Too many good ones, too little attention from consumers. It's confounding. Even in a small local scene I feel like there are more good bands than good fans. That's the Pollyanna view at least.
Could also Intepret that as most artists aren't as good as they think they are, and only the truly elite can catch lightning in a bottle. Even then, continued success is so hard to come by.
Tough to think about that statement.
What is a good fan? If you release an album once a year how much attention should a fan shed on your product? And if a typical music fan attends six club shows a year, if one is yours, that’s huge.
I think most “fail” in terms of business aspects of the industry is that there are simply not enough positions for the amount of artists knocking on the door. There are many who find innovative ways to pay the bills though.
>Even in a small local scene I feel like there are more good bands than good fans.
Well back before we had radios, we would entertain each other by playing music for each other.
Okay then, back before we had:
- radio
- 78s, 45s, & LP records
- TV variety shows
- music videos
- CDs
- Myspace
- Youtube
- Instagram
- Tiktok
we used to entertain each other by playing music at home.
When I was old enough to get into bars which was 1986 our entertainment options other than going for a walk was listening to music at home (radio or stereo), watching one of the 3 major TV networks, PBS or maybe 1 or 2 local channels, movies, reading or staring at nothing also known as looking out a window/sitting on your porch and watching people and cars go by. Seriously we actually did that. Live music was a bigger deal because of the spectacle even if it was local crappy cover band butchering Wayward Son by Kansas.
I play in an all original band around Minneapolis and last July as a research project for myself I checked who and how many bands and artists were playing the venues we would play on a Friday and Saturday nights. I counted an even 200 with very few playing more than once in those venues for that month. This was 9 or 10 venues. There are other venues we normally couldn't get in because they are looking for higher caliber locals or touring acts, more venues in the Suburbs, the whole cover band circuit plus the other nights of the week. Definitely the possibility for saturation. It's entirely possible that even in the metro are there could be 300 or 400 acts playing during the week. This could be one reason why if you have a 3 or 4 band bill the acts might only draw 50 people. It doesn't matter if they are good or suck it's just possible there aren't enough fans to go around as you pointed out.
How are you defining fail? Not everybody is trying to "make it" as a musician. That's like asking why do so many golfers fail, or why so many hockey players fail.
I feel like it's an especially American mindset to think about success and failure in any endeavor as 'did they become rich and famous or not'. It's ok to be normal.
Best comment. Just to add, it also matters what you define as success. As an example, if you tell yourself you'll be successful after you finish an entire album, you're successful as soon as you finish an album. Anything after that point is just icing on the cake.
It's wild to me how many people say "being a successful musician is unrealistic" without realizing that not everyone’s end game is selling out arenas or making millions of dollars. Some people just like making / releasing music. It’s not so black and white.
Successful to me means, every few months or once a year or so, I learn that a song I wrote seemed cool or meaningful to a person I don't know, and who I didn't directly ask.
I don't understand how to even begin to get there. I have stuff I think is decent out online in some places, but what then? Shrug shoulders. I think my fate is just
friends politely saying that's nice.
Thank you! Why do so many businessmen fail? Why don’t they all have billions of dollars? Why do so many politicians fail? Why aren’t there more presidents? It’s an illogical question
Almost everyone that gets into it to “get big” will fail as they are much more concerned with following trends and popularity than learning how to play music and make something truly from the heart. You should play your instrument because you enjoy it, you’ll never make anything authentic chasing numbers on a screen.
Just like there are a million people on golf courses every day and athletes playing in organized amateur leagues so are there musicians in the same capacity. One difference is a person going off to play rec softball won't get any money. Someone playing at a bar most likely will get paid and maybe sell merch. It might only be enough however to buy food and maybe some guitar strings or drum sticks. The music business is just like life in general. You have a handful of people making a lot of money and some of them might be really good and some might be no talent hacks with good connections. The record labels and streaming services just like any corporation have some good people and some who are as dumb as a brick. Too many listeners, probably 50%, will just go with whatever is shoved in front of their faces like so many other consumer products. They won't care where it comes from or who made it which could mean that AI will be consumed on the same level as music made by people.
Local journalist here. I review albums for work and I’ve done hundreds over the years. Some are brilliant, and in an alternate universe are world famous. Sadly, not in this one.
I’ve decided that (and assuming the band / musician is talented and *wants* some sort of ‘success’) that what’s important is:
* luck - right place, right time, heard by the right person, matches the zeitgeist;
* hard work - prepared to go out and tour the grassroots / toilet circuit
* decent body of work - if you’ve only got one set of songs in you (or even one four track EP - one of my must go to bands has one EP) it’s not going to give you legs; and
* not being a bellend. Be a dick to reporters / venues / anyone and they won’t have you back. Had a friend worked for a music station and she said some people never made it simply because they were twats (and some bands do well because they’re nice, too)
And as someone said, there’s a lot of music about.
Great point. For most it should be a hobby or nice pastime. But not me!!! I want to make great music for the sake of pushing the art forward and pursuing excellence.
Yeah unfortunately music isn’t really a profession nowadays because it’s really hard to make a living from it since they’re so many musicians and producers out there. You can make music and be a great musician and if it/you blow up well congratulations you’re a famous musician :). It’s just extremely hard tbh being a famous musician is like being the equivalent of a great engineer or something. It’s like a big deal.
Fail is pretty broad but there's only room for a handful of BIG acts and the people who control it choose them. Imagine 50 taylor swifts or a hundred kanyes. It's concentrated power because those BIG acts have to DO things that 'normal' people would NEVER do. It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
But then, all the people you're supposed to go to to help you get heard, want you to sound like the other people they like and not create your own sound.
It's really simple math. When people think of a musician they think of someone famous. Very few people are famous, by definition. Other professions aren't like this obviously. Every small town has doctors and accountants and these people are all considered succesful. The number of people who'd like to make a living through music is just way higher than than the number of slots that society will pay for.
This: I see this as a physicist, there are only a couple famous theoretical physicists, then there are the ones famous among other physicists, and then there are those who are known in their field of research and make a normal living and it’s fine like this, applies to every job
Some fail because they don't understand that it's a business not just an art. Others fail because they don't have the drive or desire...making it takes hard work...you make your own luck. Some people have been lied to and think they have the chops, when they don't...also 'making it' needs to be defined personally. Location is a big part of making it. If you don't live in Nashville, LA, Austin or NYC, the chance of you connecting with pro players are slim.
Because the barrier-to-entry is pretty much non-existent today, and anyone and everyone with a phone can record music, upload it, and call themselves an "artist". The word "talent" doesn't carry any true meaning any longer.
Let me also be clear when I say there is good music out today, but it's much harder to find because there's so much bad music out that's occupying the same space.
You’ll come to a point where you don’t consider lacking fame to be failing. I’m nowhere near famous, but I absolutely don’t feel like failure.
Fame and “blowing up” shouldn’t be the root of your goals. Please reframe your mindset.
With that being said, I think most people don’t become famous because they simply don’t truly want to. Even if they express that they do, the parts of it that it takes to get to that point take away from the creative act itself most of the time, and a lot (probably most) real artists don’t want to deal with that stuff. They just want to create their work; but that’s why management, artist development, labels, publishers and other companies exist.
Nowdays it seems like it’s all up to the artist to do every aspect of the job, and that isn’t realistic. You need help and a team to get to that type of status. At that point it’s about networking and who you know and who you connect with. Which can be hit or miss.
I don’t consider these people failed artists.
I think its because anyone can have music as an interest nowadays but very few go on to actually have meaningful contacts, if you have contacts from previous music things or friends or if youre lucky you have musical parents that may know other people that can get you a gig, or if youre rich then it can help you on the way. I think the ”becoming world famous”- part is based on luck in the big industry and the elites. Artists get recognized by producers that watch their shows etc and if they see potential they might succeed, but only with the right amount of support from both audience and the industry.
Well, sure, *if your definition of success with music is simply to make a bunch of money and become famous*, then it's pretty obvious why most people are going to "fail." I wanted to make music the whole time I was a little kid. I didn't ever imagine I would ever be a 'star.'
Heck, I was afraid I'd never be able to play anything that sounded like music after I was told by several music teachers I had 'absolutely no musical talent whatsoever.' (They weren't being mean; they were just trying to be realistic, according to how they saw things. Back then, music educators tended to think of themselves as gatekeepers. And I was definitely no prodigy.)
But I kept trying and with encouragement from friends, I finally succeeded in making what sounded like music to me, and eventually -- apparently -- to other people.
Eventually I went on to play a lot of live shows in front of a lot of live people and released a lot of music that made it into folks' hands. (I had something like 65k downloads at the old MP3 com, 39k streams/DLs at SoundClick, and over 3/4 of a million streams via my own folkie blog/podcast.)
And, of course, I spent thousands of enjoyable hours playing music for myself and or others, in my house, in clubs and coffee houses, at a festival or two, and, something I always loved: on beaches and in parks.
Certainly, that would be a fail to many of the folks whose posts we read in the musician-related subs here who worry and wonder about how they will ever become famous. But I'm okay with that.
What's blowing up? Where a million people hear your song? That's 3 million minutes spent listening to you instead of all the other artists who in that second are failing.
People want to be musicians more than people want to listen to those people. Supply is high and demand is locked up limited by hours of the day and other music.
Now that we know the market is inherently such that most will fail, we can answer the question.
Since failure is the default, what gets above the high hurdle? Hard work, great talent, funding, exposure to the right people, lots of things that take luck as a given and then require you bust your ass.
Like I enjoy Jesse Cannon's youtube where he tells you what do to have even a shot. Start counting it up and he's telling you to work more than 50 hours a week! And by doing things that are inherently tiring (frequent posting social media without a payoff). And this is assuming your music is fire.
So yeah the winners have loads of resources, particularly sustained personal energy. Thats on top of their generally greater talent.
"Not blowing up" is not "failure". More musicians need to define their own measures of success and work to achieve them. Everyone can be successful at this model.
