The music Jay-Z made with Samsung may have already been forgotten, but the deal has not.
That's what we've been hearing since the advent of the Internet music era, when the labels were bled by Napster. You've got to sell out to make it. It's no longer about the music, but the brand. Just like nitwits saw Mariah Carey perform in the early nineties and believed a singer was about melisma as opposed to...belief, nuance and emotion, today music takes a back seat as everybody dreams of getting a clothing line and a plethora of deals with the Fortune 500. Like the one with Fitty and Vitamin Water...then again, thank god he made that money, he's been forgotten ever since.
You know the drill. Where can I sell out?
And the agents and managers get a commission. And labels with 360 deals too, they know acts come and go. So uneducated artists always say yes, sell their souls to the devil and fans are cool with this.
Or are they?
Over the past two days, my inbox has been overflowing with the "Daily Show"'s takedown of Jay-Z. And you've got to watch it, it's more memorable than anything Jay-Z has cut in years. When Larry Wilmore says Jay-Z doesn't care about black people, and asks how you can criticize a brother for buying a belt...if you don't howl, you've got no pipes.
Here's the story. Jay-Z did a deal with Barneys, but it turns out Barneys is arresting black customers...AFTER THEY'VE MADE THEIR PURCHASES!
And merch at Barneys ain't cheap. One guy bought a Ferragamo belt for $350.
Now what?
Jay-Z is waiting for a full investigation, he doesn't want to make a snap judgment.
Huh? Now Jay-Z is acting like the government, which everybody hates. What he's saying is I'm gonna wait to see if this blows over, and I'm gonna make sure in my ultimate decision I hurt no one who's loyal to me, and certainly not myself. This isn't someone you believe in, this is someone you mock, kind of like the Rap Insider:
"Rapper Jay Z Found Dead Inside At 43": http://bit.ly/1dOIZz3
Used to be the machine was on your side. Just printing your press releases. Looking for backstage passes as payment. Criticism went out with the seventies. But suddenly everyone's realized that stars don't lift up their brethren.
White people have been doing it forever. They make it and leave everyone behind. Live behind gates and fly private and want no conversation, only your money.
Now black people do it too.
First it was the athletes, Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods.
Now it's the entertainers.
But the difference is Jay-Z made it based on what's inside. What he stands for is important. And now we know he stands for one thing only, money.
We may have a black President, but that does not mean racism has been eradicated.
And mega-corporations may pay you a mint, but that does not mean credibility isn't king for a long term career.
People are all about loyalty. They want to believe they come first.
Now we know money comes first with Jay-Z.
So what have we learned?
That contrary to what everybody says, music and commercialism, selling out, don't always mix. If you're speaking from the heart, the message gets muddled when you bring in the wallet.
Isn't it funny that the Eagles can still fill arenas, and they do no corporate endorsement deals, and everybody who recently made it thinks it's a good idea to sell out.
And then there's virality. There's a belief that the artist controls his message. But that fiction disappeared when Tom Cruise jumped on Oprah's couch. Sure, that was a mistake. But what made it so big was the endless story online. I.e. virality. Yes, you want your peeps to build you up, but once you've made it, be very careful they don't pull you down.
"Jay-Z Penney": http://bit.ly/1c1zDh9
(I gave away a couple of the jokes, but that's because no one clicks through anymore, hell, even I didn't, not until I got the link multiple times. It's worth the 6:45 investment, but if that's too much for you, start at 3:00, when Senior Black Correspondent Larry Wilmore kicks in.)
P.S. Jon Stewart and troupe are creating every day, testing limits all the while, they're feeding their audience and keeping it loyal, something musical artists should learn how to do.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Saturday 9 November 2013
Friday 8 November 2013
Twitter Goes Public
It was better than breaking a band.
In other words, what kind of crazy fucked up world do we live in where not only does tech steal our money, but our thunder too? Where the geeks know marketing better than the entertainment pros?
Unlike the music business, Twitter realized it had to build a base. Do we really care about the left field twits the labels promote on a regular basis? They're so young they don't even have pubes, and they come and go in a flash. Whereas Twitter percolated in the market for years. It burbled underground, gaining adherents and causing the curious to kick the tires and play.
And when it hit critical mass, it went public.
And going public is all about money, it's got very little to do with the enterprise at hand, especially today, where the sideshow has become the main show.
First there was the drama. Who started it, who ran it, what's the backstory?
Is Jack Dorsey an evil genius backstabber or the next Silicon Valley hope?
The story was timed to peak just before the stock went public. With a new book, excerpted in the "New York Times Magazine" no less. But unlike in music, where the "Magazine" is the linchpin, if not the entire edifice of the campaign, the "New York Times" Twitter story was just an element of the conflagration, details for those who go deep. You provide data for those who truly care, who then talk about a subject and grow it. This is what the music business does at a very elite level. It gets the Miley story in "Rolling Stone."
But unlike Miley, Twitter reigns on! People are tweeting as we speak. Millions of them. That's what the music industry has wrong, it doesn't know that the spike is just an element of the campaign and not the whole damn thing.
The music business is all about the first week debut, then everybody moves on to the next thing. Tech realizes it's about usability, being constantly in your face. This is gonna come to music, just you wait, it's what's after the album, when streaming rules and everybody is hungry for new product by their favorites.
Product. Who cares if Twitter is good or bad? Just like Katy and Gaga and Miley. If you're talking about them, they're making money. Hate is as good as love. Haters were out in force in the Twitter going public story. Naysayers are rampant in the money game. The WSJ even wrote a whole damn story why you shouldn't invest in Twitter, just index funds, because despite all the press, the game is not for amateurs, but pros. But somehow, via publicity/marketing, Twitter got us all to care.
And now the company's got this insane valuation. Which is never gonna last. Because most people can't figure out how to use the service and never will.
So to repeat...
1. Try a million things, when a band gets traction, let it percolate, don't push it too soon. Wait possibly years to reach critical mass. This is what Warner did with Gary Clark, Jr. and it was a good idea. Because insiders couldn't stop talking about him, couldn't stop spreading the word. He appeared at Coachella and you told everybody how great he was. Since the album's been out, buzz has been minimal. Clark needs new product. Instead he's hamstrung, trying to figure out what to do next, making sure it's the right move. The quality of the move is almost irrelevant, it's all about staying in the game!
2. Pick a target date. I.e. when you're going to go public, when you're going to release. Your publicity should not start too soon, if you've done your job well, percolation has established a base, publicity is about getting those not interested previously to pay attention. The Twitter frenzy was insane. The number one topic in America. Especially when we've got a can-do tech company and a can't-do government. In today's marketplace, if you're not reaching everybody, you're not doing your job. That's what Miley did so right. A short sustained publicity campaign that got people who don't even care about her talking about her, she got the public discussion going.
3. Don't worry about the quality of the feedback/story. This worked for Lana Del Rey. Unknown went to known overnight, primarily because haters said she was a no-talent fraud. Don't micromanage stories/responses, that's old school. Just keep pushing. Once you become ubiquitous, you've won, you're beyond criticism. Hating is a national sport. If people are hating you, that means you've made it.
4. Grant access. People want the insider story, the juicy details. We do this so wrong in music, everybody in a suit believes they're entitled to their privacy, which is ridiculous in this age, especially considering the stuff they're selling. Why was the act signed by the exec? Who passed? Who got screwed? These are the details that build a story. Sure, the music has to be good, but today the focus is on money and gossip, feed the machine.
5. The press is your tool. They need stories. Make them juicy.
6. Focus on everything but the essence. Little of the Twitter hype was about the service, it's not easy to understand and even more difficult to use. In other words, if you've got an act with quality music, the hype is all about the penumbra. Hell, what can you say about great music other than you like it anyway? The key is to make people aware so they sample.
7. Constantly in the marketplace. That's what Kim Kardashian does so well. Not a day goes by without a story. And does she restrict access, say she wants the photogs to stay away? Of course not. She's in business with them. So they write about her. And you may deplore her, but everybody in her target audience, who might watch her TV show or buy one of her products, is aware of her. Awareness levels on musical acts stink. Because they don't use the media to their advantage. Gaga used to do this. But she forgot that the underpinning is music, she waited far too long to release new tracks.
