A remarkable thing about these stories is that many artists end up enjoying lavish lifestyles while they're popular, but having no money (and going on the dole) when their success wanes. The record industry absolutely encourages this boom and bust lifestyle by advancing money and then withholding royalties until an artist is "recouped", which almost never happens thanks to some fun accounting tricks. The result is young people who come from modest means, are showered with cash, and recieved no financial planning advice. They're also a magnet for people trying to get a cut of the money - people who will encourage them to pursue a lifestyle of excess.
One can draw a very similar arc for lottery winners too. Most of them are broke and vagrant after ~2 years of luxury. There's no planning for tomorrow.
The people most drawn to lotteries (and perhaps those drawn to the limelight too) are those that have the worst life and money skills. I think we all know people who live the feast or famine lifestyle of cruises and new TVs when the tax refund comes followed by 11 months of scraping by and complaining about their money situation.
My recollection is the NFL requires financial education for football players because most pro football careers are short-lived and it's the most money most of them will ever make, but they are young and tend to want to behave like this is their starting salary for their career and it will surely go up from here.
See also actors, perhaps especially TV actors, etc. They're young. They're in an environment of people spending money lavishly. And, as you say, they really want to believe that they'll be the statistical anomaly who will have a long lucrative career.
It's also hard because some of those "lavish" expenses are a necessity if you are famous and make your money from things like looks. Very famous people may need security in various forms that ordinary people do not need (bullet proof limo, security guard, housing with security). Oprah has said if she wears the same outfit twice in two months on her show, people have a fit about it and many stars have to pay for personal trainers, expensive haircuts, etc just to keep their "job."
Well, not really. Are college students taking their student loans and blowing it on "lavish lifestyles"? Or are they just trying to scrape by? My guess is that after non-discretionary expenses (eg. tuition and rent), there isn't much left, unlike for pop stars.
Not on the same scale as rock stars and athletes but pretty much every college town is now packed to the gills with "luxury" apartments selling a lavish lifestyle. For many students, their college years will be the peak of quality of life when it comes to their living situation. Compare this to the residence halls of old with one shared bathroom per floor and multiple students sleeping in the same small room.
In the 1980s, the State of Alabama was sued by prisoners who claimed their prison cells constituted cruel and unusual punishment. One of the defenses the state used was that the student dorms at Auburn University were not only more bare than the prison cells, and lacking in basic amenities like air condition that the prisoners were demanding, the students had to pay to live there (the state won). Apartment complexes in Auburn and other college towns now are in wars with each other over the most attractive amenity packages for their residents. Because so many students take the largest loan amounts offered instead of just what is needed, a huge industry has popped up to convert that loan money into the type of experiences that appeal to those in their teens and early 20s. The lifestyle experience of the contemporary university student is nothing like those of the era pre-easy money loans (that is, when the government start guaranteeing and later issuing loans directly).
College life in the US is a massive sink for those who aren't financially disciplined. Getting loans is easy for most who attended, including stipend loans for "living expenses" such as binge drinking on at least a weekly basis.
The lifestyle certainly isn't lavish in the sense that pop star lifestyle is, but taking out many tens of thousands of dollars in an attempt to become a librarian (one friend of mine did just that) is just stupid, financially speaking. Short of having family bail you out or marrying a high income earner, you're a prisoner to loans that's cannot be discharged via bankruptcy.
> but taking out many tens of thousands of dollars in an attempt to become a librarian (one friend of mine did just that) is just stupid, financially speaking
The problem is, society needs librarians and other "non-STEM" science - we're right now, for example in Germany [1], seeing with the cluelessness of politicians on Russia how utterly ignorant it was to cut funding for Eastern European studies back in 2005. And mind ya that's Europe where "student loans" aren't really a thing because we don't have absurd tuitions because the government pays for universities.
We haven't found a way to incentivize people to take up these studies, and we absolutely need to, otherwise we are going to lose so much knowledge over the next decades. My s/o for example has a brilliant master's degree in art history, but funding for positions that match her experience is scarce to say the least, and covid didn't exactly help. She's currently working for the government to help fight the pandemic, but it's a sad waste of potential how many people like her are simply left behind.
It's not a question of if societies needs to have librarians, it's a question of how many librarians society is willing to support and if that's greater than or equal to the supply of librarians being created. Defenders of humanities degrees often imply that those outside of the humanities don't understand the need for it instead of debating the wisdom of using a 'spray and pray' approach to producing the number of people in those areas that society needs and is willing to support. It's not a situation where we have to choose between having no librarians and society supporting an unlimited number of librarians even though some try to present it that way.