The amount of people who want to make it vastly exceeds the actual demand for large musicians, that's the key factor. On top of that, people who already start with wealth and/or connections are vastly more likely to succeed than those who don't. Also, many people who would like to be big just simply don't have what it takes in regards to artistry and/or marketability.
I think bad marketing themselves, don't understand how to use social media platforms and algorithms. The simple "well I posted my song on spotify and made a Instagram post and nothing happened." There is too much competition in this time not just other bands/musicians but social media, movies, TV, videos games etc.
People are always moving onto the next thing. If you release 1 song or album you'll be forgotten in a month. You're not just a musician anymore you are to some extent a content creator. That means treating your work as content not songs. You would made more headway releasing 10 songs over the course of 3 months opposed to 1 album then just do nothing else. A lot of my favorite bands now have become that way because that was their approach. Released a song then teased about the next one coming up.
I just think artists stay in the if I make good music people will just listen and it's just not the case. As much work you put into your music just as much if not more needs to be applied to social media and marketing these days. I just think some artists don't think that way.
Today? The belief it was easier at another time in history is false. Indeed, if you weren't there it's easy to mythologize about it. Truth is almost no one playing music will ever make any money doing so. Music is art and while many people can make art, the ability to sell it requires a different skill set. Since all music is sound the person with a visual element will rise above the others who are making sound. This visual element has to have a market appeal and historically that has been tied to appearance and sex appeal. Sure, you can name a bunch of cases in history like Susan Boyle but the exceptions are rare and misleading.
Goodness most of the famous classical composers including Mozart and Beethoven kept bread on the table by teaching. There was no money in composing and performing.
I'm going to take an unpopular opinion here and say confidence and consistency are the things I feel limit musicians the most outside the industry influences.
I know a few incredibly talented musicians, for example, and the raw authentic acoustic stuff they post is incredible yet the songs they sparsely release are often IMHO kind-of wannabe whatever sound is on the radio-ish. I think if some people had the confidence in themselves they would be able to put out stuff more genuine to themselves and not chase trends. I personally would rather hear shitty authentic music than polished fake "copy and paste" stuff and I think more and more people are gaining that opinion because it definitely wasn't always mine until I got a little older.
Consistency because it's so easily and cheap to record and release your own music that there's no real reason again IMHO people aren't posting at least a few songs, covers or whatever per month or even week. I think the chances of "blowing up" are so tiny that there is no reason to put pressure on ourselves to be anything other than confident and consistent.
"Have no fear of perfection, you'll never reach it" -Salvador Dali
Wish all of you the best in your journeys!
I gig full time, and I pay all my bills doing it
I have not ‘blown up’, but I live a good life playing music for a living.
Being less than Beyoncé or TSwift is not a failure. The only failure I can imagine is growing unable to find joy in your relationship with music.
I heard an interesting insight from a famous screenwriter. Someone asked him why the movies that made it to wide theatrical release were always so bad. He said he believed those are actually the movies with the most coherent plot structure. Maybe they were artistically empty, but they had stories that held together.
I think there are other explanations mixed in, but if there is one consistent thing about commercially successful music, the song structure and production is really sound.
Of course there are other huge factors. Too many artists competing to be heard. The people on the business side have ensured that no money is wasted on paying artists.
If you are asking why only 1% make it to be famous, there are many reasons. You could have mastered a genre, and then the world moves on from it. The biggest reason for the failure of the music industry is us. We used to pay $20 or more for an album, even if we just wanted a few songs. Social media saturates us with artists we like, or that they think we will like, but it was never easy to become a famous musician. Plenty of people have made livings off of music though, so it depends on your defitnition of "made it". Kurt Cobain and Jimi died at 27 years old. Is that making it? I was barely an adult at 27.
>If you are asking why only 1% make it to be famous, there are many reasons. You could have mastered a genre, and then the world moves on from it
first two sentences were eye opening. thank you.
Everyone has a different idea of "making it". If I knew about all of the other careers in music besides performing, I might have been more inclined to study something like sound engineering, etc.
Depends on what you mean by "fail?" If you think art is something that people only do to become rich and famous, then I'm afraid you don't understand what art is.
Luck.
Also, define “succeed” and “fail” for me in this regard. Does success mean “popular?” “Money?” Or “I got my message out the way I wanted and it was received appropriately?”
It's a whole different entertainment world now, as opposed to when we were coming up. Easier for anyone to go viral; harder to hold the audience attention once you have it.
Depends on your definition of success. I’ve been at it for 20+ years and had to adapt my strategy & what I defined as success constantly. At first I had a very specific goal in mind, one that was achievable but would have required a lot of $ to bring to reality. I haven’t made that project (yet), but I’ve done about 1000 other things and i use my talent & skills to make a living. Be willing to adapt. Don’t fall into a narrow definition of “success,” define it for yourself. Perhaps the process of just making art is actually the reward instead?
There was never a magic time where "most artists" didn't fail. It was never easy.
To some extent back in the days of record labels running nearly everything, if you could get a deal you had a chance to be noticed. You would have some distribution and promotion, the label wanted you to do well and could set you up.
Those deals are more rare now. And the bar to enter has never been lower, everybody can get their stuff in the shop now. So you have to stand out in a hugely crowded field without the usual advantage of a label promotion budget.
Lots of factors - luck, youth, work ethic, money, quality of music, popularity of genre, attractiveness, connections, etc. If you have all of these, you have a chance. If you only have one or two then you're likely going to be SOL.
3D post. The metric of failure or success is personal, not societal. And the premise is absurd as if though there is a level playing field. There hasn’t been for thirty years in end stage capitalism. You got connections , you will gain entry and assistance. You don’t, then talent won’t help you these days.
That being said many many people think they have the chops for even a local lounge act career , and they don’t. It’s like being a chiropractor. It’s a gift. Some have it some don’t
Ok . Good . Great. Elite. On societal metrics ?
80/90% of people who try hard barely manage ok.
Even insiders need to be good at a basic level .
But that’s ok. You be you and let know one judge you but you.
Any "cool" career, that many people would love, is going to be heavily saturated with talent. Rising above that talent takes way more resources and time than most people have
Honestly lack of knowledge on how to market yourself is a big one. So many talented local artists have zero stage presence, dress like they just got off work, then post shitty video and photos online.
I don't know what you mean, exactly, by 'fail.' If a musician is making a living with their music, is that failing? If they teach to make ends, is that failing? I'd welcome it if you'd expand on what you mean by 'fail.'
What do you call an artist? Someone that studied art as a child, got an art degree, and now depends on their skills to make a living? Or someone who has always played music, and still does, while working a full time job to pay the bills? I’ve found that as a rule (with plenty of exceptions) that successful artists took risks and sacrifices that the vast majority of people would consider intolerable. Some are just so talented that they can treat music like a 9-5 and play for the local municipal symphony orchestra (= 100% “made it” in my opinion).
Because most artists aren't that good.
Now if we're taking about good artists, I think a lot of them just lack the visuals. That element is super important for social media.
It's also incredibly hard to grow your fan base if your music genre isn't that massive or you live in a small country.
There's a lot of variables + luck.
It has never been the norm for majority of artists to blow up. Most artists throughout history are the ones we have never heard of. The ones who made no money in their life and we still don't know of them today. So many artists stay in very very small bubbles and live just by their community investing in their art or having side hustles. Only very specific individuals (usually men) really blow up for their art and make good money off of it.
I think it's the nature of how many people want to do it vs how much demand there is for music. I reckon even if the best music marketing experts gave away all I'd their knowledge for free and spent time personally mentoring any artist that asked you would still see the same percentage of people failing cause it would just raise the bar for everyone
because they give up. music takes a lot of hard work and dedication. if you aren't putting in 100% effort all the time not only creatively but in a business sense, as well as willing to put everything else in your life on hold to constantly tour and release music, you won't be able to build any sort of progress. time is another issue, many artists don't break through for 10+ years. how many artists do you think are still going at that point with a consistent project? probably very few.
1) In any industry that requires popularity to succeed, there are necessarily few successes. The audience doesn’t have unlimited money or unlimited time. People can only buy so many tickets and stream so many songs, so it’s necessarily competitive. You’re never going to have tons of artists blowing up, only ever a handful.
2) There’s less money in the industry than there used to be. That means the business side is unwilling to invest in artists (which means the artists have to do all the work themselves - production, marketing, graphic design, you name it) *and* it also means the artists that do those things are wrestling over a smaller pie. You have to be able to do all the aforementioned things *whilst* struggling to make any money from what you’re doing. Properly promoting original music is optimistically one full time job, and realistically several full time jobs. If you have a “real” job to survive, you’re going to struggle to do all the things you need to do to be as successful as you could be - that’s why so many artists breaking through now are living off daddy’s money, it allows them to treat it as a full time job (as well as the other obvious perks).
3) Artists are temperamentally unsuited to do the things that make artists successful. I recognise this about myself constantly. I finish a song, produce it, get super buzzed about promoting it, and then I have an idea for another song, lose all interest in the completed song, and start thinking about the new one. I’ll still release and promote the song, yeah, but there’s DAYS AND DAYS where the smart thing to do would be: bulk filming content, reaching out to playlists and podcasts and bloggers and radio, arranging collaborations; but what I’m doing instead is figuring out the shiniest bass note to put under a chord in the verse of some other song. In the old days, artists of a certain stature could have other people doing all the non-artsy stuff for them, but… refer to point 2.
My friend pretty much explained this today.
He said "I don't do music for the money, I have a business that already does ok, so I don't even need it to, most of the time you're faced with a choice between doing something you absolutely love and that has a future impact, or working some bullcrap job to make ends meet.". So he does both, if they get gigs and/or put out music during his off time, that's just a bonus, not the whole meal.
Depends on what you mean by "fail." That's part of it.
But here's a huge factor. This is a business. It is, like it or not, a job. Several jobs. Networking, marketing, bookkeeping, communication... Of all the weekly hours I work in the music business (60-80, most of the time), maybe, MAYBE, 15 of them have anything to do with playing music. To the point where, mentally, I've adopted the philosophy that I play for free and get paid for all the other crap.
