|
|
Post by BOGC on Oct 12, 2023 0:37:09 GMT -5
BTW, classical isn't the only genre where a polite audience is a quiet audience. True for acoustic folk usually, musicals (aside from Rocky Horror Picture Show and others with participatory gimmicks), etc. In a food+music venue, there will be some background noise, but conversation should be minimal and quiet.
In over-amped rock, one could sing along and nobody further than a seat away would notice. Jackie has invited people to sing along with some songs, but I hesitate to because I'm out of practice enough that it would probably not add to the experience for anyone else. And I don't want her giving me side-eye if she hears me not getting it right (I know what right is and I know she does, even if I can't do it).
|
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Oct 12, 2023 8:43:37 GMT -5
How about Karen Carpenter, a very popular singer who had an incredible voice, one of my favorite singers! She was also a very good drummer 🥁 by the way!
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 12, 2023 8:57:41 GMT -5
How about Karen Carpenter, a very popular singer who had an incredible voice, one of my favorite singers! She was also a very good drummer 🥁 by the way! You seem to be replying to a previous post but we don't know what you are referring to since you don't quote the post you are replying to. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 12, 2023 9:08:58 GMT -5
BTW, classical isn't the only genre where a polite audience is a quiet audience. That's why I believe that success in pop is such a long shot for Jackie. She needs to appeal to rutting animals but all she can appeal to is polite audiences. |
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Oct 12, 2023 9:23:24 GMT -5
Fans would much prefer and enjoy videos that aren't technically perfect to no video at all. You know what they sang and get a general idea of the show and atmosphere. That goes for Jackie's fans as well. It's a safe bet that even BOGC watches all of the smart phone videos from Jackie's shows and prefer them to nothing at all.  Sure. But when I listen to a video of something I was there for, it's a poor ghost of the real thing. A good phone or pocket camera may be good enough for the visuals, but anything less than a feed from the house sound system (i.e. a semi-official video) falls FAR short. If I watch the two duets with Rachel again, it's recalling the memory of seeing something anticipated for years, not so much for the sound, which was far better. Of course live is better than cell phone video, but live is also better than professional video aired on TV. Live is better than listening to a CD. There's no comparison to live performances, but people who aren't able to attend live performance still enjoy the videos. |
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Oct 12, 2023 9:30:43 GMT -5
Tate McRae is the third artist born in this century to hit 5 billion Spotify streams. Even at just .003 per stream that still is a good size payday for a 20 year old. http://instagram.com/p/CyRa_YZpydE That's only $15M, thank goodness that's just spotify and thank goodness she has 25 concerts scheduled in large venues to supplement her income. |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Oct 12, 2023 9:53:21 GMT -5
Sure. But when I listen to a video of something I was there for, it's a poor ghost of the real thing. A good phone or pocket camera may be good enough for the visuals, but anything less than a feed from the house sound system (i.e. a semi-official video) falls FAR short. If I watch the two duets with Rachel again, it's recalling the memory of seeing something anticipated for years, not so much for the sound, which was far better. Of course live is better than cell phone video, but live is also better than professional video aired on TV. Live is better than listening to a CD. There's no comparison to live performances, but people who aren't able to attend live performance still enjoy the videos. She's a second tier star so she "only" makes $15 million from Spotify as opposed to the $50 million for Olivia and [just place in some absurdly high number] for Taylor. How do these poor girls get by? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest 5 on Oct 12, 2023 10:35:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Oct 12, 2023 10:36:12 GMT -5
Let's take a break on all the things Jackie should have done x number of years ago. Did Jackie make some career mistakes? Yes, she did but that wasn't necessarily all her doing. I recall an interview some years ago when Hilary Duff of Disney fame said that when she was young she felt all this pressure because all these adults were depending on her to feed their families. Now imagine the pressure when the family that needs to be fed is your own. Jackie might have wanted to change her style to something "cool" for her age but was she in any position to do that? Probably not unless you hate your family. So you stay with the program and maybe they toss you a bone now and then like the EP attached to Two Hearts provided you supply an album of what is paying the bills. I have in the past complained that the perfect time to change was during the pandemic when she could pass it off as "something she just wanted to try while she had time off" and not offended any of her CC fans. I also said she should have done a lot in prep for her reveal on TMS and that didn't happen. At the time, I was critical of her not taking advantage of those opportunities but it appears the big problem was not sloth but rather mental illness. So she was in no shape to take advantage of those periods. Now all of that is just spilt milk, water under the bridge, [choose your metaphor for "sh!t happens"], etc.. The fact is that now she is trying to make a move and she should be judged by her current efforts rather than what she or Mike or Lisa did or didn't do half a decade ago. With that off my chest, here's a few points as a reality check for the doom and gloom prognosticators: 1. She is starting over. She has no traction as a pop artist - mainstream or alt. She is just like any other new artist. This is important because this single and those to come will define the next phase of her career. 