Comments

Reinvnetion is the difference between the one hit wonders and the artists who keep on the scene for decades. I have also claimed that a musical artist doesn't have to be perfect but must be unique to survive.

Posted by Nik at November 3, 2005 5:13 PM

Of course, whilst a great many ops have done very well through not changing (and, being clones of others, capitalised on that great blight of dullness by which many of us live our lives) we 'revolutionaries' prefer the other way and hence warm to the '**** it! be different' vibe.

For the younger members - who may not even have read 'The Tom Peters Seminar' (the work that really got me into this whole thing), I clip this:

'Whatever you've built, the best thing you can do is burn it down every few years. Don't change it, but b-u-r-n i-t d-o-w-n.'

A point on Dylan - he also LOST fans on each change... an inevitable - though hardly fatal - consequence.

Genuine question here - what have you (the reader) burned-down recently? And, what's in the pipeline?

Posted by gulliver at November 4, 2005 2:57 AM

Saw Chicago in concert this week. This group didn't exactly burn everything down every few years and start over, but instead stayed true to what they did well and kept getting better at it. They started over once, found out the new direction was ugly, and went back to their roots. Has Chicago been successful? Unbelievably so. They just finished recording Chicago XXX. That means there are about 600 songs in their recorded catalog. Think about how many of them have become integral parts of our lives. BTW, it was a kickin' show--over two hours and with as much energy as a Tom Peters speech. At least three generations and five separate age "groups" in attendance (your granny might have been shakin' her groove thing down front during 25 or 6 to 4...)

Posted by Mike at November 4, 2005 7:12 AM

I don't know John. Dylan never really changed his focus too much, just the channel to deliver his message. It would be comparable to Microsoft creating more web-based platforms rather than desktop systems from this point forward. Or any traditional marketer, for that matter, spending more of her advertising budget online these days.

Now if Dylan transitioned from being a socially conscious artist to a jingle songwriter for "The Man", then that would be a different story altogether...and certainly a new audience.

David Bowie changed his style much more so than Dylan ever did and actually abandoned his fans by going totally techno.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at November 4, 2005 9:12 AM

That said, I'm all for "Burning Down the House" creatively so to speak. A great Talking Heads track by the way!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at November 4, 2005 9:18 AM

John O'Leary - only you would romance a dino-fossil like Bob Dylan. I was never buying Dylan and never will - same with Madonna/UK spouse - boring. Rolling Stones way up the value chain though - the best late '05 business story to me.

However, I really respect Dylan for his career mastery - so agree with your insight on that. I just saw an interview with him - and he seems to be faith based in that he just lets it happen - he made a deal with his maker way back and c'est la vie - he is what he is and he seems to take no ownership - just riding it out - hopefully Dustin weighs in on that.

By the way - the USA trip of Prince Charles - bravo although they seem quite tired looking - and bespoke nightmare with his fairly giant pantload in one double-breasted suit after another - while the dark 2/3 button is so much more slimming.

Posted by Sean at November 4, 2005 10:01 AM

Dylan's reinventing himself seems to follow a pattern. The movie Ray illustrated the same tendency to blow things up when Ray Charles cut his first country album. Each made the move before it was evident to the outside world that they were getting stale where they were. They did not follow the trend but actually established it.

Posted by Mark at November 4, 2005 10:27 AM

Brilliant observation. I KNEW there was something I was feeling in this documentary that went beyond nostalgia for Dylan. Colin Wilson says, in his Anatomy of Human Greatness, “the refusal to keep repeating the act of spiritual metamorphosis is the reason that all great artists cease to develop.”

Posted by steve chandler at November 4, 2005 10:38 AM

Tom, a lot of Dylan's fans felt he DID abandon socially conciousness for jingle writing. An exaggerated view, perhaps, but he created a genuine furor in the folk world (the fan base that launched him) when he replaced the political with the personal. Then, he committed the unpardonable sin of recording hit singles and touring with rock musicians. Performing with commercially tainted, consciousness-reduced rock bands at the time, I welcomed his conversion. But to those in the folk-protest world, the guy that went from "Masters of War" all the way to "Lay, Lady, Lay" had clearly gone back to work on Maggie's Farm.

Posted by John O'Leary at November 4, 2005 12:04 PM

I agree John, but wasn't it in context to the times that each song was written? An anti war song for example, might not be socially relevant if the society isn't at war. Social relevance requires evolution with what's going on in society. Perhaps fans that got "stuck in the moment" (U2 reference) were left behind as he moved on. And they certainly can't blame an artist for digging within himself to extract personal rather than social musings. That's what artists do...express themselves. Wanting Dylan to be "our" voice is limiting and unfair to him. I think that its about creative evolution rather than creative destruction.

Relating to business, I have a Nokia mobile phone, but chose not to evolve with the brand, which now offers a variety of innovative products with many more features than my standard 3300 has. It would be silly of me to be upset that Nokia moved on because I still use one of their early products.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at November 4, 2005 2:43 PM

The fact is, non-conformists conform as much as anyone else. They are just conforming to new or evolving beliefs, customs and practices. Find me one person in this world who is doing something that nobody else is doing or has done. We might be the first to expand upon something; but invention, for the most part, is just taking the next step forward; and there are generally several people stepping alongside you.

I thought I had a new idea
But then the truth was told
My father had the same idea
When I was two years old.

(I am the impromptu poet this evening!)

Posted by Tom O'Leary at November 4, 2005 3:04 PM

'Don't stand in the stairway, don't block up the hall'.

