
A rocker’s guide to management - davidw
https://www.1843magazine.com/features/a-rockers-guide-to-management
======
weinzierl
> One of the most striking differences between the Stones and the Beatles is
> that the Beatles split up after a mere seven years at the top, whereas the
> Stones are still going. One startup flashed brightly and burned out; the
> other established itself as a long-running corporation.

When it comes to fame the Beatles' model is the clear winner. In 56 years the
Rolling Stones performed more than two thousand concerts around the world[1].
They did so many concert tours that there exits a Wikipedia category[2] just
for the tours. Sure, the Rolling Stones are world famous, but what effort was
required to become and stay that way. Compare that with the Beatles. They put
in ten years of work to reach universal long lasting popularity - how
efficient is that.

When it comes to fortune I'm not so sure. Comparing net worth of McCartney
($1.2 billion [3]) and Mick Jagger ($360 million [4]) it looks pretty clear
too. But when we compare the overall wealth generated by the Beatles vs that
of the Rolling Stones I'm not sure if that would be as clear cut. I don't have
any number though and I think it's difficult to compare.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_concerts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_concerts)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Rolling_Stones_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Rolling_Stones_concert_tours)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger)

~~~
sclangdon
The question is, would the Stones be as popular today if they also split up
after 7 years at the top? I'd argue they would since all of their best work
(with the exception of Exile on Main St. - which was released in their 8th
year) was released in this time.

Of course I'm not going to argue that anyone is as popular as the Beatles, but
I'm pretty sure the Stones would also have had universal long lasting
popularty if they had only been around for the same amount of time.

You also can't compare the wealth of McCartney to Jagger. Firstly, McCartney
had a very successful solo career after the Beatles, during which time he
released way more albums than the Stones in the same time period and did his
own share of touring. Secondly, McCartney owns a significant music publishing
catalogue and has other business ventures.

~~~
k__
I had the impression most of their fame came from the fact that they are the
oldest rock band alive.

~~~
peteradio
You take that back!

~~~
k__
Oh, is there an older rock band?

~~~
4ndr3vv
GP is arguing that their fame is derived from attributes other than their age,
not the fact that they are indeed the oldest rockers around

------
mb_72
For those who are not into rock music or music in general necessarily, this
article is still worth reading and thinking about. A couple of lines stand out
for me, especially: "...every group has a threshold for tension that
represents its optimal level of conflict. Uncontrolled conflict can destroy
the group, but without conflict, boredom and apathy set in."

This is consistent with my own experience, both in bands and in companies, and
perhaps in personal relationships also. A certain amount of friction is
actually optimal in terms of output of the band / company / couple.

~~~
bpizzi
I'm not sure, there's definitely people (I mean, there must be others than
myself ;)), mostly introverted, that shine best when they know that the
relationship is based on pure facts and no unforeseeable tension may arise
from hurt egos.

That being said, maybe we're such a minority that virtually no human group
would be comprised of only that kind of mind (even in couples).

~~~
blauditore
> pure facts and no unforeseeable tension

I cannot imagine a non-trivial environment where everything is deterministic
and there's no room for argumentation. For example, when deciding on the color
of a new logo, or what to do for a company trip, there's no obvious
canonically true solution. Therefore, opinions and personal preferences come
into play, which is a source of conflict.

~~~
bpizzi
> For example, when deciding on the color of a new logo, or what to do for a
> company trip, there's no obvious canonically true solution. Therefore,
> opinions and personal preferences come into play, which is a source of
> conflict.

Ha, those are great examples where I will absolutely refuse to give my opinion
:)

"What's your idea on the new logo color?", "I don't care, I'll be ok with
whatever you choose", "No really, tell me", "No really, I don't want to think
about it", "I don't get it", "I know you don't". Quit harsh, I conceed :)

Related: bikeshedding and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality)

~~~
pjc50
Quite an annoying approach in itself. The worst is people doing that when
deciding where to eat.

------
tim333
>The notion that bands should make music for the love of it was always
romantic and now seems positively quaint. Rock groups are mini-corporations

The top 0.1% of rock groups maybe. The vast majority don't make significant
money and probably do it mostly for the love of it and maybe a bit in the hope
they'll make it one day.

~~~
williamdclt
I don't entirely agree. If you want to have a chance to make it, you _have_ to
be more than just a group of guys playing music. You need to be professional,
manage your booking, do networking, manage your music production...

~~~
thegabriele
That's right, but start by writing some good songs first (whatever the
genre)...otherwise, business wise, it' probably better just to focus on being
a tribute band.

~~~
Kalium
If I understand you correctly, you're advocating for creating an MVP before
moving on to the questions of how to manage the business around it.

~~~
thegabriele
Ok: play something people want to hear.