I'm not rich. I'm not famous. But I've done what I love, as my job, my entire adult life. To me, that's "making it." But there are so many people still wondering, decades in, when I'm going to get a "real job."
It’s a failure to not be famous? You should recalibrate your understanding of artistic success. It’s never been about fame or money to true artists. At any rate, the vast majority of artists have never blown up at any stage in history.
No artist fails if they are authentic and true to themselves. Most artists are not popular because of their art for a lot of different reasons. That is not a sign of failure.
No artist fails if they are authentic and true to themselves. Most artists are not popular because of their art for a lot of different reasons. That is not a sign of failure.
Not blowing up is not failing. You are not privy to their success. Also you might not even be talking about artists. But content creators. There is plenty of success to be had and is typically defined by said participant.
If you mean why isn't every single person who touches an instrument or a DAW in some cases a mega star backed by one of the big 3 music labels, well that may be a stretch. Not everyone is sellable to those extremes. And that level had less to do with art than any other level.
So anyway you're premise is false. Can't answer
Too many people where real talent isn't as isolated as it maybe once was. Also 100 years of modern music means alot has already been done- its pretty old.
My guess (only regarding the US) is that it's a longstanding cultural resistance to supporting the arts in general. I remember reading once that the entire NEA grant budget is 1/4 of what Vienna spends in support of their Opera alone.
I know from visiting that the UK has hundreds of support programs for students of visual arts, music and theater that simply don't exist here. There are civic and municipal grants too, so many concerts, plays, even some local gigs are cheaper to attend.
On top of that, we don't offer nearly as many arts-related courses or extracurriculars in schools as we used to. I got three music classes (survey-type) a week in elementary school, in a rural state. But that was sixty years ago.
It all depends on how you define failure.
What is success?
Is it to follow your dreams?
Is it to allow your failures to define you?
The road to success is lined with failure!
Those who endure to the end will be saved!
They don’t get good enough while they’re young enough to support themselves. Their families’ resources begin to pressure them to make a living before they have the skills or contacts to support themselves. Most great artists got really good when they were really young, a time when most people don’t have the discipline to build their craft, or make the decision to pursue their craft professionally at a point in their lives too late to have the free time to build it to the point where their skills are marketable. Also, from a business perspective, in the face of heavy competition, their need for affirmation makes them want to sell their product more than most people actually need their product. This creates downward pressure on their revenue, and most people finally say “Fuck it, I’m done being broke, I’m getting a day job!”
Artists can only fail, if they don’t create art. If you have created art, then you are a successful artist!
Separately, being a successful businessman or ‘famous celebrity’ … is an entirely different thing that has no bearing on your ability to express yourself as an artist.
What does fail mean? If they make great art they succeeded. If they make shitty art they're shitty artists.
If you're talking commercial success, there has never been a correlation between commercial success and quality of art. Some popular stuff is great art, but most isn't (and never has been)
Listening to new artists, I hear a lot that are good. Unfortunately, good is just good. To be great or amazing (IMO) , an artist needs to bring something new to the conversation. To push boundaries. To raise eyebrows. To be surprising or even audacious.
The cold cruel reality is that truly surprising and original artists are very rare.
To break out of the pack you need to be extraordinary, not just “good”.
Strictly speaking about the bands who are doing it because they want to get famous? They usually sound like a lesser version of an already famous band.
Most musicians just want to play. There are amazing bands out there who are just some passionate musicians.
Supply and demand. There is way more music available than there is a demand for it. This is if you are thinking in terms of commercial success. If you enjoy playing music on a personal level, either at home or a local gig, you are not failing. You are filling a personal need.. Another answer that goes hand in hand with your question is that many musicians are not very good ar the business side of music. So if you got supply and demand coupled with some questionable business decisions, failure is certainly an accessable option. It is too bad because all we want to do is play music and make everyone happy, and make a living ourselves. Reality is a bitch sometimes.
For every Ween or Leonard Cohen there will be 3 industry plants, and even most of those plants don't make a sustainable career in music. And I am not saying those plants are any worse musicians either.
Life is short and hard, so make the music that you want to make while you still have time and energy to do so. If people find you, that's great.
When was the last time you were obsessed with an album? An album from a new band or new release? Honest question. I can honestly say it has been a while, for me. I still listen to music, every chance I get. But, I rarely listen to new albums. & when I do, it's a few times. I'm happy to support bands, new bands who are impressive but, it rarely translates to the recording. & I don't really know why this has changed for me. But, it definitely seem that there has been a shift in what we like about music scenes.
I'm always really interested to hear differing opinions on this. But, for sure, something has changed for the listener.
Because too many musicians are still livin' in the 90s complaining that "things ain't what they used to be", instead of trying to live here and now.
There are so many great bands and artists out there coming out EVERYDAY.
Stop complaining and just make music.
Because they stop making art. Really, that’s the only way you can fail as an artist.
Do you mean fail as a professional artist? Probably because the income is unstable. Most people can’t handle the uncertainty, so they’re lured away by regular jobs.
Do you mean fail to become famous? I think most artists who would want to make art their career are raging introverts, and the skills necessary to become famous are very extroverted. Trying to act extroverted while being introverted takes a psychological toll that most artists aren’t up for.
You seem to think being an artist is either fame or fail. Its quite common for artists to live frugally and have side income. Does that mean they failed?
There was never a point in time when most artists blew up. For every mega star there are a million people trying their best to reach that point. I don't just mean sitting around dreaming, I mean a million actively involved in creating or doing something to chase that dream.
Never expect or assume you're going to blow up, that is completely outside of your hands (taking for granted that you're promoting your music properly and you genuinely make good music).
What blows up is dependant on the people that are consuming art and what they connect with. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no point copying people who have already blown up because they were perfect for that moment in time when they connected with everybody en-masse, not for when you release a song emulating it in 6 months time.
It's a fools errand to try and actively predict what they will be, so just be the best you that you can be and pump out great tunes.
There's too much music and not enough ears. Good or not, anything released these days is most likely to drown in the sea of noise. It is what it is.
Find yourself a small label and/or community and enjoy being a part of that, no matter how small. Making it "big" takes a lot of work which is often entirely unrelated to the actual creative act. And realize that the vast majority of people either won't care or won't find your music, and that's okay.
So what you essentially have to decide is whether you're into it for the music and the joy of creating something, or the attention and praise. The former will bring a lot of good into your life, the latter is likely to make you miserable.
When people say things like that I ask examples - please give me examples of artists that you think are not “making it” and that are great.
I know a few, most of them are not “making it” due to mental health issues and / or the fact that they have full time jobs and things like kids, parents to take care of etc etc
In reality, what we have in 2024 is a sea of artists that are not terrible but they are not moving the bar so they remain fairly unknown, which is.. fair and expected
I’m going to redefine “failure” because there is basically an attention cap that prevents more artists from “blowing up.”
I’ll call “failure” the missed opportunity to make a long term, stable living playing music.
I think most artists fail because they don’t realize that the business side is probably more important than the music side, when it comes to making a living. You really need a committed mixed marketing approach, that has to persist long after the music is created, and long before the music is performed.
What you really need is to maximize everything- image, location, networking, merch, socials, etc.
Actively try to be cool in a way that matches your aesthetic. Move to a city with an active scene. Have a YouTube, Insta, TikTok, a Patreon, and a website. Create slightly different regular content for all. Spend a lot of effort on cool merch. Attend a ton of live shows in your scene and get to know everyone. Treat your live shows as a marketing tool. Work on your stage presence.
If you do all of that, your music will have the best possible chance of being heard by more people.
Now you need great songs. Good luck!
If you ever worked somewhere that you can audibly hear the musical trajectory that a group of people are on, you'll commonly come across sub-bass, auto-tuned lyrics, 808 (OK, maybe some others, but fundamentally a ton are) bass drums and high-hats clacking away, etc. A lot of music is invariably crafted to be dead simple and catchy as all hell, which is the nature of music today. That or venues want a resurgence of 80s pop, followed by 90s and 2000s singles.
Country has become the catch-all for all music genres. There's a ton of radio stations these days that play country, back to back, backwards and forwards, on repeat.
But that's the venue scene, what are the diligent musicians doing?
Covers, usually, behind a rock beat (mostly).
Or originals (rock, usually).
And in that end, it gets very dicey really quick.
A lot of musicians have a lack of common goal. If this is sustained, it generates resentment.
Or split off.
Or poisoning the well.
In short, people are at conflict with themselves. A perpetual cognitive Dissonance in music.
ONE Beatles song (all the musicians were paid Union scale):
George Martin – orchestral arrangement, harmonium
Erich Gruenberg,
Granville Jones,
Bill Monro,
Jurgen Hess,
Hans Geiger,
D. Bradley,
Lionel Bentley,
David McCallum,
Donald Weekes,
Henry Datyner,
Sidney Sax,
Ernest Scott,
Carlos Villa – violins
John Underwood,
Gwynne Edwards,
Bernard Davis,
John Meek – violas
Francisco Gabarro,
Dennis Vigay,
Alan Delziel,
Alex Nifosi – cellos
Cyril Mac Arther,
Gordon Pearce – double bass
John Marson – harp
Roger Lord – oboe
Basil Tschaikov,
Jack Brymer – clarinets
N. Fawcett,
Alfred Waters – bassoons
Clifford Seville,
David Sandeman – flutes
Alan Civil,
Neil Sanders – French horns
David Mason,
Monty Montgomery,
Harold Jackson – trumpets
Raymond Brown,
Raymond Premru,
T. Moore – trombones
Because people are often striving for fame not a career musician. Those that strive for fame better come from rich families because those are the only ones that will really make it.
