ARTISTIC INFLUENCES AND INNOVATION IN THE POPULAR MUSIC INDUSTRY

Frontiers of Entrepreneurship ResearchVolume 30 | Issue 15CHAPTER XV. ENVIRONMENT Article 3

6-12-2010

ARTISTIC INFLUENCES ANDINNOVATION IN THE POPULAR MUSICINDUSTRYErik NoyesBabson College, [email protected]

I. Elaine AllenBabson College

Salvatore PariseBabson College

This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Entrepreneurship at Babson at Digital Knowledge at Babson. It has been accepted forinclusion in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research by an authorized administrator of Digital Knowledge at Babson. For more information, pleasecontact [email protected].

Recommended CitationNoyes, Erik; Allen, I. Elaine; and Parise, Salvatore (2010) "ARTISTIC INFLUENCES AND INNOVATION IN THE POPULARMUSIC INDUSTRY," Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research: Vol. 30: Iss. 15, Article 3.Available at: http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol30/iss15/3

http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer

http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol30

http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol30/iss15

http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol30/iss15

http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol30/iss15/3

mailto:[email protected]

ARTISTIC INFLUENCES AND INNOVATION

IN THE POPULAR MUSIC INDUSTRY

Erik Noyes, Babson College, USA

I. Elaine Allen, Babson College, USA

Salvatore Parise, Babson College, USA

“At least the first forty songs we wrote were Buddy Holly influenced."

- John Lennon on The Beatles

INTRODUCTION

In a creative industry, what pattern of artistic influences increases the likelihood that an artist will

produce innovative products? Building on a forthcoming book chapter, this research examines all

major artists in popular music between 1951 and 2008, their unique historic network of artistic

influences, and their innovation achievements in the Popular Music Industry. The research applies

network analysis to the social structure of the industry to see: do artists who create innovative

products occupy unique structural positions in the complete network of artistic influences?

Individual positions in networks are known to impact the likelihood that an individual will

recognize entrepreneurial opportunities and develop new venture ideas (Singh et al., 1999).

Relatedly, Structural Hole Theory suggests that innovators will be more likely to have structural

holes (disconnects) in their networks, allowing them to combine and exploit information which is

inaccessible to others in the network (Burt, 1992, 2004). Applying Resource Dependency Theory

to the network context (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978), artist positions in influence networks should

therefore enable or constrain access to resources from which artists might fashion new innovative

products. Specifically, here we examine how one’s structural pattern of artistic influences make it

more or less likely one will create innovative products in the Popular Music Industry (1951-2008).

Artistic influences are the set of recognized social predecessors in a Creative Industry

(“forefathers” or “foremothers”) who are credited for prior achievements in a Creative Industry

(Caves, 2002). The creative influences of artists in a Creative Industry can and do vary widely, but

they are particularly interesting because artists openly recognize and celebrate their influences—

the raw material from which they attempt to fashion industry-changing innovations (Theberge,

1997). For example, The Beatles report they were strongly influenced by Buddy Holly and Roy

Orbison who, respectively, were influenced by Elvis Presley, The Clovers, Hank Williams, and

Hank Ballard. Influence networks of this type, for each artist, can be assembled and traced back to

before the creation of recognized innovation achievements in the industry to determine what

patterns of influences are most productive for fashioning innovative products. We examine each

artist’s structural pattern of artistic influences as idiosyncratic resources from which they may

develop new music.

The popular music industry is of interest for research in entrepreneurship because it is a rich

environment to explore the evolution of an industry, because musical innovations can be tracked,

and because social networks are an important element in how innovations are assembled and

diffused. Each artist is embedded in, and therefore occupies a unique position in, the

historical/longitudinal network of musical influences (Granovetter, 1985). As such, one can study

artists as a type of entrepreneur that looks to bring change to an industry by exploring and

exploiting new combinations of resources (Schumpeter, 1934).