~~~
InitialLastName
So what you're saying is, you need to have an idea of the market fit for your
product.

~~~
thegabriele
I'll go along: you're pitching your music and receiving feedbacks since the
early stages of your startup band, so no need to study how to fit the market.
Go fast, break strings.

------
chiefalchemist
> If rock groups are businesses, businesses are getting more like rock bands.
> Workplaces are far more informal than they used to be, with less emphasis on
> protocol, rank and authority. Many firms try to cultivate the creativity
> that can come from close collaboration. Employers attempt to engineer
> personal chemistry, hiring coaches to fine-tune team dynamics and sending
> staff on team-building exercises. Employees are encouraged to share lunch,
> play table tennis and generally hang out. As the founder of Hubble, a London
> office-space company, put it, “We hope that our team will become friends
> first, and colleagues second.”

The problem is, most of these companies are closer to formula driven Justin
Bieber than the less pop-focused (say) Radiohead.

Both have their merits. However, talking the latter while walking the former
(or vice versa) creates disconnect - for employees, as well as customers.

Ultimately, culture matters. It's a process. It must be cultivated and
curated. It is __not__ a speech or memo from the top that intends to magically
everyone with the snap of their fingers.

There's far more to "We're going to innovate..." and "We're going to be
creative..." and "We're going to be customer focused..." than simple saying
such things.

p.s. Heart and commitment matters. When you think of any great band you can
hear their all-in-ness. Those who fake it, are far less likely to make it, and
last.

------
peteretep
> One notable exception to this rule was The Smiths. When Morrissey and Johnny
> Marr founded the band in 1982, they insisted on taking a bigger cut of
> income, from all sources, than the bassist, Andy Rourke, and the drummer,
> Mike Joyce

Has anyone ever found any redeeming personal qualities to Morrissey?

~~~
aerique
He's a unique blend of funny and annoying, a master troll.

His lyrics are one of the few I actually listen to and enjoy. Not to mention
the song titles. So I guess he's a decent writer?

~~~
bpyne
What a fantastic description or Morrissey. He's exactly a "master troll". His
social "role" is like the chorus from Greek tragedies.

I don't often listen to his music anymore. But, when the mood hits, nothing
else satisfies.

------
shams93
The Stones are like Apple, arguably Brian Jones was their Steve Jobs, after
Jones passed they became this tried and true formula, they may have added in a
disco beat in the late 70s but it was basically an iconic sound with iconic
songs, but their creative genius had passed long before. I don't expect Apple
to die off any time soon but Jobs was definitely their Brian Jones. But like
the Stones I expect them to continue long into the future playing out the same
formula over and over.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
I wanted to argue against this, and I don't necessarily agree, but I guess the
Stones did their best work after Jones died, but not too long after he died
and I guess one could argue the same about Apple after Jobs (so far)

------
ethank
I worked with REM for the past 20 years. This article is dead on. Learned more
from that band about management than from any business mentors.

~~~
bpyne
What an incredible experience it must have been to be around such a creative
group of guys. Even today, I can listen to Stipe's lyrics and find different
meaning with my changing life experiences.

I know they didn't like it, but Fables of the Reconstruction is one of the
most moody, creative works in modern music IMO.

~~~
ethank
They came around to liking it at around the 20 year mark :)

------
gerbilly
>John Lennon’s and Paul McCartney’s artistic partnership enabled them to
vertically integrate the hitherto separate functions of songwriting and
performing.

Ugh, really? We're going to bring corporate buzzwords to the Beatles now?

Lennon and McCartney had perfectly complementary qualities.

When Paul would write "I've got to admit it's getting better", John would add
"It can't get no worse".

Paul is a great multi instrumentalist and has a great ear for melody, while
John had lees musicianship but was a subtler and sometimes wickedly funny
lyricist.

Did you every see a video of an octopus capturing prey, the way they wrap
themselves around it and smother it?

That is what capitalism is attempting to do with everything.

~~~
52-6F-62
> Did you every see a video of an octopus capturing prey, the way they wrap
> themselves around it and smother it?

That is distinctly reminiscent of Matt Taibbi's take on Goldman Sachs:

> _The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s
> everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire
> squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood
> funnel into anything that smells like money._

\---

[https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-
grea...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-great-
american-bubble-machine-195229/)

------
bpyne
The book "Beyond Category" is a fantastic book that profiles Duke Ellington as
a band leader. He kept a large number of high-level musicians, often with
challenging personalities, employed and working together for decades. He
managed to accomplish it in the face of a "pivoting market": around the late
40's/early 50's listeners turned more toward bebop with its small-group sound.

