9 ms·

A rocker’s guide to management

183 points by davidw 8y ago

mb_72 8y ago
For those who are not into rock music or music in general necessarily, this article is still worth reading and thinking about. A couple of lines stand out for me, especially: "...every group has a threshold for tension that represents its optimal level of conflict. Uncontrolled conflict can destroy the group, but without conflict, boredom and apathy set in." This is consistent with my own experience, both in bands and in companies, and perhaps in personal relationships also. A certain amount of friction is actually optimal in terms of output of the band / company / couple.
- bpizzi 8y ago
  I'm not sure, there's definitely people (I mean, there must be others than myself ;)), mostly introverted, that shine best when they know that the relationship is based on pure facts and no unforeseeable tension may arise from hurt egos. That being said, maybe we're such a minority that virtually no human group would be comprised of only that kind of mind (even in couples).
  - blauditore 8y ago
    > pure facts and no unforeseeable tension I cannot imagine a non-trivial environment where everything is deterministic and there's no room for argumentation. For example, when deciding on the color of a new logo, or what to do for a company trip, there's no obvious canonically true solution. Therefore, opinions and personal preferences come into play, which is a source of conflict.
    - bpizzi 8y ago
      > For example, when deciding on the color of a new logo, or what to do for a company trip, there's no obvious canonically true solution. Therefore, opinions and personal preferences come into play, which is a source of conflict. Ha, those are great examples where I will absolutely refuse to give my opinion :) "What's your idea on the new logo color?", "I don't care, I'll be ok with whatever you choose", "No really, tell me", "No really, I don't want to think about it", "I don't get it", "I know you don't". Quit harsh, I conceed :) Related: bikeshedding and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
      - pjc50 8y ago
        Quite an annoying approach in itself. The worst is people doing that when deciding where to eat.
  - indigochill 8y ago
    I was in a band for a while, and there can be tension without it needing to derive from egos. I would say all of us were ego-free and I can't remember us ever having any interpersonal conflicts. But we did have different musical inspirations. The lead singer/songwriter/rhythm guitarist loved folk rock, like Bob Dylan. I was more into metal and electronic music. The drummer was a devout punk. Our bassist swore by classic rock. In addition, I've always been of a very analytical mind, whereas our songwriter has always had a very artistic temperament. We philosophically disagreed about whether music was primarily art or science. But he had the spark of artistic inspiration to write the songs, and I had the music theory backing to write the accompaniment, so that philosophical tension actually made the whole thing work. Then we split to pursue our respective goals and neither of us have done much musically since then.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  This observation is the central topic explored by Dream Teams, which I'm currently almost done reading. I'm not sure if I'd recommend it, though; I like the writing style but your blurb contains a solid 50-60% of the book's insight.
shams93 8y ago
The Stones are like Apple, arguably Brian Jones was their Steve Jobs, after Jones passed they became this tried and true formula, they may have added in a disco beat in the late 70s but it was basically an iconic sound with iconic songs, but their creative genius had passed long before. I don't expect Apple to die off any time soon but Jobs was definitely their Brian Jones. But like the Stones I expect them to continue long into the future playing out the same formula over and over.
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  I wanted to argue against this, and I don't necessarily agree, but I guess the Stones did their best work after Jones died, but not too long after he died and I guess one could argue the same about Apple after Jobs (so far)
bpyne 8y ago
The book "Beyond Category" is a fantastic book that profiles Duke Ellington as a band leader. He kept a large number of high-level musicians, often with challenging personalities, employed and working together for decades. He managed to accomplish it in the face of a "pivoting market": around the late 40's/early 50's listeners turned more toward bebop with its small-group sound. It's a worthwhile read for anyone with both music and leadership interest.
baybal2 8y ago
I'll say American, or Western business culture has a lot of "non-problems." To even imagine what makes a "problem" to a rich Western multinational, one has to put up some effort. I'm not a fan of S. Jobs, but generally approve of ways how he reanimated Apple Computers. A lot of commons sense based decision making in corporate structure, and HR policy. For one, he fired a lot of business degree holders from running actual engineering units — an issue of "inversion," I think is what the prime majority of big tech companies suffer from, and can't do a thing about. Remembering that, I can only continue to laud and appraise what it is the mainstream Chinese way of running a tech company. I was dealing with Chinese electronics since my first job in a trade company in Singapore 12 years ago. Just how freaking efficient they are. This baffled me 12 years ago, and it still does today. Nowhere but in China, you can have "signed contract in the morning, widgets in the evening." Rather sizeable collectives of up to 100 men are running here without a single "business" degree holder except of a single accountant/tax filler. Such companies run almost like as if they were a computer program, except they exist in real world. If I am asked to summarise what that malaise is that ails Western business in a single sentence it is "Western business culture is not about doing business." Too artsy, too talkshopy, too much "empty thinking," some people don't even know what they are supposed to do — if I take upon Jiang Zemin's style of a maxim statement.