1

Noyes et al.: ARTISTIC INFLUENCES AND INNOVATION IN THE POPULAR MUSIC INDUSTRY

Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2010

Our dependent variable is number of Grammy Awards won, the industry’s standard of an

artist’s innovativeness. Grammy Awards are not bestowed based on an artist’s album sales or chart

performance. Rather, the Grammy Foundation states, Grammy Awards are “the only peer-

presented award to honor artistic achievement, technical proficiency and overall excellence in the

recording industry”. We find that musicians with structural holes (disconnects) in their influences

network—those who are brokers between otherwise disconnected artists—are most likely to create

innovative products as measured my Grammy-winning. While generally consistent with research

on structural holes and innovation, this finding is particularly interesting because of the scope of

the data (14,000+ influence relationships) and the demonstration of the phenomenon across

extremely indirect relationships across six decades.

WHY NETWORKS MATTER IN CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial firms in Creative Industries—such as music, film,

publishing, software and design—commonly develop innovations and generate new wealth by

exploiting resources in their professional and personal networks. Research has demonstrated that

worker free agency in Silicon Valley—and particularly lax non-compete arrangements, fluid

organizational boundaries and strong informal networks of talent—are critical to the pursuit of

fast-changing opportunities in dynamic industries such as in the Information Technology and Life

Sciences. Regional advantages, it follows, have been shown to emerge from heightened labor

mobility and accepted norms of moving between and networking within organizations (Saxenian,

1996).

Relatedly, if one looks to the Popular Music Industry, artists responsible for major innovations

have often combined new technologies, new group members and fused different musical styles to

fashion new musical experiences (e.g., The Beatles, David Bowie, Pink Floyd, Stevie Wonder,

and Herbie Hancock). More broadly, in Creative Industries, loose personal and professional

affiliations are a treasure chest for locating critical talent, for sourcing funding for risky new

ventures and for assembling teams to commercialize and industry-shaping innovation.

Theory and research on networks provide insight into why networks—and particularly why

entrepreneur positions in networks—matter (Bavelas, 1951; Milgram, 1967; Granovetter, 1985;

Burt, 1992; Krackhardt, 1995; Powell and Smith-Doerr, 1996; Hills, Lumpkin and Singh, 1997;

Singh et al., 1999; Ahuja, 2000; Borgatti and Foster, 2003; Freeman, 2004; Smith-Doerr and

Powell, 2005). For example, Resource Dependency Theory, a foundational theory of networks

research, predicts that one’s adaptability and chances of survival in an industry depends on one’s

access to scarce resources in a business environment (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Particularly,

social contacts, or one’s position in a social network, may enable or constrain access to critical

resources needed for basic operation, growth and innovation. Critical resources obtained though

social contacts may include financial resources, such as funds needed to develop a technical

innovation, or social capital, such as important social contacts needed to assemble or distribute an

innovation. From this perspective, social ties—and particularly resources obtainable in the

external environment—are what shape the survival and innovation capacity of certain industry

players. A chief point in this theoretical perspective is that one’s position in a social network may

enable or constrain strategic actions by an industry entrepreneur.

A second theory, Structural Hole Theory (Burt, 1992), which complements Resource

Dependency Theory, suggests that brokers in networks should have advantages in recognizing

entrepreneurial opportunities and fashioning innovations because they sit at the nexus of unique

2

Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 30 [2010], Iss. 15, Art. 3

Posted at Digital Knowledge at Babson http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol30/iss15/3

information, also known as non-redundant information. Specifically, those artists who are

connected to other network actors—where those network actors are otherwise unconnected—can

exploit unique information flows and perceive entrepreneurial opportunities that only partially

present themselves to others (who, by contrast, have inferior access to unique information by

virtue of their network positions). This is in stark contrast to a competing view which argues that

centrality in the network should be a valuable position for creating innovative products. However,

while centrally-positioned artists in the influences network will have the most influences, they are

also proportionately less likely to have access to unique (non-redundant) arrays of influences.

Particularly, they have access to the same general resources which other centrally-positioned

artists have, so potentially the same raw material from which to fashion innovative products. In

summary, occupying a central position in the network is quite different than brokering structural

holes in the network—the latter should be more fruitful for fashioning innovative products.