It's a worthwhile read for anyone with both music and leadership interest.

------
ubermonkey
>Underpinning R.E.M.’s flat governance structure was an egalitarian economic
one. As Tony Fletcher explains in “Perfect Circle”, his biography of the band,
each member received an equal share of publishing royalties, regardless of who
contributed what to each song. The same was true of their recording and
performing royalties – although here equal splits are normal. One notable
exception to this rule was The Smiths. When Morrissey and Johnny Marr founded
the band in 1982, they insisted on taking a bigger cut of income, from all
sources, than the bassist, Andy Rourke, and the drummer, Mike Joyce. This
introduced an instability into the group, hastening its demise after five
years.

My understanding is that truly equal shares across the board are pretty rare,
and probably even rarer if you filter for success. I think Van Halen was run
that way, at least in its glory years (ie until DLR left).

Marr & Morrissey insisting on a larger share of performing royalties and gig
fees is just mean, considering they dominated songwriting. That's actually a
minefield for some acts, because the songwriting money is WAY BIGGER (at least
traditionally) than performance royalties.

This came up in some of the more amusing sequences in the old VH-1 "Behind the
Music" about the Go-Go's, who like many bands split songwriting royalties by
actual authorship. The overwhelming majority of their songs (and all their
hits) were written by Jane Weidlin and/or Charlotte Caffey, so after _Beauty
and the Beat_ blew up they started getting checks that were much, much bigger
than the other band members, who took exception.

Weidlin's response to their ire was "well, write some fucking songs!"

------
olivermarks
This seems a remarkably wholesome article given how vicious showbiz can be
around song writing rights, recording deals etc. There's no discussion of the
actual management of these acts - people like Peter Grant/Led Zeppelin or Mike
Jeffery/Jimi Hendrix Experience, who both had very questionable business
practices. Those are the people who control and exploit the talent, it seems
very few acts have management who are looking out for them...

------
bpyne
The owner of a music school in my neighborhood graduated from Berklee Music
College in the mid-90's. Even then Berklee had its students taking classes in
business. A lot of being a successful musician is promotion and understanding
how contracts work.

------
zozbot123
So, are we going to have "rockstar-managers" and "ninja-bosses", too? Awesome.

------
ilamont
_Friends who once gathered in garages to thrash out songs on guitars and drums
are now as likely to get together to brainstorm ideas for apps_

Kind of a case in point: Smashing Pumpkins' drummer Jimmy Chamberlin, who is
the CEO of a tech company focused on live events
([https://www.modeproject.com/liveone-crowdsurfing/#liveone-
fi...](https://www.modeproject.com/liveone-crowdsurfing/#liveone-film)). He
got the gig through a connection with Groupon's Andrew Mason.

I think the study of bands' management styles really does give useful insights
into creativity and venture creation. Bands (more than most startups)
represent an almost ideal opportunity to have a balance of complementary job
responsibilities; it's then up to the members (or leader[s]) to creatively
optimize the output, including song creation, live performances, recording,
fan outreach, marketing, etc.

One area where things get interesting is when professional management gets
involved. I was intrigued by that part in the article about the grizzled
manager telling Tom Petty to put his foot down, and the repercussions that
followed. This manager cut his teeth working with Joni Mitchell and Neil
Young, perhaps the two most mercurial and insistent creative forces of the
late 60s rock scene. It's interesting to think what would have happened had
Petty hired someone else who had a different perspective.

Another area that fascinates me is when things go wrong, and how these
entities adjust. The scene in _Bohemian Rhapsody_ where Freddie Mercury splits
with the record exec who doesn't like opera is fictional, but a true story
that is even more bitter is the split with Queen's early manager Norman
Sheffield, a former drummer and later founder of the UK's first Apple
dealership. Listen to the first track off the album Bohemian Rhapsody, written
by Mercury, "Death on Two Legs," probably the ultimate rock diss track. It's
so powerful and bitter. It amazes me they didn't try to work it into the
movie, although that may relate to the fact that it is unfamiliar to most
audiences, probably because radio was reluctant to play it back in the day.

A third topic is scaling the business. I've written about Led Zeppelin in the
past (see [http://leanmedia.org/lean-media-example-led-
zeppelin-i/](http://leanmedia.org/lean-media-example-led-zeppelin-i/)) and
believe the band was the ultimate rock startup: A talented creative team that
clicked, an experienced pro (former Yardbirds guitarist Jimmy Page) leading
the way, using audience feedback cycles to help shape the first songs _before_
they entered the studio, and management that didn't try to mess with the
creative core.

