I have a friend that is the drummer in a band that had a couple big hits in the 90’s, not going to drop names, but their contemporaries are bands like Collective Soul, Gin Blossoms, that kind of stuff. They have a few gold records. To this day they still tour every year and make enough money off touring and royalties to make a good living. I grew up on punk and thrash metal, so had never heard of his band, so it surprised me how close to 30 years later they still get booked at Disney and on rock cruises, but happy he still gets to keep doing that.
Once you get into a heart of a teen, you remain there for the rest of his life. Many bands well past their peak have a revival of private bookings now, as people who were teens back then become rich people who can book a band for a party.
Interestingly, when I was in school, we were taught that "he" could be used both for male or for gender-neutral usages.
The shift to treating he/him/his as exclusively male seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon (last few decades) as American social progressives sought to change language to be explicitly-inclusive instead of implicitly-inclusive and to avoid confusion due to the context-dependent dual meaning of such words.
1970s - "he" means everyone
1990s - "he/she" means everyone
2020s - "they" means everyone
this is also occurring in a tonne of european languages: german, french, spanish, italian, etc. it's progressives and people who care for others, not just americans.
as is well studies, we know very concretely how language and word usage influences thought (because it is thought, expressed)
As a musician myself, who has also brushed elbows in coming up amongst friends within the industry, one of the most vital skills a musician can learn is that avoiding overexposure is the key to long-term survival, just as much as making great music that endures... I know many artists that were very prominent years ago, but now can barely climb that hill again because of overexposure and huge re-marketing costs, coupled with an ageing fan base.
People who follow trends, and try to sound like others is definitely an indication that their career is short lived, but in this day and age, with the way social media promotion works, too many artists compete to constantly be on trending lists, and that easily burns out audiences on them and their names... It's relatively easy to "look popular" if you dump tons of money into music promotion, and labels love it when an artists dominates online, but that also makes them flood out everyone else, and even more important trending topics than music at times.
There can be a huge backlash for bought popularity, and for promoting yourself as more important than other vital topics people care about in their daily lives, as on social media, there is only one timeline and trending list for everything.
Absence can potentially make the heart grow fonder for listeners towards a music artist when well timed, especially if every time the artist re-emerges they put out consistently great music projects... Modern musicians need to learn how to share the microphone, and social media needs to create a more even playing field for multiple artists to coexist in over time, rather than pushing just 3-7 celebrity artists all of the time... That's the key to longer careers in music in my opinion.
Yeah, one of the things I didn't like about this analysis is that it really didn't do a very good job of differentiating between a band that really is a "one hit wonder" and a band that may only be in the top 40 for a short time but still has a dedicated following and is able to make a good, long career of it.
Take his "prototypical example" of Of Monsters and Men. I am glad that he did mention that the band "has enjoyed continued success since their 2012 breakout", but as a big fan of this band, I'd say they have a really dedicated following. I think in their case they were more of the "quirky band shoots has an immensely mainstream popular single, then goes back to being a quirky band, just with a much bigger following".
Rather than just look at placement in the top 40, which is only going to be songs that have wide applicability and are usually heavily promoted, I think it's more applicable to see how long these folks can have a career in music. As another example, think of someone like Andre 3000. Sure, he may never surpass his fame from Outkast's "Hey Ya" in 2003, but he's been working prominently for 30 years.
There's an entire industry supporting former short-run chart names touring - and often selling out - small/medium venues and playing smaller festivals, nostalgia cruises, and so on.
There's also an entire industry of cover bands and impersonators.
for me this hits hard. I've literally made most of my whole career off one famous song called "Do you like Pina Coladas" (but actually it's called "Escape"). A good number of people know the tune but few could tell you who made it :(
George Thorogood and the Destroyers and others like it are bands that put a lot of hard work into small venue touring but keep on performing into old age. Their big break came when they did their 50/50 in support of the Rolling Stones.
