"how does a musical act referring to "their brand" make you feel?" Mon Aug-11-14 08:28 PM by febreeze
for me it's basically the full realization of corporations successfully introducing the financial concept of lessening "risk" and applying it to artistic mediums such as american music & film.
when the "artists" themselves are espousing marketing terminology in reference to their own "art".
that's a pretty solid indicator to let you know their music completely sucks based on their aversion to... taking risks.
hence, my post 1-2 years ago (deleted because obv too hot for the lesson) questioning if music could still genuinely be considered a form of expression anymore.
i know we've grown acclimated to this sort of thing... but put this into perspective.
this an interview between a young (<30) rapper and the wall street fucking journal, not about music but about the business and monetizatin of his music.
one of the key topics: walking back on your lyrics because it might hurt your future earning potential.
2. "RE: submitted for your amusement:" In response to Reply # 1
what do you mean, and what is it that you're asking?
is it the fault of the said artist that they're referring to themselves as a brand when the climate of the market itself has turned people, music and art into a "product."
16. "RE: thanks for hollering back." In response to Reply # 3 Tue Aug-12-14 08:24 AM by iHoller
how do you personally feel when a musical act refers to his or herself's personal "brand"? it makes me question the substance of that musical "act." or to know to at least make sure not to hold it in the same esteem as those i deem to be more than a brand. brand is more synonymous with style. substance is the art itself. substance = purity, raw. brand=cut
i don't like it but i understand.
do you cringe in revilement? i used to more than i do now. it's kinda like how women tend to be referred to in hip hop. i don't necessarily agree with it, but i understand why it's done. do you nod to yourself in silent approval? see last response.
what do you make of this relatively new occurrence? it's the internet and broken business model's fault.
i shared my own thoughts and i included a clip to re-enforce my stance; but it's not about me.
how do you feel about it? music used to be about the art and THEN making money. now it's just a big political election. and most of the time it is won by the person with a better campaign.
MUSIC business. not music BUSINESS. music should come first,
"but people like shiny." and "nice guys finish last..." most of the time.
4. "Of all the artists I fucks with" In response to Reply # 0
I've only really heard it from The Roots and actually came to accept that as a fact before hearing them say it. The interesting thing is that they've utilized that brand to do things which fall more out of what the original brand was. Go figure.
Other artists don't say it but have shown how branding has shaped their careers in the music. So many electronic artists do soundtrack and licensing work and you can hear that. I mena labels foster that because they get rights for licensing and then scour their catalog to put together sync compilations to sell the artists to the brands. Artists that comply start getting checks from sync deals they didn't even realize they earned and then start makign the music for those but rather than separating that as their sync work release it under their brand.
I think in those situations the best ones draw the line. I was kind of disappointed to see Two Fingers listed as the theme music for Orphan Black, but then remembered that it is kind of an alias. But the alias previously featured a rapper and now it was doing gneeric theme music, good mind you but not up to par of the artist himself. Though it did again make the last Two Fingers release which was a watered down version of where they started from, make complete sense. Meanwhile their main brand is still touring the globe on some more out experimental shit.
But I think you're probably talking about artists you don't like in the first place right?
8. "I'm so pissed at Trinidad James parlaying his brand to other endeavors!!" In response to Reply # 7 Tue Aug-12-14 12:34 AM by imcvspl
Dumb ass labels should have never made that couple mil off his flash in the pan ass one year and used him as a write-off the next year because even though that's how the labels do business, it's wrong because I don't like it. It just makes me so angry that his no talent as was able to use this whole 'brand' thing towards something he actually cared about at the expense of my ears which had to suffer because I don't know how to ignore music I don't like.
9. "i think you're focusing too heavily on "branding" as "diversification"." In response to Reply # 8 Tue Aug-12-14 12:57 AM by febreeze
while "branding" certainly can allow for exponential growth through diversifying a cachet of other "businesses" based off an initial success found in music (roc-a-wear as one notable example); they aren't necessarily the same thing or was it the point i was making in the OP.
how do you feel about a musical act, proven or unproven, operating or viewing them self as a "brand"... and explicitly referring to themselves as such... (very trendy) and presumably guiding their artistry and career choices based on a similar type of "risk management" corporations and other entities employ in free enterprise? ...whether they ultimately have plans of diversification or not.
when a musical act simply refers to "their brand" nowadays, how do you feel about it? what does it inherently speak to or suggest about that act and how they view their "art"?
is it "avant-garde" artistry or the complete and utter opposite?
