|
|
Post by BOGC on Oct 28, 2024 17:54:04 GMT -5
Can labels rip artists off? Sure they can and they do. But they always did that labels have been ripping off artists for years, that is the argument. Balderdash. Did anybody put a gun to the heads of artists to force them to sign contracts with labels? The plain and simple fact is that artists willingly (and eagerly) sign contracts with labels and then spend the rest of their careers whining endlessly about how badly they are being treated by their big bad labels. If you don't like your label, find another that treats you better. If you can't find a label that treats you better, that should tell you something. Except for the very largest income producing artists or actors, big labels and big movie studios tend to engage in the sort of creative accounting that ensures that anyone getting a piece of the NET will get little or nothing. That's why smart folks that want a percentage, want a percentage of the gross. But again you have to be big enough to have the leverage to ask for and get something like that. There's a lot of room between non-recording bar bands, and mega stars that can get whatever they want. A lot of those in between have a rougher time of it than their recognition might suggest. Are they being cheated? Not literally if the label is honoring its contract; more fool them for signing that contract...except they might have had less alternatives than one might suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 29, 2024 11:09:59 GMT -5
Are they being cheated? Not literally if the label is honoring its contract; more fool them for signing that contract...except they might have had less alternatives than one might suppose. That is precisely the point. Top tier singers generate most of the profits and they have all the clout. 2nd tier singers make much less money. 3rd and 4th tier singers are only marginally profitable and may even lose money for the labels. That's why they have few or no alternatives. Which is why Jackie has 3rd billing and is playing in 250 capacity SRO venues. |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Oct 29, 2024 12:14:56 GMT -5
Are they being cheated? Not literally if the label is honoring its contract; more fool them for signing that contract...except they might have had less alternatives than one might suppose.
That was much more the case prior to streaming. If you weren't with a label, the upfront costs of doing it yourself was almost insurmountable. Studio time was very expensive and you pretty much had to have your material ready to go as you were on a tight schedule. You would then have to take the masters to some company that would charge skyhigh rates to make vinyl LPs or tapes or CDs. After that, you would need to actually sell the physical media. Unless you had a large local following, it would be difficult to get local music stores to take a few and the big chains wouldn't touch them. The major labels were pretty much gatekeepers who decided who could make recorded music. Whatever else could get through were usually signed to small specialty labels who specialized in alternative genres. Doing it yourself was a pipe dream. Even when major artists set up their own labels, they were jointly owned by the artist and their major label and the latter used the former to piggyback other artists signed to that label off the main artist's fame.
With streaming, digital technology, and social media, they actually do have alternatives. There is software now such as Logic Pro, Pro Tools, and Garage Band where you can digitally program or record all the instruments and record vocals and then adjust and mix for a demo or even a master track. The latter would take more of an investment in other equipment such as microphones, but you pretty much can record in any room with decent acoustics. It won't be the same quality as a high end studio but it is every bit as good as the low end studios independent artists used in the past. You can then go through distributions companies that will get your music on Spotify, Apple, and all major streaming platforms. You can check various articles online to compare them (here's one taken at random: aristake.com/digital-distribution-comparison/ ).
Of course, besides all of that, you then have to put in the work to promote yourself. One common pattern has been to have get a song or two on streaming services (not expecting big returns) to get the process down pat so you can get things online without hiccups. Then set up a YouTube channel doing a mix of covers and originals but starting out with mostly covers of popular songs from artists you like. Over a period of a few years you build an audience, open Tik Tok and Instagram accounts, do all the common social media stuff to promote yourself, and start mixing in originals. As your following grows, you release new material on streaming and promote it on your social media, make some low budget music videos, etc. and, given you have some appeal and/or talent, you just might start to catch on.
The main point is you don't sign with labels until you have a following. If you have a successful social media presence, you probably by then have proper representation who can negotiate. Someone with an existing track record of success on their own can demand things from labels that someone whose never recorded professionally could ever do. If your streaming millions without the help of a label (as, for example, Tate McRae was before she signed with Sony/RCA), her management can make demands. If you go to a label without a track record, you can't and should expect to get bad terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Oct 29, 2024 22:49:17 GMT -5
Jackie just doesn't have the major qualities to make it as a pop singer.
Addison Rae is not a good singer at all but she has all the other qualities to be a popular Pop singer.
Jackie is a great singer but doesn't have any of the other qualities to be a popular Pop singer.
Jackie's
Black Hole Sun 1,227 views 5 days ago
Jackie Evancho Spotify monthly listeners 95,663
Addison Rae
Aquamarine 1,910,249 views 4 days ago
Addison Rae Spotify monthly listeners 16,971,383
What is funny is that Addison is huge in everything Sims claimed isn't important. Even though she can't sing people still like her enough to stream her music and she even got a good label behind her now Columbia Records.
