 |
| "New Rules" |
New Rule: Equality of Outcomes
While one might question the virtue of Woody Allen in other ways, he did say "90% of success is just showing up". That's the motive behind the trophies, it's acknowledgement for showing up. Bill went on to say "54% of millennials would want to be "influencers" and 72% want to be famous", but didn't mention where the stats came from. I googled around and found a report from The Morning Consult, the big marketing research company ( Here it is. ) and YPLUSE (Here ) that had that data. What Bill didn't mention is what motivated them and it's not being famous. The #1 reason was "to make a difference in the world".
He then goes on to mention a recent Rolling Stone magazine article about how a minority of artists on Spotify are paid a majority of the revenue from streaming. This is true, but then he went on to imply that it's because Spotify, and the music business in general, was a meritocracy and that the majority of music didn't earn revenue because it wasn't any good.
In fact he said, "Music is hard and most people suck at it". (2:59)
He goes on to suggest that just because a song is on Spotify it will be judged by the market as to whether it's "good" or not, which seems to mean he believes that all songs are equally visible on the site, saying:
"You can't complain no one heard your song because no label will sign you." (3:42)
Really?
Whether any particular piece of music is good or not is another discussion for another time. In this case he's suggesting the metric that matters is commercial success, as typified by Grammy awards and internet plays, so I'll try to address that.
To begin with, while it's not difficult to get on Spotify, it does take the time, effort and money to write, record, mix and master a track. That's the showing up part, when an artist makes the commitment to put his work out there with everyone else. But that's just the beginning and this is where the actual difference lies and it has little to do with the quality of the music.
Music is a product and like any requires marketing to expose it to customers. It's well known that as much or more is spent on promoting music as making it. It's a huge business, Nashville is home to a small army of people who make their living working in promotion and PR. It takes upwards of a million dollars to launch a new artist nationally, which, by the way, is a debt the artist then must repay out of income. Some of that money is spent on social media campaigns that lead to exposure that generates plays on Spotify. Not everyone can make that investment, and most accept the fact that the odds of success are slim unless everything breaks in your favor. It's always given the labels an advantage.
Occasionally a song goes viral on it's own. But it's pretty rare relative to the amount of music that's out there. Also, a song probably isn't going to get much attention unless it's attached to a video, another expense an artist has to incur, although some have broken through with low budget iPhone videos.
I'll also mention there are many who have chosen the touring lifestyle as a way to promote themselves, build a fan base, and make their living as working musician, something I admire. I'm constantly discovering touring artists who have thousands of Spotify plays each month just from years of constant gigging.
I take issue with Maher's attitude because I think it unfairly criticizes young people as being entitled, but then goes on to generalize about musicians, not all of them millennials, who are disadvantaged by a system that is skewed towards money as well as merit. Yes, it's a meritocracy in some ways, but in others more of a lottery.
It seems a bit surprising considering what comedians, or anyone in the arts, face trying to start a career and be successful.
Anyway, here's a track I consider "good" that Bill might enjoy.