I may have put them in a rung higher than they are, since I didn’t listen to them back when they were big and touring, so I only know them more by who they tour with now, but his band is Sister Hazel.
I'm glad you said who they were. I think the example of Sister Hazel perfectly fits the example I gave in another comment: it wasn't the case with them that they were a one hit wonder that flamed out quickly, but rather that they were a good band that made a lot of music that a lot of people liked, and one of their songs just happened to be a big radio hit.
AFAIK they really only had one song that "everybody" knows, "All for You", that got a ton of airplay. But they still put out a lot of records, they had a good devoted fan base of high school/college kids in the late 90s, and AFAIK are well respected for their music in the industry. Glad to hear they're still performing.
Belatedly coming back to this, but thank you for sharing! I'd not heard that name in a loooonnnngggg time and am currently enjoying the trip down memory lane.
Are they Better Than some of these other bands? Any connection to Ezra Miller?
Why do I think they're Better Than Ezra? Or possibly Candlebox? That feels about right. Probably more Better Than Ezra because Candlebox feels a little out of the Mouse's wheelhouse.
Kind of curious about Tommy Tutone's programming career. It would be cool if he had an HN account!
What's interesting to me is the nostalgia boom for artists who either kept going or reunited, and the crowds now are far larger than what they were back in the day. The Pixies filling a 5000 person venue? Morrissey with a Vegas residency? I don't think either charted on the Billboard Top 40.
I knew a musician who was a star overseas, and during the 90s could regularly sell out large venues. He packed it in after about 10 years. To him it really was a grind, there were diminishing returns as his core audience grew up and moved on, and he was operating in a relatively small market. He ended up doing real estate and business development in a second country where the economy was booming, and had a moderately successful career doing that. He doesn't seem to be interested in performing anymore.
"In 1997, he was hired as Sony's vice president of technical standards; in this capacity, he liaised with competitors and helped to codify nascent industry standards, most notably the Blu-ray Disc"
I remember shopping at record store in Claremont, CA in early 80s and finding all these rare Iggy and the Stooges albums. Clerk says Williamson comes in the store every now and then and brings in more, and that I should check back from time to time. I shrug and think nothing of it. Turns out he was going to nearby Cal Poly Pomona and graduated in 1982 with an EE degree.
Having worked closely with a number of artist that achieved notable level of mainstream success (multiple Billboard Top 40 hits, years of touring) I have to agree with the authors conclusion. Even for those that have successful careers spanning a number of years it's more or less over as soon as it starts. They then spend years chasing what they had but it's near impossible. By the end most end up financially not well off and with little to no career options. It's amazing while it's happening but the candle burns quickly, that being said I doubt many artists would agree.
My friends that have been able to translate it to longer term stability are the ones that got into producing and engineering on top of playing. They'll work with younger artists while also doing their own music and getting called to do session work. The ones that really only focused on playing in their one band and didn't, say, get good at producing/engineering or start a label haven't had the best career options after a certain point.
I somewhat disagree. Many artists who were hot in the early 2000s still put out music, but hardly any media attention anymore and much lower sales by the 4th or so album. The public only has a finite attention span. Rap has gone through so many changes over the past 20 years since his career began yet afik he is still able to put out new material and get a lot of media attention and sales for such an old act.
I'ma let you finish but... Kanye has long been a master of publicity stunts and his music has always been popular (and dare I say it - even as a non-fan - consistently good).
He was doing fine until he (self-admittedly) stopped taking his bipolar medication in 2017, jumped into politics, and supported a group that has almost entirely alienated his fanbase because there's pretty much zero overlap in the demographics. He says he stopped taking them for the sake of his music so maybe he was in a catch 22 situation, but he's gone completely off the rails.
I’m not actually a huge fan of his (I think he’s a weak rapper but admit he has a golden ear for production, not to mention his highly objectionable public outbursts). But to call him an old act seems a bit ignorant, the material he’s continued to put out is a big part of some of the “many changes” seen in hip hop over the years.