8. Sure, it's about the hit song. But fans want more. This is what Metallica had wrong over a decade ago. Fans want to hear the work tapes, the discards. Everybody else doesn't care. So continue to satiate fans with new music. If Twitter were a band, it would close up shop after going public, making everybody search the archives with no new tweets, maybe in a year or two it would allow tweeting again. Huh? You're a musician, make music! Stop complaining you can't make money, that you've got to go on the road. Do covers on YouTube (Kelly Clarkson has done this, the credible stars believe this is beneath them, why, are they only fans of their own music?) Rearrange your songs. Make it new and different. Know it's less about your track than your overall persona.
9. The goal is to get everybody talking about you.
10. It's about winners and losers baby. And when you're winning, strike. Facebook waited too long to go public, the story became about the company staying private, the mercurial Zuckerberg, the anticipation killed us. Twitter knew exactly when to pounce. And there's not a hundred successful social networks, and there won't be a hundred successful bands. And social networking might become as passe as hair bands. Yup, social networking is a fad. Hell, even classic rock is a fad. You build it and milk it as long as you can. To think Twitter is forever is to believe the Eagles can have a number one record. At least that band is smart enough not to make it about new music, unlike Paul McCartney. Eagles ticket sales are up because of their "History Of The Eagles" Showtime airings and DVDs. They thought outside the box, can you?
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
In other words, what kind of crazy fucked up world do we live in where not only does tech steal our money, but our thunder too? Where the geeks know marketing better than the entertainment pros?
Unlike the music business, Twitter realized it had to build a base. Do we really care about the left field twits the labels promote on a regular basis? They're so young they don't even have pubes, and they come and go in a flash. Whereas Twitter percolated in the market for years. It burbled underground, gaining adherents and causing the curious to kick the tires and play.
And when it hit critical mass, it went public.
And going public is all about money, it's got very little to do with the enterprise at hand, especially today, where the sideshow has become the main show.
First there was the drama. Who started it, who ran it, what's the backstory?
Is Jack Dorsey an evil genius backstabber or the next Silicon Valley hope?
The story was timed to peak just before the stock went public. With a new book, excerpted in the "New York Times Magazine" no less. But unlike in music, where the "Magazine" is the linchpin, if not the entire edifice of the campaign, the "New York Times" Twitter story was just an element of the conflagration, details for those who go deep. You provide data for those who truly care, who then talk about a subject and grow it. This is what the music business does at a very elite level. It gets the Miley story in "Rolling Stone."
But unlike Miley, Twitter reigns on! People are tweeting as we speak. Millions of them. That's what the music industry has wrong, it doesn't know that the spike is just an element of the campaign and not the whole damn thing.
The music business is all about the first week debut, then everybody moves on to the next thing. Tech realizes it's about usability, being constantly in your face. This is gonna come to music, just you wait, it's what's after the album, when streaming rules and everybody is hungry for new product by their favorites.
Product. Who cares if Twitter is good or bad? Just like Katy and Gaga and Miley. If you're talking about them, they're making money. Hate is as good as love. Haters were out in force in the Twitter going public story. Naysayers are rampant in the money game. The WSJ even wrote a whole damn story why you shouldn't invest in Twitter, just index funds, because despite all the press, the game is not for amateurs, but pros. But somehow, via publicity/marketing, Twitter got us all to care.
And now the company's got this insane valuation. Which is never gonna last. Because most people can't figure out how to use the service and never will.
So to repeat...
1. Try a million things, when a band gets traction, let it percolate, don't push it too soon. Wait possibly years to reach critical mass. This is what Warner did with Gary Clark, Jr. and it was a good idea. Because insiders couldn't stop talking about him, couldn't stop spreading the word. He appeared at Coachella and you told everybody how great he was. Since the album's been out, buzz has been minimal. Clark needs new product. Instead he's hamstrung, trying to figure out what to do next, making sure it's the right move. The quality of the move is almost irrelevant, it's all about staying in the game!
2. Pick a target date. I.e. when you're going to go public, when you're going to release. Your publicity should not start too soon, if you've done your job well, percolation has established a base, publicity is about getting those not interested previously to pay attention. The Twitter frenzy was insane. The number one topic in America. Especially when we've got a can-do tech company and a can't-do government. In today's marketplace, if you're not reaching everybody, you're not doing your job. That's what Miley did so right. A short sustained publicity campaign that got people who don't even care about her talking about her, she got the public discussion going.
3. Don't worry about the quality of the feedback/story. This worked for Lana Del Rey. Unknown went to known overnight, primarily because haters said she was a no-talent fraud. Don't micromanage stories/responses, that's old school. Just keep pushing. Once you become ubiquitous, you've won, you're beyond criticism. Hating is a national sport. If people are hating you, that means you've made it.
4. Grant access. People want the insider story, the juicy details. We do this so wrong in music, everybody in a suit believes they're entitled to their privacy, which is ridiculous in this age, especially considering the stuff they're selling. Why was the act signed by the exec? Who passed? Who got screwed? These are the details that build a story. Sure, the music has to be good, but today the focus is on money and gossip, feed the machine.
5. The press is your tool. They need stories. Make them juicy.
6. Focus on everything but the essence. Little of the Twitter hype was about the service, it's not easy to understand and even more difficult to use. In other words, if you've got an act with quality music, the hype is all about the penumbra. Hell, what can you say about great music other than you like it anyway? The key is to make people aware so they sample.
7. Constantly in the marketplace. That's what Kim Kardashian does so well. Not a day goes by without a story. And does she restrict access, say she wants the photogs to stay away? Of course not. She's in business with them. So they write about her. And you may deplore her, but everybody in her target audience, who might watch her TV show or buy one of her products, is aware of her. Awareness levels on musical acts stink. Because they don't use the media to their advantage. Gaga used to do this. But she forgot that the underpinning is music, she waited far too long to release new tracks.
8. Sure, it's about the hit song. But fans want more. This is what Metallica had wrong over a decade ago. Fans want to hear the work tapes, the discards. Everybody else doesn't care. So continue to satiate fans with new music. If Twitter were a band, it would close up shop after going public, making everybody search the archives with no new tweets, maybe in a year or two it would allow tweeting again. Huh? You're a musician, make music! Stop complaining you can't make money, that you've got to go on the road. Do covers on YouTube (Kelly Clarkson has done this, the credible stars believe this is beneath them, why, are they only fans of their own music?) Rearrange your songs. Make it new and different. Know it's less about your track than your overall persona.
9. The goal is to get everybody talking about you.
10. It's about winners and losers baby. And when you're winning, strike. Facebook waited too long to go public, the story became about the company staying private, the mercurial Zuckerberg, the anticipation killed us. Twitter knew exactly when to pounce. And there's not a hundred successful social networks, and there won't be a hundred successful bands. And social networking might become as passe as hair bands. Yup, social networking is a fad. Hell, even classic rock is a fad. You build it and milk it as long as you can. To think Twitter is forever is to believe the Eagles can have a number one record. At least that band is smart enough not to make it about new music, unlike Paul McCartney. Eagles ticket sales are up because of their "History Of The Eagles" Showtime airings and DVDs. They thought outside the box, can you?
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Rhinofy-Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby
I just heard this on Sirius XM.
It's getting to be that time of year again. When the days get shorter, and colder, and you hole up with your favorite fourth quarter album releases.
At the end of 1964, it was hard to believe the Beatles had just broken in January. "I Want To Hold Your Hand" exploded out of car radios, transferred to the transistor and became imprinted upon baby boomers' brains when the band performed on the Ed Sullivan show. What was most incredible about that telecast is that it was really them. Fifty years ago, stars were not real people. We had almost no access. You could go to the show, but concerts didn't really become big until the Beatles broke. So to dial up your black and white set and actually see the Liverpool lads inside...was positively staggering.
And the hits were followed up by the movie.
And in November, there was yet another new album, "Beatles '65."
Oh, I know it was different in the U.K. There it was entitled "Beatles For Sale" and it includes my favorite Beatle track of all time, "Every Little Thing," but we had to wait for "Beatles VI" to get that on an album in the U.S.
And what drove the sales of "Beatles '65" was "I Feel Fine," which wasn't even on "Beatles For Sale." To hear that feedback on the radio was like watching Neil Armstrong step down on the moon, it was an even more giant step for mankind, at least music.
So, people bought "Beatles '65" in droves. And the opening cut...
The breathless John Lennon vocal of "No Reply."