12. "the 'brand' ish came with the rise of social media" In response to Reply # 9
literally everyone on facebook/twitter etc. is trying to manage their brand. you can go on one of them right now and find someone talking about themselves as a brand. this is the new normal.
i mean at the end of the day labels have been branding artists since forever, should we be mad at artists at least nominally owning up to their own brnad. they are more or less laying their labels expectations of them on the table. that's what they got into this shit for because that's how the industry was branded to them. it's ouroboros type shit which is either you focus on or ignore until it has some relevancy to your actual listening habits.
you call it trendy. i'm not so I don't keep up on who said what about their brand. i notice it when it affects my listening. otherwise it's about as hot air as folks talking about their movements in the 90's and 00's.
13. "again..." In response to Reply # 12 Tue Aug-12-14 01:51 AM by febreeze
when an "artist" adopts a "branding" mentality esp. openly in discussing their own "art", have they not almost entirely surrendered the concept of being an "artist"?
it's one thing for an artist to be censored by "powers that be", but when the artist them self bite their own tongue to consciously preserve their "brand"?
imo, it's offensive to the listeners intelligence at the very least.
when supposedly "artistic" people nowadays start talking about "their brand" - it's usually a pretty good indicator that they absolutely suck at what they do.
i mean the mere act of discussing or admitting something like that openly used to be totally unacceptable coming from an "artist".
11. "because "risk" in artistic mediums..." In response to Reply # 10 Tue Aug-12-14 01:28 AM by febreeze
is literally behind driving every innovation and change there has been.
anything "new" comes with a degree of risk attached.
the risk that the "new" idea is untested and won't satisfy. the risk that the "new" ideas might not be executed in a way so that it resonates with an audience on any significant level. the risk that said material will not be lucrative as a result of these things.
anything "challenging" whether it be performance or potentially the material composed has different kinds of "risk" involved.
in fact, i theorized in another thread that the risk of failure itself was the innate human drawing power in a physical performance.
when you attempt to hedge music or films through broadening the common denominator, homogeneity or a poor evocation of some previously successful "staple": imo, you actually end up doing the opposite of what you've set out to do.
running a normal business that way is one thing. but running "artistic" output with that mentality is something completely different. and it's a mentality that didn't exist in the entertainment industry to the degree it does now before the late-90's. the proof of that is evident, as is the recessing financial returns in applying shrewd business concepts to "art".
"risk" has been responsible for most of the greatest grossing music and films in american entertainment history. but at the very least, the most provocative and critically-acclaimed. the same "risks" that have been retracted in contemporary times in an attempt to maximize monetization and capturing market share.
piracy is one thing; but perhaps another major cause why the purchasing power of contemporary music is in the toilet?
17. "RE: because "risk" in artistic mediums..." In response to Reply # 11
>is literally behind driving every innovation and change there >has been.
But "change" is something different than "sucks." Now you seem to be valuing change for change's sake.
>anything "new" comes with a degree of risk attached. > >the risk that the "new" idea is untested and won't satisfy. >the risk that the "new" ideas might not be executed in a way >so that it resonates with an audience on any significant >level. >the risk that said material will not be lucrative as a result >of these things.
And one can find countless examples of artists whose inability to change or find something new killed their careers. Releasing the same music over and again = commercial death, in most cases.
>anything "challenging" whether it be performance or >potentially the material composed has different kinds of >"risk" involved.
But there's all sorts of challenging music out there, and all of it more available than ever before. Are you choosing to not find it? What body of music are we then discussing? Just what's played on commercial radio?
>when you attempt to hedge music or films through broadening >the common denominator, homogeneity or a poor evocation of >some previously successful "staple": >imo, you actually end up doing the opposite of what you've set >out to do.
Example?
>running a normal business that way is one thing. >but running "artistic" output with that mentality is something >completely different. >and it's a mentality that didn't exist in the entertainment >industry to the degree it does now before the late-90's.
Bullshit. How old are you?
>piracy is one thing; but perhaps another major cause why the >purchasing power of contemporary music is in the toilet?
14. "It depends where, and in what context, I hear them say it." In response to Reply # 0
If I hear them speak about their brand in a personal conversation, I don't have a problem with it at all. If I hear them speaking about it in an interview, and they're speaking about how they're trying to be successful in their careers, how to fine tune their image, or how to connect with people outside of their music, then I don't really have a problem with it there, either.
Only times I really dislike it is when they're either talking about their brand to 1.) brag about themselves, or 2.) when they're actually talking about attention to their "brand" being involved in the actual creation of their music. That's not to say that I hate if the brand comes up in their creative process, especially if the brand is actually consistent with who they are, but I don't like to hear the marketing/corporate language used when someone is actually talking about their art.
