smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Sam Smith <sam@lullabypit.com> |
| Subject | Re: Richest band? |
| Date | Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:40:03 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (1.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
It's never this simple, though. Yeah, if the audiences were beating down
the gates the industry would respond, but we know certain things about
popular culture audiences. By and large, they're not going to think
somebody is an icon if the industry and press don't treat that person
like an icon.
It's kind of like it is with elections. You know candidate A isn't a
serious candidate because the evening news never mentions him. And the
news, of course, can't be expected to cover people with no poll numbers.
Sorry...I blame the audiences. I don't see the Foo Fighters or Green
Day or My Chemical Romance making the top dollars. Why? Because
audiences haven't turned them into icons with their purchasing
dollars. They're either going to safe standbys like The Stones &
Madonna or flocking to safe newbies like Nickelback and Dave
Matthews. The labels aren't the ones putting the acts on tour. The
labels aren't the ones making people go (or not) to rock shows. Who
determines what acts draw the biggest at concerts? The promoters who
gauge audience supply and demand and therefore audiences themselves
for attending. It isn't about the music...or who's getting the push
from their label...it's about audience (lack of) taste.
If 45,000 people showed up outside the Whiskey A-Go-Go one night to
see a sneak preview show by, say, Fountains of Wayne or Sugar Ray or
Weird Al you can bet there'd be a promoter making these acts into
stadium fodder the very next day...at $150 a seat.
--
_______________________
Sam Smith
[TABLE NOT SHOWN]
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.