- howlingfantods 8y ago
  Having grown up and worked in the US and lived in China for the past 10 years, I think you're overreaching with your characterization of corporate culture. China, like the USA, has a wide range of companies that span the spectrum of efficiency. Try to get some customer service at China Telecom and you'll see the bottom-tier of efficiency that resembles, or is even worse, than trying to get your cable fixed with Comcast.
  - baybal2 8y ago
    > China, like the USA, has a wide range of companies that span the spectrum of efficiency. Try to get some customer service at China Telecom and you'll see the bottom-tier of efficiency that resembles, or is even worse, than trying to get your cable fixed with Comcast. True. There are horrifically bureaucratised private companies with SOE roots, or ones ran by the "old boss" class. But in China, nobody will place them as an example to emulate, but in America, the amount of people hellbent on "running the company like a F500 multinational" is just scary, and these people _don't even realise_ that they are doing, and wanting something that is wrong.
weinzierl 8y ago
> One of the most striking differences between the Stones and the Beatles is that the Beatles split up after a mere seven years at the top, whereas the Stones are still going. One startup flashed brightly and burned out; the other established itself as a long-running corporation. When it comes to fame the Beatles' model is the clear winner. In 56 years the Rolling Stones performed more than two thousand concerts around the world[1]. They did so many concert tours that there exits a Wikipedia category[2] just for the tours. Sure, the Rolling Stones are world famous, but what effort was required to become and stay that way. Compare that with the Beatles. They put in ten years of work to reach universal long lasting popularity - how efficient is that. When it comes to fortune I'm not so sure. Comparing net worth of McCartney ($1.2 billion [3]) and Mick Jagger ($360 million [4]) it looks pretty clear too. But when we compare the overall wealth generated by the Beatles vs that of the Rolling Stones I'm not sure if that would be as clear cut. I don't have any number though and I think it's difficult to compare. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_concerts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_concerts [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Rolling_Stones_concert_tours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Rolling_Stones_co... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  The efficiency comparison is somewhat off due to the Allen Klein situation re the Stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Klein#The_Rolling_Stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Klein#The_Rolling_Stones on edit: also McCartney did not just make that money based on his Beatles work.
- sclangdon 8y ago
  The question is, would the Stones be as popular today if they also split up after 7 years at the top? I'd argue they would since all of their best work (with the exception of Exile on Main St. - which was released in their 8th year) was released in this time. Of course I'm not going to argue that anyone is as popular as the Beatles, but I'm pretty sure the Stones would also have had universal long lasting popularty if they had only been around for the same amount of time. You also can't compare the wealth of McCartney to Jagger. Firstly, McCartney had a very successful solo career after the Beatles, during which time he released way more albums than the Stones in the same time period and did his own share of touring. Secondly, McCartney owns a significant music publishing catalogue and has other business ventures.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
> If rock groups are businesses, businesses are getting more like rock bands. Workplaces are far more informal than they used to be, with less emphasis on protocol, rank and authority. Many firms try to cultivate the creativity that can come from close collaboration. Employers attempt to engineer personal chemistry, hiring coaches to fine-tune team dynamics and sending staff on team-building exercises. Employees are encouraged to share lunch, play table tennis and generally hang out. As the founder of Hubble, a London office-space company, put it, “We hope that our team will become friends first, and colleagues second.” The problem is, most of these companies are closer to formula driven Justin Bieber than the less pop-focused (say) Radiohead. Both have their merits. However, talking the latter while walking the former (or vice versa) creates disconnect - for employees, as well as customers. Ultimately, culture matters. It's a process. It must be cultivated and curated. It is __not__ a speech or memo from the top that intends to magically everyone with the snap of their fingers. There's far more to "We're going to innovate..." and "We're going to be creative..." and "We're going to be customer focused..." than simple saying such things. p.s. Heart and commitment matters. When you think of any great band you can hear their all-in-ness. Those who fake it, are far less likely to make it, and last.
