I wrote this the other day while watching coverage of Bieber's latest antics.--RR
So, Justin Bieber got arrested yesterday.
Justin's been making a lot of bad-boy news lately. Am I surprised? No. One day he sped through my neighborhood before actually getting caught at it. I recognized his very recognizable car on the news a few days later, when he did get caught.
How innocent that all seems now...Except that I knew then that we'd be here now.
I have much to say about all this...I wrote it, but as always when I write quickly, it needs to breathe first before being posted. Stay tuned...
It will probably piss some people off.
"OMG!!! You're pissing people off! Are you sure you want to...???"
Yes.
People. It's the music industry. Pissing people off comes with the territory. If you can't handle people getting pissed off at you when you say something, you probably shouldn't be in the business. (Or any business, really. Or perhaps you might want to consider life in a solitary cave, because at some point, someone will be angry with you.)
As a business strategy, trying to avoid having people pissed off at you is one thing. (Particularly when stockholders are involved.) But on a personal level, there are far more important things in life to worry about than random people getting angry at you. (Should you go out of your way to behave in a way that's likely to piss people off? No. That would make you an obnoxious a**hole.) But I digress...
Someone just texted to tell me Justin posted photos of a side by side comparison of himself waving on top of a car, with a picture of Michael Jackson waving on top of a car. This confirms my first thought the other day when I awoke to hear Justin had been arrested for DUI:
Michael Jackson all over again. Except, Michael was much older when he really started to unravel. Michael made it to 50.
If things continue at this pace, Justin won't have that luxury. And he's nowhere close to having Michael's legacy.
Follow me on Twitter @MusicBizAdvice .
Showing posts with label Michael Jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Jackson. Show all posts
Friday, January 24, 2014
Monday, September 14, 2009
Random Thoughts About the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs)
Some notes I scribbled down during last night's VMA telecast...
1. The VMAs have become pretentious as hell. Over the past 15 years it's become more and more like watching a fashion industry party (actually at this point I think they're probably more fun). It was a lot more fun when the artists treated the VMAs like just another night at the Rainbow: fights over girlfriends, couples bickering in public, artists challenging each other to fights, people being overserved...Good times! :-D
2. Kudos to Madonna for her gutsy speech about Michael Jackson...especially her honest words about the fact that people in the industry turned their backs on him (including, she said, herself) when he was at his lowest.
3. The overall energy of this year's VMA's was very weird. The pacing of the show seemed off too.
4. Lady Gaga in her seat (in uncomfortable looking costume #1) looked like she was suffering for her art.
5. Taylor Swift, you have true class! Shame on the person who tried to ruin Taylor Swift's moment--and especially for his insensitivity in doing so right before she was about to perform.
6. The visuals of Taylor Swift's performance were cool, creatively done, and difficult to coordinate on a live show.
6. On Lady Gaga's performance: Tries. Too. Hard. Fantastic voice, but...
7. Green Day: Loved 'em. No fluff, no muss, and a really good performance. Great energy, tight band.
8. (On Beyonce's performance:) Is anyone else irritated by choreography that makes the artist stop lip syncing for half the song while the backing track continues to sing? Looks awkward. Let's make a decision, people: lip sync and sell it all the way, or nothing.
9. Muse: Good song, but it went on so long I zoned out and started making a mental list of suggestions to send to @james_a_michael 's Record Club . Unfortunately this will not be one of them.
10. On Pink's performance: Either her singing or aerial work could have been cool, but I think they detracted from each other. When you have Pink's fantastic voice and stage presence, that's all you need. But points for doing something really different, live. Pink is one of my favorite current artists.
11. Beyonce: Double class act for giving up her stage time to Taylor Swift. Moment of the night; not a dry eye in my livingroom.
12. Jay-Z: I wasn't into his song (although I've liked some of his other stuff), but I loved what he was wearing. He looked fantastic! Whomever designed that, Kudos!
13. Regarding the trailer for the Michael Jackson film: Blatant promotion done much too soon. Made me a little sick to my stomach.
