Who's your favorite industry plant mine is the peace lily

Don't ask a woman her age Don't ask a man his salary Don't ask an indie artist why the name of their parents is blue on Wikipedia

L + ratio + media company plant + dad works for Fantano + brad taste in music better

Anyone who is *publicly* signed to a major label is not an industry plant. A label trying to turn a marketable artist into a star by putting them in certain places and aligning them with certain people is not some type of foul play, it’s the norm. The expectation.

Genuinely disappointed this isn't about plants used in various industries.

I remember seeing people call Phoebe Bridgers an industry plant because 1. her mom is a (small-time) comedian 2. she went to a performing arts high school also attended by the Haim sisters (who have their own share of industry plant accusations leveled against them.) Bridgers has no evidence of prior industry connections besides regularly busking as a teenager and generally being in the right place at the right time. but when she pointed out that The Strokes (led by the son of one of the most successful modeling agents of all time) are benefactors of nepotism, people were enraged and said things like “saying their parents bought them a career invalidates their hard work and talent.” at this point, any semi-popular female artist from LA is an industry plant.

the biggest bummer is that is if a small artist without resources then gets a lot of industry support, dont we want that?

People called Lizzo an industry plant? She’d released two albums before Cuz I Love You blew up, clearly it’s a right place right time kind of scenario.

The main thing that bugs me about the whole "industry plant" idea is that it rests on the idea that there aren't enough aspiring or up and coming artists and so the labels are forced to come up with their own. For a quick rebuttal, walk by any telephone pole in an urban area and tell me honestly if you recognize even a single artists name. Then remember that there's about 6 inches of posters underneath the layer that you can see.

Okay but that Gayle thing really is weird right? Her label made up a fake backstory for the song so it could appear more genuine and that's the only reason why it/her got popular. That's bizarre. I get that in general it's overblown but that couldn't be more of a plant.

Your comment on using the "industry plant" argument as a way to justify why you dislike someone's music is soooo true! It seems like personal taste just isn't enough anymore... You can't just dislike a song/movie/book/whatever because it's not your style or you don't vibe with it, there has to be an objective reason why it's bad™ or problematic. And the other way around seems to be true too, especially on places like TikTok and Twitter - you can't just enjoy a piece of media because you think it's cool, as people are constantly pressured to show the world why their taste is not only "objectively good" but also morally justified. This whole industry plant debacle feels less like a way of denouncing the real problems you've described and more of a performative act to find validation from others and show the world that your opinion objectively matters (when most of the time it really doesn't).

It's a really really strange time in music culture.The rise in smaller artist , music labels are demonized. New music is declining, Old music is stronger than ever. Maybe the conversation question leads me to ask is there an unrecognized appreciation for A&R who actually can spot talent and willing to take the risk and invest in them?

Sending a talented artist from obscurity directly into the mainstream is very literally the job of the music industry. Like you said, that's just what marketing is. And while some of these new stars might have a family advantage, nepotism isn't going anywhere. Can anyone really tell me that they wouldn't take an opportunity to help someone they love achieve their dreams? Or that if you were offered that chance, you would turn it down? Really? I never understand the 'industry plant' hate. Especially seeing as, like you said, it's a term almost exclusively applied to women and people of colour. Yes it's unfair - but maybe we should focus on expanding opportunities for more obscure artists instead of knocking talented individuals down.

It doesn't just occur in the mainstream. There are a few artists in the underground who are being called Industry plants. The most recent one i remember was actually today when I defended an artist called Scene Queen from someone who thought her label (Hopeless Records, which is known for showcasing pop punk bands) made her entire aesthetic. Btw, I would describe her sound as if Animals era Kesha fronted Limp Bizkit and had politically progressive lyrics. I recommend her song "Pink Panther".