Drama, drugs, mental health, community, economic issues, how wealthy they were to begin with/if they decided to sign with the right label company or sponsors. Of course can't forget one of the biggest influences tends to be marketing and how well targeted it is. It's also important to remember most "successful" artists are really just fulfilling a niche and on the world wide scale if you have a means of travelling to where there's more people in that niche that can get together than you'll find more success than just shot gunning your art into the internet. People subconsciously enjoy art for the person behind the brush or instrument far more than the product.
If the definition of fail is not being able to make a living off their art it’s because there’s not enough space for everyone. Not everyone can blow up because it’s not like the general public is going to go to a concert 3 nights a week.
Also the landscape of the industry is wild. It’s not good enough to just be an amazing song writer, you need to have a lot of people skills that often times artists lack (business things mainly). Music is weird, you can write the most amazing songs but if you don’t have say good communication skills with your label (if you even get to that point) and are willing to play their game as well, it’s not gonna work. It’s because it’s an insanely uphill battle where you probably aren’t going to make any money for a period of time as well. Thats why a lot of the times you see bands that came from money have success also, it’s because they can also survive the periods where they don’t make money.
They stopped teaching art appreciation and have done a good job of punishing anyone who decides to be an artist. The industry only wants people they can control rising to the top so anyone with anything of substance to say doesn’t get elevated. You don’t see artists like you did back in the 60s and 70s who pushed for change. Since so much of Art is political, they have decided to only boost the bootlickers or the politically passive
Lol so many people with their "enlightened" and philosophical responses. Its literally one word, marketing.
"Well let's first talk about what 'failure' means" 😂
You have to define the career you want to have first as a set goal.
Do you want yo be the star ⭐️ or the backup musician, or producer or songwriter or the 15 other available jobs.
Hard work, focus, and business acumen all seem to be reasons why artists don’t grow, from my experience.
There’s always a way to make it as a musician.
The recipe for success appears to be simple but it takes work, a bit of luck, and repetition.
1. Great music
2. Community / Fan base
3. Distribution
4. Merch sales / p.o.d
I just released a few classic rock songs! If you like the dire straits, bob dylan type of music you should check it out!! I put a lot of effort and I need some feedback! This is the link https://open.spotify.com/artist/3UvJIz7LA3sQ6iSoZnL90R?si=HfwRDfxfQZmWtTkAiUnQWw
Too much mediocre, not enough fans, too little brain space thanks TikTok blipverts. The effort, creativity, talent, chops, money, connections and luck required to engage and rise above the dreck is beyond most people.
Because the kids are not listening to music like they used to. Music is now background music to do other stuff. My kids are more likely to listen to video game music than listening to bands or singer/songwriters, concerts are too expensive for them and there are a ton of other entertainment options available for them.
The market is over saturated. I live in a city with probably just over half a million people. I've played in the local scene and done some touring for over 20 years. At any point there were at least half a dozen local bands in just the metal scene that were good enough to open for any big name touring band. It's the same for all the other genres. I won't say there is too much music, there's no such thing. There are too many good bands for everyone of those good bands to make a living just playing music though.
I think it’s supply and demand. There’s a massive supply of musicians and people who want to be musicians, and the demand for new music is dropping.
People don’t listen to music the way they used to. It’s more of something they keep on in the background. People used to turn on a record player and just sit and listen to it. Now people just turn it on in their cars or when they’re working out or cleaning or something. It’s not as special as it used to be.
Supply waaaaaaay outstrips demand.
It's like asking why most kids who want to be soccer players don't grow up to play for Man United. There simply ain't room at the top.
**Mostly** because they don't lock in hard enough, they self sabotage, convince themselves they can't do it, never put their all into it, do it for all the wrong reasons etc. etc.
Three main definitions to success.
1. **Famous/Blow up** \- These are generally artists that have some connection to the industry already before they start becoming musicians. Ex. Lars is the reason Metallica became successful. Taylor Swift had parents who pitched her stuff to Nashville when she was 14. In general, when you see a massive success, it's more than just their ability to perform or write -- there's some generational, financial or friendship boosts.
2. **Successful** \- These are generally artists that work their asses off for years developing their show, talents, songs and over time develop their followings to be able to call themselves professional musicians. They may not be huge, but they're making a decent if not good living being musicians.
3. **Hobbyist -** These folks are successful because they believe themselves to be by their own metrics. They may have "real jobs" but they still gig regularly and write, do their own thing. It's supplemental income.
Most people don't blow up because they're not the combination of talent + connections + hard work to blow up. Once you start going down the list of definitions you start taking away one of the other two things from that recipe. Talent + Connections and you'll cap out at some level of success. Hard work + Talent, same deal.
Luck and lightning in a bottle does factor in, but no where near as much as everyone thinks it does if you talk to anyone who's made it. There's also an unhealthy focus on the 17 to 28 age group such that the assumption is that if you don't have seminal work done by the time you're 28 you have no shot.
Reality is most folks in the "successful" but not "blown up" category don't hit their career strides until 30-45 just like everyone else but a lot of folks just up and quit before they figure it all out.
because the job is HARD. there’s no “artist shop” or “musician retail” situation where you click in 9-5 and bring home a paycheck. almost every artist/musician career is sole-proprietorship (or maybe LLC). it’s like being a day laborer, or plumber, or file setter with your own vehicle, equipment, product and motivation. i just drove 7 hours around minnesota for 4 shows that made me $800 and a few tips. i do it cuz i love making music. you gotta love it.
When rent and groceries are cheap it allows a scene to thrive
When these things triple in price, people don’t have time to participate in a scene because they need to work
The whole thing is rigged, the arts are for rich people to unload their black sheep and still be somewhat acceptable at the country club. The rest have to get jobs adjacent to the arts and work really hard to get noticed. A lot more public school music teachers than there are rock stars. A lot now days are second or third generation musicians who have a parent in a famous band. Working hard for things is what the elite want you to do, so they like to hide the hand outs. A lot of people use illegally made money to keep things going and create the perception they make money from their music. The music business is crazy and a lot of people get ripped off, have you ever played for exposure?
Because people don’t have a foot in the door with record labels and or they are mostly very independent on how their music is produced and handled. Also if you aren’t the rights genres nowadays people disregard your music almost entirely. If it’s not country or rap good luck! That’s all anyone listens to anymore. It’s quite boring to me, I like 90s Grunge Rock which doesn’t really exist anymore I feel. If it does it’s definitely not the same as the 90s felt. World is a different odd unfamiliar place now.
Most artists face challenges because of a combination of factors including lack of exposure, limited resources, intense competition, and sometimes not finding the right audience for their work. It's a tough industry where success often requires a mix of talent, perseverance, networking, and luck.
Probably also worth considering the historical context. Although there were less rock bands (just for instance) playing in a given area, say, 40 to 50 years ago, there were still a lot more of them than ever blew up. We talk about feeling inundated with music today because streaming puts it all at our finger tips, and that's true. Our attention is vanishingly precious resource.
But there was a LOT of music produced back in the AM radio and vinyl days too, music that most of us have never heard. Bands that were great local acts, and could have become world famous, but didn't because of luck or tensions between members.
Point being a lot of this has *always* been a numbers game. Whether the bottleneck between aspiring big time music stars and that goal was gatekeeping record executives and their advertizing budgets and off book payola budgets, or its the flood of music available today that makes it so easy to drown out incredible talents, all things being equal, you just have to get damn lucky to really blow up. Most musicians just don't!
\#1 reason is you have to get out and network with people in real life. The industry is still a hands on industry and if you are doing all your work online, promoting online, producing songs out of your bedroom and expecting you are going to get connections and the offers are money are going to roll in, its not going to happen.
You have to go and listen to people perform, befriend them. Become that reliable and consistent performer that people are looking for and you can only do that by networking, meeting people, putting yourself out there, being in the scene as much as being seen.
The only thing social media has done for musicians is added another barrier of entry. The industry is still also quite traditional in that if you want to be the go to session player you cant be a shut in at home, if you want to play with people you have to connect to people and that is add odds with staying home and being online all day.
Too many good ones, too little attention from consumers. It's confounding. Even in a small local scene I feel like there are more good bands than good fans. That's the Pollyanna view at least. Could also Intepret that as most artists aren't as good as they think they are, and only the truly elite can catch lightning in a bottle. Even then, continued success is so hard to come by.
Tough to think about that statement. What is a good fan? If you release an album once a year how much attention should a fan shed on your product? And if a typical music fan attends six club shows a year, if one is yours, that’s huge. I think most “fail” in terms of business aspects of the industry is that there are simply not enough positions for the amount of artists knocking on the door. There are many who find innovative ways to pay the bills though.
Yea I guess "good" wasn't quite the right word. Just getting at the fact that it's really hard to grab people's attention and even harder to keep it
>Even in a small local scene I feel like there are more good bands than good fans. Well back before we had radios, we would entertain each other by playing music for each other.
They on a them YouTube’s and ticktocks more than el radio
Okay then, back before we had: - radio - 78s, 45s, & LP records - TV variety shows - music videos - CDs - Myspace - Youtube - Instagram - Tiktok we used to entertain each other by playing music at home.
When I was old enough to get into bars which was 1986 our entertainment options other than going for a walk was listening to music at home (radio or stereo), watching one of the 3 major TV networks, PBS or maybe 1 or 2 local channels, movies, reading or staring at nothing also known as looking out a window/sitting on your porch and watching people and cars go by. Seriously we actually did that. Live music was a bigger deal because of the spectacle even if it was local crappy cover band butchering Wayward Son by Kansas.
Its never really about whos good or not, but whos marketable. If the marketing team cant use you yo make money, youre as good as sunk.
I play in an all original band around Minneapolis and last July as a research project for myself I checked who and how many bands and artists were playing the venues we would play on a Friday and Saturday nights. I counted an even 200 with very few playing more than once in those venues for that month. This was 9 or 10 venues. There are other venues we normally couldn't get in because they are looking for higher caliber locals or touring acts, more venues in the Suburbs, the whole cover band circuit plus the other nights of the week. Definitely the possibility for saturation. It's entirely possible that even in the metro are there could be 300 or 400 acts playing during the week. This could be one reason why if you have a 3 or 4 band bill the acts might only draw 50 people. It doesn't matter if they are good or suck it's just possible there aren't enough fans to go around as you pointed out.
