A great article in the NY Times about how market rush can influence the popularity of certain songs and artists. In other words, songs become popular because they are popular with a heavily influential group of first movers. Read the article. The experiment they ran is fascinating.
… when people tend to like what other people like, differences in popularity are subject to what is called “cumulative advantage,” or the “rich get richer” effect. This means that if one object happens to be slightly more popular than another at just the right point, it will tend to become more popular still. As a result, even tiny, random fluctuations can blow up, generating potentially enormous long-run differences among even indistinguishable competitors — a phenomenon that is similar in some ways to the famous “butterfly effect” from chaos theory. Thus, if history were to be somehow rerun many times, seemingly identical universes with the same set of competitors and the same overall market tastes would quickly generate different winners: Madonna would have been popular in this world, but in some other version of history, she would be a nobody, and someone we have never heard of would be in her place.”
Read the rest of the article:
Is Justin Timberlake a Product of Cumulative Advantage? by Duncan J. Watts
Great article. Thanks, Mike. I wonder if an article like this gives up-and-comers more hope or less hope of being a chart-topper. I look at the Lenny Kravitzes of the world and say, “oh, yeah, of COURSE they’re stars. They were meant to be stars”. But then it hits me that I know lots of interesting people with larger than life personas (hi, Ash) and all of the demons and trappings of tormented artistry, and they’re no closer to super-stardom than the everyman folks I know (and am).
Anyway, good article. Thanks again, Mike, for scouring the net to find interesting things for me to read while I’m shunning official news channels.
[quote comment="75855"]I wonder if an article like this gives up-and-comers more hope or less hope of being a chart-topper. [/quote]
The optimist in me hopes that this gives young artists more freedom to follow their own creative instincts, rather than trying to hit some magic formula. If the fame and fortune part is mostly the whim of the market rush, all the more reason to ignore fame and fortune as motivating factors for being creative.
The pessimist in me looks at this and thinks, “Well, if we want to make money as a label, and quality doesn’t matter as much as luck, let’s do 500 crappy projects a week, release them all, and see which ones land.”
I think this applies to the visual arts as well. Which is, as Mike articulated, both encouraging and soul-sucking at the same time.
[quote post="1372"]The pessimist in me looks at this and thinks, “Well, if we want to make money as a label, and quality doesn’t matter as much as luck, let’s do 500 crappy projects a week, release them all, and see which ones land.”[/quote]
Tooth & Nail called… they said they trademarked that strategy years ago and want it back.
I think this is the same dynamic at work in high school — popularity perpetuates itself. (I know this from observation, not experience!)
Aly, good point.
June, is this the case with Thomas Kincade? I don’t understand why his is so successful. To me, he is like Kenny G. or something.
8th wonder of the world.
Don’t get me started.
The thing about it is, Tom can paint. I discovered this fact some years ago when I decided to do a little Kincade research. Brace yourself, and check this out:
http://www.girrard.com/about.php
For those who need a little technical help understanding the shift in Tom’s work:
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001201.html
So, out of the plethora of questions that beg to be answered in regard to all things Kincade, the one that rises to the top is: Why, oh why dear Tom, did you cease singing the beautiful oratorias you are capable of, only to sing “Stop and let me tell you…” over and over and over and over?
(And in case you didn’t have enough irony with your breakfast this morning: How does Kinkade regard Picasso? “I don’t believe, in time, that he will be regarded as the titan that he is now,” says Kinkade. “He is a man of great talent who, to me, used it to create three Picassos before breakfast because he could get $10,000 each for them.” from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/21/60minutes/main318790.shtml)
June, this is great stuff - I had no idea. Makes me want to go back and research some of John Tesh’s early music.
June, thanks very much for that. This is a great article with many interesting linky linkies. Wow - I’m amazed at the side-by-side comparisons. Poor man. No wonder I always feel like I’ve eaten too much of the White Witch’s turkish delight after viewing his later work. Sweet, comforting (except I could never live in one of those danged cottages. I’d never keep up with the weeding) and fluffy - and leaving you feeling a bit sick and empty.
As an artist it must burn your delicate eyes even more.
Cerise
It’s just sad.
Mike - LOL (John Tesh).
June - I have been wondering about this in the back of my mind for years. What an interesting comparison. I know this is not the point, but he also does not look like the same guy!
Mike, this explains a lot… :)
“In 1987, Yanni was putting together his first touring band to promote his album Out of Silence, as well as selections from Keys to Imagination. Being good friends, Tesh asked Yanni if he could join the band as keyboardist…”