This isn't exactly music but an adjacent career: acting.
About 20 years ago, I was in the chorus for a community theater production of La Boheme. The director was a moderately successful Hollywood actor, Ken Tigar, whom you've probably seen:
AFAIK he's never the star, but he continues to get acting gigs, because as someone said about a musician: he shows up, he hits his mark, he doesn't cause any problems for the director. He's a professional, in other words.
So I have a lot of respect for the musician who might or might not have had a hit record, but they know their craft and they take it seriously.
I don't know if this is relevant but your post reminded me of Keith David. I don't know if he's ever been the star but he's been in something like 378 movies
Rarely the intended star, but steals the show regularly, especially with his voice-over work. He's well-known as Goliath's voice in Gargoyles, was pretty much everyone's favorite part of The Princess and the Frog, and recently took a ton of people by (pleasant) surprise with his interpretation of Pluto (Astroboy)'s Dr. Tenma.
When we were doing La Boheme the chorus had the "Ken Tigar film festival!" I rented (this was when there were still video stores) a whole bunch of movies that he'd been in, and just watched his parts.
They really should have an Oscar similar to the "Lifetime Achievement" award, for people like Ken and Keith.
Just one note on Elton John's Cold Heart: its reappearance on the chart was due to a remix that featured the (very current) Dua Lipa [1].
I liken this kind of prolonged success as similary to winning the lottery twice. It happens. But it's a lot more common to only win once.
With music you never really know what's going to resonate with audience. It can be a complete accident. It could be a song being featured in a movie or TV show that completely blows up. It could be used in a Tiktok that goes viral.
There are many enduring artists from the 1960s through 1980s. I'm talking the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Queen, Elton John, Billy Joel, Fleetwood Mac, Prince and so on. In their times they dominated the airwaves in a way that doesn't really exist anymore.
It's a bit like how TV used to be a shared cultural experience because it was broadcast at the same time before streaming. Non 21st century TV show has hit (or will probably ever hit) the kind of numbers you saw from Seinfeld, MASH, Cheers and the like..
Taylor Swift is obviously massive. But she's the outlier among outliers, almost the exception that proves the rule. And even though Taylor Swift has incredibly popular music, she doesn't produce enduring "hits" in the way the aforementioned artists did. Will current music have the same cultural power in 50 years that Bohemian Rhapsody or Billie Jean?
My thesis is that we don't have the same shared cultural experiences anymore because of the Internet and I suspect this will make the likely duration of a music artist even shorter.
>It's a bit like how TV used to be a shared cultural experience because it was broadcast at the same time before streaming. Non 21st century TV show has hit (or will probably ever hit) the kind of numbers you saw from Seinfeld, MASH, Cheers and the like..
I couldn't even name current scripted network/basic cable shows unless it's something that has been around forever and I assume is still on.
I know the major networks--and a number of the basic cable channels--but I couldn't tell you the network news anchors or Sunday morning talk show hosts any longer which I'd probably have considered something of a cultural failing at one point.
Elton John is well known for doing duets and networking with upcoming stars. It's one way he stays relevant, and he said in an interview it's a way for him to give back. He often showcases new stars when he's on tour.
It's a good theory, but I dunno, I think these things are mostly decided by the younger generation. I don't know if Tyler the Creator, Post Malone, or Dua Lipa or whoever will still be relevant in 50 years. Queen and MJ obviously some of the most talented music artists of all time so quite tough to say who in this decade or whatever will live up to that kind of high reputation.
One thing that's worth noting is we don't really have any new genres to master. It's usually the best songs and artists of a newer genre or subgenre that we elevate to all time greats.
I think Queen had pretty much faded by the 80’s, there were a couple of songs that you’d hear (we will rock you), but they weren’t high profile at all compared to others you’d hear on a classic rock station.
Until Wayne’s World. That catapulted them back into a new generation outside of just a couple of songs.