peteretep 8y ago
> One notable exception to this rule was The Smiths. When Morrissey and Johnny Marr founded the band in 1982, they insisted on taking a bigger cut of income, from all sources, than the bassist, Andy Rourke, and the drummer, Mike Joyce Has anyone ever found any redeeming personal qualities to Morrissey?
- aerique 8y ago
  He's a unique blend of funny and annoying, a master troll. His lyrics are one of the few I actually listen to and enjoy. Not to mention the song titles. So I guess he's a decent writer?
  - bpyne 8y ago
    What a fantastic description or Morrissey. He's exactly a "master troll". His social "role" is like the chorus from Greek tragedies. I don't often listen to his music anymore. But, when the mood hits, nothing else satisfies.
ilamont 8y ago
Friends who once gathered in garages to thrash out songs on guitars and drums are now as likely to get together to brainstorm ideas for apps Kind of a case in point: Smashing Pumpkins' drummer Jimmy Chamberlin, who is the CEO of a tech company focused on live events (https://www.modeproject.com/liveone-crowdsurfing/#liveone-film https://www.modeproject.com/liveone-crowdsurfing/#liveone-fi...). He got the gig through a connection with Groupon's Andrew Mason. I think the study of bands' management styles really does give useful insights into creativity and venture creation. Bands (more than most startups) represent an almost ideal opportunity to have a balance of complementary job responsibilities; it's then up to the members (or leader[s]) to creatively optimize the output, including song creation, live performances, recording, fan outreach, marketing, etc. One area where things get interesting is when professional management gets involved. I was intrigued by that part in the article about the grizzled manager telling Tom Petty to put his foot down, and the repercussions that followed. This manager cut his teeth working with Joni Mitchell and Neil Young, perhaps the two most mercurial and insistent creative forces of the late 60s rock scene. It's interesting to think what would have happened had Petty hired someone else who had a different perspective. Another area that fascinates me is when things go wrong, and how these entities adjust. The scene in Bohemian Rhapsody where Freddie Mercury splits with the record exec who doesn't like opera is fictional, but a true story that is even more bitter is the split with Queen's early manager Norman Sheffield, a former drummer and later founder of the UK's first Apple dealership. Listen to the first track off the album Bohemian Rhapsody, written by Mercury, "Death on Two Legs," probably the ultimate rock diss track. It's so powerful and bitter. It amazes me they didn't try to work it into the movie, although that may relate to the fact that it is unfamiliar to most audiences, probably because radio was reluctant to play it back in the day. A third topic is scaling the business. I've written about Led Zeppelin in the past (see http://leanmedia.org/lean-media-example-led-zeppelin-i/ http://leanmedia.org/lean-media-example-led-zeppelin-i/) and believe the band was the ultimate rock startup: A talented creative team that clicked, an experienced pro (former Yardbirds guitarist Jimmy Page) leading the way, using audience feedback cycles to help shape the first songs before they entered the studio, and management that didn't try to mess with the creative core. Manager Peter Grant was a fearsome character (https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-last-days-of-led-zeppelin-g-force https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-last-days-of-led-ze...), but only focused on the business end (especially touring) and let Page lead the way in the studio and on stage. Because Led Zep was bootstrapped and didn't have a record deal when they started, they didn't have some record executive trying to call the shots in the studio and they worked quickly. Inception was in August 1968 and the release of the first album took place in January of the following year. Led Zeppelin II was similarly lean, recorded while they toured. Four of their first five albums were certified RIAA "Diamond" albums, each selling more than 10 million copies (see http://leanmedia.org/chart-shows-rise-fall-music-album/ http://leanmedia.org/chart-shows-rise-fall-music-album/) which I think may be a record. Yet by the mid-70s Led Zeppelin really bogged down. They started living the rock star life, and were doing massive tours that sucked the energy out of the band. Physical Graffiti took something like 18 months to produce (yes, it was a double album, but still). By the late 70s, Page and Bonham had serious substance abuse problems and the creative mantle passed to Jones and Plant. The band folded after Bonham died in 1980.
ethank 8y ago
I worked with REM for the past 20 years. This article is dead on. Learned more from that band about management than from any business mentors.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bpyne 8y ago
  What an incredible experience it must have been to be around such a creative group of guys. Even today, I can listen to Stipe's lyrics and find different meaning with my changing life experiences. I know they didn't like it, but Fables of the Reconstruction is one of the most moody, creative works in modern music IMO.