That's the difference between the Beatles and the wannabes. The delivery. We had no doubt that Lennon had lived the story. It was directly from his lips to your ears. The track took off like a shot and you were instantly hooked.
And what came next, "I'm A Loser," was equally good, in what we'd now call a Mumford-influenced style, but fifty years ago the Beatles delivered a better song.
And "Beatles '65" did not have the incredible hit "Eight Days A Week" featured on "Beatles For Sale," but both albums concluded with the Carl Perkins cover "Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby." Which meant there was not a baby boomer alive who did not know the cut, that's how pervasive Beatle albums were.
Not that Mr. Perkins truly originated the song, listen to Rex Griffin's song of the same title from 1936.
Even closer is Roy Newman & His Boys' 1938 take.
Who knew?
And that's just the point. "Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby" was an album cut, from 1957. But back then musicians were not so much wannabe fame-mongers, but musical fanatics. The average person might not have been familiar with the Perkins track, but the Beatles sure were.
They played it in Hamburg. Even played it at Shea Stadium.
It was sung by George Harrison and bathed in reverb and it was purely magical.
That's the power of a hit act, they can shine the light on the progenitors.
Now we knew "Blue Suede Shoes." I don't know how, classics just permeate through the ether. But it was the Beatles who illustrated Carl Perkins, the Sun star whose light had already dimmed by this point, was a rock and roll titan.
And when you listen to Carl's original take, there's a swing and some sex and it's so infectious, you just want to get up and jitterbug, twist and smile.
That's the power of rock and roll. Back when it was new.
It was a sound.
But still song-based.
We're going back in the tunnel again. November is beyond nascent. And what gets us through the long dark season is numbers like "Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby," which inspire us, that illustrate the possibilities of life!
Spotify link: http://spoti.fi/p6HcZ8
Rex Griffin: http://bit.ly/N15J2q
Roy Newman & His Boys: http://bit.ly/190PCcg
Beatles: http://bit.ly/P4R1sp
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
It's getting to be that time of year again. When the days get shorter, and colder, and you hole up with your favorite fourth quarter album releases.
At the end of 1964, it was hard to believe the Beatles had just broken in January. "I Want To Hold Your Hand" exploded out of car radios, transferred to the transistor and became imprinted upon baby boomers' brains when the band performed on the Ed Sullivan show. What was most incredible about that telecast is that it was really them. Fifty years ago, stars were not real people. We had almost no access. You could go to the show, but concerts didn't really become big until the Beatles broke. So to dial up your black and white set and actually see the Liverpool lads inside...was positively staggering.
And the hits were followed up by the movie.
And in November, there was yet another new album, "Beatles '65."
Oh, I know it was different in the U.K. There it was entitled "Beatles For Sale" and it includes my favorite Beatle track of all time, "Every Little Thing," but we had to wait for "Beatles VI" to get that on an album in the U.S.
And what drove the sales of "Beatles '65" was "I Feel Fine," which wasn't even on "Beatles For Sale." To hear that feedback on the radio was like watching Neil Armstrong step down on the moon, it was an even more giant step for mankind, at least music.
So, people bought "Beatles '65" in droves. And the opening cut...
The breathless John Lennon vocal of "No Reply."
That's the difference between the Beatles and the wannabes. The delivery. We had no doubt that Lennon had lived the story. It was directly from his lips to your ears. The track took off like a shot and you were instantly hooked.
And what came next, "I'm A Loser," was equally good, in what we'd now call a Mumford-influenced style, but fifty years ago the Beatles delivered a better song.
And "Beatles '65" did not have the incredible hit "Eight Days A Week" featured on "Beatles For Sale," but both albums concluded with the Carl Perkins cover "Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby." Which meant there was not a baby boomer alive who did not know the cut, that's how pervasive Beatle albums were.
Not that Mr. Perkins truly originated the song, listen to Rex Griffin's song of the same title from 1936.
Even closer is Roy Newman & His Boys' 1938 take.
Who knew?
And that's just the point. "Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby" was an album cut, from 1957. But back then musicians were not so much wannabe fame-mongers, but musical fanatics. The average person might not have been familiar with the Perkins track, but the Beatles sure were.
They played it in Hamburg. Even played it at Shea Stadium.
It was sung by George Harrison and bathed in reverb and it was purely magical.
That's the power of a hit act, they can shine the light on the progenitors.
Now we knew "Blue Suede Shoes." I don't know how, classics just permeate through the ether. But it was the Beatles who illustrated Carl Perkins, the Sun star whose light had already dimmed by this point, was a rock and roll titan.
And when you listen to Carl's original take, there's a swing and some sex and it's so infectious, you just want to get up and jitterbug, twist and smile.
That's the power of rock and roll. Back when it was new.
It was a sound.
But still song-based.
We're going back in the tunnel again. November is beyond nascent. And what gets us through the long dark season is numbers like "Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby," which inspire us, that illustrate the possibilities of life!
Spotify link: http://spoti.fi/p6HcZ8
Rex Griffin: http://bit.ly/N15J2q
Roy Newman & His Boys: http://bit.ly/190PCcg
Beatles: http://bit.ly/P4R1sp
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Thursday 7 November 2013
Aspen
You know I go every year, to Jim Lewi's Aspen Live conference.
It's the peak of the annum. Primarily because of the hang. Most other conferences are focused on breaking bands, most of which you don't want to hear, and there's little cohesiveness, you're either part of the inner circle or you're left out.
Aspen is different. There are no bands. And there's limited attendance. And although there are cliques, everyone's open to conversation.
And that's what it's all about. Conversation. That's why the skiing element is so important. You get to know someone on the lift in a personal way, which cements bonds for eons thereafter. We've been doing this since 1996, and if you're an alum, you're part of my inner circle. And I'm sure my fellow conference-goers would agree.
But the reason I'm writing this is Lewi has secured Anita Elberse as a speaker at Aspen Live this year.
Here's her Wikipedia page: http://bit.ly/UmTK4y
Here's her Harvard faculty page: http://bit.ly/12GpLtY
Yes, Anita Elberse is a Harvard Business School professor, the one who wrote "Blockbusters," which I quoted on October 16th, you know, the one stating that the odds of selling your track if you're not a star...are abysmal.
"The Most Important Thing You Will Read All Day": http://bit.ly/16fSySr
This is the turning tide. This is what all the hope-givers, the people mooching off the wannabes, won't tell you.
It's getting really cold out there for newbies. Few make it, and most depend upon money.
Because money is power. Money buys mindshare and influence.
Kind of like this Obamacare thing.
As superior as Obama's team was in utilizing data to get the President reelected, that's how bad they are in explaining the Affordable Care Act. Instead of defining it and showing its advantages, the Administration is constantly in a rearguard position. Apologizing for this and that. To the point where even smart people are not in the know. My doctor today talked about people losing their insurance. Even the vaunted Edie Littlefield Sundby of "Wall Street Journal" fame is telling half-truths. She had a catastrophic policy and her insurer left the state. She's going to get cheaper and better service under Obamacare, never mind being able to get a policy to begin with, since preexisting conditions won't prevent her from getting one.
And don't e-mail me with your right or left wing position. That's not my point. My point is the Republicans and the right wing media, the WSJ and Fox News, have defined the debate. They're winning the information war. To the point where my admittedly Democratic physician is anti-Obamacare based on misinformation.
And what kind of topsy-turvy world do we live in where politics, which is show business for ugly people, is more advanced than entertainment?
Politics realizes it's about data and money and message.
And right now it's the same in music.
The power of data is just beginning to be understood. And if you don't have the money to make your message ubiquitous, good luck. Chances are you're going to be sitting on the sidelines for the rest of your life, no matter how good you are. Virality is now for the rich and supported, not you at home. Believe it.
And Anita Elberse wrote the definitive book.
Which you should read:
"Blockbusters: Hit-making, Risk-taking, and the Big Business of Entertainment": http://amzn.to/1c3BXEB
But not only is Ms. Elberse going to be there. But Lynda Obst, the movie producer who wrote "Sleepless in Hollywood: Tales from the New Abnormal in the Movie Business": http://amzn.to/1beolER
Ms. Obst's productions include "Sleepless In Seattle" and "Contact" and now she's moved into television with "Hot In Cleveland," she's changing with the times, are you?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Obst
Life is what you make of it.
If you want to come to Aspen with a Missouri attitude, i.e. the Show Me State, and cross your arms and be uninvolved, maybe your time won't be so good.
