytics looked like back in 2011-2012.. The melody that you choose can rescue you ♥ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAMROD 100,368 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago I mean, after all it's showbiz, there's business in it. Calculated is fine so long you show that you actually care about your listeners, or fans,and not just taken them as somekind of statistics. That, to me, is what differs between an actual artists and a label product. (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ✧*:・゚ sausage so good! (*´艸`*) ♡♡♡ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
27monster27 10,030 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago While it's sad that capitalism allows people to be viewed as a product, this is normal. From college classes I took pitch decks like this are standard for "selling" artists to businesses. People look at these to determine if an artist is profitable, and how to market them to make them profitable. he/him/his Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real Panda 1,555 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago Yes, everything is. Even "simple" singers like Adele. Also remember how Halsey was not allowed to release a song unless something she posted became viral. 😭 thats some hell of a contract Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LateToCult 37,669 Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago I think labels try to be as calculating as they can, but they wield much less control than we think when it comes to creating a bonafide star. The never ending churn of DOA artists is a good example of that. BUT they can most definitely destroy a star. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2School4Cool 5,391 Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago The business as a whole is incredibly calculated, but that doesn't mean that all artists are. There's a difference between an artist being business savvy and knowing how to promote their music versus industry people who literally have a chart like this one about an artist's sex appeal ( ) Take Gaga for example, she may be business savvy and have a lot of thoughts about how to package, present, and promote her album, but she's still a genuine artist that makes music that she's passionate about. She's not calculated, but people at the record label may be (hence controlling what she should put on her tracklist, what her lead singles should be, etc.) See The Best In Everyone Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.