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 29, 2024 23:27:15 GMT -5
Addison Rae is not a good singer at all but she has all the other qualities to be a popular Pop singer. Jackie is a great singer Addison Rae is as good a pop singer as Jackie. But Jackie is a much better CC singer than Addison Rae. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Oct 30, 2024 1:17:00 GMT -5
Addison Rae is not a good singer at all but she has all the other qualities to be a popular Pop singer. Jackie is a great singer Addison Rae is as good a pop singer as Jackie. But Jackie is a much better CC singer than Addison Rae. To my ears, A.R.'s voice sounds very heavily processed. The videos I looked at definitely have what one might term provocative gymnastics or dance. I don't totally hate it, but the over-processed voice limits how much I'd listen to it. Kind of like Hilary Duff (the voice, not the visuals). |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 30, 2024 8:22:59 GMT -5
Addison Rae is as good a pop singer as Jackie. But Jackie is a much better CC singer than Addison Rae. To my ears, A.R.'s voice sounds very heavily processed. The videos I looked at definitely have what one might term provocative gymnastics or dance. I don't totally hate it, but the over-processed voice limits how much I'd listen to it. Kind of like Hilary Duff (the voice, not the visuals). It doesn't sound heavily processed to me. But even if it was, the pop market does not object to sound processing. Which is why the "No Autotune" movement went nowhere. I agree that AR's videos are definitely sexual. But, as we all know, sex sells. A number of Jackie's pics and videos are sexual too. One thing I noticed is that every AR song on Spotify is original with an AR songwriting credit. When you are trying to establish credibility in pop, covers don't help. Black Hole Sun doesn't hurt Jackie, but why waste time and money on something that doesn't help? |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Oct 30, 2024 12:03:38 GMT -5
To my ears, A.R.'s voice sounds very heavily processed. The videos I looked at definitely have what one might term provocative gymnastics or dance. I don't totally hate it, but the over-processed voice limits how much I'd listen to it. Kind of like Hilary Duff (the voice, not the visuals). It doesn't sound heavily processed to me. But even if it was, the pop market does not object to sound processing. Which is why the "No Autotune" movement went nowhere. I agree that AR's videos are definitely sexual. But, as we all know, sex sells. A number of Jackie's pics and videos are sexual too. One thing I noticed is that every AR song on Spotify is original with an AR songwriting credit. When you are trying to establish credibility in pop, covers don't help. Black Hole Sun doesn't hurt Jackie, but why waste time and money on something that doesn't help? IMO a small amount of reverb is ok, may be needed to keep something from sounding a bit dead. But except very rarely where it's obviously an effect (a robot-like sound or something), most of the rest of audio effects processing of voice makes up not just for poor pitch, but for some lack of ability to sound appropriately (for the song) interesting without it. Original isn't magic. It's a higher stakes bet than a cover. A decent cover will rarely be a big hit, but will rarely be a total zero, and may help get visibility in some genre or market segment that one doesn't already have it in. A well crafted original, with the right presentation, promotion, timing (in terms of when that style is doing well; or at even higher stakes, defining a new style), and lots of luck, may hit really big. But the odds of an original going nowhere are also probably greater than that decent cover. A cover may not take all that much time or money, compared to something new which will for all but the most gifted and experienced involve more revision (and not just by oneself). And one can certainly be working on new material while also doing an occasional cover that one already has a good idea of how one might want to interpret. Jackie's strength is her voice, but also what she hears, which from repeated observation includes details that most people might not immediately notice. That can contribute to new ideas, but it also contributes to reinterpretation of existing material. |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Oct 30, 2024 12:37:19 GMT -5
I don't think streaming comparisons between Jackie and Addison Rae say much of anything apart from Addison being a desirable brand.
Prior to going into singing, Addison Rae had built a Tik Tok following of 80 million+ and a massive Instagram following. She had make-up brands along with other endorsements.
Her first single did ok but her vocal limitations showed. She then went out and hired top flight producers from the ABBA/Max Martin school of candy pop. Her voice sounds much different thanks to modern technology but it is not as obvious since their approach is to hide it in a Phil Spector-ish "wall of sound." The result is perfect pop hits that sound like almost everything else on the radio. That's fine since she is less an artist than a product - but to her credit, ahe knows it and owns it.
Comnercially, there is no way Jackie could compete with that juggernaut. Addison has her role all figured out and it embraced it. Jackie is aiming at a smaller demographic that, apart from the occasional outlier (e.g., Billie Eilish), tops in popularity at the Lana Del Ray level.
Jackie is not in competition with Olivia Rodrigo, Tate McRae, or even Addison Rae. She is now an alternative artist with a smaller startup label. Mainstrem stardom is not really in the cards and, even if it were possible, would probably be bad for her mental health. As long as she's happy where she is, it's not my place to tell her differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Oct 30, 2024 13:05:21 GMT -5
I agree as long as Jackie is happy that’s what counts!