But if you're willing to integrate, to make friends, it could be the experience of a lifetime. Or the beginning of a new life.
Now not anybody can go. You can click on the Contact link and get ahold of Jim Lewi to find out if you can attend:
http://www.aspenlive.com
And yes, my picture is on the homepage, but I'm not doing this to help Lewi so much as I am excited about hearing Elberse and Obst and so many more, see the agenda here:
http://bit.ly/HqwD4J
And what I like about Elberse is it's not generalities, it's not feel-good hope, but cold hard facts. The studios make these big time movies because it makes economic sense.
Which is the same reason labels are not interested in your band.
Check out the book, even if you don't show at 8,150 feet. It'll depress you, but it's the truth.
P.S. In case you're interested in the Edie Littlefield Sundby health care debate, I'm providing the links below. But notice he who strikes first usually wins the information war, meaning publicity people and marketers are the new powers in entertainment. Carefully craft your message and spread it!
"You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor: I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.": http://on.wsj.com/17B6rRc
"A closer look at the WSJ's newest Obamacare horror story": http://lat.ms/17HMOal
"The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today's Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance": http://bit.ly/1hHgZjq
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
It's the peak of the annum. Primarily because of the hang. Most other conferences are focused on breaking bands, most of which you don't want to hear, and there's little cohesiveness, you're either part of the inner circle or you're left out.
Aspen is different. There are no bands. And there's limited attendance. And although there are cliques, everyone's open to conversation.
And that's what it's all about. Conversation. That's why the skiing element is so important. You get to know someone on the lift in a personal way, which cements bonds for eons thereafter. We've been doing this since 1996, and if you're an alum, you're part of my inner circle. And I'm sure my fellow conference-goers would agree.
But the reason I'm writing this is Lewi has secured Anita Elberse as a speaker at Aspen Live this year.
Here's her Wikipedia page: http://bit.ly/UmTK4y
Here's her Harvard faculty page: http://bit.ly/12GpLtY
Yes, Anita Elberse is a Harvard Business School professor, the one who wrote "Blockbusters," which I quoted on October 16th, you know, the one stating that the odds of selling your track if you're not a star...are abysmal.
"The Most Important Thing You Will Read All Day": http://bit.ly/16fSySr
This is the turning tide. This is what all the hope-givers, the people mooching off the wannabes, won't tell you.
It's getting really cold out there for newbies. Few make it, and most depend upon money.
Because money is power. Money buys mindshare and influence.
Kind of like this Obamacare thing.
As superior as Obama's team was in utilizing data to get the President reelected, that's how bad they are in explaining the Affordable Care Act. Instead of defining it and showing its advantages, the Administration is constantly in a rearguard position. Apologizing for this and that. To the point where even smart people are not in the know. My doctor today talked about people losing their insurance. Even the vaunted Edie Littlefield Sundby of "Wall Street Journal" fame is telling half-truths. She had a catastrophic policy and her insurer left the state. She's going to get cheaper and better service under Obamacare, never mind being able to get a policy to begin with, since preexisting conditions won't prevent her from getting one.
And don't e-mail me with your right or left wing position. That's not my point. My point is the Republicans and the right wing media, the WSJ and Fox News, have defined the debate. They're winning the information war. To the point where my admittedly Democratic physician is anti-Obamacare based on misinformation.
And what kind of topsy-turvy world do we live in where politics, which is show business for ugly people, is more advanced than entertainment?
Politics realizes it's about data and money and message.
And right now it's the same in music.
The power of data is just beginning to be understood. And if you don't have the money to make your message ubiquitous, good luck. Chances are you're going to be sitting on the sidelines for the rest of your life, no matter how good you are. Virality is now for the rich and supported, not you at home. Believe it.
And Anita Elberse wrote the definitive book.
Which you should read:
"Blockbusters: Hit-making, Risk-taking, and the Big Business of Entertainment": http://amzn.to/1c3BXEB
But not only is Ms. Elberse going to be there. But Lynda Obst, the movie producer who wrote "Sleepless in Hollywood: Tales from the New Abnormal in the Movie Business": http://amzn.to/1beolER
Ms. Obst's productions include "Sleepless In Seattle" and "Contact" and now she's moved into television with "Hot In Cleveland," she's changing with the times, are you?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Obst
Life is what you make of it.
If you want to come to Aspen with a Missouri attitude, i.e. the Show Me State, and cross your arms and be uninvolved, maybe your time won't be so good.
But if you're willing to integrate, to make friends, it could be the experience of a lifetime. Or the beginning of a new life.
Now not anybody can go. You can click on the Contact link and get ahold of Jim Lewi to find out if you can attend:
http://www.aspenlive.com
And yes, my picture is on the homepage, but I'm not doing this to help Lewi so much as I am excited about hearing Elberse and Obst and so many more, see the agenda here:
http://bit.ly/HqwD4J
And what I like about Elberse is it's not generalities, it's not feel-good hope, but cold hard facts. The studios make these big time movies because it makes economic sense.
Which is the same reason labels are not interested in your band.
Check out the book, even if you don't show at 8,150 feet. It'll depress you, but it's the truth.
P.S. In case you're interested in the Edie Littlefield Sundby health care debate, I'm providing the links below. But notice he who strikes first usually wins the information war, meaning publicity people and marketers are the new powers in entertainment. Carefully craft your message and spread it!
"You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor: I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.": http://on.wsj.com/17B6rRc
"A closer look at the WSJ's newest Obamacare horror story": http://lat.ms/17HMOal
"The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today's Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance": http://bit.ly/1hHgZjq
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Wednesday 6 November 2013
YouTube Music Awards
You don't succeed by doing what's been done before. Poorly.
This is why labels should not be worried about monoliths stealing their business. Google can't get any traction with All Access, no one seems to be aware that Microsoft's OS comes with music. Disruption may happen, but it'll come from left field, from nobodies. That's the way it always works. Like with Napster. The music business should be more afraid and inspired by college dropouts than behemoths who look at the game the usual way.
Like one continuous show.
Maybe it should have been one clip a day?
And YouTube got bit on the ass by its counter, something that screws bands all day long. With only 200,000 people watching when I tuned in, it already felt like a non-happening. And if the true number was higher, isn't that the case the day your video gets traction, it takes a long time for the count to catch up?
But first and foremost the YouTube Music Awards prove that hype is everything.
MTV has a moribund channel with no music yet it overloads us every summer with information regarding its upcoming VMAs, which haven't been watchable in years. But people do. Because in this disconnected environment we gravitate to the established. And the new with traction. And the YouTube Music Awards had no traction. Like a new band they could stay in the market for ten years to find out if they've got anything, but Google is famous for losing focus.
Have you heard Sky Ferreira's music?
I certainly haven't. But there have been articles in every publication known to man hyping her album. I know who she is. I'm tempted to check out her tracks on Spotify, just so I can speak intelligently about her. That's the game today, be knowledgeable about something so you can testify in front of your friends.
Before that it was Haim.
And the funny thing is the band already seems dead. And if you think it's reminiscent of Fleetwood Mac, you never heard the original band (in any of its incarnations!) The modern effects thrown in...ruin the effect!
I'm not saying Haim is bad, it's listenable, try "The Wire," but I am saying it doesn't live up to the hype. But the hype made me aware.
There was no hype about the YouTube Music Awards. Sure, there were some newspaper articles, but that shows you how much the target audience reads the paper.
As for the site's own real estate... The truth is most people don't use YouTube's home page as a portal, the real estate's not super-valuable.
As for pre-roll ads, which we all hate, I didn't see one for the YouTube Music Awards.
This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight, are they really that inept?
As for Spike Jonze and Jason Schwartzman...they're the heroes of those who run Google, the late thirtysomethings. Those two guys mean almost nothing to the target audience. They should have skewed younger, much younger. At least find people with youngster cred, like Tavi Gevinson, the famous fashion blogger. Sure, many are unaware of her, but at least she evidences some cool. And speaking of hype...I found out about her first in the "New Yorker" and in numerous articles thereafter.
If you're a big player who wants big success, you've got to do a saturation campaign. There's no bubbling up from the bottom. If you're not annoying the target audience with a plethora of messages, you're not gonna succeed.
Kind of like Arcade Fire. Whose brilliant PR campaign executed over a period of months, even including the vaunted SNL and special shows, resulted in an album sale of...140,000 copies.
