This is an interesting item from Reuters.
Another music forum discussed Jewel's fortunes, and how they seem to rise with her revealing bust exposure.
I find it interesting that Irving Azoff would be interested in her. I guess he must see...something.
Anyway.
Jewel Signs New Manager
Sat June 21, 2003 03:25 PM ET
By Melinda Newman
LOS ANGELES (Billboard) - Folk singer Jewel, in stores with the new album "0304," has inked with Eagles manager Irving Azoff.
She was formerly managed by her mother, Lenedra Carroll, who will now oversee Jewel's charity endeavors.
In a letter to fans, Carroll says, "I have watched my energy and interest move more in direction and away from management." She adds that "with the crisis the industry is in, things have become much more difficult for artists . . . a high level of expertise is needed now."
"0304" currently ranks at No. 12 on the U.S. album charts, falling 10 places in its second week with cumulative sales of 225,000, according to SoundScan.
Reuters/Billboard
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jht ... ID=2966702
Jewel Signs New Manager
My wife just bought the new Jewel CD on her like of the new single. I listened to the first song and didn't like it, but I liked everything else on the album.
In her liner notes, she states that this new album is closer to the sound she had originally heard in her head. And, from reading other sources, her handlers and Atlantic records have been teling her what she will sound like all these years, and she has pretty much let them. On the strength of her last album, she probably has enough courage and leverage to actually do more of what she wants.
If she comes off looking more like Jessica Simpson with boobs and sounding more like a Britney who can actually sing, this is supposedly how she wants it.
In her liner notes, she states that this new album is closer to the sound she had originally heard in her head. And, from reading other sources, her handlers and Atlantic records have been teling her what she will sound like all these years, and she has pretty much let them. On the strength of her last album, she probably has enough courage and leverage to actually do more of what she wants.
If she comes off looking more like Jessica Simpson with boobs and sounding more like a Britney who can actually sing, this is supposedly how she wants it.
-
mikenycLI
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:02 pm
- Location: New York City Metropolitan Area, United States
I just don't have ANY interest in this type of "artist" that is, essentially, a constructed/marketed muscian.
These carefully marketed types, just don't appeal to me, even if they do have "something" to offer in terms of pithy songstyling.
I'm curious to see what Azoff's interest in her is all about. She couldn't be under better management. After making "the cut", of the recent artist purge over at SONY, she has something going for her now, and apparently, something to offer SONY in the future.
To each, his or her own.
These carefully marketed types, just don't appeal to me, even if they do have "something" to offer in terms of pithy songstyling.
I'm curious to see what Azoff's interest in her is all about. She couldn't be under better management. After making "the cut", of the recent artist purge over at SONY, she has something going for her now, and apparently, something to offer SONY in the future.
To each, his or her own.
Uh, Mikey, Jewel is not on Sony and has never had anything to do with Sony. She is a Time-Warner artist, and has been signed to Atlantic for years.
Can I take this to mean that you are not a Beatles fan? They were heavily marketed and manicured, at least up until they outgrew Brian Epstien's control.
Can I take this to mean that you are not a Beatles fan? They were heavily marketed and manicured, at least up until they outgrew Brian Epstien's control.
-
mikenycLI
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:02 pm
- Location: New York City Metropolitan Area, United States
Grant, thanks for the correction.
Brian Epstein was a virtual "babe in the woods", compared to the marketing that's expended, individually, on artists today. He could screw up...as he did, BIG TIME...and it didn't really matter, only that their pocketbook was just a little slimmer. As Apple, under the subsequent leadership of Macca proves, they are today, a license to print money, that others are unfairly compared with.
To me, it can be argued, that the Beatles were a comodity that virtually sold themselves...they were/are HUGELY talented, and once "the ball" started rolling, they required only the subtlest of real personal management decisions, per se. The timing was right, in that, Epstein's decline, coincided with their having the "ball rolling" already. Good timing for the Beatles here, that dispite Eppy's bungling, the boys made it !
Today, there is no one comparable, though many moguls try to disprove it. But then "trying to", is basically, what the business has become about these days...and again, it's an unfair measure and goal.
Music companies don't care about the Talent, they care about bean-counting and The Market. And it shows in their poor performance !
Brian Epstein was a virtual "babe in the woods", compared to the marketing that's expended, individually, on artists today. He could screw up...as he did, BIG TIME...and it didn't really matter, only that their pocketbook was just a little slimmer. As Apple, under the subsequent leadership of Macca proves, they are today, a license to print money, that others are unfairly compared with.
To me, it can be argued, that the Beatles were a comodity that virtually sold themselves...they were/are HUGELY talented, and once "the ball" started rolling, they required only the subtlest of real personal management decisions, per se. The timing was right, in that, Epstein's decline, coincided with their having the "ball rolling" already. Good timing for the Beatles here, that dispite Eppy's bungling, the boys made it !
Today, there is no one comparable, though many moguls try to disprove it. But then "trying to", is basically, what the business has become about these days...and again, it's an unfair measure and goal.
Music companies don't care about the Talent, they care about bean-counting and The Market. And it shows in their poor performance !
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4591
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
You want marketing of artists? Try Berry Gordy at Motown. That's not to diminish the talent there - I like that stuff myself - but image and production had as much to do with things as raw talent did.
What am I saying here? I guess what I care about is the end result, not if someone is "constructed/marketed".
What am I saying here? I guess what I care about is the end result, not if someone is "constructed/marketed".
mikenycLI wrote:Brian Epstein was a virtual "babe in the woods", compared to the marketing that's expended, individually, on artists today. He could screw up...as he did, BIG TIME...and it didn't really matter, only that their pocketbook was just a little slimmer. As Apple, under the subsequent leadership of Macca proves, they are today, a license to print money, that others are unfairly compared with.
I'm not a Beatles expert, but I thought:
a) Epstein and Astrid had everything to do with polishing and selling the Beatles' image in the early days
b) Epstein was a savvy businessman
c) many of the bad financial decisions (Apple handing out money to pursue ridiculous projects, the making of the MMT movie) happened after Epstein died
lukpac wrote:You want marketing of artists? Try Berry Gordy at Motown. That's not to diminish the talent there - I like that stuff myself - but image and production had as much to do with things as raw talent did.
What am I saying here? I guess what I care about is the end result, not if someone is "constructed/marketed".
I agree! Most of the Motown artists were street kids, or people who didn't have the image that the white audiences liked, so he had Maxine Powell groom them all.