3 ms·

This assumes the top 40 holds the same relevance that it did in the 80s. Regardless, you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michae

This assumes the top 40 holds the same relevance that it did in the 80s. Regardless, you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michael Jackson had in those days. And while the record labels continue to pull in profits, there's no comparison between a top artist today compared to the 80s or 90s. Top earners in 2013 each made about $30-$40m [1]. Michael Jackson in a good year made about as much the current top 10 combined [2], and still managed to make $160m in 2013 despite being dead [3]. [1] http://www.billboard.com/articles/list/5930326/music-s-top-40-money-makers-2014-the-rich-list http://www.billboard.com/articles/list/5930326/music-s-top-4... [2] https://www.forbes.com/pictures/geeg45eggig/michael-jacksons-career/#1d5f5811439f https://www.forbes.com/pictures/geeg45eggig/michael-jacksons... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/10401105/Michael-Jackson-tops-list-of-highest-earning-dead-celebrities.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/104...

k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michael Jackson had in those days 1. Comparing it financially true although I don't think that's fair as the economics of the industry are completely different, not because people are indulging in indie acts more but because music is cheaper generally. 2. I'm not a fan of Top 40 type music but I often look at the charts and it's always the same few people there (Rihanna, Major Lazer, Calvin Harris, Drake etc.). If you go to most clubs the music you hear is generally the Top 40. So although the returns financially are less I think it's more because people are paying less, not because they are spreading the money around to more artists.

3 ms·

This assumes the top 40 holds the same relevance that it did in the 80s. Regardless, you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michae

by robert_tweed 10y ago

k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michael Jackson had in those days 1. Comparing it financially true although I don't think that's fair as the economics of the industry are completely different, not because people are indulging in indie acts more but because music is cheaper generally. 2. I'm not a fan of Top 40 type music but I often look at the charts and it's always the same few people there (Rihanna, Major Lazer, Calvin Harris, Drake etc.). If you go to most clubs the music you hear is generally the Top 40. So although the returns financially are less I think it's more because people are paying less, not because they are spreading the money around to more artists.