Talent, Luck, or Who You Know
 

I've always wondered which of these things matters more in the music industry. You have a lot of super-talented, creative bands like Wilco and Yo La Tengo, which are well known, but really only moderately successful. Then you have the Limp Bizkits of the industry, which were either lucky or well connected, which sold a lot of units in a short time, on little talent. I wonder what matters more...

Talent, obviously. I don't think I would want to be hugely successful if I thought my music was shit.

Of course, I don't really know how Limp Bizkit feels about their music.

A mix I think. Like there are a lot of talented local bands in my area, but they don't know anybody so they can't catch a break. As long as they're not concerned about money, they still do have a handful of really dedicated fans who recognize how talented they are.

Ah, I interpreted this wrong. I would still say talent is number one, but who you know would be second.

Who you know that recognizes it as talent.

...or that recognises it as a quick buck.

I'd say it's a mix. Fortunately, a lot of genuinely talented bands get picked up by persons in the music industry. But unfortunately, a lot of crap gets signed simply due to luck and who they know.

I think marketing has a good deal to do with it as well. If a record label thinks a particular artists is marketable (e.g. Avril Lavigne and her "punk" image etc) then they will give them a chance even if their music is terrible.

QFT. If someone sees any sort of trendiness or something they can sell then a band can make it.

A combination of the lot I reckon. One of my mates is in a great band (sounds better than a lot of stuff that pollutes the airwaves these days) but for a lack of the luck or the connections they haven't even got a deal. I'm guessing it's the same for countless other unsigned acts too.

so long as you keep measuring success from a business perspective it won't be any different than any other job. it's who you know THEN what you know same as it's profitability over creativity.

Talent is most important. Like anything else, being in the right place at the right time (luck) can trump talent, but success probably correlates best (not perfectly) with talent. Who you know is definitely also important. The most successful artists are those with talent and end up with the right contacts.

More then anything it's honesty and determination. Are you good enough? Never stop working until they get there or you're not good enough to go any farther.

This is a great discussion. If you listen to the media channels with the most money invested in it, the music is all the same. Musicians in these bands may play well, but I don't think it takes any talent to tow the status quo. MOst groups on commercial radio because they get in with major labels and they're plugged into this pre-packaged promotional matrix that lacks any originality.

Anyone can play music. Being an artist requires creativity beyond the music. Your image and promotion has to be as creative as the music. I read in Wired about a group called Parts & Labor that's building an album from samples provided them by fans:
Parts Labor Album Features Hundreds of Fan Samples | Listening Post from Wired.com

This is a great example, because the process is generating media interst before the music comes out. They're also using businesses outside of the music industry (Gotvmail) to get the word out. This is a talented approach to building hype for an album.

The time of the pure musician, who just sits in a room and composes, is over. Artists have to be savvy with thier "brand" as well as with their music to reach a mass audience. I have way more respect for those that can do this for themselves and not just by getting discovered by a major label.

Marketability 100%, but usually has some talent.