Overall impressions on the morning after: When the host is the most rock and roll thing about what used to be a fun and irreverent show, something's terribly wrong. Although the MTV VMAs worked for several years, it's become a litany of artist performances trying to match their videos while trying to upstage each other, resulting in one big, blah blur. All that production money for each performance, and the result is that in the end no one shines. I think what the MTV Video Music Awards needs is a different producer, and a fast-paced show runner to move things along while letting the right moments breathe and shine. (What would Pierre Cossette do? RIP, Mr. Cossette.) It also needs artists who don't take themselves so seriously. It's supposed to be FUN!
Disclosure of Endorsements/Recommendations/Financial Compensation or Business Relationships per FTC Blog Disclosure Regulations in effect December 1, 2009: In the 90's I worked for a concert promotion company that presented Green Day shows. Additionally, in the 90's I worked for a major talent agency who represented Madonna and Jay-Z. Since that time I've received no financial compensation or free product in direct connection with the above-mentioned artists. MusicBizadvice.com' (and by extension, this blog) sells products, including music, as an Amazon Associate.
1. The VMAs have become pretentious as hell. Over the past 15 years it's become more and more like watching a fashion industry party (actually at this point I think they're probably more fun). It was a lot more fun when the artists treated the VMAs like just another night at the Rainbow: fights over girlfriends, couples bickering in public, artists challenging each other to fights, people being overserved...Good times! :-D
2. Kudos to Madonna for her gutsy speech about Michael Jackson...especially her honest words about the fact that people in the industry turned their backs on him (including, she said, herself) when he was at his lowest.
3. The overall energy of this year's VMA's was very weird. The pacing of the show seemed off too.
4. Lady Gaga in her seat (in uncomfortable looking costume #1) looked like she was suffering for her art.
5. Taylor Swift, you have true class! Shame on the person who tried to ruin Taylor Swift's moment--and especially for his insensitivity in doing so right before she was about to perform.
6. The visuals of Taylor Swift's performance were cool, creatively done, and difficult to coordinate on a live show.
6. On Lady Gaga's performance: Tries. Too. Hard. Fantastic voice, but...
7. Green Day: Loved 'em. No fluff, no muss, and a really good performance. Great energy, tight band.
8. (On Beyonce's performance:) Is anyone else irritated by choreography that makes the artist stop lip syncing for half the song while the backing track continues to sing? Looks awkward. Let's make a decision, people: lip sync and sell it all the way, or nothing.
9. Muse: Good song, but it went on so long I zoned out and started making a mental list of suggestions to send to @james_a_michael 's Record Club . Unfortunately this will not be one of them.
10. On Pink's performance: Either her singing or aerial work could have been cool, but I think they detracted from each other. When you have Pink's fantastic voice and stage presence, that's all you need. But points for doing something really different, live. Pink is one of my favorite current artists.
11. Beyonce: Double class act for giving up her stage time to Taylor Swift. Moment of the night; not a dry eye in my livingroom.
12. Jay-Z: I wasn't into his song (although I've liked some of his other stuff), but I loved what he was wearing. He looked fantastic! Whomever designed that, Kudos!
13. Regarding the trailer for the Michael Jackson film: Blatant promotion done much too soon. Made me a little sick to my stomach.
Overall impressions on the morning after: When the host is the most rock and roll thing about what used to be a fun and irreverent show, something's terribly wrong. Although the MTV VMAs worked for several years, it's become a litany of artist performances trying to match their videos while trying to upstage each other, resulting in one big, blah blur. All that production money for each performance, and the result is that in the end no one shines. I think what the MTV Video Music Awards needs is a different producer, and a fast-paced show runner to move things along while letting the right moments breathe and shine. (What would Pierre Cossette do? RIP, Mr. Cossette.) It also needs artists who don't take themselves so seriously. It's supposed to be FUN!