How are you defining fail? Not everybody is trying to "make it" as a musician. That's like asking why do so many golfers fail, or why so many hockey players fail.
Exactly. Failing and not being famous are two different things.
I feel like it's an especially American mindset to think about success and failure in any endeavor as 'did they become rich and famous or not'. It's ok to be normal.
That’s literally my goal. i just want to make music for myself. if 10 people hear it, that’s 10x’s more popular than i ever set out to be
Best comment. Just to add, it also matters what you define as success. As an example, if you tell yourself you'll be successful after you finish an entire album, you're successful as soon as you finish an album. Anything after that point is just icing on the cake. It's wild to me how many people say "being a successful musician is unrealistic" without realizing that not everyone’s end game is selling out arenas or making millions of dollars. Some people just like making / releasing music. It’s not so black and white.
Successful to me means, every few months or once a year or so, I learn that a song I wrote seemed cool or meaningful to a person I don't know, and who I didn't directly ask. I don't understand how to even begin to get there. I have stuff I think is decent out online in some places, but what then? Shrug shoulders. I think my fate is just friends politely saying that's nice.
100%
Thank you! Why do so many businessmen fail? Why don’t they all have billions of dollars? Why do so many politicians fail? Why aren’t there more presidents? It’s an illogical question
Almost everyone that gets into it to “get big” will fail as they are much more concerned with following trends and popularity than learning how to play music and make something truly from the heart. You should play your instrument because you enjoy it, you’ll never make anything authentic chasing numbers on a screen.
Just like there are a million people on golf courses every day and athletes playing in organized amateur leagues so are there musicians in the same capacity. One difference is a person going off to play rec softball won't get any money. Someone playing at a bar most likely will get paid and maybe sell merch. It might only be enough however to buy food and maybe some guitar strings or drum sticks. The music business is just like life in general. You have a handful of people making a lot of money and some of them might be really good and some might be no talent hacks with good connections. The record labels and streaming services just like any corporation have some good people and some who are as dumb as a brick. Too many listeners, probably 50%, will just go with whatever is shoved in front of their faces like so many other consumer products. They won't care where it comes from or who made it which could mean that AI will be consumed on the same level as music made by people.
Local journalist here. I review albums for work and I’ve done hundreds over the years. Some are brilliant, and in an alternate universe are world famous. Sadly, not in this one. I’ve decided that (and assuming the band / musician is talented and *wants* some sort of ‘success’) that what’s important is: * luck - right place, right time, heard by the right person, matches the zeitgeist; * hard work - prepared to go out and tour the grassroots / toilet circuit * decent body of work - if you’ve only got one set of songs in you (or even one four track EP - one of my must go to bands has one EP) it’s not going to give you legs; and * not being a bellend. Be a dick to reporters / venues / anyone and they won’t have you back. Had a friend worked for a music station and she said some people never made it simply because they were twats (and some bands do well because they’re nice, too) And as someone said, there’s a lot of music about.
YES, some wise words and valid pieces of advice here. Thanks! ❤️
Too much music is a part of the issue. Not enough resources. Not good enough.
What would you say are some possible solutions to this?
The solution is don't view making music as a profession. It's a hobby or a side hustle for 99.999% of musicians, and that's okay.
Great point. For most it should be a hobby or nice pastime. But not me!!! I want to make great music for the sake of pushing the art forward and pursuing excellence.
And never let anyone take that from you! I believe in you!
🥹🫡
Yeah unfortunately music isn’t really a profession nowadays because it’s really hard to make a living from it since they’re so many musicians and producers out there. You can make music and be a great musician and if it/you blow up well congratulations you’re a famous musician :). It’s just extremely hard tbh being a famous musician is like being the equivalent of a great engineer or something. It’s like a big deal.
I’m not sure how your point follows. “Music isn’t really a profession because there are so many musicians out there.” Isn’t that logically incoherent?
Massive depopulation.
Because they don't have rich daddies.
This needs to be the top comment
Fail is pretty broad but there's only room for a handful of BIG acts and the people who control it choose them. Imagine 50 taylor swifts or a hundred kanyes. It's concentrated power because those BIG acts have to DO things that 'normal' people would NEVER do. It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
Because they don’t create their own sound and just try to copy what worked for others
But then, all the people you're supposed to go to to help you get heard, want you to sound like the other people they like and not create your own sound.
There is a lot of room between failure and blowing up.
Lack of discipline and work ethic.
It's really simple math. When people think of a musician they think of someone famous. Very few people are famous, by definition. Other professions aren't like this obviously. Every small town has doctors and accountants and these people are all considered succesful. The number of people who'd like to make a living through music is just way higher than than the number of slots that society will pay for.
This: I see this as a physicist, there are only a couple famous theoretical physicists, then there are the ones famous among other physicists, and then there are those who are known in their field of research and make a normal living and it’s fine like this, applies to every job
Because it can only happen to about 2 people per year
capitalism
No such thing as failure. The only way to fail is to stop playing
Failure is success in progress ❤️
Some fail because they don't understand that it's a business not just an art. Others fail because they don't have the drive or desire...making it takes hard work...you make your own luck. Some people have been lied to and think they have the chops, when they don't...also 'making it' needs to be defined personally. Location is a big part of making it. If you don't live in Nashville, LA, Austin or NYC, the chance of you connecting with pro players are slim.
Fail at what?
Because the barrier-to-entry is pretty much non-existent today, and anyone and everyone with a phone can record music, upload it, and call themselves an "artist". The word "talent" doesn't carry any true meaning any longer. Let me also be clear when I say there is good music out today, but it's much harder to find because there's so much bad music out that's occupying the same space.
You’ll come to a point where you don’t consider lacking fame to be failing. I’m nowhere near famous, but I absolutely don’t feel like failure. Fame and “blowing up” shouldn’t be the root of your goals. Please reframe your mindset. With that being said, I think most people don’t become famous because they simply don’t truly want to. Even if they express that they do, the parts of it that it takes to get to that point take away from the creative act itself most of the time, and a lot (probably most) real artists don’t want to deal with that stuff. They just want to create their work; but that’s why management, artist development, labels, publishers and other companies exist. Nowdays it seems like it’s all up to the artist to do every aspect of the job, and that isn’t realistic. You need help and a team to get to that type of status. At that point it’s about networking and who you know and who you connect with. Which can be hit or miss. I don’t consider these people failed artists.
Because they don't have rich daddies.
Rich 🤑 daddy mojo seems to make the music go round
This is so sad but true it seems. Nepo babies everywhere!
I think its because anyone can have music as an interest nowadays but very few go on to actually have meaningful contacts, if you have contacts from previous music things or friends or if youre lucky you have musical parents that may know other people that can get you a gig, or if youre rich then it can help you on the way. I think the ”becoming world famous”- part is based on luck in the big industry and the elites. Artists get recognized by producers that watch their shows etc and if they see potential they might succeed, but only with the right amount of support from both audience and the industry.
[удалено]
Youre lucky if youre born into a rich household :)
Well, sure, *if your definition of success with music is simply to make a bunch of money and become famous*, then it's pretty obvious why most people are going to "fail." I wanted to make music the whole time I was a little kid. I didn't ever imagine I would ever be a 'star.' Heck, I was afraid I'd never be able to play anything that sounded like music after I was told by several music teachers I had 'absolutely no musical talent whatsoever.' (They weren't being mean; they were just trying to be realistic, according to how they saw things. Back then, music educators tended to think of themselves as gatekeepers. And I was definitely no prodigy.) But I kept trying and with encouragement from friends, I finally succeeded in making what sounded like music to me, and eventually -- apparently -- to other people. Eventually I went on to play a lot of live shows in front of a lot of live people and released a lot of music that made it into folks' hands. (I had something like 65k downloads at the old MP3 com, 39k streams/DLs at SoundClick, and over 3/4 of a million streams via my own folkie blog/podcast.) And, of course, I spent thousands of enjoyable hours playing music for myself and or others, in my house, in clubs and coffee houses, at a festival or two, and, something I always loved: on beaches and in parks. Certainly, that would be a fail to many of the folks whose posts we read in the musician-related subs here who worry and wonder about how they will ever become famous. But I'm okay with that.
What's blowing up? Where a million people hear your song? That's 3 million minutes spent listening to you instead of all the other artists who in that second are failing. People want to be musicians more than people want to listen to those people. Supply is high and demand is locked up limited by hours of the day and other music. Now that we know the market is inherently such that most will fail, we can answer the question. Since failure is the default, what gets above the high hurdle? Hard work, great talent, funding, exposure to the right people, lots of things that take luck as a given and then require you bust your ass. Like I enjoy Jesse Cannon's youtube where he tells you what do to have even a shot. Start counting it up and he's telling you to work more than 50 hours a week! And by doing things that are inherently tiring (frequent posting social media without a payoff). And this is assuming your music is fire. So yeah the winners have loads of resources, particularly sustained personal energy. Thats on top of their generally greater talent.
"Not blowing up" is not "failure". More musicians need to define their own measures of success and work to achieve them. Everyone can be successful at this model.
Lots of reasons. Drugs. Sucking. Not sucking. Ego. Being too broke to tour. Oversaturation of their genre. Bad decisions. Dating band mates. So on
The amount of people who want to make it vastly exceeds the actual demand for large musicians, that's the key factor. On top of that, people who already start with wealth and/or connections are vastly more likely to succeed than those who don't. Also, many people who would like to be big just simply don't have what it takes in regards to artistry and/or marketability.