Ugh.
Because either you're a household name band/brand, like Eminem, or a generational favorite, like Drake, or...most people just don't care.
Doesn't matter if Arcade Fire won a Grammy. Their music has not been mainstream so the mainstream doesn't care about them. They occupy a large niche.
So don't have outsized expectations.
And please innovate.
YouTube should have tied in with...CHROMECAST! Oops, they own that product. They should have gotten everybody to throw the show up on their flat screen. They should have gotten someone to pay, Apple TV or Xbox or PlayStation... But competitors hate to help you out, not in the holy war that is Silicon Valley tech.
And there should have been a contest, and gamification.
And maybe, they should have printed a schedule, via an app, like every festival known to man. That's right, they should have told us when the acts were going to appear, that would have switched things up.
And there should have been an after plan. To get people to watch. Because without buzz, and no follow-up story, no one was interested in seeing these clips.
What if they gave an awards show and no one came?
We found out.
P.S. Twitter doesn't build shows, it enhances those with significant traction. People only want to tweet about an event if everybody else is.
P.P.S. Google is so inept, they didn't even put out the self-congratulatory press release. In a world where every candidate for office spins, Google stayed out of the game. Nerds can invent, but they'll never be properly socialized.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
This is why labels should not be worried about monoliths stealing their business. Google can't get any traction with All Access, no one seems to be aware that Microsoft's OS comes with music. Disruption may happen, but it'll come from left field, from nobodies. That's the way it always works. Like with Napster. The music business should be more afraid and inspired by college dropouts than behemoths who look at the game the usual way.
Like one continuous show.
Maybe it should have been one clip a day?
And YouTube got bit on the ass by its counter, something that screws bands all day long. With only 200,000 people watching when I tuned in, it already felt like a non-happening. And if the true number was higher, isn't that the case the day your video gets traction, it takes a long time for the count to catch up?
But first and foremost the YouTube Music Awards prove that hype is everything.
MTV has a moribund channel with no music yet it overloads us every summer with information regarding its upcoming VMAs, which haven't been watchable in years. But people do. Because in this disconnected environment we gravitate to the established. And the new with traction. And the YouTube Music Awards had no traction. Like a new band they could stay in the market for ten years to find out if they've got anything, but Google is famous for losing focus.
Have you heard Sky Ferreira's music?
I certainly haven't. But there have been articles in every publication known to man hyping her album. I know who she is. I'm tempted to check out her tracks on Spotify, just so I can speak intelligently about her. That's the game today, be knowledgeable about something so you can testify in front of your friends.
Before that it was Haim.
And the funny thing is the band already seems dead. And if you think it's reminiscent of Fleetwood Mac, you never heard the original band (in any of its incarnations!) The modern effects thrown in...ruin the effect!
I'm not saying Haim is bad, it's listenable, try "The Wire," but I am saying it doesn't live up to the hype. But the hype made me aware.
There was no hype about the YouTube Music Awards. Sure, there were some newspaper articles, but that shows you how much the target audience reads the paper.
As for the site's own real estate... The truth is most people don't use YouTube's home page as a portal, the real estate's not super-valuable.
As for pre-roll ads, which we all hate, I didn't see one for the YouTube Music Awards.
This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight, are they really that inept?
As for Spike Jonze and Jason Schwartzman...they're the heroes of those who run Google, the late thirtysomethings. Those two guys mean almost nothing to the target audience. They should have skewed younger, much younger. At least find people with youngster cred, like Tavi Gevinson, the famous fashion blogger. Sure, many are unaware of her, but at least she evidences some cool. And speaking of hype...I found out about her first in the "New Yorker" and in numerous articles thereafter.
If you're a big player who wants big success, you've got to do a saturation campaign. There's no bubbling up from the bottom. If you're not annoying the target audience with a plethora of messages, you're not gonna succeed.
Kind of like Arcade Fire. Whose brilliant PR campaign executed over a period of months, even including the vaunted SNL and special shows, resulted in an album sale of...140,000 copies.
Ugh.
Because either you're a household name band/brand, like Eminem, or a generational favorite, like Drake, or...most people just don't care.
Doesn't matter if Arcade Fire won a Grammy. Their music has not been mainstream so the mainstream doesn't care about them. They occupy a large niche.
So don't have outsized expectations.
And please innovate.
YouTube should have tied in with...CHROMECAST! Oops, they own that product. They should have gotten everybody to throw the show up on their flat screen. They should have gotten someone to pay, Apple TV or Xbox or PlayStation... But competitors hate to help you out, not in the holy war that is Silicon Valley tech.
And there should have been a contest, and gamification.
And maybe, they should have printed a schedule, via an app, like every festival known to man. That's right, they should have told us when the acts were going to appear, that would have switched things up.
And there should have been an after plan. To get people to watch. Because without buzz, and no follow-up story, no one was interested in seeing these clips.
What if they gave an awards show and no one came?
We found out.
P.S. Twitter doesn't build shows, it enhances those with significant traction. People only want to tweet about an event if everybody else is.
P.P.S. Google is so inept, they didn't even put out the self-congratulatory press release. In a world where every candidate for office spins, Google stayed out of the game. Nerds can invent, but they'll never be properly socialized.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Monday 4 November 2013
Gaga Fires Carter
You fire your manager AFTER your album stiffs, not before.
And that's where Lady Gaga's long player is headed, straight for the dumper.
Once upon a time, in the midnineties, the label could function as the manager. But that was back when most of your revenue came from recorded music, when overpriced CDs were flying out of the store. Once the Internet took hold and Napster eviscerated recording revenues, the manager became king, if he wasn't before, and right behind him came the agent, because that's where so much of the money is, on the road.
And in endorsements and private appearances and everywhere but the nonexistent record shops that alta kachers are lamenting have disappeared.
That's what I want to do... Get in my car, fight traffic, pay to park and then sift through a limited selection of product all so I can "learn" from the clerk and keep the store in business. What a load of crap that was. I love the Internet, with everything available at my fingertips. As do labels...because when a superstar dies, product is immediately available, you don't have to worry about manufacturing and shipping before the public moves on, which is especially true in the fast-moving world of today. What, we're gonna reminisce about Lou Reed for another week and then forget about him?
I think so.
As for those ridiculous figures quoting the jump in sales of Mr. Reed's music... A 600% increase means nothing if it's a multiple of bupkes.
But Mr. Reed was always more influential than commercial.
But Gaga was both.
But when your dreams come true, your identity fractures, you're not sure who to be anymore.
Was she a homely girl with a nose job singing from the depths of her soul?
Or a gay icon?
Or the individual responsible for bringing dance music to Top Forty?
Or the manipulator of the Internet?
Or the last credible artist in a sea of sellouts?
All of these.
Let's recount history. Her album is jumping up the chart, she's got a gig opening for Kanye West, he drops out and she goes on the road anyway, underplaying and undercharging, losing money all the while. Want to endear people to you? What a great paradigm.
But then she raises her prices and releases a turkey.
It's tough to follow up an unexpected hit. Just ask Alanis Morissette. She's been unable to do it for twenty years. It's all "Jagged Little Pill" and nothing else.
But didn't anybody in Gaga's camp tell her her new single was a remake of Madonna's "Express Yourself"?
Madge did. It was a moment for the unrecognizable as her self as a result of too much plastic surgery has-been to come down from the perceived mountain top to give Gaga crap.
Then again, remakes of old classics seem to be de rigueur, just ask Robin Thicke and Pharrell, the former of whom now appears to be a one hit wonder.
And is Gaga next? One gigantic album and then toast?
Maybe.
And the only person who could have helped her was Carter.
Someone who knew her well and protected her and navigated the waters for her.
Could someone do as good a job? Possibly. But loyalty matters when it comes to management, because without trust life is truly lonely at the top.
And we know what happened here, because it's always the same story. Carter said something Gaga didn't like. And her lover took issue with it.
You want to keep your charges single. Beware of significant others. They rule the stars, they become their sounding boards and confidantes. They've got their ear 24/7. But if a lover were such a great manager they'd be one. But they never are. Just hangers-on who suddenly have an opinion the star is listening to.
Were mistakes made?
Of course. Not only the stiff follow-up album, but the endless world tour.
