IMO this 1% doesn't have 77% of the talent.

No one told this. Plus talent has no strict definition. Some think that talent is ability to being pleasing to extremely tiny circle of snobs. Talent is like potential. It is certain that huge amount of people have big potential, but most of them will never realize it, most of the time it is not even their fault.

Talent is a vague word as you say. But nonetheless, there are those that toil in music for years and have a great aptitude as well. Such individuals have a high level of understanding of music and music theory. They've typically mastered at least one instrument if not several. Many of them were child prodigies. These are people that have committed their life and soul to music. They're typically found working at Starbucks. Meanwhile Britney spears can't even read music. Cannot play an instrument, cannot write music, cannot really do anything other than abuse drugs and alcohol. Society picks random people to reward.

The best musicians I've ever seen were in the paris metro ! And the 1% , just like the other 1%...doesn't have anything to do with talent. But concerning the aforementioned "artists" ...I'd bet they've got certain mouth-oriented talents that got them this far !

@brianl I couldn't agree more. I know some musicians, Foster the People, who have become very very successful and have reached this through hard work, talent (good songwriting) and a extreme amount of luck. Yet they are shunned by some of their former fans for "selling out". If sony music hadn't picked them up (on the strength of "pumped up kicks") they would be playing local bars in LA.

I've also met Max Martin, the producer behind Britney and most of the 1% we're talking about. He's a truly hardworking guy and super talented. As a musician myself I have a hard time liking the music he makes... But at the same time he makes music for the masses.

I see both sides of the talent/crap coin. It's a free world. I don't listen to pop radio. Take your money elsewhere.

I think the success or failure of genres and musicians lays more directly at the feet of the record labels themselves. Atlantic is notorious for signing bands just so other labels can't have them. Get signed to Atlantic and watch as they give you zero support.

Rant done. Music, like almost all art, is a form that's been commercialized. That means that labels/producers try to find sounds that appeal to a broad range of people. Sucks, but that's the way it goes.

@vapourtrail what I hear from a lot of musicians is that their industry is too fragmented (filmmakers say that too) and that it's often hard for audiences to find their music. Meanwhile big labels with big tentacles force feed the public a product that's often the equivalent to the pink slime used in fast food. Nobody really cares. Just munch away on your big mac. Some good stuff breaks through but a lot falls through into the abyss.

And now I'll take a quote from Vitaliy and use it completely out of context and change the meaning he meant: "All the time you try to bring such genius to work something happens..." I like that. I hope it's true that genius usually gets recognized. Personally I'm not sure if I've ever been with genius. I know it's not the guy watching me shave in the mirror. As I understand the term, genius is the rarest of things that we should reserve for only the most highly gifted, not the guy who got the best SAT score in high school or the guys at the MENSA cocktail parties. But! a week from today I'm attending a master class with Yo-Yo Ma. If he isn't a genius, no one is.

I've seen some amazing musicians skill-wise make some really bad music.. making a hit is not necessarily a given if you have talent.

As for the 77% it's just like everything else in the media; stars get the money while the rest work for years for that overnight success.

One of the favorite phases of entertainment execs. "They'll love who we tell them to love." If you hear anyone talking about an artist, reviewing an artist, social media about an artist, or even hating on an established artist, you can be pretty confident that this is a result of well proven marketing plans.

The other side of the business is artists in law suits against their labels. An lawyer for artist was interviewed on a public radio program in LA a few years back. Regarding artist lawsuits against their labels for falsely paying royalties. He said something like "I can't say every label is corrupt. It may truely be accidental. But I can tell you this, after more than 4000 law suits, we have never found a case where any label accidentally paid an artist properly or over paid any artist. In 4000+ cases, they always -accidentally- under pay them. So draw your own conclusions."

If you hear anyone talking about an artist, reviewing an artist, social media about an artist, or even hating on an established artist, you can be pretty confident that this is a result of well proven marketing plans.

I can even say that you do not need too many people to spread the word, as most people do it for free and just follow authority. But you need good money and proper infrastructure and people.

I always joke about getting that yacht catalogue out every time I get a gig (for my measly fee). I quite like Bob Lefsetz's letters - you can subscribe here - http://www.lefsetz.com/ - for his view on the music "industry". It's a bit US-centric but quite entertaining.

What's the evidential basis that consumers aren't enjoying the music and films that they are purchasing?

I don't care for Beiber's music in the least, but he's not really selling music. He's a teen-beat popstar, selling a musical entertainment package... one that millions of girls enjoy and pay for. The fact that he's no Yo-Yo Ma doesn't make it any less enjoyable to teen girls.

Music is one of those personal things; talent and success - and financial rewards - are no so clear-cut. I can't stand Radiohead, but understand many do. My dislike of them doesn't mean there's no talent there, nor a market for it.

Seems like the music industry has become similar to a "winner take all market" where the revenue and profits accrue to a small number of players, and everyone else gets very little.

The Android app marketplace is said to be something like this too - a small # of apps are accounting for the bulk of revenue and profits and most apps do not break even.

Since the advent of MTV the music industry is more akin to the 'fashion' industry.

I think most consumers are not that interested in music. They are interested in fashion and how they will be perceived by their peers.

As such there can only be a few major trends. Thus the wealth stays confined to a small group of people even though the ability to distribute and create music has been democratized by the digital revolution.