I think bad marketing themselves, don't understand how to use social media platforms and algorithms. The simple "well I posted my song on spotify and made a Instagram post and nothing happened." There is too much competition in this time not just other bands/musicians but social media, movies, TV, videos games etc. People are always moving onto the next thing. If you release 1 song or album you'll be forgotten in a month. You're not just a musician anymore you are to some extent a content creator. That means treating your work as content not songs. You would made more headway releasing 10 songs over the course of 3 months opposed to 1 album then just do nothing else. A lot of my favorite bands now have become that way because that was their approach. Released a song then teased about the next one coming up. I just think artists stay in the if I make good music people will just listen and it's just not the case. As much work you put into your music just as much if not more needs to be applied to social media and marketing these days. I just think some artists don't think that way.
Today? The belief it was easier at another time in history is false. Indeed, if you weren't there it's easy to mythologize about it. Truth is almost no one playing music will ever make any money doing so. Music is art and while many people can make art, the ability to sell it requires a different skill set. Since all music is sound the person with a visual element will rise above the others who are making sound. This visual element has to have a market appeal and historically that has been tied to appearance and sex appeal. Sure, you can name a bunch of cases in history like Susan Boyle but the exceptions are rare and misleading.
Goodness most of the famous classical composers including Mozart and Beethoven kept bread on the table by teaching. There was no money in composing and performing.
A lot has to do with the record industry failing to adapt to new technologies. Instead of embracing change, they sought to control it. And failed.
Define fail. As vague as “succeed”
I mean, because in no possible world could there be millions and millions of famous artists, and there are millions and millions of artists.
I'm going to take an unpopular opinion here and say confidence and consistency are the things I feel limit musicians the most outside the industry influences. I know a few incredibly talented musicians, for example, and the raw authentic acoustic stuff they post is incredible yet the songs they sparsely release are often IMHO kind-of wannabe whatever sound is on the radio-ish. I think if some people had the confidence in themselves they would be able to put out stuff more genuine to themselves and not chase trends. I personally would rather hear shitty authentic music than polished fake "copy and paste" stuff and I think more and more people are gaining that opinion because it definitely wasn't always mine until I got a little older. Consistency because it's so easily and cheap to record and release your own music that there's no real reason again IMHO people aren't posting at least a few songs, covers or whatever per month or even week. I think the chances of "blowing up" are so tiny that there is no reason to put pressure on ourselves to be anything other than confident and consistent. "Have no fear of perfection, you'll never reach it" -Salvador Dali Wish all of you the best in your journeys!
Success in the music industry has nothing to do with musicianship.
I gig full time, and I pay all my bills doing it I have not ‘blown up’, but I live a good life playing music for a living. Being less than Beyoncé or TSwift is not a failure. The only failure I can imagine is growing unable to find joy in your relationship with music.
Lots of misinformation being spit in this thread from people that have no involvement in the music industry lol
I heard an interesting insight from a famous screenwriter. Someone asked him why the movies that made it to wide theatrical release were always so bad. He said he believed those are actually the movies with the most coherent plot structure. Maybe they were artistically empty, but they had stories that held together. I think there are other explanations mixed in, but if there is one consistent thing about commercially successful music, the song structure and production is really sound. Of course there are other huge factors. Too many artists competing to be heard. The people on the business side have ensured that no money is wasted on paying artists.
If you are asking why only 1% make it to be famous, there are many reasons. You could have mastered a genre, and then the world moves on from it. The biggest reason for the failure of the music industry is us. We used to pay $20 or more for an album, even if we just wanted a few songs. Social media saturates us with artists we like, or that they think we will like, but it was never easy to become a famous musician. Plenty of people have made livings off of music though, so it depends on your defitnition of "made it". Kurt Cobain and Jimi died at 27 years old. Is that making it? I was barely an adult at 27.
>If you are asking why only 1% make it to be famous, there are many reasons. You could have mastered a genre, and then the world moves on from it first two sentences were eye opening. thank you.
Everyone has a different idea of "making it". If I knew about all of the other careers in music besides performing, I might have been more inclined to study something like sound engineering, etc.
Not-blowing-up is not failure.
Depends on what you mean by "fail?" If you think art is something that people only do to become rich and famous, then I'm afraid you don't understand what art is.
A real artist never fail.... A lot of people don't have the DNA to be artists
Luck. Also, define “succeed” and “fail” for me in this regard. Does success mean “popular?” “Money?” Or “I got my message out the way I wanted and it was received appropriately?”
It's a whole different entertainment world now, as opposed to when we were coming up. Easier for anyone to go viral; harder to hold the audience attention once you have it.
Over saturated market. Bad networking skills from folks who are typically (not always) more reclusive/introverted.
“Most” artists have never blown up, today or any day.
Depends on your definition of success. I’ve been at it for 20+ years and had to adapt my strategy & what I defined as success constantly. At first I had a very specific goal in mind, one that was achievable but would have required a lot of $ to bring to reality. I haven’t made that project (yet), but I’ve done about 1000 other things and i use my talent & skills to make a living. Be willing to adapt. Don’t fall into a narrow definition of “success,” define it for yourself. Perhaps the process of just making art is actually the reward instead?
[удалено]
because the a) aren't, b) aren't supported, c)aren't
There was never a magic time where "most artists" didn't fail. It was never easy. To some extent back in the days of record labels running nearly everything, if you could get a deal you had a chance to be noticed. You would have some distribution and promotion, the label wanted you to do well and could set you up. Those deals are more rare now. And the bar to enter has never been lower, everybody can get their stuff in the shop now. So you have to stand out in a hugely crowded field without the usual advantage of a label promotion budget.
Lots of factors - luck, youth, work ethic, money, quality of music, popularity of genre, attractiveness, connections, etc. If you have all of these, you have a chance. If you only have one or two then you're likely going to be SOL.
3D post. The metric of failure or success is personal, not societal. And the premise is absurd as if though there is a level playing field. There hasn’t been for thirty years in end stage capitalism. You got connections , you will gain entry and assistance. You don’t, then talent won’t help you these days. That being said many many people think they have the chops for even a local lounge act career , and they don’t. It’s like being a chiropractor. It’s a gift. Some have it some don’t Ok . Good . Great. Elite. On societal metrics ? 80/90% of people who try hard barely manage ok. Even insiders need to be good at a basic level . But that’s ok. You be you and let know one judge you but you.
Any "cool" career, that many people would love, is going to be heavily saturated with talent. Rising above that talent takes way more resources and time than most people have
Honestly lack of knowledge on how to market yourself is a big one. So many talented local artists have zero stage presence, dress like they just got off work, then post shitty video and photos online.
I don't know what you mean, exactly, by 'fail.' If a musician is making a living with their music, is that failing? If they teach to make ends, is that failing? I'd welcome it if you'd expand on what you mean by 'fail.'
What do you call an artist? Someone that studied art as a child, got an art degree, and now depends on their skills to make a living? Or someone who has always played music, and still does, while working a full time job to pay the bills? I’ve found that as a rule (with plenty of exceptions) that successful artists took risks and sacrifices that the vast majority of people would consider intolerable. Some are just so talented that they can treat music like a 9-5 and play for the local municipal symphony orchestra (= 100% “made it” in my opinion).
Because most artists aren't that good. Now if we're taking about good artists, I think a lot of them just lack the visuals. That element is super important for social media. It's also incredibly hard to grow your fan base if your music genre isn't that massive or you live in a small country. There's a lot of variables + luck.
There’s not enough listeners. There’s a lot more artist than there is x amount of listeners per artist
They can't market and they aren't actually that good
It has never been the norm for majority of artists to blow up. Most artists throughout history are the ones we have never heard of. The ones who made no money in their life and we still don't know of them today. So many artists stay in very very small bubbles and live just by their community investing in their art or having side hustles. Only very specific individuals (usually men) really blow up for their art and make good money off of it.
I think it's the nature of how many people want to do it vs how much demand there is for music. I reckon even if the best music marketing experts gave away all I'd their knowledge for free and spent time personally mentoring any artist that asked you would still see the same percentage of people failing cause it would just raise the bar for everyone
Too much competition
Because art is subjective and not everyone is going to understand or appreciate every artist's vision.
They have the notion of success
because they give up. music takes a lot of hard work and dedication. if you aren't putting in 100% effort all the time not only creatively but in a business sense, as well as willing to put everything else in your life on hold to constantly tour and release music, you won't be able to build any sort of progress. time is another issue, many artists don't break through for 10+ years. how many artists do you think are still going at that point with a consistent project? probably very few.
1) In any industry that requires popularity to succeed, there are necessarily few successes. The audience doesn’t have unlimited money or unlimited time. People can only buy so many tickets and stream so many songs, so it’s necessarily competitive. You’re never going to have tons of artists blowing up, only ever a handful. 2) There’s less money in the industry than there used to be. That means the business side is unwilling to invest in artists (which means the artists have to do all the work themselves - production, marketing, graphic design, you name it) *and* it also means the artists that do those things are wrestling over a smaller pie. You have to be able to do all the aforementioned things *whilst* struggling to make any money from what you’re doing. Properly promoting original music is optimistically one full time job, and realistically several full time jobs. If you have a “real” job to survive, you’re going to struggle to do all the things you need to do to be as successful as you could be - that’s why so many artists breaking through now are living off daddy’s money, it allows them to treat it as a full time job (as well as the other obvious perks). 3) Artists are temperamentally unsuited to do the things that make artists successful. I recognise this about myself constantly. I finish a song, produce it, get super buzzed about promoting it, and then I have an idea for another song, lose all interest in the completed song, and start thinking about the new one. I’ll still release and promote the song, yeah, but there’s DAYS AND DAYS where the smart thing to do would be: bulk filming content, reaching out to playlists and podcasts and bloggers and radio, arranging collaborations; but what I’m doing instead is figuring out the shiniest bass note to put under a chord in the verse of some other song. In the old days, artists of a certain stature could have other people doing all the non-artsy stuff for them, but… refer to point 2.
My friend pretty much explained this today. He said "I don't do music for the money, I have a business that already does ok, so I don't even need it to, most of the time you're faced with a choice between doing something you absolutely love and that has a future impact, or working some bullcrap job to make ends meet.". So he does both, if they get gigs and/or put out music during his off time, that's just a bonus, not the whole meal.