Then they got another kick with Adam Lambert, and they’ve been higher profile since. (Though personally, I think Night at the Hip Hopera probably did something for them too)
This realization is what made me get my life together. I recognized that striving for success as an artist requires you to abandon the rest of your life while counting on being an outlier, and no rational person would bet their life on that.
I still make art and I still swing for the fences sometimes, but I decided not to starve and my life is all the better for it.
> Using this "cross-verified database," we find that music stars have one of the shortest lifespans of any profession, with an expectancy comparable to boxers, military figures, and race car drivers.
Although according to the chart directly below, the life expectancy is more comparable to chess players and poets. Probably isn't as fun a sentence to write though.
Disagree. A profession lasts for how much time you receive money for your activity. Music stars receive money for their songs during their entire lives (and part of the lives of their children).
depends how much you receive. If they receive the same amount of money you might expect someone to get if they are picking up cans they see laying about and recycling them then I don't think it really applies as a profession.
Waiting for the yearly royalties of your songs is different than picking cans because it don't require any effort. All free money is still money. And in the long term still would be much more that a scientist receives for publishing an article.
Stardom duration is also relative as you are always losing fans and earning new fans. Is more like an echo machine. A good videoclip is paid once but the people will want to watch it for decades.
>Waiting for the yearly royalties of your songs is different than picking cans because it don't require any effort.
is this one of those xkcd mentos moments here? You are not familiar with any situations where artists have been screwed out of royalties, underpaid, lied to etc. and have to spend time with lawyers to get their loyalties.
Given the well known financial reporting patterns of the various media industries any artist who does not put any effort into getting their royalties is an artist who essentially does not get their royalties.
>Stardom duration is also relative as you are always losing fans and earning new fans.
I mean you are saying these things but they seem to go against the data in this study as well as the data provided by people who also make references to their experience in the relevant industries - do you have any data and or experience to back this up or are these just your opinions of how it must work based on reasoning about the problem using nothing but logic to derive a conclusion?
Because I too would expect it works the way you say, but I would default to expertise of others who say no you are misinformed about how the situation is in our industry - discounting outliers like Taylor Swift.
Insightful article, music celebrity is fascinating.
I have a musically-gifted friend in her twenties who got a full-time job singing and playing in a band in a live-music nightclub, she's the only musician I've met who plays music for a living, without a non-music side gig. Her own band has never toured and has a tiny instagram presence, she seems happy with that.
I have a friend who has been a working musician with no side gig for over 20 years. He makes money in a wide variety of small band types (pipe & drums for funerals and parades, Jimmy Buffet cover bands for festivals, jazz groups for events, etc).
What I take from his experience is that the things that make him successful are the same as many other jobs. He’s dependable, competent, on time and has a large professional network.
It's kind of cruelly ironic that a jobber artist needs to be very strong on "business qualities", while the stereotype is that artists are bad at those things.
that's good to hear! I always wonder when I see a band playing a live gig how they're doing. My friend's bandmates are very creative, but struggle with the professionalism part.
I know of atleast three software engineers who quit programming to pursue music fulltime.
This lady[1] got a Computer Science degree from UC Berkeley, as even an intern at one of the faangs I believe. Quit the whole thing and caught a flight to India. She's sung about 100 songs now and is quite famous.
This guy[2] got a Computer Science degree and worked as a Visual Basic programmer. Also wrote some FoxPro and Clipper code. Was working at Leading Edge in those days. Quit software and started singing. Has sung over 7000 songs. Very rich, 9 figures.
This guy[3] got a PhD in Computer Science and wrote an algorithm to reduce non-standard matrices to approx Hermite Normal. Wrote a bunch of NLP papers, even published in a pure math journal! Then quit software and started writing songs. Has written over 1000 songs now. Very busy songwriter.
i grew up around a lot of Indians - I was always jealous of how engrained being good at a musical instrument is within the culture. And the lineage of master to student presented with great importance before every Carnatic performance i've watched.