As much as I agree with your points, I feel like the Tramp Stamps situation was way more than just industry plant accusations. They claimed to be a feminist punk band, but instead of building up women, they wrote a bunch of songs tearing down guys. Also their punk phase seemed to be fairly recent, as one of the members couldn't recognize music from a super obscure band called... My Chemical Romance. I feel like they could have gotten away unscathed if they just lied low until the drama blew over, but they just had to release a statement doubling down and misunderstanding why they were even being criticized. They also pulled the "we wrote those songs as jokes, guys, don't you understand satire" card, which doesn't really help with the claims of inauthenticity

Thank you! Aretha Franklin came from a well connected family, record labels literally had a bidding war over her when she was still a teenager. Was she a 'plant'? How are The Strokes *not* industry plants but Clairo and Billie Eilish are? Another aspect to the current wave of 'industry plant' complaints is the rise of TV singing competitions. These shows are driven by the stories of the contestants as much if not more than their talent, the entertainment comes from rooting for your fave, and 'authenticity' gets attached to the contestants with the most hard luck stories. These shows also reveal the artifice of pop, literally showing how random kids are thrown together based on how they look, and then trained to be stars. So artists get defined as individuals with the most compelling hard luck story and as winners in an artificial competition. But as you point out, arguing that an individual is an 'industry plant' is a poor substitute for critiquing the capitalist music industry. It's called an industry for a reason. None of this is new.

Mic is payed off by big foliage and has been for a while. Remember when he said he would start a competitive planting channel? It’s been right in front of us the entire time and we never noticed. Smh my head 🤦‍♀️

I find more problematic the return of the payola. If you see the most popular playlists, there are artists that appear underground, but if you seek more info you can notice that they work with marketing firms specialized in aggregate tracks onto those playlists. This is more notorious in a local state, with artists in a country gaining notoriety just because they have the money to pay aggregator companies to be on high circulation playlists. But "industry plants"? Nah, you could reach the top with help, but if you stick there, you were meant to be up all the way. Great video Mr. El Snare

Going off of that “authenticity” thing. I’ve recently been on a bit of a 60s/70s pop binge. As much as I enjoy a lot of the standout songs from those decades, I think we forget just how “inauthentic” a lot of that music was. The term “bubblegum pop” was coined in the 1960s to describe disposable songs made by big companies for quick entertainment. Yet I hear all the time about how music was “real” back then and not now. Sorry to say it, popular music has always been manufactured. All art is in its own way manufactured. Authenticity is not the be all end all of music.

I lived in Chicago during Chance's rise and the entire city had that "rising star" excitement for him. it was a really great time to be a music lover in the city.

A phrase I'd really like to see make a comeback right now, something I'm sure will make a lot of people roll their eyes because it's something their parents told them a million times when they were kids, to the point where it's easy to forget that it actually has some value: "You know you can turn the music/movie/tv/radio/computer/phone OFF, right?"

Solution: go to shows, buy music, support the artists you enjoy. I don't know if it will fix the industry plant black hole necessarily, but it sure would give a lot of deserving artists a lot of money with which to make a lot of music for a lot of us to enjoy, which is kinda how this thing is supposed to work.

I don't know how some people think that having a relative in a completely unrelated field who has some sort of rank means that it gives them power in Hollywood.

I’ve never believed in the idea of “industry plants”. A harsh reality about mainstream pop artists’ success is that it’s less about their talent and more about who they know. Be it songwriters, producers, other artists with lots of influence, etc. It’s a conspiracy theory that really just boils down to sheer coincidence.

I am more bothered by bots and inflated view counts that then turn the algorithm to favor them over people who dont have that kind of firepower. But thats more of an overarching contern that is applicable to all of our society and just happens to touch down in music.

The Tramp Stamps caused what happened themselves. They chose to market their warmed over pop punk on TikTok themselves. They went looking for attention and reactions and they got it. It’s not Gen Z’s fault that they can see through bad attempts at pandering.

Also people only get mad about someone getting their start by having connections if they don't like that artist's music. I've never once seen anyone accuse for example The Strokes or Kate Bush of being industry plants

It's funny to see "nepotism" thrown around in contexts that can essentially be boiled down to "going into the same line of work as your parents", which is... an extremely common thing. I'm sure that childhood exposure to a certain industry (in this case, the music industry) might pass at least *some* knowledge and experience to a person.