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Oct 30, 2024 14:11:40 GMT -5
I don't think streaming comparisons between Jackie and Addison Rae say much of anything apart from Addison being a desirable brand. Prior to going into singing, Addison Rae had built a Tik Tok following of 80 million+ and a massive Instagram following. She had make-up brands along with other endorsements. Her first single did ok but her vocal limitations showed. She then went out and hired top flight producers from the ABBA/Max Martin school of candy pop. Her voice sounds much different thanks to modern technology but it is not as obvious since their approach is to hide it in a Phil Spector-ish "wall of sound." The result is perfect pop hits that sound like almost everything else on the radio. That's fine since she is less an artist than a product - but to her credit, ahe knows it and owns it. Comnercially, there is no way Jackie could compete with that juggernaut. Addison has her role all figured out and it embraced it. Jackie is aiming at a smaller demographic that, apart from the occasional outlier (e.g., Billie Eilish), tops in popularity at the Lana Del Ray level. Jackie is not in competition with Olivia Rodrigo, Tate McRae, or even Addison Rae. She is now an alternative artist with a smaller startup label. Mainstrem stardom is not really in the cards and, even if it were possible, would probably be bad for her mental health. As long as she's happy where she is, it's not my place to tell her differently. Just from what you wrote shows a very good reason to compare Addison Rae to Jackie.
Just as you have written Addison knows her weak spots and strong points and spent the money to get the best help she could for her singing part of her career. As you pointed out Addison does not even need to be singing.
How many years have we seen Jackie's career declining with out her doing any major changes. Even today it seem you have to go through Mike to set anything up. Addison and Jackie are close in age ( Jackie is six months older) so you would think they would have some of the same demographics. But I couldn't tell you who Jackie's demographics are.
What ever happened to all this touring and interview Jackie was going to have according to Sims.
Maybe Mike lets cameras in now because he really doesn't have a choice. But it show his mind set and why he could never ever possibly be a good entertainment manager.
Olivia Rodrigo ended her "Guts era" with a "Gut world tour Netflix Movie" shot in the intuit dome in LA
A profession movie company shot the film with many different cameras set up. I watched it last night and Olivia was right saying you will have the best seat in the house. Who knows maybe this will become the norm.
Can we even get a full concert of Jackie from someones smart phone even.
Olivia was on Jimmy Fallon promoting her Netflix movie last night , she even talks about her friendship with Chappell Roan who Olivia let open for her Sour Tour and even had her in her Netflix movie showing just how important it is to have friends in the entertainment industry.
As long as Mike has anything to do with Jackie's career she will continue to go down hill. Maybe Jackie should be going to ABBA/Max Martin school. I know Max Martin helped Dylan Conrique with just one of her songs, "Birthday Cake" which has 184,030,147 spotify streams and her next closest to that has 13,830,543. But with just that she seems to keep well above 1 million spotify monthy listeners. Jackie is not going to sing a cover and expect to get that type of results. Grace Vanderwaal like Dylan has some older songs that people still stream that keeps her numbers up even during a long absence from singing.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jackinator on Nov 8, 2024 18:34:27 GMT -5
Giulia Falcone is appearing in Paris. She's on her way to bigger and better things"I’m so delighted to announce my very first concert in Paris 🎶 I hope many of you will join me to discover my own songs in the famous theatre "Les Trois Baudets.” You’ll find the link to reserve tickets in the first comment!!! Can’t wait to see you and share this magical moment together ❤️" 
|
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Nov 8, 2024 18:53:10 GMT -5
Giulia Falcone is appearing in Paris. She's on her way to bigger and better things"I’m so delighted to announce my very first concert in Paris 🎶 I hope many of you will join me to discover my own songs in the famous theatre "Les Trois Baudets.” You’ll find the link to reserve tickets in the first comment!!! Can’t wait to see you and share this magical moment together ❤️" Good for her! Emma Kok is going to have her own concert in Oct. 2025. It sold out immediately. emmakok.com/events |
|
|
|
Post by The Jackinator on Nov 8, 2024 18:56:48 GMT -5
Giulia Falcone is appearing in Paris. She's on her way to bigger and better things"I’m so delighted to announce my very first concert in Paris 🎶 I hope many of you will join me to discover my own songs in the famous theatre "Les Trois Baudets.” You’ll find the link to reserve tickets in the first comment!!! Can’t wait to see you and share this magical moment together ❤️" Good for her! Emma Kok is going to have her own concert in Oct. 2025. It sold out immediately. emmakok.com/eventsWish Emma was performing in the US instead of Amsterdam. Bet she will put on a great show. |
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Nov 8, 2024 19:08:58 GMT -5
Good for her! Emma Kok is going to have her own concert in Oct. 2025. It sold out immediately. emmakok.com/eventsWish Emma was performing in the US instead of Amsterdam. Bet she will put on a great show. It will probably happen at some point, she's only 16 and just starting out. Hopefully her health will hold out and she'll have a great career ahead of her. |
|