  - ethank 8y ago
    They came around to liking it at around the 20 year mark :)
gerbilly 8y ago
>John Lennon’s and Paul McCartney’s artistic partnership enabled them to vertically integrate the hitherto separate functions of songwriting and performing. Ugh, really? We're going to bring corporate buzzwords to the Beatles now? Lennon and McCartney had perfectly complementary qualities. When Paul would write "I've got to admit it's getting better", John would add "It can't get no worse". Paul is a great multi instrumentalist and has a great ear for melody, while John had lees musicianship but was a subtler and sometimes wickedly funny lyricist. Did you every see a video of an octopus capturing prey, the way they wrap themselves around it and smother it? That is what capitalism is attempting to do with everything.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  > Did you every see a video of an octopus capturing prey, the way they wrap themselves around it and smother it? That is distinctly reminiscent of Matt Taibbi's take on Goldman Sachs: > The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. --- https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-195229/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-grea...
bpyne 8y ago
The owner of a music school in my neighborhood graduated from Berklee Music College in the mid-90's. Even then Berklee had its students taking classes in business. A lot of being a successful musician is promotion and understanding how contracts work.
tim333 8y ago
>The notion that bands should make music for the love of it was always romantic and now seems positively quaint. Rock groups are mini-corporations The top 0.1% of rock groups maybe. The vast majority don't make significant money and probably do it mostly for the love of it and maybe a bit in the hope they'll make it one day.
- mothsonasloth 8y ago
  Completely agree, profit is only one measure of success. Take a look at the progressive rock band Rush, they've been going since the late 60s. They still love what they do, and have evolved their styles over time. Even Iron Maiden who I would argue had commercial success and fame have survived a tumultuous time during the 90s and have come back even stronger.
  - bb611 8y ago
    Rush's last tour ended over three years ago and the band is over. Neil Peart has apparently left the music business entirely
    - bpyne 8y ago
      Musicians have a history of taking long periods off. Sonny Rollins took a few multi-year stints off, during which time he worked on technique and ideas he didn't have time to work on as a touring musician. The Who have been in and out of retirement like 10 times. We'll see how long it lasts. He'll probably dedicate himself to writing for a few years and get himself back in shape with long-distance bicycling. But, he'll probably be back. I could easily see him not want to do arena tours anymore though, maybe some jazz gigs or small-venue acoustic sets with Rush. It's kind of interesting that two iconic drummers from the same generation - Bill Bruford and Neil Peart - decided to get out of the industry.
      - BillSaysThis 8y ago
        Geddy Lee, in recent interviews for his new book, was pretty explicit about Peart being done with music and Rush being over.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ubermonkey 8y ago
>Underpinning R.E.M.’s flat governance structure was an egalitarian economic one. As Tony Fletcher explains in “Perfect Circle”, his biography of the band, each member received an equal share of publishing royalties, regardless of who contributed what to each song. The same was true of their recording and performing royalties – although here equal splits are normal. One notable exception to this rule was The Smiths. When Morrissey and Johnny Marr founded the band in 1982, they insisted on taking a bigger cut of income, from all sources, than the bassist, Andy Rourke, and the drummer, Mike Joyce. This introduced an instability into the group, hastening its demise after five years. My understanding is that truly equal shares across the board are pretty rare, and probably even rarer if you filter for success. I think Van Halen was run that way, at least in its glory years (ie until DLR left). Marr & Morrissey insisting on a larger share of performing royalties and gig fees is just mean, considering they dominated songwriting. That's actually a minefield for some acts, because the songwriting money is WAY BIGGER (at least traditionally) than performance royalties. This came up in some of the more amusing sequences in the old VH-1 "Behind the Music" about the Go-Go's, who like many bands split songwriting royalties by actual authorship. The overwhelming majority of their songs (and all their hits) were written by Jane Weidlin and/or Charlotte Caffey, so after _Beauty and the Beat_ blew up they started getting checks that were much, much bigger than the other band members, who took exception. Weidlin's response to their ire was "well, write some fucking songs!"
olivermarks 8y ago
This seems a remarkably wholesome article given how vicious showbiz can be around song writing rights, recording deals etc. There's no discussion of the actual management of these acts - people like Peter Grant/Led Zeppelin or Mike Jeffery/Jimi Hendrix Experience, who both had very questionable business practices. Those are the people who control and exploit the talent, it seems very few acts have management who are looking out for them...
zozbot123 8y ago
So, are we going to have "rockstar-managers" and "ninja-bosses", too? Awesome.