I am saying that librarian studies is, economically speaking, a luxury good when a librarians pay doesn't cover the interest on the loans it took to get the job- mind you that in the US, most librarian jobs require a master's degree, so you could easily be paying for 7 years of higher education to get it, and that's assuming that there are even any jobs available that require the degree in the first place.
> Are college students taking their student loans and blowing it on "lavish lifestyles"?
Colleges certainly do. There is no market economy in giving out loans but yet there are no price and quality controls on the receiving end of the money.
>The record industry absolutely encourages this boom and bust lifestyle
It's part of the overall appeal, and that says something about human nature. We like to see the reckless brilliant star careening into the stratosphere, knowing full well that it is unsustainable. It's the human embodiment of life and overabundant success.
I mean, I agree with you, but is it really surprising that rock stars aren't that interested in retirement planning? That is, the type of person that craves the spotlight and succeeds is also the type that is unlikely to max out their IRA contributions.
>She launched a short-lived solo career, record label and clothing line, but her “brand” appeared in terminal decline. So she started her own booking agency, with herself as the sole employee, calling up clubs across the country masquerading as the personal assistant to one Lisa Maffia, formerly of So Solid Crew, now an international solo star and occasional fashion designer. Her PA, “Celine”, was tasked with asking clubs’ management if they’d be interested in a personal appearance. “The bookings came in almost immediately,” Maffia beams. “I hustle. Never been afraid to hustle.”
The writer calling pop stars "heroes" for continuing to live despite no longer being famous is a bit of stretch. Pop stardom is a marketing fueled, collective delusion that we snap out of when the money dries up. These people are ultimately made from same mundane cloth as everyone else, it's the advertising that's special. Believing the hype at the height of fame is the depressing part, not having to live a "normal" life.
I feel the same, and people will misinterpret this outlook as jealousy, which of course, I often feel but try to be conscientious about, when really it's frustration that we endorse a system that plays so unfairly to the huge population of talent in our society who not only do not receive this kind of success but are fully impoverished. It's severely unbalanced and I believe it hinders our creativity as a whole.
If you liked this article, check out the Joe Rogan podcast with Jewel[1]. She talks a lot about her rise to stardom and how she was able to maintain creative freedom with good financial decisions. This is far from a happy ending though. Jewel is an incredibly fascinating person. I highly recommend checking this one out.
I wish I had the time to invest in watching / listening to a 3 hour interview… I wish there was a highlights version or something that was maybe 45 minutes at most.
Here’s a 15 min clip about her record deal [1]. TL;DR: She didn’t take a big advance even though she was broke and ended up making a lot more money from residuals.
Things get really interesting when she talks about how her mom stole all her money and now she’s basically starting over (in the original link).
The biggest problem I have with this article is that it seems to believe the attraction of a musical career is the adulation of fans, despite several artists fairly clearly making big life decisions to avoid it. I’m not saying that isn’t what motivates some, but it’s worth considering that maybe, they do it because they love making music.
The article is sort of annoying with asking repeatedly why go back? People tend to do something related to earlier success. Starting over from scratch wastes years of experience.
It's only worth beating your head against that wall if going back is simply too horrifying to contemplate, like when people successfully leave behind criminal careers. Even then they sometimes build on prior experience, like the guys that stopped being thieves and made a TV show about security and would break into homes and businesses on camera.
It was annoying to me as well. Artists "art". Most can't help it, whether famous or not. Of course they'll keep being creative. (Some turn to writing or other creative outlets, however.)
I'm more saddened though by the artists that didn't become huge pop stars but perhaps should have.
My examples: The Embarrassment, The Doleful Lions, The Muffs, Paul Brill, Grandaddy, The Wrens, ...
I could go on and I'm sure others have their own personal favorites.
Oh, did The Pixies ever make it? Or did they just inspire the pop stars of the 90's as they faded away?*
It doesn't adequately pay my bills. I'm still trying to sort that piece out which is complicated because wherever you go, there you are. So while people can do studies showing that in the aggregate, X trait is associated with Y outcome, I can't readily take my own self or life apart in that manner to sort cause and effect.