Posted by gulliver at November 4, 2005 3:10 PM

Something of the kind happened to Miles Davis when he started to play (his bandmates, in fact) an electric piano (Herbie Hancock), electric guitar (John Mc Laughlin), electric bass and even distorted trumpet. I have read somewhere Charlie Mingus was asked about Miles Davis those days and his answer was: I once met a guy called Miles Davis but he is no longer alive.

Time is the only judge in those cases. Personnally I love Miles electric period, it was one of the most fruitful efforts of his career though he had to break many standard rules.

There´s another interesting point with Miles Davis. In the late 60´s he did not refuse to play as side star, I mean with other bands who were the real stars -because he wanted to play for a new audience, the young masses at rock concerts in such places as The Fillmore West. Such a challenge can only be faced by a genius.

Posted by Felix Gerena at November 4, 2005 4:00 PM

The struggle comes when the artist is forced to perform or create someone elses idea of art. Arturo Sandaval was prevented by the Cuban government for years to play 'his' jazz and had to support the nationally sponsored sounds of the state, hiding behind sactioned salsa sets (and I love good salsa, merengue and cumbia). Now that, my friends, is creative destruction. When an artist has free choice to change, it's evolution.

This is the crime of many businesses today. Business leaders stifle the innovation and individual creativity of their organization, binding potentially brilliant performers by standards, policies and procedures. This is the creative destruction of business today.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at November 4, 2005 6:25 PM

There is no doubt Dylan has become iconic - I am not a great fan - and it is a real shame he can't sing :-)

Give me John Lennon any day or Ray Davies (The Kinks)

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 4, 2005 6:35 PM

Reinvention is just another word for evolution.

It wasn't in Bob's makeup to spend a whole lot of time doing the same thing over and over again.

Good for him.

Good for us.

Posted by Olivier Blanchard at November 4, 2005 7:06 PM

Reinvention, even.

Posted by Olivier Blanchard at November 4, 2005 7:07 PM

A neat analogy and refreshing take on Schumpeter's 1946 groundbreaking economic model (one of the irst I have seen in a long time that doesn't involve tech).

cheap female viagra

It should be added I think however that the success of 're-invention' is largely dependent on gageing the right (cool) concept at the right (ready) time. Notice that Bob was selective about his genre reinventions at particular times: had he taken on the electronic scene in the 60's would this have really been as successful?

There are some good comparisons. Madonna has been very successful in reinventing herself as has successful Australian/UK pop star Kyle Minogue, but both suffered their periods of career uncertainty in trying to reinvent themselves too soon and into the wrong genre (Madonna into the new age/Ray of Light scene, Kyle into the indie band music scene in the mid-90's).

Reinvention is great, but to do it successfully you have got to have an expert sense of 'timing and placement', or it can seriously backfire and make it impossible to make any kind of serious comeback. I think a lot of people these days get caught up the hype of a new idea and forget the very serious downside to Creative Destruction: Brand Equity (i.e. reputation) is like your virginity, lose it once and it's gone forever.

Posted by Daniel M. Harrison at November 5, 2005 9:40 AM

That is it Trevor - a whiny voice iconic low talent big media push Hibbing, Minnesota boy - he was blessed by the times and made it work for some as a "poet" for some generation I'm unfamiliar with.

A Scorcese film on 1961-66 Dylan - please - just a dino baby boomer deal - so precious - like a rolling stoned on hemp or something.

Posted by Sean at November 5, 2005 10:09 AM

My VTG blog deals primarily with blogology and web usability issues, yet I was compelled to post about the Dylan Scorcese film broadcast on PBS.

I was stunned by the effect the Dylan documentary had on me. I immediately emailed my best friend in Hollywood, Bennett Theissen, and told him it was like a seminar.

Like a seminar. Fascinating to hear you write that many business people were inspired by that Dylan film. It is a charismatic non-conformist we look up to, Bob Dylan, the troubadour of troubled times.

Every business person needs a favorite poet, favorite protest singer, favorite subversive ideology, favorite social cause.

Mammonism is debunked by the Supreme Reality of the Blogosphere: the Rise of Individual Voice.

viagra online price Two Way Interactive Conversation is a close second in importance, but Independent Thought/Individual Voice is the highest reality.

I will do a post quoting this one today.

Posted by Steven Streight aka Vaspers the Grate at November 6, 2005 12:55 PM

"Low talent big media push?" According to almost any songwriter, musician, or music critic you talk to, Dylan at his creative peak (say, 1963 to 1966?) along with the Beatles was the biggest creative force in popular music in the last half century. Every critics’ poll I’ve seen reflects this. Dylan’s freewheeling lyrical style (alternately acerbic, mystical, impressionistic) single-handedly altered the direction of the Beatles’ creativity (especially John Lennon's) and the pop music landscape in the sixties. Almost no pop music artist dared to perform socially relevant music or sing blatantly poetic lyrics B.D. (before Dylan). Dylan’s influence can be heard in the singer-songwriter movement beginning in the 1970s, all the way to rock/hip-hop stars of today. No Dylan = no Bono, no Eminem. Dylan’s lyrics are the subject of college courses (even at Harvard) and 34 books. Google turns up 170,000 results for "dylan lyrics." No other single pop/rock music performer, from Elvis on, has been subject to as much academic analysis and scrutiny. (Now whether one LIKES his songs, his singing, his politics, his religious views, etc. is a different matter.)

Posted by John O'Leary at November 6, 2005 1:15 PM