Seeing Olivia and Billie being constantly labeled as plants by geriatric millennials (and older) just felt like people were upset that they were now out of the loop and realised they aren’t the prized targeted key demo anymore. EDIT: Should’ve worded this better, simply meant that the experiences/world views/pop culture knowledge of 80s born millennials is a completely different beast than the 90s born millennials and zillennial cuspers

Industry plants exist (but that's not something wrong on its own). Think of Bonie M or any Eurodance band from the 90s where a music producer with resources and connections hired random musicians to front an album that was already completed based on marketing statistics. I also find it funny that the Sex Pistols, a marketing scheme for selling clothes, are used in arguments as some example of originality.

I think there is truth in what you said, and I can't talk for everyone, but what really distasteful for me is promoting musicians as "self-made", while in reality they are from a 2nd or 3rd generation of a musician family, exceptionally rich and has a network you could spend a lifetime building. American media is full of these kind of people's lies as good PR. But it's not just musicians. Look at Elon Musk, he is painted as some kind of a self-made man, the founder of Tesla, the one that gives us electic cars, space travel and paypal. But in reality he just born with money thanks to his father's diamond mines and bought companies instead of founding or inventing (lol) anything, and then also scammed his own fans with Doge coin. There are a lot more like him, and common people are jfascinated with these kind of stories, because they want to hear these lies instead of how unjust the world is. They want to believe that working hard, and giving it all will be enough, and they will make it.

I don’t mind artist who come from privilege succeeding Laura Dern is the daughter of two successful actors which is how she got her start, but I love Laura Dern and I’m glad we get to watch her in movies I don’t think people who come from privilege or connections succeeding would sting so much if it wasn’t that artists who don’t have those privileges struggle so hard to even get through the door to the building, where as it feels like artists with a leg up just had a key to the penthouse I think it really comes back to income inequality and capitalism The fact that you have to be rich to be able to pursue art full time is the problem We need to make the pursuit of artistic practice feasible for anyone who has the talent and drive to do so And that means making it easier to survive in this country Higher minimum wage and universal healthcare I think this is just yet another symptom of the deep rooted problems America is facing

As someone who, frankly, just does not care about current pop music, this discussion is fascinating to see from the outside (Note: I don't care about pop music because it doesn't suit my tastes, nothing more). I had no idea that that is what "industry plant" meant, I always thought it was an actual, conspiratorial, manufactured pop star that doesn't have any actual talent, no artistic intent or integrity, sold to people with the express purpose of making everyone involved rich (see: Milli Vanilli). This is the same conversation that's been happening since the term "sellout" was coined. Its just a variation on the same theme. Also, it was the norm from the inception of the record label to scoop up underdeveloped artists. This is how artists were signed. Labels at one time invested in their artists (though they still scammed them out of all their money) and helped them develop their talents. It was expected for the first two releases to be duds, and generally the third album was expected to turn a profit. Up until the advent of the internet, this was the norm. All the great artists we saw come out of the '90s were A&R guys signing young bands looking for what would eventually grow to be the next Nirvana. See Adam Nealey's most recent video, on how essentially artists have this public perception where they are expected to suffer for their art, and to want anything more than that is entitlement. That mindset is gross. I think this "industry plant" mindset is an outgrowth of the same mentality.

10:34 THANK! YOU! I was reminded of this recently with Wet Leg’s rise to fame, many happy to point the “industry plant” finger when similar (male-fronted) bands have never once had that accusation thrown at them - can’t help but feel it and every other instance is a bit…sussy…

H.E.R. has been called an industry plant, when really, Gabi Wilson rebranded as this mysterious artist, and it worked. People fell in love while Gabi had been overlooked to a degree. She had performed on tv numerous times growing up, and was signed at a young age. She started to become spotlighted on platforms like “BET Music Matters”, performing during commercial breaks at award shows. We had watched her grow up this whole time, and most people didn’t know it. We’re around the same age, and I remember seeing her on disney channel during a time that most kids my age had moved on from, and thought teen artists were for younger kids. HER’s music is more mature, and people my age have gravitated towards it compared to when they totally ignored her as kids.