183 points by davidw 8y ago

For those who are not into rock music or music in general necessarily, this article is still worth reading and thinking about. A couple of lines stand out for me, especially: "...every group has a threshold for tension that represents its optimal level of conflict. Uncontrolled conflict can destroy the group, but without conflict, boredom and apathy set in." This is consistent with my own experience, both in bands and in companies, and perhaps in personal relationships also. A certain amount of friction is actually optimal in terms of output of the band / company / couple.

bpizzi 8y ago
I'm not sure, there's definitely people (I mean, there must be others than myself ;)), mostly introverted, that shine best when they know that the relationship is based on pure facts and no unforeseeable tension may arise from hurt egos. That being said, maybe we're such a minority that virtually no human group would be comprised of only that kind of mind (even in couples).
- blauditore 8y ago
  > pure facts and no unforeseeable tension I cannot imagine a non-trivial environment where everything is deterministic and there's no room for argumentation. For example, when deciding on the color of a new logo, or what to do for a company trip, there's no obvious canonically true solution. Therefore, opinions and personal preferences come into play, which is a source of conflict.
  - bpizzi 8y ago
    > For example, when deciding on the color of a new logo, or what to do for a company trip, there's no obvious canonically true solution. Therefore, opinions and personal preferences come into play, which is a source of conflict. Ha, those are great examples where I will absolutely refuse to give my opinion :) "What's your idea on the new logo color?", "I don't care, I'll be ok with whatever you choose", "No really, tell me", "No really, I don't want to think about it", "I don't get it", "I know you don't". Quit harsh, I conceed :) Related: bikeshedding and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
    - pjc50 8y ago
      Quite an annoying approach in itself. The worst is people doing that when deciding where to eat.
- indigochill 8y ago
  I was in a band for a while, and there can be tension without it needing to derive from egos. I would say all of us were ego-free and I can't remember us ever having any interpersonal conflicts. But we did have different musical inspirations. The lead singer/songwriter/rhythm guitarist loved folk rock, like Bob Dylan. I was more into metal and electronic music. The drummer was a devout punk. Our bassist swore by classic rock. In addition, I've always been of a very analytical mind, whereas our songwriter has always had a very artistic temperament. We philosophically disagreed about whether music was primarily art or science. But he had the spark of artistic inspiration to write the songs, and I had the music theory backing to write the accompaniment, so that philosophical tension actually made the whole thing work. Then we split to pursue our respective goals and neither of us have done much musically since then.
ABCLAW 8y ago
This observation is the central topic explored by Dream Teams, which I'm currently almost done reading. I'm not sure if I'd recommend it, though; I like the writing style but your blurb contains a solid 50-60% of the book's insight.

shams93 8y ago

The Stones are like Apple, arguably Brian Jones was their Steve Jobs, after Jones passed they became this tried and true formula, they may have added in a disco beat in the late 70s but it was basically an iconic sound with iconic songs, but their creative genius had passed long before. I don't expect Apple to die off any time soon but Jobs was definitely their Brian Jones. But like the Stones I expect them to continue long into the future playing out the same formula over and over.

bryanrasmussen 8y ago
I wanted to argue against this, and I don't necessarily agree, but I guess the Stones did their best work after Jones died, but not too long after he died and I guess one could argue the same about Apple after Jobs (so far)

bpyne 8y ago

The book "Beyond Category" is a fantastic book that profiles Duke Ellington as a band leader. He kept a large number of high-level musicians, often with challenging personalities, employed and working together for decades. He managed to accomplish it in the face of a "pivoting market": around the late 40's/early 50's listeners turned more toward bebop with its small-group sound. It's a worthwhile read for anyone with both music and leadership interest.

baybal2 8y ago

I'll say American, or Western business culture has a lot of "non-problems." To even imagine what makes a "problem" to a rich Western multinational, one has to put up some effort. I'm not a fan of S. Jobs, but generally approve of ways how he reanimated Apple Computers. A lot of commons sense based decision making in corporate structure, and HR policy. For one, he fired a lot of business degree holders from running actual engineering units — an issue of "inversion," I think is what the prime majority of big tech companies suffer from, and can't do a thing about. Remembering that, I can only continue to laud and appraise what it is the mainstream Chinese way of running a tech company. I was dealing with Chinese electronics since my first job in a trade company in Singapore 12 years ago. Just how freaking efficient they are. This baffled me 12 years ago, and it still does today. Nowhere but in China, you can have "signed contract in the morning, widgets in the evening." Rather sizeable collectives of up to 100 men are running here without a single "business" degree holder except of a single accountant/tax filler. Such companies run almost like as if they were a computer program, except they exist in real world. If I am asked to summarise what that malaise is that ails Western business in a single sentence it is "Western business culture is not about doing business." Too artsy, too talkshopy, too much "empty thinking," some people don't even know what they are supposed to do — if I take upon Jiang Zemin's style of a maxim statement.

