Fox News Struggles to Define
By: Sal Cinquemani On: 10/02/2007 08:43:38 In: Music Biz Comments: 10

Fox News's Roger Friedman has called for a boycott of Rolling Stone. The magazine's publisher, Jann Wenner, is also the founder of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and it seems Friedman is a little peeved by this year's list of nominees for induction: Madonna, Beastie Boys, Leonard Cohen, Chic, Donna Summer, John Mellencamp, Afrika Bambaataa, Dave Clark Five, and The Ventures. Friedman's chief complaint (though it's hard to suss out an actual argument amidst all the racist, right-wing nonsensicality) seems to be that these artists don't represent "rock" as defined by the white straight American male.
Friedman lists the R&B performers who have been left out in the cold (you know, like Tina Turner), but then illogically criticizes Chic's nomination because they're "not rock." Yes, disco is gay. And yes, Friedman is apparently a homophobe. "Summer was a disco act. For her to get in before [Linda] Ronstadt is a joke. Mellencamp at least plays rock." The litany of ignorant statements goes on ad nauseam: "Afrika Bambaataa and the Beastie Boys: Are they kidding? Even the latter must be laughing. They had one big hit, 'You've Got to Fight for Your Right to Party.' The former, while I'm sure quite lovely, is a record-scratcher with a great name. Each of these belongs in a Rap Hall of Fame." The assertion about the Beastie Boys could clearly only be made by someone who is unaware of the trio's litany of successes and millions sold since that "one hit" 25 years ago (to which he graciously added five words to the title), while Summer and Bambaattaa are two of the most influential artists of the past three decades. The latter's impact can still be heard on pop radio today.
As for Madonna, Friedman's arch nemesis, he offers this: "She's not a rocker, she has a thin voice and she doesn't write all of her own material," points which are all either irrelevant or just plain untrue. Madonna's music has always been rooted in R&B, soul, and disco, but punk was also an early influence and her spirit and attitude is pure, unadulterated rock n' roll. Friedman even finds fault with Leonard Cohen, one of the most respected singer-songwriters alive: "Cohen's songs have not had nearly the same impact on rock as those by Jimmy Webb." Or Neil Sedaka! Or Neil Diamond! How are these artists any more "rock" than this year's list of nominees? The nature of the Hall of Fame is such that only a handful of artists are inducted in any given year. And with each year bringing artists who are newly eligible to the judging table, it makes it increasingly difficult for older acts like Sedaka or Ronstadt who were passed on in previous years to make the cut or even come up for consideration again.
"If you're still reading or buying Rolling Stone, it's time to stop," Friedman declares. It's worth noting that Rolling Stone is notoriously liberal, printing editorials that exposed the truth about the war in Iraq and criticizing George W. Bush long before it was in fashion to do so. A few of the high-profile nominees Friedman objects to have engaged in this kind of dissent as well—and have endured the kinds of retaliation Fox is now proposing.

Fox News's Roger Friedman has called for a boycott of Rolling Stone. The magazine's publisher, Jann Wenner, is also the founder of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and it seems Friedman is a little peeved by this year's list of nominees for induction: Madonna, Beastie Boys, Leonard Cohen, Chic, Donna Summer, John Mellencamp, Afrika Bambaataa, Dave Clark Five, and The Ventures. Friedman's chief complaint (though it's hard to suss out an actual argument amidst all the racist, right-wing nonsensicality) seems to be that these artists don't represent "rock" as defined by the white straight American male.
Friedman lists the R&B performers who have been left out in the cold (you know, like Tina Turner), but then illogically criticizes Chic's nomination because they're "not rock." Yes, disco is gay. And yes, Friedman is apparently a homophobe. "Summer was a disco act. For her to get in before [Linda] Ronstadt is a joke. Mellencamp at least plays rock." The litany of ignorant statements goes on ad nauseam: "Afrika Bambaataa and the Beastie Boys: Are they kidding? Even the latter must be laughing. They had one big hit, 'You've Got to Fight for Your Right to Party.' The former, while I'm sure quite lovely, is a record-scratcher with a great name. Each of these belongs in a Rap Hall of Fame." The assertion about the Beastie Boys could clearly only be made by someone who is unaware of the trio's litany of successes and millions sold since that "one hit" 25 years ago (to which he graciously added five words to the title), while Summer and Bambaattaa are two of the most influential artists of the past three decades. The latter's impact can still be heard on pop radio today.