2. I fully expect the next few singles to struggle. That's how it goes. Everyone can point to people like Tate McRae and Olivia Rodrigo but I remember when neither one of them could get arrested. Olivia got a break with a TV show but I brought her up on this forum BEFORE she was big and was emerging and wondered if she would make it without the Disney show attached (see here). Obviously those fears were unfounded. The point is that Jackie's status at the early stage has no bearing on where she might be two or three years from now. It took McRae five years to get where she is and it took Rodrigo at least a two years WITH a hit show. The totals you see for them now has nothing to do with the totals in the past. Once you start to get traction, people check out your past work and those totals rise accordingly. Billie Eilish's first few songs got no attention and only when "Ocean Eyes" went viral did she begin making wave in the alt-pop world. She then got a gig to open for Florence & the Machine and her streaming totals jumped to 20-50 million streams on Spotify. When she later broke out in a big way, they jumped to hundreds of millions to billions of streams. Last time I checked, that early viral song "Ocean Eyes" had gone over 1 billion streams on Spotify. So if Jackie does get a song that gets traction in the alt-pop genre, all her previous songs will rise as well. 3. If Jackie can get a back catalogue of songs that can produce 1,000,000 streams a month on Spotify, she would be making $3,000 a month. That would likely be 1/3 of her total streaming money and that gets you to $9,000 a month. That is $100,000 a year. At that point, you become attractive for commercial purposes such as modeling and social media. You might even get some acting gigs. 4. Since she is moving in an alt-pop direction, she has a lot more musical freedom than mainstream pop artists. The initial singles are for the purpose of having her get identified as alt-pop, so it makes sense to sound like Lana Del Ray, Billie Eilish, etc., so people know how to classify her. If she can be seen as an alt-pop artist, then she can do whatever she wants. Alt-pop basically means pop artists who do not fit into the mainstream. This would include all sorts of influences including jazz, folk, etc., provided it is original music and it is not shmaltzy or overtly playing to the mainstream crowd. This could include everything from punk-pop to swing revival. it's just that at the start she needs to do something that screams "I am now alt-pop" and the easiest way to do that is to do something that follows style points of easily recognized alt-pop artists. This is actually the one genre whose fans not only will accept change but outright encourage it. So if you don't like what she does on the next EP, she could change to something different on the next one. 5. The worries of MP cutting her are rather silly. Although she may not be a big seller yet, neither is anyone else on that label. Alt-pop records are relatively inexpensive to make, they cost next to nothing to upload, and the label doesn't have to pay her until they get the money. If she doesn't stream well, they just won't release physical media until she does. EPs are usually streaming only these days anyway. 6. I would say the key would be to get some exposure by opening for a compatible artist. I still think that is the best thing for a number of reasons: the pressure to bring in the fans is on the lead artist and not Jackie; she is free to perform just her originals and cover songs she wants to sing (perhaps BSN or something else from COT); she can let her hair down, get out of the evening gowns, and relax in jeans and a tank top while performing. I think it would be interesting to see if she will have a less stilted stage persona in clothing she would wear normally. Anyway, that's my two cents for the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest 5 on Oct 12, 2023 10:37:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Oct 12, 2023 11:18:40 GMT -5
BTW, classical isn't the only genre where a polite audience is a quiet audience. That's why I believe that success in pop is such a long shot for Jackie. She needs to appeal to rutting animals but all she can appeal to is polite audiences. If one has to be an animal or appeal to animals to get rich, we should all die poor. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 12, 2023 11:25:32 GMT -5
That's why I believe that success in pop is such a long shot for Jackie. She needs to appeal to rutting animals but all she can appeal to is polite audiences. If one has to be an animal or appeal to animals to get rich, we should all die poor. You are free to die any way you choose. I'm dying rich. |
|
|
|
Post by Painted the Tail on Oct 12, 2023 11:29:25 GMT -5
Let's take a break on all the things Jackie should have done x number of years ago. Did Jackie make some career mistakes? Yes, she did but that wasn't necessarily all her doing. I recall an interview some years ago when Hilary Duff of Disney fame said that when she was young she felt all this pressure because all these adults were depending on her to feed their families. Now imagine the pressure when the family that needs to be fed is your own. Jackie might have wanted to change her style to something "cool" for her age but was she in any position to do that? Probably not unless you hate your family. So you stay with the program and maybe they toss you a bone now and then like the EP attached to Two Hearts provided you supply an album of what is paying the bills. I have in the past complained that the perfect time to change was during the pandemic when she could pass it off as "something she just wanted to try while she had time off" and not offended any of her CC fans. I also said she should have done a lot in prep for her reveal on TMS and that didn't happen. At the time, I was critical of her not taking advantage of those opportunities but it appears the big problem was not sloth but rather mental illness. So she was in no shape to take advantage of those periods. Now all of that is just spilt milk, water under the bridge, [choose your metaphor for "sh!t happens"], etc.. The fact is that now she is trying to make a move and she should be judged by her current efforts rather than what she or Mike or Lisa did or didn't do half a decade ago. With that off my chest, here's a few points as a reality check for the doom and gloom prognosticators: 1. She is starting over. She has no traction as a pop artist - mainstream or alt. She is just like any other new artist. This is important because this single and those to come will define the next phase of her career. 