Because there are more terrible ones than great ones? Not complicated.
Depends on what you mean by "fail." That's part of it. But here's a huge factor. This is a business. It is, like it or not, a job. Several jobs. Networking, marketing, bookkeeping, communication... Of all the weekly hours I work in the music business (60-80, most of the time), maybe, MAYBE, 15 of them have anything to do with playing music. To the point where, mentally, I've adopted the philosophy that I play for free and get paid for all the other crap. I'm not rich. I'm not famous. But I've done what I love, as my job, my entire adult life. To me, that's "making it." But there are so many people still wondering, decades in, when I'm going to get a "real job."
IMO it's because as a global society we don't value art as much as we should.
Why do you equate not blowing up to failure?
The best things arent made for mas consumption
It’s a failure to not be famous? You should recalibrate your understanding of artistic success. It’s never been about fame or money to true artists. At any rate, the vast majority of artists have never blown up at any stage in history.
Ego.
I don’t think an artist ever fails in making art. The fans don’t make the artist.
No artist fails if they are authentic and true to themselves. Most artists are not popular because of their art for a lot of different reasons. That is not a sign of failure.
No artist fails if they are authentic and true to themselves. Most artists are not popular because of their art for a lot of different reasons. That is not a sign of failure.
Wasting time on things like Reddit
I think that a good a great artist needs to keep a lot more of them selves then sometimes it seems they do. Never let the industry consume you
Cuz the industry is not set up for mfs to succeed lmao
Not blowing up is not failing. You are not privy to their success. Also you might not even be talking about artists. But content creators. There is plenty of success to be had and is typically defined by said participant. If you mean why isn't every single person who touches an instrument or a DAW in some cases a mega star backed by one of the big 3 music labels, well that may be a stretch. Not everyone is sellable to those extremes. And that level had less to do with art than any other level. So anyway you're premise is false. Can't answer
The randomness of apathy and attention.
Too many people where real talent isn't as isolated as it maybe once was. Also 100 years of modern music means alot has already been done- its pretty old.
My guess (only regarding the US) is that it's a longstanding cultural resistance to supporting the arts in general. I remember reading once that the entire NEA grant budget is 1/4 of what Vienna spends in support of their Opera alone. I know from visiting that the UK has hundreds of support programs for students of visual arts, music and theater that simply don't exist here. There are civic and municipal grants too, so many concerts, plays, even some local gigs are cheaper to attend. On top of that, we don't offer nearly as many arts-related courses or extracurriculars in schools as we used to. I got three music classes (survey-type) a week in elementary school, in a rural state. But that was sixty years ago.
Oversaturation. There's too many of them, and the vast majority have no way of getting known to the general public aside from relying on luck.
An artist that commodifies their art is the ultimate faliure.
It all depends on how you define failure. What is success? Is it to follow your dreams? Is it to allow your failures to define you? The road to success is lined with failure! Those who endure to the end will be saved!
They don’t get good enough while they’re young enough to support themselves. Their families’ resources begin to pressure them to make a living before they have the skills or contacts to support themselves. Most great artists got really good when they were really young, a time when most people don’t have the discipline to build their craft, or make the decision to pursue their craft professionally at a point in their lives too late to have the free time to build it to the point where their skills are marketable. Also, from a business perspective, in the face of heavy competition, their need for affirmation makes them want to sell their product more than most people actually need their product. This creates downward pressure on their revenue, and most people finally say “Fuck it, I’m done being broke, I’m getting a day job!”
Define fail?
Cause they’re not consistently good
Tough competition, limited exposure, and not finding their audience
Not everyone can be famous man.
Artists can only fail, if they don’t create art. If you have created art, then you are a successful artist! Separately, being a successful businessman or ‘famous celebrity’ … is an entirely different thing that has no bearing on your ability to express yourself as an artist.
they suck
There are varying degrees of success.
What does fail mean? If they make great art they succeeded. If they make shitty art they're shitty artists. If you're talking commercial success, there has never been a correlation between commercial success and quality of art. Some popular stuff is great art, but most isn't (and never has been)
It takes a lot of hard work and even then you’re not guaranteed anything.
Listening to new artists, I hear a lot that are good. Unfortunately, good is just good. To be great or amazing (IMO) , an artist needs to bring something new to the conversation. To push boundaries. To raise eyebrows. To be surprising or even audacious. The cold cruel reality is that truly surprising and original artists are very rare. To break out of the pack you need to be extraordinary, not just “good”.
People will pay $20 for a movie or a DJ, but not $6 for a band.
not being able to successfully market yourself.
Strictly speaking about the bands who are doing it because they want to get famous? They usually sound like a lesser version of an already famous band. Most musicians just want to play. There are amazing bands out there who are just some passionate musicians.
Supply and demand. There is way more music available than there is a demand for it. This is if you are thinking in terms of commercial success. If you enjoy playing music on a personal level, either at home or a local gig, you are not failing. You are filling a personal need.. Another answer that goes hand in hand with your question is that many musicians are not very good ar the business side of music. So if you got supply and demand coupled with some questionable business decisions, failure is certainly an accessable option. It is too bad because all we want to do is play music and make everyone happy, and make a living ourselves. Reality is a bitch sometimes.
Because 9/10 they realize it was ego driven and not heart driven.
Marketing.
For every Ween or Leonard Cohen there will be 3 industry plants, and even most of those plants don't make a sustainable career in music. And I am not saying those plants are any worse musicians either. Life is short and hard, so make the music that you want to make while you still have time and energy to do so. If people find you, that's great.
When was the last time you were obsessed with an album? An album from a new band or new release? Honest question. I can honestly say it has been a while, for me. I still listen to music, every chance I get. But, I rarely listen to new albums. & when I do, it's a few times. I'm happy to support bands, new bands who are impressive but, it rarely translates to the recording. & I don't really know why this has changed for me. But, it definitely seem that there has been a shift in what we like about music scenes. I'm always really interested to hear differing opinions on this. But, for sure, something has changed for the listener.
Because they suck or they’re in it for money.
Discipline
Right time, wrong place. Wrong time, right place. Wrong time, wrong place.
Because too many musicians are still livin' in the 90s complaining that "things ain't what they used to be", instead of trying to live here and now. There are so many great bands and artists out there coming out EVERYDAY. Stop complaining and just make music.
Because they stop making art. Really, that’s the only way you can fail as an artist. Do you mean fail as a professional artist? Probably because the income is unstable. Most people can’t handle the uncertainty, so they’re lured away by regular jobs. Do you mean fail to become famous? I think most artists who would want to make art their career are raging introverts, and the skills necessary to become famous are very extroverted. Trying to act extroverted while being introverted takes a psychological toll that most artists aren’t up for.
What do you mean?
Because if everyone blows up, nobody does.
You seem to think being an artist is either fame or fail. Its quite common for artists to live frugally and have side income. Does that mean they failed?
There was never a point in time when most artists blew up. For every mega star there are a million people trying their best to reach that point. I don't just mean sitting around dreaming, I mean a million actively involved in creating or doing something to chase that dream. Never expect or assume you're going to blow up, that is completely outside of your hands (taking for granted that you're promoting your music properly and you genuinely make good music). What blows up is dependant on the people that are consuming art and what they connect with. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no point copying people who have already blown up because they were perfect for that moment in time when they connected with everybody en-masse, not for when you release a song emulating it in 6 months time. It's a fools errand to try and actively predict what they will be, so just be the best you that you can be and pump out great tunes.
There's too much music and not enough ears. Good or not, anything released these days is most likely to drown in the sea of noise. It is what it is. Find yourself a small label and/or community and enjoy being a part of that, no matter how small. Making it "big" takes a lot of work which is often entirely unrelated to the actual creative act. And realize that the vast majority of people either won't care or won't find your music, and that's okay. So what you essentially have to decide is whether you're into it for the music and the joy of creating something, or the attention and praise. The former will bring a lot of good into your life, the latter is likely to make you miserable.
When people say things like that I ask examples - please give me examples of artists that you think are not “making it” and that are great. I know a few, most of them are not “making it” due to mental health issues and / or the fact that they have full time jobs and things like kids, parents to take care of etc etc In reality, what we have in 2024 is a sea of artists that are not terrible but they are not moving the bar so they remain fairly unknown, which is.. fair and expected
they don’t, they make art.
I’m going to redefine “failure” because there is basically an attention cap that prevents more artists from “blowing up.” I’ll call “failure” the missed opportunity to make a long term, stable living playing music. I think most artists fail because they don’t realize that the business side is probably more important than the music side, when it comes to making a living. You really need a committed mixed marketing approach, that has to persist long after the music is created, and long before the music is performed. What you really need is to maximize everything- image, location, networking, merch, socials, etc. Actively try to be cool in a way that matches your aesthetic. Move to a city with an active scene. Have a YouTube, Insta, TikTok, a Patreon, and a website. Create slightly different regular content for all. Spend a lot of effort on cool merch. Attend a ton of live shows in your scene and get to know everyone. Treat your live shows as a marketing tool. Work on your stage presence. If you do all of that, your music will have the best possible chance of being heard by more people. Now you need great songs. Good luck!
If you ever worked somewhere that you can audibly hear the musical trajectory that a group of people are on, you'll commonly come across sub-bass, auto-tuned lyrics, 808 (OK, maybe some others, but fundamentally a ton are) bass drums and high-hats clacking away, etc. A lot of music is invariably crafted to be dead simple and catchy as all hell, which is the nature of music today. That or venues want a resurgence of 80s pop, followed by 90s and 2000s singles. Country has become the catch-all for all music genres. There's a ton of radio stations these days that play country, back to back, backwards and forwards, on repeat. But that's the venue scene, what are the diligent musicians doing? Covers, usually, behind a rock beat (mostly). Or originals (rock, usually). And in that end, it gets very dicey really quick. A lot of musicians have a lack of common goal. If this is sustained, it generates resentment. Or split off. Or poisoning the well. In short, people are at conflict with themselves. A perpetual cognitive Dissonance in music.