I wrote a blog post entitled "Art is not optional" (https://mikelevins.github.io/posts/2021-01-04-art-is-not-opt...) that is in part about this: I don't think people usually choose to be artists. I think they mostly just are, like it or not. In terms of personality psychology, they're "creatives"--that is, people that score extremely high in trait openness.
Like you, I write because I must. I don't choose to write. It just happens. I can choose whether or not to put pen to paper or finger to keyboard, but I can't choose not to create the stuff that I write.
If I'm stuck somewhere with no writing utensils, I write anyway, constructing stories and lyrics and essays and explanations in my head, storing it up as best I can for when I can write it all down. It isn't even mostly in words. Most of my thoughts are visual-spatial, and only get translated into words when I have writing utensils.
I make pictures, too, and songs, and software. Similarly, I don't decide to do it or choose to do it; it just happens all the time, like it or not. If I don't have any tools to work with, that doesn't make it stop. It just makes it inconvenient, and it means that a large amount of what I create is likely to be lost before I can get it transcribed. I don't lose it all. The especially memorable bits stick, which means that doing without tools for transcription has benefits. It filters out the less memorable stuff.
My openness score is in something like 97th percentile, so somewhere around 97 out of every 100 randomly-chosen people score lower. Most people are not in my situation. More generally, highly-creative people are in the minority. But I think you can recognize them if you look. They're the ones who are always compulsively creating stuff.
The other topic of the blog post is a claim that, not only is art not optional for artists, it's not optional for the human species, either.
I don't know why art is necessary for us, but if it wasn't, then we wouldn't find it everywhere we find modern humans for all of our existence. Art seems to be older than fire, and every culture has it (so far as I know). I don't know what we need it for, and I'm not sure anyone else does, either, but apparently we need it for something.
From a psychological standpoint, what does "falling back to Earth mean"? Is it the sudden lack of public recognition? Is it the sudden lack of energy that feeds the personal narcissistic trait? Is it acceptance of defeat because the artistic viewpoint wasn't able to evolve with the times, therefore feeling "deprecated"?
Ultimately, if the goal of an artist is to feel great in the eyes of others, is it the sudden lack of purpose? Shouldn't an artist that believes in their own art, be happy in the good and bad times, since their artistic output is all they need to find purpose?
If you read the article you'll see that most of them do carry on - and it was the carrying on with limited interest in popular appeal that crashed their headliner careers.
So in practice it means you get a lot of respect and money, and suddenly you don't.
It would be not unlike going from FAANG veep or CEO to sudden unemployment. With no one calling. Except that you're less likely to have a financial cushion.
Roisin Murphy fits perfectly in your definition of artist. In full gaga mode years before Lady Gaga. Moloko was much more known in Europe than in US, probably.
Even artists themselves don't use that definition - and they debate "what is art" a lot. It is highly ideological and emotional definition and relies on mythology.
Brian cox turned boy band keyboards into success as a particle physicist and bbc presenter of note. Another Brian took the breakup of his band in stride, finished his degree and kept on playing. Now, with the degree, he can get into fun, interesting places he was denied as a musician. What is it about Brian’s? Quite a life it seems.
I would argue Viv Albertine is more famous for inspiring the Clash song “Train in Vain” after breaking up with Mick Jones more than for her work with the Slits.
Dave Grohl is the Paul McCartney of the 90s - survived the breakup of a band that had massive mainstream success, reinvented himself as a solo artist, now gets to be a lifetime musician with more money than god. I like Nirvana and I like early Foo Fighters, but modern Dave Grohl has been churning out hard-rock oatmeal with copy-paste lyrics since Colour and the Shape.
He's popular among a core group of ageing followers... his die hard fans (and yes, there are a lot of them). But he's not popular in the sense that he's the new "it."
Aging followers are as much followers as young ones. It is not lesser to create for older people and stuff that appeals to them. Just like with art for any other minority.
I didn't say it was lesser. I said it's different than being the new "it." There's "popular" and then there's "society thinks this is the cutting edge of culture - popular." Dave Grohl is the first one.
Not the first. Maybe the first one recently. The old fart from Liverpool and his mates sorta roto-rootered culture and defined “it” for a while. Phil Collins, unfortunately, was the face of pop music in the 80’s. So “average bloke” was a popular look I guess. Chops as a drummer and grew up playing complex music but neither made the big bux. He paid the price for it it seems but survived.
I find so many things objectionable in this article that they are three-stoogesing my cerebral cortex and I find it impossible to write about just any one of them.