Literally out of all things involving the music industry, THIS is what people find so heinous? That an artist supposedly got a disingenuous start? A lot of y'all should find something else to worry about and just enjoy the music.

people just want to resonate with that "suffering artist" myth due to the systematic inequality in every sphere of our lives yet when their favs reach a certain level of success with some clever (yet capitalist) strategies, they are suddenly called "industry plants" because they do not serve to that myth anymore which might not click with their listeners anymore. i understand the feeling behind that yet rather than throwing unreasonable blamings to musicians, it is important to talk about deeper systematic problems in this economy.

I think too many people need to tie "not liking a certain artist's music" to some kind of moral high ground. Like if you don't like an artist, it makes you better than someone who does. So they just try and poke as many holes in as many inconsequential things tied to that artist to justify themselves and it's just really sad.

I do think that industry plants are real. But i do not think that being an industry plant means that the artist is bad. One of my favorite bands is an industry plant. That band being The Strokes

I heard someone call Dorian Electra an industry plant when they're not signed to a label

it honestly doesn't matter if someone was a plant or not. if the music goes it goes.

here’s what i’ve reflected on: at the end of the day, there seem to be a lot of people that still like gayle’s songs (i don’t, but that’s fine). if her songs were actually horrendous, then I think there would be more pushback. she can sing, she’s got a good songwriter (as much as I dislike it, abcdefu is always stuck in my head lol). if the “higher ups” as it were were trying to push REALLY bad music on us, I think that would lead to another interesting conversation topic. also think about the usual stunts that other artists pull to promote their albums (lookin at you Kanye), don’t think gayle’s tiktok comment setup was too far off from anything usual! (also love you Mic!!!!!!)

I have to ask why someone needs to create a big grandiose reason to hate on an artist, especially for something that doesn't affect the music they're hearing. Like...you can dislike an artist for just...not being your thing. You don't need to soil the reputation of plants while you're doing so XD

Although you make a lot of good points, I do feel you didn't fully address ACTUAL industry plants which definitely exist. In reality, industry plant when used correctly is just a way of calling an artist inauthentic and callous which I do think is fair when they present themselves as something of an "underdog" when in reality they have huge backing. I mean you literally identified the Gayle song and then basically did nothing with it when that is a token example of an industry plant!

MicTheSnare is a KZfaq industry plant cause he can't keep making these banger videos by himself!

My definition of an industry plant is an artist who's artistry is dictated to them by a label rather than coming from the artist themselves. For example, many many pop musicians in the 70s and 80s were session musicians playing in fake bands. By this definition, Justin Bieber started out as an industry plant, but grew out of it.

'Industry plant' = 'I'm salty that music I don't like is getting successful'. It CAN be reasonable in some cases to wonder about AstroTurfing for certain artists, but this isn't that.

Great video, the section on authenticity absolutely chimed with my own view on it. All music is mediated, refined (for one example, look how many overdubs there were on the Sex Pistols' Never Mind the Bollocks) and manufactured authenticity has existed for decades. I think it was the writer Simon Frith who said that the paradox of authenticity as it was valued in rock culture in the 60s and 70s was that it rested on white rock performers' perfected imitations of black blues musicians. Which isn't authentic at all! I think the focus on authenticity in the context of pop music today is partly due to the expectation of pop stars being more relateable and "like us", and the ongoing debates on separation of artist/personality and art (which is a topic requiring a lot of nuance).

Big time rush is an industry plant both canonically and in real life

For me, the term did have some weight and truth to it way back when it was first coined but over the years it’s become so diluted that it doesn’t even carry meaning anymore.

I think because we're in such a weird place--crumbling Capitalistic society and all that--it's easy to feel let down when you're being sold something you thought you chose to buy into. And, sadly, I would say the best way to solve this problem can't be done under Capitalism, because it would be to give opportunities and resources to everyone.

it was weird when ppl called grimes an industry plant bc her mom was... a politician? like, what?

What I find troubling about industry plants is the fact that they do not acknowledge their start. Why lie about it? Just say "yeah, I had help and I'm lucky to be where I am now" that's it. Their self-made story has consequences. It's very much like the american dream.