Structural Hole Theory is a social structural theory of competition and competitive advantage

(Porter, 1985; Burt, 1992). Burt asserts Structural Hole Theory has important implications for

individual and firm-level entrepreneurship along with other outcomes, including vision advantage,

innovation, the discovery of "good ideas", and ratings of individual job performance in

organizational settings (1992, 2004). In specific terms, a structural hole is an absence of ties (or

hole) between network peers from the perspective of a focal actor (1992). Structural holes may

occur within networks at all levels of analysis, but here we explicitly consider the individual level

of analysis.

A growing body of networks research suggests that brokerage across structural holes is

favorable for initiating innovations (Burt, 1992; Krackhardt, 1995; Powell and Smith-Doerr, 1996;

Hills, Lumpkin and Singh, 1997; Singh et al., 1999; Ahuja, 2000; Borgatti and Foster, 2003;

Freeman, 2004; Smith-Doerr and Powell, 2005). Therefore, examining musicians in the music

industry, we posit:

Hypothesis 1: The structural pattern of artistic influences for innovators will be different

than non-innovators.

Hypothesis 2: Artists with structural holes in their influence networks will be more likely to

create innovative products.

The context we are studying—six decades of music industry history—is particularly interesting

because structural holes do not occur within a close, small group of industry participants.

Moreover, the underlying social ties we examine are not direct in nature (i.e., few artists maintain

relationships with all of their direct and indirect artistic influences—living or dead). Rather, we

analyze the impact of different structural positions among direct and indirect influences on an

artist’s likelihood of creating innovative products.

To summarize, network methods have found broad application in the study of business

strategy, innovation processes, and earlier in epidemiology and politics (Wasserman and Faust,

1994; Powell and Smith-Doerr, 2007). Network analysis examines the architecture of direct and

indirect social ties among network actors—such as people, teams, organizations and nations—and

focuses on the relations among actors as opposed to the attributes of actors as is more common

focus in the social sciences. Network research asks: does one’s position in the network affect one’s

outcomes? Also, it asks: are there superior (or inferior) positions in the network from which

initiate certain actions—which we examine here as creating innovative products.

3



THE POPULAR MUSIC INDUSTRY

Overview

The Popular Music Industry (1951-2008) is a fascinating context to explore the importance of

direct and indirect artistic influences on innovation in an industry. Specifically, a culture of

openness about one's creative influences—both near and distant—allows one to analyze artists’

positions in the complete network of influences. By analyzing each artist’s unique position in the

complete network of musical influences, one can examine relationships between social structure

and innovativeness.

The Grammy Awards

The Grammy Awards (originally called the Gramaphone Awards) —or Grammys—are

presented annually by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences of the United States

for outstanding achievements in the music industry. Since the awards were established in the

1950’s, nearly 8,000 Grammy awards have been bestowed. According to the Grammy Foundation,

the Grammy Awards are “the only peer-presented award to honor artistic achievement, technical

proficiency and overall excellence in the recording industry, without regard to album sales or chart

position”. The Foundation states, “The Grammy Awards celebrate the enduring legacies of all

forms of music; the creative process; and the art and technology of the recording process.” Major

awards, which are not restricted by genre, include: Album of the Year, Song of the Year and Best

New Artist. We chose this measure of an artist’s ability to create innovative products because it is

measurable; because it is the industry’s standard for artist innovativeness; and because, as noted

above, Grammy Awards are bestowed unrelated to the financial or chart performance of an artist.

METHOD

Data

The data come from allmusic.com, a top industry information provider whose database is the

platform for both America Online’s and Yahoo! Music’s e-commerce website. The archive

provides data including each artist’s name (individual or group), discographies of albums and

songs, and most importantly, lists of artists that have influenced each artist (1951’s-2008). In total,

there are 14,000+ “influenced by” ties for nearly one thousand artists. This data allows for a

seamless and complete network picture of all major artists in the industry and their artistic

influences over the past six decades (See Figure 1 below for a sample of the data). Relatedly,

Figure 2 provides a network visualization showing only the artistic influences among the most

influential musicians in the industry (i.e., those cited most as artistic influences to all the other

musicians in the industry).