Disclosure of Endorsements/Recommendations/Financial Compensation or Business Relationships per FTC Blog Disclosure Regulations in effect December 1, 2009: In the 90's I worked for a concert promotion company that presented Green Day shows. Additionally, in the 90's I worked for a major talent agency who represented Madonna and Jay-Z. Since that time I've received no financial compensation or free product in direct connection with the above-mentioned artists. MusicBizadvice.com' (and by extension, this blog) sells products, including music, as an Amazon Associate.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Deja Vous? I hope not...(Michael Jackson / Anna Nicole)
While the world awaits the coroner's report on the death of Michael Jackson, and the cause of his death is purely speculation, details that are coming out in the media seem all too reminiscent of the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Whether that turns out to actually be the case, we do know that Michael Jackson struggled with addiction to painkillers...which is enough, IMHO, for a bit of reflecting on the care (notice I did not say "handling") of addicted clients.
On Friday, February 09, 2007 on this very subject. I wish I'd never have to repeat it again, but maybe it might help someone.
Did Hollywood Kill Anna Nicole Smith?
While the definitive cause of Anna Nicole Smith’s death probably won’t be in for weeks, regardless of the autopsy result, anyone who saw her recent interviews on Entertainment Tonight could see she was obviously impaired by substance abuse. (When someone’s eyes are going in two different directions…) So, I’d like to talk about the addicted celebrity client.
Did Hollywood kill Anna Nicole Smith? Speaking as someone who grew up around chemical addiction in a small-town, non-showbiz family, I really don’t think so. I think the addiction gene or addictive personality (whatever your belief happens to be about the root cause) is either there, or it isn’t.
But, also speaking as someone who’s been in the role of agent, artist manager, and prior to that, as personal assistant, do I think Hollywood contributed to the death of Anna Nicole Smith? Absolutely.
When you have people making money from whatever the celebrity’s status quo is at a given moment, someone in the mix will have an interest in keeping the celebrity in that money-making status quo…Even at the risk of a self-destructive celebrity. (The same status-quo dynamic happens in non-showbiz families too, by the way, but because the motivation is usually more about fear of change than about big money, it’s less overt and is more subconscious.)
It comes down to the kind of people the celebrity surrounds him or herself with. If a celebrity with an addictive personality (or the addiction gene) is surrounded by “yes” people who tell them what they want to hear, that celebrity is going to be in trouble.
I’ve heard some managers and agents say, “It’s none of my business.”
I disagree. It is their business, and getting help for a troubled client is part of being a good manager or agent.
If you work in the industry long enough, you see first-hand that creativity is often borne of pain, and that many clients had troubled childhoods or estranged family relationships and seek fame as a way to fill a void. So to make money off that client and then ignore their need for professional help when that pain (or the attempted numbing of it) gets out of hand is not only irresponsible, it’s inexcusable.
If you have signing privileges (i.e., power of attorney) and can sign your clients’ name on contracts, it’s your business. If you travel in the immediate vicinity with your client (reports say at least 6 people were staying at the hotel with Anna Nicole Smith) or are privy to the details of your clients’ day to day life, it’s your business. If you have keys to your clients’ home, it’s not only your business, you have no excuse not to get them off to rehab ASAP. More than once if necessary.
(And I’m talking hard-core, real-deal rehab like-Betty Ford or Hazelden…not Rehab Lite.)
I’ve heard a lot of people comparing Anna Nicole’s death to that of Marilyn Monroe. I disagree with that as well. Marilyn died in 1962, pre-Betty Ford Center, when very little was known about addiction or even about the addictive nature of some of the prescription medications she was taking.
This is 2007, and we all know better.
Meanwhile, the headlines surrounding the death of Anna Nicole Smith are getting stranger by the minute…The latest, courtesy of MSNBC, is that Zsa Zsa Gabor’s 9th and current husband, Prince Frédéric von Anhalt, says he could be the baby’s father. And it gets even more bizarre: In his press conference today, Prince Frederic (who allegedly essentially bought his title) said Anna Nicole told him she’d always wanted to be a princess, so he’d tried to make that happen for her by attempting to adopt Anna Nicole. But, Prince Frederic said, Zsa Zsa wouldn’t sign the adoption papers. (I kid you not, folks. I saw him say this in the press conference with my own eyes.)