The music business lives online. Period. If you're not online creating and talking and being the subject of news items, you're fading away. Meantime, others are vying for your spot on top and the audience is aging every single day. Your devoted teen fan now has a baby and a job and can't spend all her time mooning over you, looking at your punim plastered all over her wall.
Furthermore, at the end of the day it's about music.
Gaga became about fashion. Unwalkable shoes. The meat dress. Your best bet is to strip it down and show you have chops. But Gaga kept looking in the rearview mirror at Madonna, needing to top herself. But all Madge had was her marketing skills, she's not much of a singer or writer, and she slings a Les Paul over her shoulder but she truly cannot play. Gaga's the opposite. She can write, play and sing, but she became overwhelmed by her trappings.
Could she have found her way out of this quagmire?
Maybe. With Troy Carter by her side.
Alone?
Of course not.
And anybody new is only about the money. That's the dirty little secret of the famous managers, they don't take on starving clients. They want commissions. Whereas the person you grew up with is more three-dimensional.
In other words, Gaga can hire someone to grab cash, but she's gonna have a hell of a time finding someone who can strategize.
And maybe it's all untrue.
The story broke a few hours ago, and it's an echo chamber of the original post. But now even "Us" has gone on it:
http://usm.ag/1b7QkWE
And I'd say that makes it true, but today's news outlets are so worried about being left out of the click-through advertising tsunami, fact-checking is out the window.
I could e-mail Troy and find out the truth.
But I'm not gonna do that. I'm not one of those vultures who swoops down to rape the injured for information.
But Troy, I know you're out there, know it's her, not you!
And it's hard to find another hit artist, but you're a king of tech.
And there's a whole hell of a lot more money in that.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
And that's where Lady Gaga's long player is headed, straight for the dumper.
Once upon a time, in the midnineties, the label could function as the manager. But that was back when most of your revenue came from recorded music, when overpriced CDs were flying out of the store. Once the Internet took hold and Napster eviscerated recording revenues, the manager became king, if he wasn't before, and right behind him came the agent, because that's where so much of the money is, on the road.
And in endorsements and private appearances and everywhere but the nonexistent record shops that alta kachers are lamenting have disappeared.
That's what I want to do... Get in my car, fight traffic, pay to park and then sift through a limited selection of product all so I can "learn" from the clerk and keep the store in business. What a load of crap that was. I love the Internet, with everything available at my fingertips. As do labels...because when a superstar dies, product is immediately available, you don't have to worry about manufacturing and shipping before the public moves on, which is especially true in the fast-moving world of today. What, we're gonna reminisce about Lou Reed for another week and then forget about him?
I think so.
As for those ridiculous figures quoting the jump in sales of Mr. Reed's music... A 600% increase means nothing if it's a multiple of bupkes.
But Mr. Reed was always more influential than commercial.
But Gaga was both.
But when your dreams come true, your identity fractures, you're not sure who to be anymore.
Was she a homely girl with a nose job singing from the depths of her soul?
Or a gay icon?
Or the individual responsible for bringing dance music to Top Forty?
Or the manipulator of the Internet?
Or the last credible artist in a sea of sellouts?
All of these.
Let's recount history. Her album is jumping up the chart, she's got a gig opening for Kanye West, he drops out and she goes on the road anyway, underplaying and undercharging, losing money all the while. Want to endear people to you? What a great paradigm.
But then she raises her prices and releases a turkey.
It's tough to follow up an unexpected hit. Just ask Alanis Morissette. She's been unable to do it for twenty years. It's all "Jagged Little Pill" and nothing else.
But didn't anybody in Gaga's camp tell her her new single was a remake of Madonna's "Express Yourself"?
Madge did. It was a moment for the unrecognizable as her self as a result of too much plastic surgery has-been to come down from the perceived mountain top to give Gaga crap.
Then again, remakes of old classics seem to be de rigueur, just ask Robin Thicke and Pharrell, the former of whom now appears to be a one hit wonder.
And is Gaga next? One gigantic album and then toast?
Maybe.
And the only person who could have helped her was Carter.
Someone who knew her well and protected her and navigated the waters for her.
Could someone do as good a job? Possibly. But loyalty matters when it comes to management, because without trust life is truly lonely at the top.
And we know what happened here, because it's always the same story. Carter said something Gaga didn't like. And her lover took issue with it.
You want to keep your charges single. Beware of significant others. They rule the stars, they become their sounding boards and confidantes. They've got their ear 24/7. But if a lover were such a great manager they'd be one. But they never are. Just hangers-on who suddenly have an opinion the star is listening to.
Were mistakes made?
Of course. Not only the stiff follow-up album, but the endless world tour.
The music business lives online. Period. If you're not online creating and talking and being the subject of news items, you're fading away. Meantime, others are vying for your spot on top and the audience is aging every single day. Your devoted teen fan now has a baby and a job and can't spend all her time mooning over you, looking at your punim plastered all over her wall.
Furthermore, at the end of the day it's about music.
Gaga became about fashion. Unwalkable shoes. The meat dress. Your best bet is to strip it down and show you have chops. But Gaga kept looking in the rearview mirror at Madonna, needing to top herself. But all Madge had was her marketing skills, she's not much of a singer or writer, and she slings a Les Paul over her shoulder but she truly cannot play. Gaga's the opposite. She can write, play and sing, but she became overwhelmed by her trappings.
Could she have found her way out of this quagmire?
Maybe. With Troy Carter by her side.
Alone?
Of course not.
And anybody new is only about the money. That's the dirty little secret of the famous managers, they don't take on starving clients. They want commissions. Whereas the person you grew up with is more three-dimensional.
In other words, Gaga can hire someone to grab cash, but she's gonna have a hell of a time finding someone who can strategize.
And maybe it's all untrue.
The story broke a few hours ago, and it's an echo chamber of the original post. But now even "Us" has gone on it:
http://usm.ag/1b7QkWE
And I'd say that makes it true, but today's news outlets are so worried about being left out of the click-through advertising tsunami, fact-checking is out the window.
I could e-mail Troy and find out the truth.
But I'm not gonna do that. I'm not one of those vultures who swoops down to rape the injured for information.
But Troy, I know you're out there, know it's her, not you!
And it's hard to find another hit artist, but you're a king of tech.
And there's a whole hell of a lot more money in that.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
On My Mind
HATERS
It hurts, but the truth is hating is done by an underclass of people pissed that their dreams have not come true. Instead of looking inside, instead of working harder, instead of figuring out the problem is the system and not them, they needle those who are successful in an effort to make them feel bad.
I'm not saying everybody who hates is responsible for their losing. And I'm not saying every winner deserves to win. But I am saying that the true winners, the faceless who realize publicity is anathema, enjoy this game between the wannabe and the highly promoted/successful.
Is Lady Gaga without talent? Is Katy Perry a worthless hack?
ON THE INTERNET!
Do you know how hard it is to make it? That you can't do so on pure desire? That not only do you need luck, but a modicum of talent and incredible people skills, something the haters do not possess.
But no, anybody who rises above is now a target. And too many don't realize this and back down and capitulate to the haters.
We need a hater re-education camp. We've got to give them all jobs. Devise exams to show that no, they're not entitled to be worldwide superstars.
Life is hard. And sure, I'd like to be further up the totem pole than I am, and it's hard not to be frustrated that those on top are not you. But if you truly want to make it, you've got to work and adjust...and then you still probably won't make it.
But you can sit at home and complain.
But what does this buy you?
HATERS 2
Everybody wants to fit in. As a result, instead of brushing haters off, they look inside for fault and wonder what they're doing wrong. It's like musical acts who read reviews and adjust accordingly. I'm not saying I don't read my hate e-mail/tweets/Internet posts and evaluate if the writer is correct, I bend over backwards to see if I've made a mistake, it's a flaw in my personality, but what I get is almost never helpful, at most 1%. Because first and foremost those people don't live inside my head. They don't know how I got here in the first place. If I adjust for them, I'll lose my essence.
And that's what haters want most, for you to self-check and disintegrate, so they can take your place.
We see it all the time with musical artists. They become who the audience wants them to be, and as a result lose everything they've got.
So read the hate if you must. It counterbalances the love.
The truth?
Only inside yourself. Only you can decide if you're on the path you desire.
But do not flinch. Do not change course.
HATERS 3
Check the statistics. That's what I love about Twitter. The people who say awful things have so few followers it's hilarious. The vitriol isn't any lower in volume, the words are just as intense, it's just that there's no virality. By answering haters you're amplifying their message, don't succumb to the temptation.