For this study, we used UCINET 6.0 (Borgatti et al. 2002) to build-out the complete network

of artistic influences and to measure the network positions associated with each artist. Based on

each artist’s structural position in the network, we calculated each artist’s structural holes* in

addition to other common structural network variables including betweenness centrality (the

number of times a musician occupies the shortest average path between other musicians based on

their position in the network) and in-degree (the number of musicians citing an artist as an artistic

influence, i.e., a measure of influence). Because the following controls, we believed, could also

influence the number of Grammies won, we also included in our model: the number of decades an

artist produced music as well as the number of years they were deemed active, whether the artist is

4



a solo artist or a group, the total number of albums created, the total number of Top 10 albums

created, the number of labels signed onto, and the total number styles of music played. To

incorporate our prior research, which examined artist network positions as a predictor of new

market pioneering, we also examined whether or not artists created into new markets in their first

year of their existence (market pioneers vs. non-pioneers), arguably a separate potential measure

of artist innovativeness.

Analysis

Initially, univariate and bivariate relationships between variables were examined by whether

the artist won a Grammy award and whether the artist was a pioneer of a new market. Highly

significant differences were found between each of these groups and key variables are shown

below in Tables 1 and 2. Market pioneers (i.e., those creating music into new markets during their

first year of existence) have almost six times the mean number of Top 10 albums (7.9 for market

pioneers vs. 1.6 for others) and almost double the overall mean number of albums (24.8 vs. 14.9,

respectively). For artists with at least one Grammy award, the results are more modest with five

times the mean number of Top 10 albums (5.0 vs. .9) and almost 30% more albums overall (19.7

vs. 14.0).

A general linear model was fit to the data to predict the number of Grammy Awards won and

its relationship to market pioneering . Significant variables are shown below in Table 3. The

resulting adjusted R-square for the model was 0.618.

In Table 3, positive coefficients correspond to winning a higher number of Grammy awards

while negative coefficients correspond to winning fewer Grammy awards. Not surprisingly, the

number of decades an artist produces music, the number of albums produced by an artist, the

number of other musicians influenced by the artist (in-degree), and pioneering a new market have

a strong positive relationship to the number of Grammy’s won. Interestingly, solo artists win

more Grammies than group artists. Somewhat surprising is that having multiple record labels and

performing in multiple styles have a negative impact on the number of Grammy awards won.

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, which states that the structural pattern of artistic influences for

innovators will be different than non-innovators¸ those winning the most Grammy awards are

peripherally not centrally, located in the complete network of influences (i.e., high betweenness

centrality predicts winning fewer Grammy Awards). Consistent with Hypotheses 2, which states

artists with structural holes in their influence networks will be more likely to create innovative

products, artists with more structural holes (i.e., low network constraint) win more Grammy

awards.

Collectively, the findings about the negative association with centrality and the positive

association with structural holes suggest brokerage among artistic influences is a better predictor

of Grammy winning than occupying a central position in the influences network. Even considering

the span across six decades of direct and indirect artistic influences—an uncommon network—

Burt’s Structural Hole Theory appears to be supported by the findings here. Particularly, structural

disconnects across artistic influences increases the probability of winning multiple Grammies.

IMPLICATIONS AND VALUE

This research draws attention to the unique social nature of innovative product creation in a

creative industry. Specifically, despite the widespread stereotype of the socially-isolated tortured

5



artist, our findings suggest that innovators likely fuse together several different creative influences

versus fashioning innovations from an absence of influences. As with our other research on new

market pioneering in the music industry, overall, these findings de-emphasize the importance of

one’s individual talent versus one’s idiosyncratic pattern of artistic influences in creating

innovation in a Creative Industry.

As discussed, Resource Dependency Theory strongly suggests that one's position in a network

should impact one’s ability to create innovative products, particularly if one has superior access to

resources that other’s do not. Here, access is meant in a creative or inspirational sense where all

musicians have artistic influences, but only some have certain structural patterns among their

influences and occupy certain unique structural positions in the complete network of influences.

