Danhedonia
Noted duckfat enthusiast
^^^ I'm not entirely sure of that -- I knew some folks who went to Duke, Yale, Harvard, Brown, Bard .... and they were not at the bottom of their classes. But they were the successful ones.
Anyhow, the point I was trying to make that is that, IMO, it's childish (not the good, Billy Childish, either) to think that a business should be serving it's employees' personal needs and/or agendas. Yes, I am quite aware that A&R means helping artists develop, but it also means serving the company's agenda, which is to convert the talent to money.
Artists are the ones who get starry-eyed about fame, sexual and chemical indulgence, artistic recognition, and carefree wealth. I have no objection to someone wanting those things, but to expect it from your business partner is .... well, kinda immature. That's why managers, attorneys, etc.
When I poked around that business, there was a very typical artist attitude that I could simplify (but not unfairly) as "if people like my music, then I deserve those things (see: list above), and it's your job to get them for me!" With the 'you' in the sentence being most people who were making a living by promoting their music.
Apart from the self-centeredness there, a thorny issue is one of valuation: is the labor of promotion people really worthless? A quick check of the approximately 1.5 million artists who bitched about their release "not getting priority" suggests otherwise. Yet, they take the value of that labor for granted.
I'd like to add that I met a shitload of hard, hard working artists, and I have enormous respect for their dedication. It takes a shitload of hard work to create a "Money For Nothing," and I know it.
TLDR: artists have no clue about actual economics and business, and this lack of understanding tends to give them hurt feelers when their sense of entitlement is not fulfilled. This causes resentment by promoters, which often leads to them (correctly, but rather ickily) pointing out how replaceable "talent" is.
Anyhow, the point I was trying to make that is that, IMO, it's childish (not the good, Billy Childish, either) to think that a business should be serving it's employees' personal needs and/or agendas. Yes, I am quite aware that A&R means helping artists develop, but it also means serving the company's agenda, which is to convert the talent to money.
Artists are the ones who get starry-eyed about fame, sexual and chemical indulgence, artistic recognition, and carefree wealth. I have no objection to someone wanting those things, but to expect it from your business partner is .... well, kinda immature. That's why managers, attorneys, etc.
When I poked around that business, there was a very typical artist attitude that I could simplify (but not unfairly) as "if people like my music, then I deserve those things (see: list above), and it's your job to get them for me!" With the 'you' in the sentence being most people who were making a living by promoting their music.
Apart from the self-centeredness there, a thorny issue is one of valuation: is the labor of promotion people really worthless? A quick check of the approximately 1.5 million artists who bitched about their release "not getting priority" suggests otherwise. Yet, they take the value of that labor for granted.
I'd like to add that I met a shitload of hard, hard working artists, and I have enormous respect for their dedication. It takes a shitload of hard work to create a "Money For Nothing," and I know it.
TLDR: artists have no clue about actual economics and business, and this lack of understanding tends to give them hurt feelers when their sense of entitlement is not fulfilled. This causes resentment by promoters, which often leads to them (correctly, but rather ickily) pointing out how replaceable "talent" is.