15. "five years ago it was soul-crushingly depressing." In response to Reply # 0
today, I've more or less accepted as a reality of the business as it exists and even use it myself... but I find it impossible to talk about "brands" without the insulation of sarcastic finger quotes.
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous and it is a tacit admission that everything sucks. And I agree about the risk-aversion thing.
18. "it makes me take the artist less seriously, frankly" In response to Reply # 0
i see the value in artists building a brand, there's nothing wrong w/ that essentially...they have to engage in commerce to keep making music
but i would think serious artists' brands would be based on their actual art
therefore if an artist is literally *talking* about their brand or their marketing as an actual means of selling you on their art? that reeks of capitalist "cannibalism" & turns me off immediately
rappers like Jay Z have commodofied the image of Rap to the point where cats are selling their hustle ITSELF rather than hustling to sell their actual art
that's ass backwards & tells you how seriously some of these fuckers take their actual art
as for the star-fucking, idol-worshipping idiots that lap this shit up like Spuds Mackenzie in front of a saucer of miller lite?
19. "RE: how does a musical act referring to "their brand" make you feel?" In response to Reply # 0
On one hand, it's unfortunate because it equates your favorite artist to Jif peanut butter or something.
On the other, it may more about "giving a name" to something that already exists. I think there's a misconception that only mainstream(ish) artists are "branded"…but this happens in people's minds at a much lower level…Even the "outsiders" are branded…Radiohead, the Roots, even smallish punk bands have an "image" or "brand".
I used to really hate it, but now maybe it's a necessary evil, a way for an artist to survive, because essentially, branding means $.
And…being the "non branded, true artist" can also be a brand….
22. "RE: how does a musical act referring to "their brand" make you feel?" In response to Reply # 0
Ye's whole "brand" is built on risk...
I think ppl can hide behind the idea or use it to move the ball forward... always depends on the artist though...
Double 0 DJ/Producer/Artist Producer in Kidz In The Hall ------------------------------------------- twitter: @godouble0 IG: @godouble0 www.thinklikearapper.com
28. "RE: I've always hated Kanye, but you're spot-on with that." In response to Reply # 27
C'mon bro.. I've been up to Shangri-la a few times.. He isn't "adding hi hats" ... Everything he is doing including the people he collabs with are his vision from the onset..
Double 0 DJ/Producer/Artist Producer in Kidz In The Hall ------------------------------------------- twitter: @godouble0 IG: @godouble0 www.thinklikearapper.com
29. "all he does is trend-watch and buy art he likes from other artists." In response to Reply # 28 Wed Aug-13-14 06:17 PM by febreeze
then goes on tirades championing his own "artistic" abilities to shout down his own internal deep-seated insecurities of being found out as a complete phony.
he's not making the beats, writing the rhymes, taking the pictures, filming the videos or likely even picking his own clothes.
yet... HE'S the "artist"? no, he's a pop-star.
he's an "artist" the same way someone who curates a tumblr page full of re-posts is an "artist".
>C'mon bro.. I've been up to Shangri-la a few times.. He isn't >"adding hi hats" ... Everything he is doing including the >people he collabs with are his vision from the onset.. > >
His "vision" is cloudy as hell.
I just wish the music was good.
You're the type of dude to say "you just don't get it" though.
23. "half the acts dont know what that word means" In response to Reply # 0
its just a sexy word to kick around to make you sound smart. but the idea should be that i understand what appeals to the people, but balances with my arts. from what I am creating, to how I am going to push it. the labels will do the branding for you, but u might not like what they give u. Nas was a victim of that.
a lot of people dont realize how limited their brand can be. if your brand is I'm an ill hood rapper, than its like "cool, but what separates you from the last million guys that wanted to do that?"
follow me @oldirtyplaster on the Twitter thing.....i say awesome stuff
32. "I'm fine with it as long as I hear more about the actual music" In response to Reply # 0
Nothing wrong with brands, it's a natural progression and should be used as a means to maintain integrity
__________________________________________ CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!! ------------------------------------ Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this
33. "The same way I feel about most MBA-ish neologisms" In response to Reply # 0
Like the person relies on catch phrases a lot and probably makes a living by getting other people to do stuff rather than doing much of anything himself
34. "RE: The same way I feel about most MBA-ish neologisms" In response to Reply # 33
>Like the person relies on catch phrases a lot and probably >makes a living by getting other people to do stuff rather than >doing much of anything himself
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
The Lesson