Being influenced by structurally-separated artists, through one lens, we find, appears to be an

especially efficient way to access the disparate resources from which to fashion innovative

musical products.

By generalizing findings, this research may contribute to our understanding of the role of

networks in new product innovation in other Creative Industries. Moreover, taking a portfolio

perspective, this research may suggest that music recording companies, such as BMG, Sony Music

or Universal, might examine their aggregate artist portfolio positions in influence networks to

maximize the probability of creating innovative products in the future. Such an inquiry might

suggest music recording companies are strongly, or weakly, positioned for future industry

evolution. Broadly, if extended, this research may inform artists and executives in other creative

industries, such software, gaming, film and publishing, about strategies to generate and sustain

innovation.

Future research examining networks in Creative Industries should examine how artist positions

in networks impact commercial success, which often differs dramatically from what is regarded

historically and contemporarily as innovation. While there are artists in creative industries that are

widely regarded for creating commercially-successful innovations, a common outcome is

innovation without commercial success or commercial success without innovation. Clearly,

research on creative industries needs to examine both market and financial outcomes in relation to

these questions. More broadly, this research presents the opportunity to disentangle the

importance of individual talent—which is so commonly viewed as a primary driver of

innovation—and the importance of idiosyncratic social influences on innovation.

CONTACT: Erik Noyes; [email protected]; (T): 617-290-5294; (F): 781-239-4178; 231 Forest

St, Babson Park, MA 02457.

NOTES

*Note: The term “structural hole” can be somewhat confusing. The term structural hole only

indirectly conveys the idea it refers to, that is, the gaps between individuals or firms with ties to a

focal actor. Furthermore, Burt uses another term, "network constraint," to refer to the absence of

gaps. For example, individuals with few structural holes in their network, according to Burt, face

"high network constraint"-- that is their network ties have ties with each other. We avoid the

phrase "network constraint" in this analysis in favor of the more commonly used structural holes

terminology. In the results, therefore, signs (+/-) have been flipped for all structural hole variables

to allow for use of this simpler language.

6



REFERENCES

Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration Networks, Structural holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study,

Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 425-55

Aldrich, H.E. 1999. Organizations Evolving, London: Sage Publications

Aldrich, H.E., & Fiol, M. 1994. Fools Rush In? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation,

Academy of Management Review, 19(4): 645-670

Allen, T. 1977. Managing the Flow of Technology: Communications, Technology Transfer, and

the Role of Technical Gatekeeper, R&D Management, 1: 14-21

Alvarez, S.A. & Barney, J.B. 2007. Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of

Entrepreneurial Action, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal.

Bala, V. & Goyal, S.1994. Birth of a new market. Economic Journal, Vol. 104: 9

Bavelas A. 1951. Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups, in Lerner D., Lasswell H.K.

(eds.), The Policy Sciences, pp. 193-202, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., & Freeman, L.C. 2002. UCINET for Windows: Software for Social

Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies

Burt, R.S. 1987. Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence,

American Journal of Sociology, 92: 1287-1335

Burt, R.S. 1992. Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Burt, R.S. 2004. Structural Holes and Good Ideas, American Journal of Sociology, 110 (2): 349

Burt, R.S. 2005. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital, Oxford: Oxford

University Press

Borgatti, S.P., & Foster, P.C. 2003. The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review

and Typology, Journal of Management, 29:991-1013

Caves, R. E. 2002. Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce, Harvard University

Press.