Much of the article really focuses on (more or less) "one hit wonders."
However the intro on music biopics really hits home. It's not even just music. I find a lot of biopics suffer from fairly predictable story arcs that are constrained by the subject's actual trajectory while often not being that true to life.
This feels like a question that would really benefit from talking to some musicians, instead of basing your framing on biopics and data. Some musicians are in it to be rich and famous, and become computer programmers when riches and fame leave the picture, but most of them are musicians because they like writing and playing music more than anything else. I'd bet that Of Monsters and Men is perfectly happy to make an okay living off of their remaining fanbase, because they still get to tour and make new albums. They might be even happier about it if they could get a second hit, but there are so many musicians who have never had a breakthrough hit, who make a happy living opening for other bands, meager royalties, Patreons, etc. Basically, this post assumes a causal link between chart success and life satisfaction that probably doesn't exist.
I think this is very interesting about Billboard Top 100 artists, however there are TONS of artists and bands that have never cracked the Billboard Top 100 yet have been making music and doing live shows for years/decades successfully. I would guess/assume that these artists vastly outweigh the # of artists who have had a Top 100 song or album.
While I'm sure most artists would love to have a Top 100 album or song and the associated wealth it brings, I feel many would also love continuing to create music and tour on it while making a decent living for years. Leaving out these artists in the discussion I feel skews the point of the article.
I think most musicians "have been making music and doing live shows for years/decades successfully" don't actually make sufficient money to live but rather do it as a hobby (my only reference is living in a tourist town and knowing a few local musicians).
I believe the only working professional musicians out there are basically working for the film, video game or music (as session musicians) industries making music to order (plus some professional teachers).
All you need is a small and loyal fanbase to make a living with touring and merch , plus you keep a greater % of revenue instead of the manager taking it
I've heard the claim you have a whole new crop of musicians making reasonable money with tours and Patreon. I'm skeptical - any references for how many.
It's a bit different but I watch a lot of D&D advice youtube channels. The single most popular of them (the entertaining Ginnie D) can make a bare living at it but nearly everyone else has a day job. It's hard to believe the situation for musicians would have a different distribution of results (money made from fame just naturally follows a Pareto distribution).
I don't know if it is really comparable. I listen to a lot of music, if any of my top 50 favorite musicians tour in my city, I don't hesitate to pay 50 quid for a ticket. For some I am willing to fly out. If Spotify didn't exist, I'd have bought many albums.
But I can hardly think of a YT channel I like enough to pay money. I guess I bought a couple of online courses made by relatively popular YT creators, but that's about it.
Billboard Top 40 is a poor measure of "stardom lasting." "Money earned" would be a better one.
If they can get a steady residence in Vegas or Branson, or play the state fair circuit, they're still getting decent money.
Other stars managed to move into producing or guesting on other people's records.
Norman Greenbaum lived off "Spirit in the Sky" for many, many years.
> "Rock 'n' roll is a young man's game"
That's why Taylor Swift credits herself as co-writer of songs that other people write for her. That way she gets some the publishing royalties, which last a long time. "Change a word, get a third."
I wonder if "money earned" correlates super well. The amount of money available and the way music was pushed might have favored a few groups represented by big record labels.
Nowadays with streaming and algorithms I wonder where the money goes and if it makes it to artists in the same uneven way.
I know plenty of people who went for it. Had fun. Some went on to become programmers even when it was all over.
Doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing, rise-and-fall type of story. Aiming for hits is a sure fire way to burn out.
Even in programming, maths, making video games, films, books… don’t compare yourself to others and don’t look at the stats and think, why bother?
As long as you’re surviving and not throwing away your life or those lives that depend on you or care about you… just make music. Doesn’t have to be top 40. Just make the stuff you like and as much of it as you want.