As for Madonna, Friedman's arch nemesis, he offers this: "She's not a rocker, she has a thin voice and she doesn't write all of her own material," points which are all either irrelevant or just plain untrue. Madonna's music has always been rooted in R&B, soul, and disco, but punk was also an early influence and her spirit and attitude is pure, unadulterated rock n' roll. Friedman even finds fault with Leonard Cohen, one of the most respected singer-songwriters alive: "Cohen's songs have not had nearly the same impact on rock as those by Jimmy Webb." Or Neil Sedaka! Or Neil Diamond! How are these artists any more "rock" than this year's list of nominees? The nature of the Hall of Fame is such that only a handful of artists are inducted in any given year. And with each year bringing artists who are newly eligible to the judging table, it makes it increasingly difficult for older acts like Sedaka or Ronstadt who were passed on in previous years to make the cut or even come up for consideration again.
"If you're still reading or buying Rolling Stone, it's time to stop," Friedman declares. It's worth noting that Rolling Stone is notoriously liberal, printing editorials that exposed the truth about the war in Iraq and criticizing George W. Bush long before it was in fashion to do so. A few of the high-profile nominees Friedman objects to have engaged in this kind of dissent as well—and have endured the kinds of retaliation Fox is now proposing.
Billboard's Hot Mess
By: Sal Cinquemani On: 07/24/2007 11:31:16 In: Music Biz Comments: 2
Beginning next month, Billboard, the Bible of the music industry, will once again tool around with the formula that comprises their Hot 100 Singles chart, moving back toward the standard model of a 60/40 split between airplay and sales, respectively. In recent years, Billboard had adjusted the ratio to reflect the then-burgeoning digital download format, which replaced the traditional commercial single, by giving more weight to sales (at one point, a whopping 70%) and less to increasingly corporate-controlled radio. With radio playlists shrinking by the day (less songs played more frequently than in any other time in rock history), the change made practical and logical sense. Theoretically, the chart should be an arbiter of what people want to hear, but in the first half of this decade, when traditional sales had declined and were being replaced with illegal downloads (largely facilitated by the industry's own cannibalization and resistance to change), the chart instead became almost solely a measure of what radio programmers felt inclined to play.
Billboard's new changes are a step back toward the not-so-distant past when hip-hop and R&B ruled the pop charts due to heavy airplay and the top tier remained virtually immobile for weeks. A quick scan of the songs that hit #1 from 2002 to 2005 shows exclusively urban artists and a few American Idols thrown in for good measure. (In that period, there were no more than 12 chart-toppers in any given calendar year.) Favoring sales creates a more diverse chart, reflecting the eclectic taste of the people who are willing to actually go out (or, in this case, stay in) and pay for a song they like. One recent study showed that airplay and sales aren't necessarily correlated (in other words, people often listen to the radio as a substitute for purchasing music), but it's more likely that, in 2007, airplay influences sales more than sales influence what radio stations play. So, in effect, airplay is also reflected in the sales portion of the Hot 100's overall ratio, which means big, interest-fueled corporations like Clear Channel have even more control of the most influential singles chart in the country than a rudimentary 60/40 split would have you believe. Would the Dixie Chicks' "Not Ready To Make Nice" have been able to soar up the charts following their Grammy sweep last February under this formula? Would other artists deemed unsavory to Clear Channel even have a shot at the exposure they deserve in a free, purportedly consumer-driven nation?
There's no doubt that a change is necessary when a song can leap all the way to the top of the chart in one week based almost entirely on digital sales, and I always found the weight given to downloads as compared to commercial CD singles (yes, some still do exist!) problematic, but—at worst—the new ratio should be an even 45/45 split between airplay and sales, with 10% coming from streaming audio (the new model gives streams 5%). Being that Billboard primarily serves those within the industry and since the government has cracked down on payola, one would think sales would matter even more to the suits at the incredibly shrinking record labels, but that's simply not the case. While Billboard's actions suggest that they're ahead of labels when it comes to adjusting to the changes in the market, it also points to an entire industry still reluctant to let go of the old paradigm. That or they're simply divorced from reality.