11:25 this statement but with basically everything, i'm sick of people trying to paint a celebrity they don't like as some mastermind evil criminal when they could just say "idk i just don't like them very much"

Yes they are real, there's tons of examples, most of them either have a rich dad or are an existing artist or group a big label will come and push them into this fake image

Edit: made this comment at the start of the video, didn't know we'd touch on it at the end lol Ever notice a lot of the artists labeled as Industry Plants are young women? That doesn't seem like a coincidence to me, considering women's authenticity within music is always questioned. See the "name 3 songs by the band on your shirt" dudes

People realize they can listen to music by unsigned or independent artists, right? Everybody on a major label is a "plant" or whatever. They're on a big label because they had connections. At the end of the day, listen to whatever you think is good. There's just as many terrible underground groups as there is terrible major label groups and vice versa.

in my opinion, some dude like Machine Gun Kelly is called an industry plant because his label is doing an absolutely massive push for people to listen to his music WHILE ALSO being disliked by a silent majority, either due to his appropriation of hip hop or his pop punk stuff

This is the most disingenuous argument Ive ever heard. "Cmon, it doesnt exist, but here is an example of it existing". "Nepotism and insiders have always been a thing". So has the payola scandal but that doesnt make it right. "Who cares, people like their songs, no ones getting hurt." Flooding independant creator spaces like soundcloud and others pushes out the next possible Prince or other huge talent. "Who gets to decide who is talented, if not the record labels?" You, me, everybody. Thats the point. Not the company that needs to push prewritten commercial jingles, store christmas music, etc. With a singer they cast for the role.

I think a lot of people at some point in their life wanted to be a rock star, and they carry a resentment in that dream fading that expresses itself as a refusal to believe a musician their age or younger could succeed on their artistic abilities where they could not (even if they never actually tried). They throw the industry plant label on artists to discredit their accomplishments by assuming that, at least in part, their music was written by someone else behind the scenes

I think a lot of the anger over industrial plants comes from the anger over nepotism and the illusion of meritocracy. However, as you said succinctly, nepotism isn't going anywhere because it is a universal human trait.

It's mostly the "indie artists/bands" that are actual industry plants

I love the whole industry plant argument because I work as a PR and it's so hard to get people press and attention - if there was a big secret about how to make people big then trust me we would all do it.

Family in the music industry isn't just about nepotism, it is often also about having received high quality musical training from young age. If you bought a guitar at 15 and learned to play it, you were already 10 years behind the kid with house full of instruments and music lessons since they were 5.

Industry plants are real

Although I'm waiting for your new hour-long essays and DDDs, I like that lighter forms. It's always good to hear from you!

coming from a place of privilege already gives an artist an upper leg to succeed. Taylor Swift, adore her, it can be argued she’s a “plant” because her dad founded part of big machine. Obviously, it probably helped her, but she wouldn’t be where she got to without her work ethic, skills, the whole package.

But do they use photosynthesis?

My solution: the only music I listen to is live music in small venues. It's always authentic, and the experience of being very close to the music being made is amazing.

I recall linkin park being one of those bands everyone said were manufactured because the label introduced and suggested the band work with Chester. I don't even know how much of that is true, but even if it was i don't see the problem? Labels should be connecting talent and contacts to make art, that's part of their job. Doesn't mean the artists lack integrity because a label helped the band form in its current state

THIS IS THE BEST! I am a part of the local Sydney heavy music scene and heaps of friends get onto editorial playlists, tour around the world and support crazy good artists and play crazy festivals and get heaps of media coverage. Not as much as a 'celebrity' or someone that's blown up. But I've seen many, many artists grow organically. I've noticed that it takes around 5 years of grinding HARD in order to start getting real traction.. I've also noticed another trend with artists here in the local heavy Sydney music scene - the second band ALWAYS does better than the first. Why? Connections and networking from... working hard for five+ years. *mic drop

The women and/or poc line hit hard as fuck, like the only exceptions are Posty and Yungblud 5SOS, Justin Bieber and The Kid Laroi are so BLATANTLY industry plants. But Tramp Stamps, Billie Eilish and Gayle are getting shit for it when they're not.