howlingfantods 8y ago
Having grown up and worked in the US and lived in China for the past 10 years, I think you're overreaching with your characterization of corporate culture. China, like the USA, has a wide range of companies that span the spectrum of efficiency. Try to get some customer service at China Telecom and you'll see the bottom-tier of efficiency that resembles, or is even worse, than trying to get your cable fixed with Comcast.
- baybal2 8y ago
  > China, like the USA, has a wide range of companies that span the spectrum of efficiency. Try to get some customer service at China Telecom and you'll see the bottom-tier of efficiency that resembles, or is even worse, than trying to get your cable fixed with Comcast. True. There are horrifically bureaucratised private companies with SOE roots, or ones ran by the "old boss" class. But in China, nobody will place them as an example to emulate, but in America, the amount of people hellbent on "running the company like a F500 multinational" is just scary, and these people _don't even realise_ that they are doing, and wanting something that is wrong.

weinzierl 8y ago

> One of the most striking differences between the Stones and the Beatles is that the Beatles split up after a mere seven years at the top, whereas the Stones are still going. One startup flashed brightly and burned out; the other established itself as a long-running corporation. When it comes to fame the Beatles' model is the clear winner. In 56 years the Rolling Stones performed more than two thousand concerts around the world[1]. They did so many concert tours that there exits a Wikipedia category[2] just for the tours. Sure, the Rolling Stones are world famous, but what effort was required to become and stay that way. Compare that with the Beatles. They put in ten years of work to reach universal long lasting popularity - how efficient is that. When it comes to fortune I'm not so sure. Comparing net worth of McCartney ($1.2 billion [3]) and Mick Jagger ($360 million [4]) it looks pretty clear too. But when we compare the overall wealth generated by the Beatles vs that of the Rolling Stones I'm not sure if that would be as clear cut. I don't have any number though and I think it's difficult to compare. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_concerts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_concerts [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Rolling_Stones_concert_tours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Rolling_Stones_co... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger

bryanrasmussen 8y ago
The efficiency comparison is somewhat off due to the Allen Klein situation re the Stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Klein#The_Rolling_Stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Klein#The_Rolling_Stones on edit: also McCartney did not just make that money based on his Beatles work.
sclangdon 8y ago
The question is, would the Stones be as popular today if they also split up after 7 years at the top? I'd argue they would since all of their best work (with the exception of Exile on Main St. - which was released in their 8th year) was released in this time. Of course I'm not going to argue that anyone is as popular as the Beatles, but I'm pretty sure the Stones would also have had universal long lasting popularty if they had only been around for the same amount of time. You also can't compare the wealth of McCartney to Jagger. Firstly, McCartney had a very successful solo career after the Beatles, during which time he released way more albums than the Stones in the same time period and did his own share of touring. Secondly, McCartney owns a significant music publishing catalogue and has other business ventures.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

> If rock groups are businesses, businesses are getting more like rock bands. Workplaces are far more informal than they used to be, with less emphasis on protocol, rank and authority. Many firms try to cultivate the creativity that can come from close collaboration. Employers attempt to engineer personal chemistry, hiring coaches to fine-tune team dynamics and sending staff on team-building exercises. Employees are encouraged to share lunch, play table tennis and generally hang out. As the founder of Hubble, a London office-space company, put it, “We hope that our team will become friends first, and colleagues second.” The problem is, most of these companies are closer to formula driven Justin Bieber than the less pop-focused (say) Radiohead. Both have their merits. However, talking the latter while walking the former (or vice versa) creates disconnect - for employees, as well as customers. Ultimately, culture matters. It's a process. It must be cultivated and curated. It is __not__ a speech or memo from the top that intends to magically everyone with the snap of their fingers. There's far more to "We're going to innovate..." and "We're going to be creative..." and "We're going to be customer focused..." than simple saying such things. p.s. Heart and commitment matters. When you think of any great band you can hear their all-in-ness. Those who fake it, are far less likely to make it, and last.