I watched The Beach Boys live at county fair a few years ago, which it was the official band but basically a cover band since most of the originals had moved on or passed on. The main headliner Beach Boy actually talked about why he was still on tour, like he mentioned that he drove a Bentley...he wanted to maintain the style of living that he had become accustomed to.
Certain musicians/bands can be even more successful even if they're not at the top of the charts anymore, like multiple bands make more money now on tour than they did when they charted. I kind of disagree with the premise due to this in that you can be more successful not charting new songs, but touring with past hits to your now more-affluent fan base. The Rolling Stones for instance have a lifetime tour gross of over $2B. I think it's like the ultimate musician longevity plan where if you have one or more iconic songs that are part of culture, you can make a good living touring for as long as you're willing and able to tour, perhaps even making more touring your hits than when you were charting.
I think ti mantain longevity for decades requires being a generational artist. It's not also about performing well, but having an certain kind of taste that can hook newer generations (while also competeting with those generations rising stars).
I can't really think of any artists who really enjoy multi-generational, mainstream, success. Maybe Beyonce?
I think Taylor Swift is on track, but I'm not sure she's old enough yet. She's arguably in her early 30s, while Beyonce is 42. I'm sure Taylor Swift will still have multiple hit records in her 40s, but currently I think it's rare.
You might be right from with Trent Reznor - Pretty Hate Machine dropped when he was was 24 and With Teeth went Gold when he was 40. This is roughly the same as Beyonce current longevity (Cowboy Carter, Beyonces latest album, which she released at age 42, has also only gone Gold)
I suppose it depends what you mean by "success". Metallica, G'n'R, AC/DC etc can still sell out arenas, even if their latest album sales aren't great (comparative to earlier success).
This assumption might be wrong, but it's my understanding that Metallica, GnR, and other hard rock/metal bands, while successful, are aging with their audience, which is mean by being generational. Beyonce has penetrated both 19 year olds and 45 year olds demographics with great success. I'm not sure I can say the same about Metallica.
One of the interesting things about music since the advent of streaming is that it's far less segregated by time of release. Anecdotally, I know 18yo kids into metal who are as likely to listen to Metallica or AC/DC as they are a current-generation metal artist. I don't think there's anywhere near as much of a currency bias as there was ~30 years ago.
More anecdotes: the crowds at metal shows I've been to are quite diverse age-wise - from ~15 to ~65. The demographics don't seem to change that much with the band playing, except that that's less older people for the really heavy bands (Cattle Decapitation comes to mind).
on the flip side, improvised instrumental music (which has relatively no market or fame) is kind of the opposite- the top dogs basically stay there their whole life. but thats in terms of status, not money, which is mosty nonexistent.
Yes, I am reading James Kaplan's 3 Shades of Blue which tells the biographical story of the main players on Miles Davis's Kind of Blue. It is almost shocking, even though I knew, how impoverished these musicians were even though they were widely acknowledged to be at the top of the art form. Miles did ok financially but most of his peers did not. And yet people still listen to Kind of Blue 70 years later (and hardly anyone listens to modern jazz).
Top jam bands do quite well, but most are not played on the radio. Phish, Dave Matthews, Dead and Company. Up-and-comers Billy Strings and Goose appear to be following the pattern. But like many things content-wise, the outliers get the majority of the money. These are the outliers.
I came to the realization a bit ago that musical stardom is essentially a finishing school for a personal brand. Most of the extremely successful artists seem to use their career as a springboard to some other venture; your time touring and putting out albums is more about networking and showing that you're dynamic, poised, attractive, etc. Basically, that you're qualified to be the "face" of something else. If you don't seize that once-in-a-lifetime marketing opportunity... Well, it's once-in-a-lifetime. You should essentially have some plan ready to go the moment you realize your name is on everyone's lips. Fashion partnership, acting gig, merchandising deal, something.