That all these people are coming out of the woodwork with press conferences after her death just proves my point: Anna Nicole needed someone to protect her. If not a good family, then at the least, by very good management…
Very good management does exist, by the way. But unfortunately it doesn’t usually make for very interesting headlines.Copyright 2007 Randi Reed and MusicBizAdvice.com. All rights reserved.
On Friday, February 09, 2007 on this very subject. I wish I'd never have to repeat it again, but maybe it might help someone.
Did Hollywood Kill Anna Nicole Smith?
While the definitive cause of Anna Nicole Smith’s death probably won’t be in for weeks, regardless of the autopsy result, anyone who saw her recent interviews on Entertainment Tonight could see she was obviously impaired by substance abuse. (When someone’s eyes are going in two different directions…) So, I’d like to talk about the addicted celebrity client.
Did Hollywood kill Anna Nicole Smith? Speaking as someone who grew up around chemical addiction in a small-town, non-showbiz family, I really don’t think so. I think the addiction gene or addictive personality (whatever your belief happens to be about the root cause) is either there, or it isn’t.
But, also speaking as someone who’s been in the role of agent, artist manager, and prior to that, as personal assistant, do I think Hollywood contributed to the death of Anna Nicole Smith? Absolutely.
When you have people making money from whatever the celebrity’s status quo is at a given moment, someone in the mix will have an interest in keeping the celebrity in that money-making status quo…Even at the risk of a self-destructive celebrity. (The same status-quo dynamic happens in non-showbiz families too, by the way, but because the motivation is usually more about fear of change than about big money, it’s less overt and is more subconscious.)
It comes down to the kind of people the celebrity surrounds him or herself with. If a celebrity with an addictive personality (or the addiction gene) is surrounded by “yes” people who tell them what they want to hear, that celebrity is going to be in trouble.
I’ve heard some managers and agents say, “It’s none of my business.”
I disagree. It is their business, and getting help for a troubled client is part of being a good manager or agent.
If you work in the industry long enough, you see first-hand that creativity is often borne of pain, and that many clients had troubled childhoods or estranged family relationships and seek fame as a way to fill a void. So to make money off that client and then ignore their need for professional help when that pain (or the attempted numbing of it) gets out of hand is not only irresponsible, it’s inexcusable.
If you have signing privileges (i.e., power of attorney) and can sign your clients’ name on contracts, it’s your business. If you travel in the immediate vicinity with your client (reports say at least 6 people were staying at the hotel with Anna Nicole Smith) or are privy to the details of your clients’ day to day life, it’s your business. If you have keys to your clients’ home, it’s not only your business, you have no excuse not to get them off to rehab ASAP. More than once if necessary.
(And I’m talking hard-core, real-deal rehab like-Betty Ford or Hazelden…not Rehab Lite.)
I’ve heard a lot of people comparing Anna Nicole’s death to that of Marilyn Monroe. I disagree with that as well. Marilyn died in 1962, pre-Betty Ford Center, when very little was known about addiction or even about the addictive nature of some of the prescription medications she was taking.
This is 2007, and we all know better.
Meanwhile, the headlines surrounding the death of Anna Nicole Smith are getting stranger by the minute…The latest, courtesy of MSNBC, is that Zsa Zsa Gabor’s 9th and current husband, Prince Frédéric von Anhalt, says he could be the baby’s father. And it gets even more bizarre: In his press conference today, Prince Frederic (who allegedly essentially bought his title) said Anna Nicole told him she’d always wanted to be a princess, so he’d tried to make that happen for her by attempting to adopt Anna Nicole. But, Prince Frederic said, Zsa Zsa wouldn’t sign the adoption papers. (I kid you not, folks. I saw him say this in the press conference with my own eyes.)
That all these people are coming out of the woodwork with press conferences after her death just proves my point: Anna Nicole needed someone to protect her. If not a good family, then at the least, by very good management…
Very good management does exist, by the way. But unfortunately it doesn’t usually make for very interesting headlines.Copyright 2007 Randi Reed and MusicBizAdvice.com. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)