IGNORANCE
Is the scourge of modern life. It's evidenced not only in politics, but in tech, in everyday life.
If you're going to weigh in, be informed.
I got an e-mail from a household name star ranting about when the labels bought Napster. But they didn't. Bertelsmann made an investment, the labels sued and got damages as a result.
This same person talked about Spotify not paying any money to artists. Truth is most artists don't own their own copyrights, they make a deal with a label, the label gets paid by Spotify, how much the artist makes is a result of their deal.
You speak like you don't know and nobody pays attention to you anymore.
That does not mean you need to know everything. But it does mean if you're going to go on record, do your homework.
But don't be afraid to play if you've done so, everybody makes mistakes.
IGNORANCE 2
The latest research says you can't change someone's political opinion. It's not as simple as they're reading or listening to a biased news outlet. It goes deeper.
So when someone has a contrary opinion, don't waste too much time arguing, unless their facts are wrong.
Meanwhile, the mark of a winner, someone who will climb the ladder, is the ability to admit you were ignorant or wrong in the past and change course. Just because politicians can't do it, don't think it's not a winning strategy in real life.
THE FUTURE
No one can predict it. And it only makes sense in hindsight.
Ten years ago, the major labels looked like toast. Incredibly backward, holding on to their old model, you could do it yourself online. But what we found out was the Internet was so successful cacophony ensued, and only he with the deepest pocket could get his message across, so the majors have emerged triumphant again.
LIES
Don't lie when the information is easily available to all on the Internet. People constantly e-mail me that their track is at a certain place on iTunes, then I just pull up the chart and find out this is not true.
As for being number one or two on a sliced up chart...that's irrelevant. I don't care that the Midwest Mommies With Teens chart has you bubbling up, it's meaningless.
YOUTUBE
Ditto. Don't tell me how successful your video is when I can go to the site and find out it's not.
At this point in time, no one's interested in less you've got six digits in a matter of days.
After a month, if you don't have over 500,000 views, it's no big deal. Feel good about yourself, but you missed out on the virality train.
As for true virality, insiders are only titillated by those with eight figure views. Yes, unless you've got 10 million plays, it's no big deal.
Yes, they moved the goalpost when you weren't looking.
But music is not football. The rules change all the time. Don't play by outdated ones.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
It hurts, but the truth is hating is done by an underclass of people pissed that their dreams have not come true. Instead of looking inside, instead of working harder, instead of figuring out the problem is the system and not them, they needle those who are successful in an effort to make them feel bad.
I'm not saying everybody who hates is responsible for their losing. And I'm not saying every winner deserves to win. But I am saying that the true winners, the faceless who realize publicity is anathema, enjoy this game between the wannabe and the highly promoted/successful.
Is Lady Gaga without talent? Is Katy Perry a worthless hack?
ON THE INTERNET!
Do you know how hard it is to make it? That you can't do so on pure desire? That not only do you need luck, but a modicum of talent and incredible people skills, something the haters do not possess.
But no, anybody who rises above is now a target. And too many don't realize this and back down and capitulate to the haters.
We need a hater re-education camp. We've got to give them all jobs. Devise exams to show that no, they're not entitled to be worldwide superstars.
Life is hard. And sure, I'd like to be further up the totem pole than I am, and it's hard not to be frustrated that those on top are not you. But if you truly want to make it, you've got to work and adjust...and then you still probably won't make it.
But you can sit at home and complain.
But what does this buy you?
HATERS 2
Everybody wants to fit in. As a result, instead of brushing haters off, they look inside for fault and wonder what they're doing wrong. It's like musical acts who read reviews and adjust accordingly. I'm not saying I don't read my hate e-mail/tweets/Internet posts and evaluate if the writer is correct, I bend over backwards to see if I've made a mistake, it's a flaw in my personality, but what I get is almost never helpful, at most 1%. Because first and foremost those people don't live inside my head. They don't know how I got here in the first place. If I adjust for them, I'll lose my essence.
And that's what haters want most, for you to self-check and disintegrate, so they can take your place.
We see it all the time with musical artists. They become who the audience wants them to be, and as a result lose everything they've got.
So read the hate if you must. It counterbalances the love.
The truth?
Only inside yourself. Only you can decide if you're on the path you desire.
But do not flinch. Do not change course.
HATERS 3
Check the statistics. That's what I love about Twitter. The people who say awful things have so few followers it's hilarious. The vitriol isn't any lower in volume, the words are just as intense, it's just that there's no virality. By answering haters you're amplifying their message, don't succumb to the temptation.
IGNORANCE
Is the scourge of modern life. It's evidenced not only in politics, but in tech, in everyday life.
If you're going to weigh in, be informed.
I got an e-mail from a household name star ranting about when the labels bought Napster. But they didn't. Bertelsmann made an investment, the labels sued and got damages as a result.
This same person talked about Spotify not paying any money to artists. Truth is most artists don't own their own copyrights, they make a deal with a label, the label gets paid by Spotify, how much the artist makes is a result of their deal.
You speak like you don't know and nobody pays attention to you anymore.
That does not mean you need to know everything. But it does mean if you're going to go on record, do your homework.
But don't be afraid to play if you've done so, everybody makes mistakes.
IGNORANCE 2
The latest research says you can't change someone's political opinion. It's not as simple as they're reading or listening to a biased news outlet. It goes deeper.
So when someone has a contrary opinion, don't waste too much time arguing, unless their facts are wrong.
Meanwhile, the mark of a winner, someone who will climb the ladder, is the ability to admit you were ignorant or wrong in the past and change course. Just because politicians can't do it, don't think it's not a winning strategy in real life.
THE FUTURE
No one can predict it. And it only makes sense in hindsight.
Ten years ago, the major labels looked like toast. Incredibly backward, holding on to their old model, you could do it yourself online. But what we found out was the Internet was so successful cacophony ensued, and only he with the deepest pocket could get his message across, so the majors have emerged triumphant again.
LIES
Don't lie when the information is easily available to all on the Internet. People constantly e-mail me that their track is at a certain place on iTunes, then I just pull up the chart and find out this is not true.
As for being number one or two on a sliced up chart...that's irrelevant. I don't care that the Midwest Mommies With Teens chart has you bubbling up, it's meaningless.
YOUTUBE
Ditto. Don't tell me how successful your video is when I can go to the site and find out it's not.
At this point in time, no one's interested in less you've got six digits in a matter of days.
After a month, if you don't have over 500,000 views, it's no big deal. Feel good about yourself, but you missed out on the virality train.
As for true virality, insiders are only titillated by those with eight figure views. Yes, unless you've got 10 million plays, it's no big deal.
Yes, they moved the goalpost when you weren't looking.
But music is not football. The rules change all the time. Don't play by outdated ones.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Sunday 3 November 2013
What I Want
TO FEEL A MEMBER OF THE GROUP
All this focus on social networks has been about money, i.e. ads, going public, but there's been very little focus on what it feels like to be a member of society today.
Or not.
There's this illusion since every rapper has a posse and every person has a social media presence that we've all got a large group of friends, but the truth is many are still lonely.
This is not an anti-Internet screed. I believe technology has been a godsend for the isolated, you can pursue your interests without leaving the house. But as we journey into the teens, I'm completely flummoxed as to my place in society.
I am not one of the rich.
And forget about the lifestyle, I'm locked out of the loop regarding power. That's what money brings today. The ability to influence, to change or reinforce the rules of the game. I.e. hedge funds' perpetuation of the carried interest rule. The fact that many readers have no idea what I'm talking about is exactly the point. Let's just say the rich are getting richer.
And there's this fantasy that the poor can get rich too. Statistics tell us otherwise, the American Dream looms larger in Europe, but many have now become disenchanted. It's not only college students who cannot get a job, but Gen-X'ers and baby boomers who are scratching their heads also. Media has been influenced by the 1%. Everybody's a winner. So why am I not? And what can I do about it?
And despite all the so-called disruption, the reinforcement of old models is a roadblock I did not see coming. You were supposed to be truly innovative and then the democratic web would rise you above via virality and you'd be a newly-minted star. But the truth is with everybody attempting this, those backed by cash and publicity are triumphing, it's even worse than it was in the nineties. Wannabes were excluded then, but there were more stars, and a middle class not on MTV. Today we've got a thin layer of superstars and then a plethora of unknowns.