Donath, J. 2001. The Visualization of Large-Scale Conversations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Sociable

Media Group

Freeman, L.C. 2004. The Development of Social Network Analysis. Vancouver: Empirical Press

Geels, Frank W. 2007, Analyzing the breakthrough of rock `n' roll (1930-1970) Multi-regime

interaction and reconfiguration in the multi-level perspective, Technological Forecasting

and Social Change, Vol. 74, No. 8.October, pp. 1411-1431

Geroski, PA. 2003. The evolution of new markets. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Granovetter, M. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380

Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic Action, Social Structure, and Embeddedness, American Journal

of Sociology, 91: 481-510

Hayek, F. (1945). Use of Knowledge in Society, American Economic Review, 35: 519-530

Hills, G., Lumpkin, G.T., & Singh, R.P. 1997. Opportunity Recognition: Perceptions and

Behaviors of Entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA:

Babson College

Kirzner, I. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Kirzner, I. 1997. Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian

Approach, Journal of Economic Literature, 35: 60-85

Knight, F. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Krackhardt, D. 1995. Entrepreneurial Opportunities in an Entrepreneurial Firm: A Structural

Approach, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Spring: 53-69

Milgram, S. 1967. The Small World Problem. Psychology Today 2:60-67

Peterson, R.A. 1990. Why 1951? Explaining the Advent of Rock Music. Popular Music, Vol. 9,

No. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 97-116, Published by: Cambridge University Press, Stable

7



Pfeffer, J. & Salanczik, G. 1978. The External Control of Organizations. New York, Harper and

Row

Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational Collaboration and the

Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science

Quarterly 41:116-45

Rogers, E. M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press: New York, New York

Sarasvathy, S.D. 2001. Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic

Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency; Academy of Management Review. Vol. 26

Issue 2

Sarasvathy, Saras D. & Dew, N. 2005. New Market Creation through Transformation. Journal of

Evolutionary Economics, Iss. 5: 533-565.

Saxenian, A. 1996. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route

128. Harvard University Press.

Schumpeter, J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press

Scott, J. 2000 Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London, UK

Singh, R. P., Hills, G. E., Hybels, R. C. &Lumpkin, G. T. 1999. Opportunity Recognition through

Social Networks of Entrepreneurs, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley,

MA: Babson College: 228-241

Singh, R. P. 2001. A Comment on Developing the Field of Entrepreneurship through the Study of

Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation, Academy of Management. The Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 26, Iss. 1; p. 10

Smith-Doerr, L. & W. Powell 2005. Networks and Economic Life, The Handbook of Economic

Sociology, Russel Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press

Tschmuck, P. 2006. Creativity and Innovation in the Music Industry. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Springer

Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.

Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Watts, D.J. & Strogatz, S.H. 1998. Collective Dynamics of Small-World Networks. Nature,

363:202-04

White, H. 1981. Where do markets come from? American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87

8



Figure 1. Detailed Example of Artistic Influences for The Beatles. Picture/graphic from

www.allmusic.com.



9



Figure 2: Network of Major Influencers

This network visualization shows creative influences among artists who were most influential in

the Popular Music Industry (1951

influenced by); influence is most often unidirectional but can be bidirectional.

Figure 2: Network of Major Influencers


the Popular Music Industry (1951-2008). An arrow indicates the direction of influence (was

influenced by); influence is most often unidirectional but can be bidirectional.


he direction of influence (was

10



Table 1. Market Pioneers vs. Non-Pioneers

Market Pioneers

Mean Number

of Top 10

Albums

Mean Number

of Albums

Mean Number

of Grammy

Awards

No Mean 1.601 14.943 0.613

Median 0.000 12.000 0.000

Yes Mean 7.889 24.778 1.333

Median 1.000 20.000 0.000

Table 2. Grammy Winners vs. Non-Winners

Won a Grammy?

Mean Number

of Top 10

Albums

Mean Number

of Albums

No Mean .91 14.02

Median .00 11.00

Yes Mean 5.01 19.69

Median 3.00 17.00

Table 3: Results of the General Linear Model Predicting Number of Grammy Awards Won

Number of Decades 0.351 0.001

Number of Years Active -0.056 0.035

Solo or Group 1.452 0.001

Number of Albums 0.04 0.001

Number of Labels -0.121 0.001

Number of Styles -0.063 0.02

In-Degree 0.399 0.001

Betweenness Centrality -5.459 0.001

Structural Holes 0.486 0.046

Pioneered a market 0.328 0.001

11



Date post:	11-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

ARTISTIC INFLUENCES AND INNOVATION IN THE POPULAR MUSIC INDUSTRY

Documents