I'm surprised to read so many comments that think a 'natural' phenomenon is being described. As with famous actors, it seems to me that certain faces are heavily promoted for some reason, and others are not. Certain people get endless publicity. The attention they get from the public is due to time they are gifted on TV, in newspapers - its not a natural phenomenon.
Eg Elton John and Madonna have got some good songs, but are they that good to merit the limelight they are given for so many years? And if you take anyone really, but give them access to the best producers and musicians etc, surely you will come up with lots of hits that would be associated with that act, even though the talent is in the group?
I think they're talented, but they got their rise in a time when social mobility was generally easier. Once entrenched in popular culture, it becomes a matter of maintaining momentum. Digital music production has democratized discoverability, while people's attention spans remain the same.
There's the 'long tail' aspect to ephemeral stardom and what people get from it. Most musicians I know (and I know a lot from the local music scene) want foremost to perform. Money and fame would be really great, but getting up in front of an audience is what they most want to do.
A lot of 80's and 90's bands come through the 200-500 cap venues where I mostly work. People like Midge Ure, Nik Kershaw. They're still happily performing and touring despite (as far as I know) not being in Billboard top 100 for some time (tm)
So the fact of having been super-famous once and then not again is probably disappointing but not crushing, and no reason for other people not to try for the 15 minutes of fame
> Throughout this analysis, I couldn't help but wonder why anyone would aspire to become a mainstream music star—to achieve professional success that bears a near-immediate expiration date.
I think this quote demonstrates that the author hasn't really understood what they're writing about. Many musicians (especially those that have only one hit, or even no hits at all) simply make music because it's what they love to do. If enough people are interested in them for them to be able to make a living out of it, that's enough "professional success" for them. That's the reason why many bands stay together (or artists stay active) for decades after they had a top 40 hit. If they were just chasing stardom, they would have probably given up after a few years. For example, this band I went to see a few weeks ago in Cologne: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INiKwU2JPF0 (the concert recording is not mine) - they were pretty big stars in the nineties with two hit albums (and a James Bond title track), then had two less successful ones, had a fallout with their record company, went on hiatus, then reformed in 2012 (with the original lineup!) and since then had three more albums (recorded in their own studio, published by their own record label) which were critically pretty well received, with a fourth one apparently on the way. Most people probably don't even know they're still around (or rather, around again), but as long as their loyal fans keep listening to their music and going to their concerts, they're happy...
> I couldn't help but wonder why anyone would aspire to become a mainstream music star
Perhaps the author should check out the song with the lyrics "money for nothing and chics for free." Quite a number of musicians are open about being in a band makes for easy sex.
I think you're missing an enormous part of being a musical act if you're only looking at Billboard chart placement. My wife and I have made a hobby of going to concerts and festivals for the past few years. Just in the last three years, we've seen KMFDM and NIN multiple times, Tool, Madonna, Judas Priest, Kreator, Queensryche, Slowdive, Echo and the Bunnymen, Metallica, Dead Kennedys, Social Distortion, Bad Religion, Rob Zombie, Alice Cooper, Filter, New Order, Ministry like five times. We've got Slayer, Weezer, and Flaming Lips coming up in the next couple months. I have pretty badly wanted to see Massive Attack, Juno Reactor, and Spiritualized, but their tours never hit the US.
Some of these were multi-generational megastars. Some of them charted once or twice 30+ years ago. Some of them never charted at all. All of them have devoted fanbases and they sell out venues. Some of these are 80,000 seat arenas, some are small clubs with standing room only, but they're all enough to sustain the band for decades.
You don't need to be on the Billboard top 100 to make a living. A whole lot of fans continue to be fans and will love you their entire lives regardless of whether a single one of your songs hits the mainstream ever again or even if you don't release new material at all. KMFDM thankfully does release new stuff damn near all the time (now 40 years of conceptual continuity), but my wife and I met at one of their shows. We've gone to see them every single time they come within 100 miles of us ever since and we always will. They're a far more important part of our identities than Icona Pop is to the casual radio listeners that sung along to their one popular song for a summer and then forgot about them.
this is why the arts are underrated when people try to show charts of how 'STEM people' earn more. Yes, they earn more initially, but the humanities and the arts have the benefits of residuals, branding, and legacy. A top -40 hit can generate $ forever. Same for a book.