I don't really get why it matters if you had help or not. If the music is good, the music is good. If it's bad, oh well.

my favourite meme is of the glasses wojak getting mad at Clairo for being an industry plant, then turns around to the Strokes and is like "SOOO TRUE SELF MADE BAND! I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!"

i saw someone say that fiona apple was an industry plant, from then on my entire perspective on this whole conversation is that we all need to crack open a window

I saw a comment on one of Magdalena Bay’s tiktoks like “industry plant struggling to connect with their audience” It makes you think what you have to do to not be called an industry plant, eat bread crusts off the ground and perform exclusively online and in alleyways?

Jamie Lee Curtis is very open about being the product of nepotism, in case anyone needed another reason to stan. I think most of these young celebrities who found fame due in part to nepotism and/or wealthy parents grew up in environments where their peers had parents who were equally successful, who were also in the industry etc. That's why someone like Lena Dunham can balk at the idea of benefiting from nepotism, because to her, her parents are just obscure weirdo artists. They were probably small potatoes compared to the parents of the kids she was at private school with. So they get a very skewed worldview I think.

I found it funny that people called the Tramp Stamps an industry plant. They were so clumsy and awkward in their marketing. Wouldn't a band with a secret PR team have actual... you know... skills in presenting themselves?

i just really like your channel man, you always deliver!

I’ve never heard of an Industry Plant and after hearing this I quite frankly don’t care. I will like what I like and I’ll enjoy it with those how also enjoy what I like.

I think that finding out your favorite artist(s) are "plants" or got their contract cuz daddy is a producer or whatever it may be where; "All of us crammed in this dodge caravan with all our equipment ate nothing but ramen and played for free at any bar that would let us for 5 years before Lenny over here just happened to be in this dive bar in Iowa. Right place right time. He loved the band and the rest was history!! ✌️✌️✌️" It shatters that rubbish dream we've all been force fed our whole lives. If we just pulled our bootstraps harder and play by the rules we're gonna get to have our dream too! Just have to work hard! 2 40-50 hour a week jobs you'll have to work to survive while you chase the dream you really want just don't quit hard work is *always* rewarded!! 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 I think anyone Gen x and younger knows that 💩 died loooooooong ago (if it was ever a real thing at all that is I have my doubts) But even consciously knowing that bootstraps isn't going to do anything it's so ingrained in the culture and these musicians (or 'up and coming' actors w/e) they sing songs that feel like they get it too and they made it! Just for being themselves and working hard and then when it's verified that in fact that has never happened ans this wasn't the exception you'd hoped, it's like getting you're dreams and stuff shattered all over again and betrayed by someone you trusted or looked up to etc etc Hope that made sense I'm dead tired from just leaving the meat grinder I am forced to spend my waking hours at you know to not die hah 🙃 🤫 I get a rambly when over tired but I don't believe you mentioned that particular possibility and imho I think that betrayal (esp in the teen angst years) really stings alot of people. Thank you all for my TED talk on media idols & the American lie🗣️👩🏼‍🏫 🙇🏼‍♀️😹 🧡🦇

I feel like the term industry plant denies the agency and craft of the artist (or more often) the collaboration of artists in the process of creation, and belittles consumers (specifically teen girls) by implying they're being manipulated by marketing when like creating a recognizable and relatable image/content is literally the goal and what gives the whole endeavor its value. On the other hand, it is also a term, that deliciously gives us the ability to discuss how through idolization music more than any other creative field has become more of a product than a piece of art. I wonder about how this industry has a disparity between how we experience our connection to music on an individual basis versus how it works on an economic scale a lot. Haven't quite figured out my philosophy on the whole ethics of consuming music produced by superstars yet, but the term industry plant indeed doesn't cover it.