Beginning next month, Billboard, the Bible of the music industry, will once again tool around with the formula that comprises their Hot 100 Singles chart, moving back toward the standard model of a 60/40 split between airplay and sales, respectively. In recent years, Billboard had adjusted the ratio to reflect the then-burgeoning digital download format, which replaced the traditional commercial single, by giving more weight to sales (at one point, a whopping 70%) and less to increasingly corporate-controlled radio. With radio playlists shrinking by the day (less songs played more frequently than in any other time in rock history), the change made practical and logical sense. Theoretically, the chart should be an arbiter of what people want to hear, but in the first half of this decade, when traditional sales had declined and were being replaced with illegal downloads (largely facilitated by the industry's own cannibalization and resistance to change), the chart instead became almost solely a measure of what radio programmers felt inclined to play.
Billboard's new changes are a step back toward the not-so-distant past when hip-hop and R&B ruled the pop charts due to heavy airplay and the top tier remained virtually immobile for weeks. A quick scan of the songs that hit #1 from 2002 to 2005 shows exclusively urban artists and a few American Idols thrown in for good measure. (In that period, there were no more than 12 chart-toppers in any given calendar year.) Favoring sales creates a more diverse chart, reflecting the eclectic taste of the people who are willing to actually go out (or, in this case, stay in) and pay for a song they like. One recent study showed that airplay and sales aren't necessarily correlated (in other words, people often listen to the radio as a substitute for purchasing music), but it's more likely that, in 2007, airplay influences sales more than sales influence what radio stations play. So, in effect, airplay is also reflected in the sales portion of the Hot 100's overall ratio, which means big, interest-fueled corporations like Clear Channel have even more control of the most influential singles chart in the country than a rudimentary 60/40 split would have you believe. Would the Dixie Chicks' "Not Ready To Make Nice" have been able to soar up the charts following their Grammy sweep last February under this formula? Would other artists deemed unsavory to Clear Channel even have a shot at the exposure they deserve in a free, purportedly consumer-driven nation?
There's no doubt that a change is necessary when a song can leap all the way to the top of the chart in one week based almost entirely on digital sales, and I always found the weight given to downloads as compared to commercial CD singles (yes, some still do exist!) problematic, but—at worst—the new ratio should be an even 45/45 split between airplay and sales, with 10% coming from streaming audio (the new model gives streams 5%). Being that Billboard primarily serves those within the industry and since the government has cracked down on payola, one would think sales would matter even more to the suits at the incredibly shrinking record labels, but that's simply not the case. While Billboard's actions suggest that they're ahead of labels when it comes to adjusting to the changes in the market, it also points to an entire industry still reluctant to let go of the old paradigm. That or they're simply divorced from reality.
Is "Irreplaceable" Irreplaceable?
By: Sal Cinquemani On: 02/01/2007 14:10:46 In: Music Biz Comments: 110

We all have them. Songs we adore that radio manages to murder with heavy rotation. The problem has escalated in recent years, as multimedia conglomerates have gobbled up stations in every major U.S. city, directly and obliquely dictating syndicated-style radio playlists resulting in fewer songs played more frequently and less room for the discovery of new artists and songs that haven't been prepaid for by the major labels. (Even MTV now has the "Big Ten"—10 videos MTV deems worthy of being played ad nauseum.) A new formula tracking "audience impressions" rather than the tried-and-true absolute number of spins magnified the trend, reaching critical mass with none other than Mariah Carey, the woman who dominated the Billboard charts for a decade. Her ubiquitous comeback single, "We Belong Together," set records for the most impressions in one day and one week (32.8 million and 233 million, respectively, according to Mediabase, the company that tracks U.S. airplay). One year later, Shakira's "Hips Don't Lie" broke records for being the most-played song in U.S. history (9,637 spins in one week, according to Nielson DBS).
The latest example is Beyoncé's "Irreplaceable," which currently sits atop the Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart for a ninth consecutive week. It's impossible to turn on any Top 40, urban, or dance station and not hear the song within minutes. "Irreplaceable" certainly proves that radio can still be a relevant force in the industry, and Columbia, the singer-turned-actress's record label, is undoubtedly pleased by all the exposure after B'Day struggled to find its footing following the lukewarm reception of its first two singles. Singles, after all, were meant to promote albums, right?
