The future of the music business, at least according to this Reuter's article about Eminem's new album, is all pinned on Mr. Mathers.
Wow. The future of the entire music business is pinned on one of, if not the most, controversial rappers to hit the scene.
What does this tell you about the state of not just the music industry, but where we are as a country?
The answer I often get to similar questions when I ask people is that rap is just a big genre of music and is "the most popular" of our generation. Never mind the fact that in 2009 country music grew more than any other genre. In fact, there were many industry analysts who pointed out that the growth seen last year (in part due to the rise of Taylor Swift) was quite similar to the early 1990's when Garth Brooks began hitting his superstar-stride. That is not meant to slight the growth and influence of hip hop. Country music just had a bigger year in 2009 over other genres.
What it tells me is a slightly different story - or more accurately, several stories. I've actually been working on a book that covers these issues, but today's post will just cover some of the surface.
First, it is laughable that an entire industry rests on the shoulders of a former (prescription) drug addict (who may/may not still smoke pot) that has some serious family baggage and other issues, I'm sure. In his defense, I have my own issues. So do you. This isn't about Eminem's issues. The first point here is that Reuters has moved from news reporting to editorializing but makes a sorry attempt at riding that line of reporting and editorializing by referencing a couple of national organizations like PriceWaterhouseCooper, Universal / Interscope Records and others. It stops short, however of actually referencing specific people or reports in its article.
As it relates to actual substance in its article, Reuters is about as deep as teeny-bopper pop music.
Let's not forget that the other major label groups (Warner Brothers, EMI and SONY) would likely take a little offense to the idea that somehow an artist with another label has the ability to magically transform music and tour sales for their rosters. It's a very misguided view the Reuters writer possesses.
What Reuters understands, however, is its very weakness. It has zero influence, or nominal influence at best. It simply provides information. By running this article, they key in on something that the philosopher Plato said, "give me the songs of a nation and it matters not who makes its laws."
Music moves people, not news. Plato, who lived roughly from 427 B.C. to 347 B.C., figured this out...a long time ago. As my friend Mike Stoudt so eloquently and amusingly stated, "and think about it. All they had back then were lutes." Funny. True.
Music, and how it is distributed, is a very serious business, aside from the financial aspect that the industry represents. Why else do you think Reuters would be putting an article like this out. Socially and politically, music has the power to move a country this way or that. That was very evident by the "Yes We Can" video anchored by Wil I. Am of the Black Eyed Peas and featuring several other celebrities. The star power in that and its related videos are impressive. It showed Plato's point. The music influenced who became Lawmaker-In-Chief (a.k.a. President of the United States of America). Obama had the popular vote in the 2008 election. Music helped.
An amazing song called "The Sound" from Switchfoot, inspired by John M. Perkins, has the kind of lyrical conscience typically attributed to U2. How I know I'm not the only person who understands the power of music...watch the last thirty seconds of the video for "The Sound" and you'll see. You should watch the whole thing. Cool video, great song. Strong words at the end.
My point in all of this is that the influence of music is huge. Sorry, huge is an understatement. Its influence is so great that I'm not sure it could actually be measured. The business side is easily measured by quarterly results of those publicly held companies. Yet, the massive ripple of music's push through society is almost incomprehensible. There are social and political ramifications of what comes from the music business.
As New York Times Best Selling Author John Maxwell says, "Leadership is influence." If music influences society, thereby influencing who the politicians are and the subsequent laws they write, then I must ask this question.
Who is influencing the influencers?
Monday, June 21, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Going live in 5, 4, 3,....
The live event business has been suffering the last couple of years. No surprise why.
Where I think some of this could have changed is with some of the companies that have still been operating in the black, can afford to do their events, but are afraid of the bad press they might get for such "lavish" spending in such a bad economy.
Why should a company that can afford to continue their events be penalized for so many other companies inability to remain solvent or have a more fiscally responsible business model.
The live event business (corporate events side addressed here) hasn't gone away. Thankfully, it has actually grown a bit the last few months. Trending seems to show that many companies are actually starting to step up and take the attitude of "It's not our fault your company is in the red. Ours isn't. We're going to do events again." This all causes me to remain hopeful of the rebirth of some old business and the launch of some other new events to produce this year.
The idea of pushing forward as a company to do your event shows true leadership. It shows others in your own industry that you're going to push forward. It shows a commitment to continued growth as an organization. At the very least it says, "Hey! We're still here and we're rocking, even if our competition is not!" That type of leadership also has the opportunity to help the sales teams for those companies to close deals. It tells their customers who is around and who is successful. People like to work with successful people.
I love this part of what my company does. The events are always filled with a lot of excitement. We get to make new friendships and it always feels like a family reunion when we see each other every 6 or 12 months.
Where I think some of this could have changed is with some of the companies that have still been operating in the black, can afford to do their events, but are afraid of the bad press they might get for such "lavish" spending in such a bad economy.
Why should a company that can afford to continue their events be penalized for so many other companies inability to remain solvent or have a more fiscally responsible business model.
The live event business (corporate events side addressed here) hasn't gone away. Thankfully, it has actually grown a bit the last few months. Trending seems to show that many companies are actually starting to step up and take the attitude of "It's not our fault your company is in the red. Ours isn't. We're going to do events again." This all causes me to remain hopeful of the rebirth of some old business and the launch of some other new events to produce this year.
The idea of pushing forward as a company to do your event shows true leadership. It shows others in your own industry that you're going to push forward. It shows a commitment to continued growth as an organization. At the very least it says, "Hey! We're still here and we're rocking, even if our competition is not!" That type of leadership also has the opportunity to help the sales teams for those companies to close deals. It tells their customers who is around and who is successful. People like to work with successful people.
I love this part of what my company does. The events are always filled with a lot of excitement. We get to make new friendships and it always feels like a family reunion when we see each other every 6 or 12 months.
Labels:
bucking media trends,
corporate events,
live events
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)