IMO there are two key words - one used:‘industry’ and another unspoken ‘trust’. This is industrialised music. With it comes agendas, priorities, interests (“APIs”) that are apart from music making and sharing that music with others/an audience. With it comes notions like ‘marketable’, sales/streaming numbers as important consideration and /or metrics. What people in the industry, the systems that flow through the industry are willing to do in order to prioritise and fulfil “extra-musical” APIs then becomes the core question. Which leads to the unsaid word: ‘trust’. That trust is in instances willingly sacrificed in order to try to make possible desired outcomes surrounding these APIs. The industry knows that some audiences value notions of ‘authenticity’ (perhaps for reasons outlined in this reason), and hence is willing to concoct a fictitious story to stir this sentiment. One that is opaque, unbeknownst beforehand to the audience. That is the distinction with cinema. We know that an actor is playing a role and for the time that we engage with the film, we are willing to suspend disbelief. A closer comparison would be audiences being told that RD Jr is Tony Stark, when really he’s just an actor playing the character of Tony Stark unbeknownst to them. Audiences are not stupid. They want to be presented transparently what is or what isn’t. If a music act is designed and premeditated to be a certain way, they should disclose that. Be proud of that work and stand by that work. Not obfuscate. If a music act is independent and came up from the grassroots, then it should be embraced as such. The issue isn’t “plant or not plant”, the issue is ‘trust’ and ‘lies’. It all very simple if we wish to boil it down. Just don’t lie.

This video is pretty much willfully missing the point of why the idea of an industry plant outrages people based on the path dependency of the music industry and not on the meticulous way everything about these artists is manufactured, focus grouped, etc. It’s not to say that they didn’t have talent or capacity before being tapped by labels, but that they are willing participants in the transformation of music and musicians into a lifeless vessel for marketing.

I think a lot of the time people end up taking out their frustrations at non-transparent marketing practices by the label out on the artist. But that opens a wider question about what counts as "unfair" marketing for music. Where do you draw the line for reasonable promotion when music labels are such powerful entities with so much control of the industry?

It's honestly about how some artist lie about they come up story that's what makes a artist a industry plant they will have family or friends in the industry or whatever connections n make up some fake bs about how they came up

i love your content, you always keep me in check, updated, and educated. thank u.

You seem confused. An industry plant is someone whose look, musical styling and personality was created by the industry, and is acted by a performer

Aren’t 99.99% of singers industrial plants? Who decides which songs are popular? Or what’s on the charts?

I love how you made a video about a topic I didn‘t really care about and only clicked on because it‘s by you a video about human nature and philosophy I enjoyed a lot and will keep on thinking about for some time.

Eminem was the first plant in hip hop pass it on ;)

It's weird people seek relatability in artists while seemingly yearning for the intrinsic diversification of music people like easy and digestible something that make them feel at one

Shout out to sussy chungus 6000 tbh

being called an industry plant nowadays, or being associated with one, is the same as being a “poser” in the earlys 00s

I heartily cosign this vid, though I was kinda shocked at the idea that writers aren't expected to present authenticity. In my experience, that's FAR from true. This is a total digression since it's not key to your point, but I just kept coming back to that line in my head through the rest of the video.

This video reminded me that people always love to point fingers at the wrong targets. Like, I see more people trashing artists for being industry plants (and it was mostly women and/or people of color) than pointing fingers at the people at the top who are responsible for the issues with the music industry. I know that sounds super-cynical, but still. Otherwise, the video was great, as always!

it’s always the successful young women who are accused of being plants.

Great points! Well made! Great hair by the way. :D

I feel this is a problem with social media. An artist can make a music video with friends that gets in front of the right people who help blow it up and to many seeing an artist with one song just feels like there is something weird going on especially as the old fashioned notion of touring for years before releasing any music is out the door

I think authenticity matters more or less depending on the genre you're listening to. Genre's like punk or metal have a long history of being outright hostile to pop success and the artists who get big in that space build specifically on abrasive elements that are hard to market outside. The factors in those genres that make it impossible for them to get a hit song are exactly why people like it. It's why more radio friendly subgenres like pop punk or metalcore can get such venom from more hardcore fans, it's the genre they like but defanged so to speak. In pop music I think it matters a whole lot less in the wider sphere because pop has never been authentic. Back in the 60s a song would have completely different people on the recording, the tv performances, and the tour. People glorify the rare artist like Bowie or Cobain who came from non-pop fields and got huge without realizing the pop industry has just sort of always been like this.