 |
| "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.
Bill Maher has some good insights on self-defeating behaviors on the political left and he does us a favor some of the time by mentioning them. One of his current ongoing themes is over-done woke-ness. As an unmarried, childless guy he also has strong views on parenting--as is possible when one has no real-live experience with it. Put those two together, then Maher has a theme he returns to often and he shoehorns idea into that theme. Here it is the idea that all those people want to get rich and famous, oh has silly of them, oh how such an obvious consequence of their being badly parented and caused to think they are more special than they are. So, in tha vein and mindset, he thought he would tease musicians.
ReplyDeleteHe under-estimates how much context matters to overall popularity, and his own show is a perfect example of it. During the months when he was broadcasting from home, without and audience and without two or three people on the set to bounce things off, his show was nearly unwatchable. I watched it out of sympathy and habit. It wasn't that Maher got bad. It was that Maher without the whole backup team was not particularly funny and his jokes seemed weak.
Bill would be better off to look back at some of his backyard shows from six months ago and reflect. Maybe marketing and context matter a lot.
And then he might look at all those aspiring people, 99% of whom will decide they cannot make a go of it in music and who will retreat to singing in the shower or in church choirs, and who will then have lovely lives doing some other productive work. A very few will make it, but I like seeing entrepreneurship, whether it be in a garage band with ambition or the person borrowing money to get a food truck or someone starting a landscaping business or whatever. Those aspiring people didn't learn privilege and laziness. They learned the lesson that they might make it if they try. Then when they give that up, as most inevitably will, they will carry that idea of ambition with them to some other field.
That isn't bad. This is good. This is America. This is especially that spirit we see in the classic immigrant story of ambition. I like seeing it there and I like seeing it in native born Americans who hope to be the next Taylor Swift or Bill Maher.
Peter Sage
Well said, both Rick and Peter. I found Maher’s recent show focusing on Afghanistan the first worth watching in a long while. His smugness is intolerable and for him to focus on music is laughable - his credentials are…? Thanks for the thoughtful blog Rick!
ReplyDeleteWhy in the world would a young adult believe a word we say? The system itself is largely the problem, where the Senate is the greatest bottleneck in history.
ReplyDeleteThe electoral college is the next level issue. The climate crises has been discussed since at least the '90's and when Dems had complete power twice they did not end filthy oil subsidies.
The problem is the Senate mainly, but also bribery being legal and Dems haven't stopped taking money from corporations. They argue if they do they will never win.
Well there it is. The problem and the millenials know it.
What sane person would believe and support a system which knowingly allows the planet to collapse, burn?
The adults simply cannot grasp they/we are the problem because we didn't want to upset the "economy", nor risk our stations in life and now some call young adults "lazy" because they're rejecting a system which is designed to keep them in debt for life, and oh by the way cannot or will not stop burning filthy oil.
The adults will die out before the worst happens, but those "entitled kids' (entitled to what by they way, Armageddon?) are saying no.
We're so embedded in economics as a way of problem solving, we cannot admit to ourselves - that's the very problem, and those young adults know it.
50 years from now, they may be alive as wars for water happen, we won't.
Now tell me, who's the lazy demographic? Those who say change before it's too late, or those who continue supporting this system which is literally, literally causing mass extinctions of all life on earth?
The sheer hubris of us 'adults'. Shame.
Bill Maher is the perfect example of how unregulated capitalism as a concept, as Karl Marx predicted will destroy itself.
ReplyDeleteBill Maher earned a fortune as a 'truth telling" comedian and then pundit. He is rich.
Yet, the millenials aren't viewing him, so he's losing his audience so what does this 'truth teller" who really cares do?
He needs more money, because tens of millions are not enough so he teases his message to get Republican money.
That's what millennials despise and refuse to join. The U.S. founders did at least two things wrong:
1) Created checks and balances so well, it gave the minority too much power and the system cannot respond quickly enough to immediate internal threats.
2) It didn't allow enough governmental power to regulate businesses which harm the populace and or the environment.
I know few could predict the scale of the industrial revolution but still it's a fatal flaw in our system.
Honestly friends, it's hard I know, but try to imagine arguing in support of our government & economic system to a millennial.
What's your argument? Your logic? That will overcome their response which is: "But you continued to use oil when you knew it would destroy life on earth."
Then put yourself in their place and consider their options for the future we built for them.