A friend of mine is a wonderful musician who never “made it”, but continues to play bars and restaurants and small venues weekly, as he has for 30+ years. He’s done some session work as well.
Another friend said he feels bad for him because he never lucked into greater fame, but he’s too good to give it up.
As long as he’s happy performing, I don’t see this as a bad thing. I can go see him perform regularly, he seems happy, he has a dedicated local following.
Like most everything else, "success" falls under the Pareto Principle (aka 80/20 rule). That is, unicorns are rare and most are (naturally) bunched around the middle of the curve.
People knock one-hit wonders but that's not easy. Any band with longevity was at one time with only one-hit in hand.
Get that "hit" (product). Figure it out from there.
Since mu is 28, and 13 is the min, you have 28-13=15 = 3*5, which makes sigma 5, so use rnorm(n,28,25) to generate n samples from the gaussian.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mlwm7mke16
I think in practice these are both only second-order effects, as the uncertainty of the future*, acting as a low-pass filter, tends to force a bit of Kantian Categorical Imperative on most actors.
Erich Honecker was taking a tour of East German institutions. Shown the mental institution, he said "increase their budget by 5 million marks". Shown the jail, he said "increase their budget by 10 million marks". Shown a few kindergardens, he said "increase their budget by a thousand marks".
— But, Chairman Honecker, why so little, when you gave so much to the others?
— Do I look like a Depp to you? What are the odds I'm going to wind up in a kindergarten?
Don't worry it's just the adrenalin.. the terror will come to me soon, you can bet on it, I shall prostrate and undignify myself and fugget abt it all lol
> It is not our claim that this will always happen, but the fact that it can is alarming enough.
Looking at the game in §2.1, I don't find their construction very "generic": small alterations along many axes remove the paradox.
(Upon a little reflection, insurance is the most likely place these kinds of payoffs would occur, and we already have reasonable tactics for dealing with that)
:: :: ::
[Postscript: if you find yourself constantly accompanied by Phobos and Deimos, you are either:
(a) Mars (either the god or the planet), in which case, carry on, or
(b) probably better served by discussion with a professional, rather than our motley crew of dabblers and blowhards here, or
(c) confusing me by making statements which read too much into, or
(d) something outside my impromptu case analysis?
That said, if you wanted the opinions of a geek pontificating on things they know little about, I have written here about the value I've found in staying out of the amygdala and staying in the cortex when in stressful situations.]
This is kinda bullshit. He’s basing everything in his “analysis” on having a “hit.” There are many working musicians who sell seats and make a good living, and many stars who have toured their way to success without ever having a Billboard hit.
This applies to any ultra-bright success and not just music, no?
I was briefly a "star" in silicon valley for a project I did. Random people at conferences knew who I was and would smile when they met me. But the years roll by and despite a nice career, I understand that work is now forgotten and my (real) name will never be in the press again.
It sounds like you still had a day job independent of it. It's probably a great highlight on your resume that is celebrated when brought up and opens doors.
For most artists, this kind of fame sustains the day job. Loss of fame means loss of royalties, tours income, etc. We even have a somewhat derisive name for it: the one-hit wonder.
I marvel at the one-hit wonders who pivot into behind-the-scenes mega success.
Linda Perry is a top example. Had a minor early-90s hit with 4 Non Blondes What's Going On (title is actually "What's Up?"). Then exited the spotlight and became a songwriter and producer with major hits like Christina Aguilera's "Beautiful."
Or Ashton Kutcher, who parlayed earnings from his Kelso role (plus a few forgotten movies) into an gigantic pile of money courtesy of angel investing in Twitter and more.