Which brings me back to my original premise. When there was a limited pool, we embraced the "unknowns." But the truth was these unknowns were already on major labels, they had a leg up, and there weren't that many of them, at least compared to today. No one was going around telling everybody about their local bar band, pressing cassettes into the hands of potential fans. No, either you had a deal or you didn't.
And the end result was we were not the only people following the unknowns. They may have not been profitable, but their cult was already large.
And what we learned with Twitter was we all wanted to get a say, to feel like we belonged. But the focus was on the ratings of live events, all the writing was about the comeback of awards shows, as if they were somehow better. But they were the only things we could all talk about.
So Twitter is lionized, but this incomprehensible service really just told us that we're all alone and want to belong.
And we're sold false gods like Sheryl Sandberg. Who taught us that a smart, aggressive woman could leverage her assets and work at the flavor of the moment, i.e. Facebook. But if Facebook craters, or at least stalls, is her opinion still worth paying attention to?
I'd say not. I'd say it was not worth paying attention to in the first place.
We paid attention to Steve Jobs because he came back, he was not a one trick pony. It'd be like Neil Diamond reinventing himself as a deejay, and challenging Tiesto for worldwide domination.
Instead we're just proffered false gods. An endless supply of them. Especially money-grubbing techies who claim to be changing the world, but just want to get rich.
Meanwhile, we're getting poorer and poorer.
We don't want endless music services providing the history of recordings so much as we want to be told what to listen to, and also informed that a huge chunk of the public is listening too. Not only do we want to know the tastemaker/star is into it, but the guy down the street, the girl at the supermarket, we want to be able to have a conversation, we want to belong.
Which is why big gigs get bigger and small ones disappear in the rearview mirror. And festivals are more about the experience than the music. At least we're all there in the same limited environment, we can talk about what we ate and saw and feel a member of the tribe.
So I'm frustrated, overwhelmed, and might I even say a tad bit depressed.
Because I just don't see my own personal path.
I'm not a cutthroat businessman. I could never be Jeff Bezos, I couldn't screw that many people.
And as much as I decry the hype, the placed stories even in the "New York Times," I see they're having their desired effect, they're making the masses, albeit smaller than before the Internet, aware of the new products.
But there's little criticism involved. Everybody's selling. And when everybody is doing this, we give up buying, never mind not having enough money to spend.
So let me just say we're all in the same boat. We all want to be rich, we all want a plethora of friends. But we realize what we've been sold is a bill of goods. Facebook didn't make us any happier, didn't make us feel we belonged, certainly not after a couple of years of posting. And Twitter gave us the illusion of being heard, but then we found out no one was listening. And musicians decrying the evisceration of their business model didn't realize the true problem was not monetization, but the inability to pierce the public consciousness, to break through all the marketing messages.
And I could tell you where it's going, but I'm not exactly sure, other than it's going to get worse, winners and losers in all walks of life. First it was the CEOs versus the workers. Then the bankers versus the workers. Then the techies versus the workers. One group got rich, and was venerated in the press, and the other group was pushed down and forgotten, given social media as a way to make them feel empowered when the truth was nothing of the sort.
And now I'm rambling.
But am I the only one confused?
The only one who believed in the possibility of the Internet but is now frustrated that I'm left even further behind, and that the winners are the usual suspects and the hucksters and a thin layer of innovators?
I'm stuck in the middle with you.
And we have power.
But mostly, I just want to communicate.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
All this focus on social networks has been about money, i.e. ads, going public, but there's been very little focus on what it feels like to be a member of society today.
Or not.
There's this illusion since every rapper has a posse and every person has a social media presence that we've all got a large group of friends, but the truth is many are still lonely.
This is not an anti-Internet screed. I believe technology has been a godsend for the isolated, you can pursue your interests without leaving the house. But as we journey into the teens, I'm completely flummoxed as to my place in society.
I am not one of the rich.
And forget about the lifestyle, I'm locked out of the loop regarding power. That's what money brings today. The ability to influence, to change or reinforce the rules of the game. I.e. hedge funds' perpetuation of the carried interest rule. The fact that many readers have no idea what I'm talking about is exactly the point. Let's just say the rich are getting richer.
And there's this fantasy that the poor can get rich too. Statistics tell us otherwise, the American Dream looms larger in Europe, but many have now become disenchanted. It's not only college students who cannot get a job, but Gen-X'ers and baby boomers who are scratching their heads also. Media has been influenced by the 1%. Everybody's a winner. So why am I not? And what can I do about it?
And despite all the so-called disruption, the reinforcement of old models is a roadblock I did not see coming. You were supposed to be truly innovative and then the democratic web would rise you above via virality and you'd be a newly-minted star. But the truth is with everybody attempting this, those backed by cash and publicity are triumphing, it's even worse than it was in the nineties. Wannabes were excluded then, but there were more stars, and a middle class not on MTV. Today we've got a thin layer of superstars and then a plethora of unknowns.
Which brings me back to my original premise. When there was a limited pool, we embraced the "unknowns." But the truth was these unknowns were already on major labels, they had a leg up, and there weren't that many of them, at least compared to today. No one was going around telling everybody about their local bar band, pressing cassettes into the hands of potential fans. No, either you had a deal or you didn't.
And the end result was we were not the only people following the unknowns. They may have not been profitable, but their cult was already large.
And what we learned with Twitter was we all wanted to get a say, to feel like we belonged. But the focus was on the ratings of live events, all the writing was about the comeback of awards shows, as if they were somehow better. But they were the only things we could all talk about.
So Twitter is lionized, but this incomprehensible service really just told us that we're all alone and want to belong.
And we're sold false gods like Sheryl Sandberg. Who taught us that a smart, aggressive woman could leverage her assets and work at the flavor of the moment, i.e. Facebook. But if Facebook craters, or at least stalls, is her opinion still worth paying attention to?
I'd say not. I'd say it was not worth paying attention to in the first place.
We paid attention to Steve Jobs because he came back, he was not a one trick pony. It'd be like Neil Diamond reinventing himself as a deejay, and challenging Tiesto for worldwide domination.
Instead we're just proffered false gods. An endless supply of them. Especially money-grubbing techies who claim to be changing the world, but just want to get rich.
Meanwhile, we're getting poorer and poorer.
We don't want endless music services providing the history of recordings so much as we want to be told what to listen to, and also informed that a huge chunk of the public is listening too. Not only do we want to know the tastemaker/star is into it, but the guy down the street, the girl at the supermarket, we want to be able to have a conversation, we want to belong.
Which is why big gigs get bigger and small ones disappear in the rearview mirror. And festivals are more about the experience than the music. At least we're all there in the same limited environment, we can talk about what we ate and saw and feel a member of the tribe.
So I'm frustrated, overwhelmed, and might I even say a tad bit depressed.
Because I just don't see my own personal path.
I'm not a cutthroat businessman. I could never be Jeff Bezos, I couldn't screw that many people.
And as much as I decry the hype, the placed stories even in the "New York Times," I see they're having their desired effect, they're making the masses, albeit smaller than before the Internet, aware of the new products.
But there's little criticism involved. Everybody's selling. And when everybody is doing this, we give up buying, never mind not having enough money to spend.
So let me just say we're all in the same boat. We all want to be rich, we all want a plethora of friends. But we realize what we've been sold is a bill of goods. Facebook didn't make us any happier, didn't make us feel we belonged, certainly not after a couple of years of posting. And Twitter gave us the illusion of being heard, but then we found out no one was listening. And musicians decrying the evisceration of their business model didn't realize the true problem was not monetization, but the inability to pierce the public consciousness, to break through all the marketing messages.
And I could tell you where it's going, but I'm not exactly sure, other than it's going to get worse, winners and losers in all walks of life. First it was the CEOs versus the workers. Then the bankers versus the workers. Then the techies versus the workers. One group got rich, and was venerated in the press, and the other group was pushed down and forgotten, given social media as a way to make them feel empowered when the truth was nothing of the sort.
And now I'm rambling.
But am I the only one confused?
The only one who believed in the possibility of the Internet but is now frustrated that I'm left even further behind, and that the winners are the usual suspects and the hucksters and a thin layer of innovators?
I'm stuck in the middle with you.
And we have power.
But mostly, I just want to communicate.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)