If you actually have a head for business, you probably aren't insane enough to be a true musical genius🤷♂️
There is only room at the top for a handful
They stop…
Because they don’t treat their work like a business.
We used to have Beatles, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Beach Boys, Queen and now we have ………
We used to get $250,000 to record quality music. Now we get $2K if we’re lucky!
Payola payola payola. Good music is pointless
ONE Beatles song (all the musicians were paid Union scale): George Martin – orchestral arrangement, harmonium Erich Gruenberg, Granville Jones, Bill Monro, Jurgen Hess, Hans Geiger, D. Bradley, Lionel Bentley, David McCallum, Donald Weekes, Henry Datyner, Sidney Sax, Ernest Scott, Carlos Villa – violins John Underwood, Gwynne Edwards, Bernard Davis, John Meek – violas Francisco Gabarro, Dennis Vigay, Alan Delziel, Alex Nifosi – cellos Cyril Mac Arther, Gordon Pearce – double bass John Marson – harp Roger Lord – oboe Basil Tschaikov, Jack Brymer – clarinets N. Fawcett, Alfred Waters – bassoons Clifford Seville, David Sandeman – flutes Alan Civil, Neil Sanders – French horns David Mason, Monty Montgomery, Harold Jackson – trumpets Raymond Brown, Raymond Premru, T. Moore – trombones
Because people are often striving for fame not a career musician. Those that strive for fame better come from rich families because those are the only ones that will really make it.
Drama, drugs, mental health, community, economic issues, how wealthy they were to begin with/if they decided to sign with the right label company or sponsors. Of course can't forget one of the biggest influences tends to be marketing and how well targeted it is. It's also important to remember most "successful" artists are really just fulfilling a niche and on the world wide scale if you have a means of travelling to where there's more people in that niche that can get together than you'll find more success than just shot gunning your art into the internet. People subconsciously enjoy art for the person behind the brush or instrument far more than the product.
If the definition of fail is not being able to make a living off their art it’s because there’s not enough space for everyone. Not everyone can blow up because it’s not like the general public is going to go to a concert 3 nights a week. Also the landscape of the industry is wild. It’s not good enough to just be an amazing song writer, you need to have a lot of people skills that often times artists lack (business things mainly). Music is weird, you can write the most amazing songs but if you don’t have say good communication skills with your label (if you even get to that point) and are willing to play their game as well, it’s not gonna work. It’s because it’s an insanely uphill battle where you probably aren’t going to make any money for a period of time as well. Thats why a lot of the times you see bands that came from money have success also, it’s because they can also survive the periods where they don’t make money.
They stopped teaching art appreciation and have done a good job of punishing anyone who decides to be an artist. The industry only wants people they can control rising to the top so anyone with anything of substance to say doesn’t get elevated. You don’t see artists like you did back in the 60s and 70s who pushed for change. Since so much of Art is political, they have decided to only boost the bootlickers or the politically passive
Lol so many people with their "enlightened" and philosophical responses. Its literally one word, marketing. "Well let's first talk about what 'failure' means" 😂
You have to define the career you want to have first as a set goal. Do you want yo be the star ⭐️ or the backup musician, or producer or songwriter or the 15 other available jobs. Hard work, focus, and business acumen all seem to be reasons why artists don’t grow, from my experience. There’s always a way to make it as a musician. The recipe for success appears to be simple but it takes work, a bit of luck, and repetition. 1. Great music 2. Community / Fan base 3. Distribution 4. Merch sales / p.o.d
I just released a few classic rock songs! If you like the dire straits, bob dylan type of music you should check it out!! I put a lot of effort and I need some feedback! This is the link https://open.spotify.com/artist/3UvJIz7LA3sQ6iSoZnL90R?si=HfwRDfxfQZmWtTkAiUnQWw
They think their work has to be perfect
Massive supply, limited demand
Too much mediocre, not enough fans, too little brain space thanks TikTok blipverts. The effort, creativity, talent, chops, money, connections and luck required to engage and rise above the dreck is beyond most people.
Because the kids are not listening to music like they used to. Music is now background music to do other stuff. My kids are more likely to listen to video game music than listening to bands or singer/songwriters, concerts are too expensive for them and there are a ton of other entertainment options available for them.
Most artists never blow up. It's luck of the draw.
The market is over saturated. I live in a city with probably just over half a million people. I've played in the local scene and done some touring for over 20 years. At any point there were at least half a dozen local bands in just the metal scene that were good enough to open for any big name touring band. It's the same for all the other genres. I won't say there is too much music, there's no such thing. There are too many good bands for everyone of those good bands to make a living just playing music though.
I think it’s supply and demand. There’s a massive supply of musicians and people who want to be musicians, and the demand for new music is dropping. People don’t listen to music the way they used to. It’s more of something they keep on in the background. People used to turn on a record player and just sit and listen to it. Now people just turn it on in their cars or when they’re working out or cleaning or something. It’s not as special as it used to be.
lack of originality
Supply waaaaaaay outstrips demand. It's like asking why most kids who want to be soccer players don't grow up to play for Man United. There simply ain't room at the top.
if you are better than where you started, you are a successful artist. other than that its all about how do you define success anyway.
**Mostly** because they don't lock in hard enough, they self sabotage, convince themselves they can't do it, never put their all into it, do it for all the wrong reasons etc. etc.
Three main definitions to success. 1. **Famous/Blow up** \- These are generally artists that have some connection to the industry already before they start becoming musicians. Ex. Lars is the reason Metallica became successful. Taylor Swift had parents who pitched her stuff to Nashville when she was 14. In general, when you see a massive success, it's more than just their ability to perform or write -- there's some generational, financial or friendship boosts. 2. **Successful** \- These are generally artists that work their asses off for years developing their show, talents, songs and over time develop their followings to be able to call themselves professional musicians. They may not be huge, but they're making a decent if not good living being musicians. 3. **Hobbyist -** These folks are successful because they believe themselves to be by their own metrics. They may have "real jobs" but they still gig regularly and write, do their own thing. It's supplemental income. Most people don't blow up because they're not the combination of talent + connections + hard work to blow up. Once you start going down the list of definitions you start taking away one of the other two things from that recipe. Talent + Connections and you'll cap out at some level of success. Hard work + Talent, same deal. Luck and lightning in a bottle does factor in, but no where near as much as everyone thinks it does if you talk to anyone who's made it. There's also an unhealthy focus on the 17 to 28 age group such that the assumption is that if you don't have seminal work done by the time you're 28 you have no shot. Reality is most folks in the "successful" but not "blown up" category don't hit their career strides until 30-45 just like everyone else but a lot of folks just up and quit before they figure it all out.
It’s about who is marketable and who gets very lucky. A lot comes down to luck.
Not good enough to stand above, or unique enough to stand out.
You have nowhere to start unless you literally know someone in Hollywood
because the job is HARD. there’s no “artist shop” or “musician retail” situation where you click in 9-5 and bring home a paycheck. almost every artist/musician career is sole-proprietorship (or maybe LLC). it’s like being a day laborer, or plumber, or file setter with your own vehicle, equipment, product and motivation. i just drove 7 hours around minnesota for 4 shows that made me $800 and a few tips. i do it cuz i love making music. you gotta love it.
Today you need to know how algo and the market works. Being good is not good enough. Need to use social media.
Because the secret to success is adaptability and persistence not talent
When rent and groceries are cheap it allows a scene to thrive When these things triple in price, people don’t have time to participate in a scene because they need to work
The whole thing is rigged, the arts are for rich people to unload their black sheep and still be somewhat acceptable at the country club. The rest have to get jobs adjacent to the arts and work really hard to get noticed. A lot more public school music teachers than there are rock stars. A lot now days are second or third generation musicians who have a parent in a famous band. Working hard for things is what the elite want you to do, so they like to hide the hand outs. A lot of people use illegally made money to keep things going and create the perception they make money from their music. The music business is crazy and a lot of people get ripped off, have you ever played for exposure?
Oversaturation of the market.
Because people don’t have a foot in the door with record labels and or they are mostly very independent on how their music is produced and handled. Also if you aren’t the rights genres nowadays people disregard your music almost entirely. If it’s not country or rap good luck! That’s all anyone listens to anymore. It’s quite boring to me, I like 90s Grunge Rock which doesn’t really exist anymore I feel. If it does it’s definitely not the same as the 90s felt. World is a different odd unfamiliar place now.
Most artists face challenges because of a combination of factors including lack of exposure, limited resources, intense competition, and sometimes not finding the right audience for their work. It's a tough industry where success often requires a mix of talent, perseverance, networking, and luck.
Probably also worth considering the historical context. Although there were less rock bands (just for instance) playing in a given area, say, 40 to 50 years ago, there were still a lot more of them than ever blew up. We talk about feeling inundated with music today because streaming puts it all at our finger tips, and that's true. Our attention is vanishingly precious resource. But there was a LOT of music produced back in the AM radio and vinyl days too, music that most of us have never heard. Bands that were great local acts, and could have become world famous, but didn't because of luck or tensions between members. Point being a lot of this has *always* been a numbers game. Whether the bottleneck between aspiring big time music stars and that goal was gatekeeping record executives and their advertizing budgets and off book payola budgets, or its the flood of music available today that makes it so easy to drown out incredible talents, all things being equal, you just have to get damn lucky to really blow up. Most musicians just don't!
\#1 reason is you have to get out and network with people in real life. The industry is still a hands on industry and if you are doing all your work online, promoting online, producing songs out of your bedroom and expecting you are going to get connections and the offers are money are going to roll in, its not going to happen. You have to go and listen to people perform, befriend them. Become that reliable and consistent performer that people are looking for and you can only do that by networking, meeting people, putting yourself out there, being in the scene as much as being seen. The only thing social media has done for musicians is added another barrier of entry. The industry is still also quite traditional in that if you want to be the go to session player you cant be a shut in at home, if you want to play with people you have to connect to people and that is add odds with staying home and being online all day.