peteretep 8y ago

> One notable exception to this rule was The Smiths. When Morrissey and Johnny Marr founded the band in 1982, they insisted on taking a bigger cut of income, from all sources, than the bassist, Andy Rourke, and the drummer, Mike Joyce Has anyone ever found any redeeming personal qualities to Morrissey?

aerique 8y ago
He's a unique blend of funny and annoying, a master troll. His lyrics are one of the few I actually listen to and enjoy. Not to mention the song titles. So I guess he's a decent writer?
- bpyne 8y ago
  What a fantastic description or Morrissey. He's exactly a "master troll". His social "role" is like the chorus from Greek tragedies. I don't often listen to his music anymore. But, when the mood hits, nothing else satisfies.

ilamont 8y ago

Friends who once gathered in garages to thrash out songs on guitars and drums are now as likely to get together to brainstorm ideas for apps Kind of a case in point: Smashing Pumpkins' drummer Jimmy Chamberlin, who is the CEO of a tech company focused on live events (https://www.modeproject.com/liveone-crowdsurfing/#liveone-film https://www.modeproject.com/liveone-crowdsurfing/#liveone-fi...). He got the gig through a connection with Groupon's Andrew Mason. I think the study of bands' management styles really does give useful insights into creativity and venture creation. Bands (more than most startups) represent an almost ideal opportunity to have a balance of complementary job responsibilities; it's then up to the members (or leader[s]) to creatively optimize the output, including song creation, live performances, recording, fan outreach, marketing, etc. One area where things get interesting is when professional management gets involved. I was intrigued by that part in the article about the grizzled manager telling Tom Petty to put his foot down, and the repercussions that followed. This manager cut his teeth working with Joni Mitchell and Neil Young, perhaps the two most mercurial and insistent creative forces of the late 60s rock scene. It's interesting to think what would have happened had Petty hired someone else who had a different perspective. Another area that fascinates me is when things go wrong, and how these entities adjust. The scene in Bohemian Rhapsody where Freddie Mercury splits with the record exec who doesn't like opera is fictional, but a true story that is even more bitter is the split with Queen's early manager Norman Sheffield, a former drummer and later founder of the UK's first Apple dealership. Listen to the first track off the album Bohemian Rhapsody, written by Mercury, "Death on Two Legs," probably the ultimate rock diss track. It's so powerful and bitter. It amazes me they didn't try to work it into the movie, although that may relate to the fact that it is unfamiliar to most audiences, probably because radio was reluctant to play it back in the day. A third topic is scaling the business. I've written about Led Zeppelin in the past (see http://leanmedia.org/lean-media-example-led-zeppelin-i/ http://leanmedia.org/lean-media-example-led-zeppelin-i/) and believe the band was the ultimate rock startup: A talented creative team that clicked, an experienced pro (former Yardbirds guitarist Jimmy Page) leading the way, using audience feedback cycles to help shape the first songs before they entered the studio, and management that didn't try to mess with the creative core. Manager Peter Grant was a fearsome character (https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-last-days-of-led-zeppelin-g-force https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-last-days-of-led-ze...), but only focused on the business end (especially touring) and let Page lead the way in the studio and on stage. Because Led Zep was bootstrapped and didn't have a record deal when they started, they didn't have some record executive trying to call the shots in the studio and they worked quickly. Inception was in August 1968 and the release of the first album took place in January of the following year. Led Zeppelin II was similarly lean, recorded while they toured. Four of their first five albums were certified RIAA "Diamond" albums, each selling more than 10 million copies (see http://leanmedia.org/chart-shows-rise-fall-music-album/ http://leanmedia.org/chart-shows-rise-fall-music-album/) which I think may be a record. Yet by the mid-70s Led Zeppelin really bogged down. They started living the rock star life, and were doing massive tours that sucked the energy out of the band. Physical Graffiti took something like 18 months to produce (yes, it was a double album, but still). By the late 70s, Page and Bonham had serious substance abuse problems and the creative mantle passed to Jones and Plant. The band folded after Bonham died in 1980.

ethank 8y ago

I worked with REM for the past 20 years. This article is dead on. Learned more from that band about management than from any business mentors.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bpyne 8y ago
What an incredible experience it must have been to be around such a creative group of guys. Even today, I can listen to Stipe's lyrics and find different meaning with my changing life experiences. I know they didn't like it, but Fables of the Reconstruction is one of the most moody, creative works in modern music IMO.
- ethank 8y ago
  They came around to liking it at around the 20 year mark :)

gerbilly 8y ago

>John Lennon’s and Paul McCartney’s artistic partnership enabled them to vertically integrate the hitherto separate functions of songwriting and performing. Ugh, really? We're going to bring corporate buzzwords to the Beatles now? Lennon and McCartney had perfectly complementary qualities. When Paul would write "I've got to admit it's getting better", John would add "It can't get no worse". Paul is a great multi instrumentalist and has a great ear for melody, while John had lees musicianship but was a subtler and sometimes wickedly funny lyricist. Did you every see a video of an octopus capturing prey, the way they wrap themselves around it and smother it? That is what capitalism is attempting to do with everything.