2. I fully expect the next few singles to struggle. That's how it goes. Everyone can point to people like Tate McRae and Olivia Rodrigo but I remember when neither one of them could get arrested. Olivia got a break with a TV show but I brought her up on this forum BEFORE she was big and was emerging and wondered if she would make it without the Disney show attached (see here). Obviously those fears were unfounded. The point is that Jackie's status at the early stage has no bearing on where she might be two or three years from now. It took McRae five years to get where she is and it took Rodrigo at least a two years WITH a hit show. The totals you see for them now has nothing to do with the totals in the past. Once you start to get traction, people check out your past work and those totals rise accordingly. Billie Eilish's first few songs got no attention and only when "Ocean Eyes" went viral did she begin making wave in the alt-pop world. She then got a gig to open for Florence & the Machine and her streaming totals jumped to 20-50 million streams on Spotify. When she later broke out in a big way, they jumped to hundreds of millions to billions of streams. Last time I checked, that early viral song "Ocean Eyes" had gone over 1 billion streams on Spotify. So if Jackie does get a song that gets traction in the alt-pop genre, all her previous songs will rise as well. 3. If Jackie can get a back catalogue of songs that can produce 1,000,000 streams a month on Spotify, she would be making $3,000 a month. That would likely be 1/3 of her total streaming money and that gets you to $9,000 a month. That is $100,000 a year. At that point, you become attractive for commercial purposes such as modeling and social media. You might even get some acting gigs. 4. Since she is moving in an alt-pop direction, she has a lot more musical freedom than mainstream pop artists. The initial singles are for the purpose of having her get identified as alt-pop, so it makes sense to sound like Lana Del Ray, Billie Eilish, etc., so people know how to classify her. If she can be seen as an alt-pop artist, then she can do whatever she wants. Alt-pop basically means pop artists who do not fit into the mainstream. This would include all sorts of influences including jazz, folk, etc., provided it is original music and it is not shmaltzy or overtly playing to the mainstream crowd. This could include everything from punk-pop to swing revival. it's just that at the start she needs to do something that screams "I am now alt-pop" and the easiest way to do that is to do something that follows style points of easily recognized alt-pop artists. This is actually the one genre whose fans not only will accept change but outright encourage it. So if you don't like what she does on the next EP, she could change to something different on the next one. 5. The worries of MP cutting her are rather silly. Although she may not be a big seller yet, neither is anyone else on that label. Alt-pop records are relatively inexpensive to make, they cost next to nothing to upload, and the label doesn't have to pay her until they get the money. If she doesn't stream well, they just won't release physical media until she does. EPs are usually streaming only these days anyway. 6. I would say the key would be to get some exposure by opening for a compatible artist. I still think that is the best thing for a number of reasons: the pressure to bring in the fans is on the lead artist and not Jackie; she is free to perform just her originals and cover songs she wants to sing (perhaps BSN or something else from COT); she can let her hair down, get out of the evening gowns, and relax in jeans and a tank top while performing. I think it would be interesting to see if she will have a less stilted stage persona in clothing she would wear normally. Anyway, that's my two cents for the moment. Thanks a lot for speaking for some of us that have probably had thoughts similar to yours, but were unable to verbalize them as eloquently as you did. We should try to see Jackie as a brand new artist who is just getting started in a very difficult industry. |
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Oct 12, 2023 11:33:52 GMT -5
Of course live is better than cell phone video, but live is also better than professional video aired on TV. Live is better than listening to a CD. There's no comparison to live performances, but people who aren't able to attend live performance still enjoy the videos. She's a second tier star so she "only" makes $15 million from Spotify as opposed to the $50 million for Olivia and [just place in some absurdly high number] for Taylor. How do these poor girls get by? So everyone doesn't get a flat .003 cents per stream, some get paid more? What determines how much they get paid? And what about songwriting? With album sales, the singer gets a cut and so does the songwriter? How does that work with streamingif the singer is covering a song? |
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Oct 12, 2023 11:42:58 GMT -5
She's a second tier star so she "only" makes $15 million from Spotify as opposed to the $50 million for Olivia and [just place in some absurdly high number] for Taylor. How do these poor girls get by? So everyone doesn't get a flat .003 cents per stream, some get paid more? What determines how much they get paid? And what about songwriting? With album sales, the singer gets a cut and so does the songwriter? How does that work with streamingif the singer is covering a song? not correct…even less 0,003 cent per stream |
|