Manager Peter Grant was a fearsome character
([https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-last-days-of-led-
ze...](https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-last-days-of-led-zeppelin-g-
force)), but only focused on the business end (especially touring) and let
Page lead the way in the studio and on stage. Because Led Zep was bootstrapped
and didn't have a record deal when they started, they didn't have some record
executive trying to call the shots in the studio and they worked quickly.
Inception was in August 1968 and the release of the first album took place in
January of the following year. _Led Zeppelin II_ was similarly lean, recorded
while they toured. Four of their first five albums were certified RIAA
"Diamond" albums, each selling more than 10 million copies (see
[http://leanmedia.org/chart-shows-rise-fall-music-
album/](http://leanmedia.org/chart-shows-rise-fall-music-album/)) which I
think may be a record.

Yet by the mid-70s Led Zeppelin really bogged down. They started living the
rock star life, and were doing massive tours that sucked the energy out of the
band. _Physical Graffiti_ took something like 18 months to produce (yes, it
was a double album, but still). By the late 70s, Page and Bonham had serious
substance abuse problems and the creative mantle passed to Jones and Plant.
The band folded after Bonham died in 1980.

------
baybal2
I'll say American, or Western business culture has a lot of "non-problems." To
even imagine what makes a "problem" to a rich Western multinational, one has
to put up some effort.

I'm not a fan of S. Jobs, but generally approve of ways how he reanimated
Apple Computers. A lot of commons sense based decision making in corporate
structure, and HR policy. For one, he fired a lot of business degree holders
from running actual engineering units — an issue of "inversion," I think is
what the prime majority of big tech companies suffer from, and can't do a
thing about.

Remembering that, I can only continue to laud and appraise what it is the
mainstream Chinese way of running a tech company. I was dealing with Chinese
electronics since my first job in a trade company in Singapore 12 years ago.
Just how freaking efficient they are. This baffled me 12 years ago, and it
still does today.

Nowhere but in China, you can have "signed contract in the morning, widgets in
the evening." Rather sizeable collectives of up to 100 men are running here
without a single "business" degree holder except of a single accountant/tax
filler. Such companies run almost like as if they were a computer program,
except they exist in real world.

If I am asked to summarise what that malaise is that ails Western business in
a single sentence it is "Western business culture is not about doing
business."

Too artsy, too talkshopy, too much "empty thinking," some people don't even
know what they are supposed to do — if I take upon Jiang Zemin's style of a
maxim statement.

~~~
howlingfantods
Having grown up and worked in the US and lived in China for the past 10 years,
I think you're overreaching with your characterization of corporate culture.

China, like the USA, has a wide range of companies that span the spectrum of
efficiency. Try to get some customer service at China Telecom and you'll see
the bottom-tier of efficiency that resembles, or is even worse, than trying to
get your cable fixed with Comcast.

~~~
baybal2
> China, like the USA, has a wide range of companies that span the spectrum of
> efficiency. Try to get some customer service at China Telecom and you'll see
> the bottom-tier of efficiency that resembles, or is even worse, than trying
> to get your cable fixed with Comcast.

True. There are horrifically bureaucratised private companies with SOE roots,
or ones ran by the "old boss" class. But in China, nobody will place them as
an example to emulate, but in America, the amount of people hellbent on
"running the company like a F500 multinational" is just scary, and these
people __don 't even realise__ that they are doing, and wanting something that
is wrong.

~~~
jpatokal
Are you telling me there are startups that _want_ to run like F500
multinationals?

No company has SOX compliance departments, mandatory HR trainings or audited
travel expense policies because they want to, they're just there because
beyond a certain point you'll find out the hard way that they're there for a
reason.

~~~
baybal2
> Are you telling me there are startups that want to run like F500
> multinationals?

Yes.

And their polar opposites are not better either.

Many of those guys are claiming that they know a thing about tech industry.
Some have actual tech education, maybe some low effort projects, but I meet a
lot cadres that put forward statements like "Our CTO has 20 years engineering
experience, we have zero reservations about our execution ability," but then
it finds out that the guy ran RnD offices for 20 years, but every time he
actually had to make anything he ran from one agent to another "to deal with
those Chinese factories." In other words, a dude on a CTO job with zero actual
manufacturing experience. In such cases I almost feel obliged to whisper to
the CEO or the founder "if he can't make you anything, why do you even hire
him?"

I'm not speaking about our clients, but, say, "the feel of industry in
general" :)

When I see people coming to SZ with an aspiration of making the next Ihpone,
some of them come with a crew the size of our our entire engineering
consulting company (around 50 people,) but they already have a baggage of
"product managers," "corporate strategist," "experience managers," and some 10
other managers with titles I never ever heard of.

That way you can have startups with 10th of megabucks in funding, huge teams,
and no products to sell...