52-6F-62 8y ago
> Did you every see a video of an octopus capturing prey, the way they wrap themselves around it and smother it? That is distinctly reminiscent of Matt Taibbi's take on Goldman Sachs: > The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. --- https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-195229/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-grea...

bpyne 8y ago

The owner of a music school in my neighborhood graduated from Berklee Music College in the mid-90's. Even then Berklee had its students taking classes in business. A lot of being a successful musician is promotion and understanding how contracts work.

tim333 8y ago

>The notion that bands should make music for the love of it was always romantic and now seems positively quaint. Rock groups are mini-corporations The top 0.1% of rock groups maybe. The vast majority don't make significant money and probably do it mostly for the love of it and maybe a bit in the hope they'll make it one day.

mothsonasloth 8y ago
Completely agree, profit is only one measure of success. Take a look at the progressive rock band Rush, they've been going since the late 60s. They still love what they do, and have evolved their styles over time. Even Iron Maiden who I would argue had commercial success and fame have survived a tumultuous time during the 90s and have come back even stronger.
- bb611 8y ago
  Rush's last tour ended over three years ago and the band is over. Neil Peart has apparently left the music business entirely
  - bpyne 8y ago
    Musicians have a history of taking long periods off. Sonny Rollins took a few multi-year stints off, during which time he worked on technique and ideas he didn't have time to work on as a touring musician. The Who have been in and out of retirement like 10 times. We'll see how long it lasts. He'll probably dedicate himself to writing for a few years and get himself back in shape with long-distance bicycling. But, he'll probably be back. I could easily see him not want to do arena tours anymore though, maybe some jazz gigs or small-venue acoustic sets with Rush. It's kind of interesting that two iconic drummers from the same generation - Bill Bruford and Neil Peart - decided to get out of the industry.
    - BillSaysThis 8y ago
      Geddy Lee, in recent interviews for his new book, was pretty explicit about Peart being done with music and Rush being over.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ubermonkey 8y ago

>Underpinning R.E.M.’s flat governance structure was an egalitarian economic one. As Tony Fletcher explains in “Perfect Circle”, his biography of the band, each member received an equal share of publishing royalties, regardless of who contributed what to each song. The same was true of their recording and performing royalties – although here equal splits are normal. One notable exception to this rule was The Smiths. When Morrissey and Johnny Marr founded the band in 1982, they insisted on taking a bigger cut of income, from all sources, than the bassist, Andy Rourke, and the drummer, Mike Joyce. This introduced an instability into the group, hastening its demise after five years. My understanding is that truly equal shares across the board are pretty rare, and probably even rarer if you filter for success. I think Van Halen was run that way, at least in its glory years (ie until DLR left). Marr & Morrissey insisting on a larger share of performing royalties and gig fees is just mean, considering they dominated songwriting. That's actually a minefield for some acts, because the songwriting money is WAY BIGGER (at least traditionally) than performance royalties. This came up in some of the more amusing sequences in the old VH-1 "Behind the Music" about the Go-Go's, who like many bands split songwriting royalties by actual authorship. The overwhelming majority of their songs (and all their hits) were written by Jane Weidlin and/or Charlotte Caffey, so after _Beauty and the Beat_ blew up they started getting checks that were much, much bigger than the other band members, who took exception. Weidlin's response to their ire was "well, write some fucking songs!"

olivermarks 8y ago

This seems a remarkably wholesome article given how vicious showbiz can be around song writing rights, recording deals etc. There's no discussion of the actual management of these acts - people like Peter Grant/Led Zeppelin or Mike Jeffery/Jimi Hendrix Experience, who both had very questionable business practices. Those are the people who control and exploit the talent, it seems very few acts have management who are looking out for them...

zozbot123 8y ago

So, are we going to have "rockstar-managers" and "ninja-bosses", too? Awesome.