Is pop more calculated than we think?

[Reject False Icons 4,490]

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 7 hours ago by Reject False Icons

[FATCAT 56,867]

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. 

[SHALLOW 15,063]

3 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Not only is the bar much higher,

Not when it comes to quality tho. That's quite the opposite

[weed 68,827]

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!

[Helxig 40,454]

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 6 hours ago by Helxig

[Joshie S 5,668]

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.. 

[RAMROD 100,370]

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. 

[27monster27 10,036]

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.

[Real Panda 1,555]

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

[LateToCult 37,669]

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.

[2School4Cool 5,391]

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.)

[Didymus 33,472]

It all depends on the contracts you sign. Gaga signed an extremely bad contract when she started because she wanted to be famous asap. It kinda worked out since she was able to renegotiate a lot of it but we all saw and heard the toll of it. Kesha is another obvious example. That contract was essentially choosing to go to prison.

But then you look at the new wave of stars whose success seems to rely a lot less on quantity and far more on quality. It is impossible to robotically predict how to steer those careers, so I think as long as you make it organically, you will continue to receive more freedom.

[gagzus 13,765]

24 minutes ago, Didymus said:

It all depends on the contracts you sign. Gaga signed an extremely bad contract when she started because she wanted to be famous asap. It kinda worked out since she was able to renegotiate a lot of it but we all saw and heard the toll of it. Kesha is another obvious example. That contract was essentially choosing to go to prison.

But then you look at the new wave of stars whose success seems to rely a lot less on quantity and far more on quality. It is impossible to robotically predict how to steer those careers, so I think as long as you make it organically, you will continue to receive more freedom.

I think the new wave of popstars should be very thankful for the rise of social media and the shift in the pop landscape compared to the 2000s tbh. It’s made being famous more open so labels can’t get away with a lot of the stuff they used to behind the scenes. Because young artists speak out on their own labels now because privacy and confidentiality is almost nonexistent in a post-social media world. Even tv stars like from drag race for example, they break their confidentiality agreements so much that WoW doesn’t even attempt to sue queens at all now.

Popstars used to be mysterious and untouchable and unattainable, that was the thing. We wanted to know everything about them but were teased and not allowed to know. We discussed them at length because we truly knew nothing about them or their wealth, lives etc properly. Were they gay? rich? who are they dating? what’s their process to making such amazing music? what makes people legit line up in time square just to be near them?

But nowadays because of social media, you HAVE to be relatable and attainable and have your image be “I’m a normal person with talent who you could go to a bar with” 

I think that’s where the downfall of stardom has come, that’s why none of these new pop artists who have debuted post 2000s REALLY feel like stars. Even the “mysterious” pop artists nowadays aren’t that mysterious because we still know pretty much everything about them.

[VTV 11,274]

if ur signed to a major label, yes!

[chathonnete 198]

Of course it is extremely calculated. The 2000-2010s pop music we love is extremely calculated, and seen as a product by these teams. However, I think the pop lover public is changing nowadays and is looking for something real, something that comes FROM the artists (that's why Taylor, Billie, Chappelle, Charli, Raye etc are more popular). When something is released and it looks fake or not fiting the artist's nature, it's not working anymore (we've seen this with Camila, Katy and others). I think it's cool!   

Edited 1 hour ago by chathonnete