Record labels blamed the format, popular among young music buyers with little disposal income and fans skeptical of spending $18.99 on a full-length CD for one good song, for the decrease in album sales in the late '90s. They also blamed illegal file-sharing, never once considering that the cannibalization of the affordable single format and the perceived poor quality of their overpriced product might be the real factors in their sinking bottom lines. The Recording Industry Association of America has filed more than 18,000 piracy lawsuits on behalf of the major labels against their own customers. But it was resistance to change, a complete lack of imagination, and an utter failure on the part of the industry to recognize, acknowledge, and ultimately capitalize on the technological advances of digital music that led to double-digit losses, not the shrewdness of online pirates, most of whom were college students who probably wouldn't have wasted their pot money on most of those CDs in the first place.
But getting back to the issue at hand. It's February and 2007 still doesn't have its first new #1 single. It's time for "Irreplaceable" to be replaced. Billboard has tinkered with its chart formula for decades, but it's no secret that they've struggled to maintain the Hot 100's integrity in recent years. Only recently did the chart regain its accuracy, as digital music sales were factored in, but they were weighted to overcompensate, making it possible for a $.99 single to reach the summit with practically no airplay at all.
Perhaps the British Recording Industry got it right when they started discontinuing commercial singles after a certain amount of time to prevent saturation. In the U.S., however, it's airplay that kills a song, as evidenced by the hair-pulling ubiquity of "Irreplaceable." The track needs to go ahead and get gone—if not to make room for a dozen other songs worthy of the attention, then at least for Beyoncé's next single. So, until the day radio stations go back to being independent tastemakers, influencing the industry by taking chances and telling labels what people want to hear and not the other way around, or until Clear Channel starts self-regulating (ha!), perhaps songs should be forced into retirement with a cap on the number of times they can be played. Call it mercy killing. It might be the one thing TRL ever got right.

We all have them. Songs we adore that radio manages to murder with heavy rotation. The problem has escalated in recent years, as multimedia conglomerates have gobbled up stations in every major U.S. city, directly and obliquely dictating syndicated-style radio playlists resulting in fewer songs played more frequently and less room for the discovery of new artists and songs that haven't been prepaid for by the major labels. (Even MTV now has the "Big Ten"—10 videos MTV deems worthy of being played ad nauseum.) A new formula tracking "audience impressions" rather than the tried-and-true absolute number of spins magnified the trend, reaching critical mass with none other than Mariah Carey, the woman who dominated the Billboard charts for a decade. Her ubiquitous comeback single, "We Belong Together," set records for the most impressions in one day and one week (32.8 million and 233 million, respectively, according to Mediabase, the company that tracks U.S. airplay). One year later, Shakira's "Hips Don't Lie" broke records for being the most-played song in U.S. history (9,637 spins in one week, according to Nielson DBS).
The latest example is Beyoncé's "Irreplaceable," which currently sits atop the Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart for a ninth consecutive week. It's impossible to turn on any Top 40, urban, or dance station and not hear the song within minutes. "Irreplaceable" certainly proves that radio can still be a relevant force in the industry, and Columbia, the singer-turned-actress's record label, is undoubtedly pleased by all the exposure after B'Day struggled to find its footing following the lukewarm reception of its first two singles. Singles, after all, were meant to promote albums, right?
Record labels blamed the format, popular among young music buyers with little disposal income and fans skeptical of spending $18.99 on a full-length CD for one good song, for the decrease in album sales in the late '90s. They also blamed illegal file-sharing, never once considering that the cannibalization of the affordable single format and the perceived poor quality of their overpriced product might be the real factors in their sinking bottom lines. The Recording Industry Association of America has filed more than 18,000 piracy lawsuits on behalf of the major labels against their own customers. But it was resistance to change, a complete lack of imagination, and an utter failure on the part of the industry to recognize, acknowledge, and ultimately capitalize on the technological advances of digital music that led to double-digit losses, not the shrewdness of online pirates, most of whom were college students who probably wouldn't have wasted their pot money on most of those CDs in the first place.
But getting back to the issue at hand. It's February and 2007 still doesn't have its first new #1 single. It's time for "Irreplaceable" to be replaced. Billboard has tinkered with its chart formula for decades, but it's no secret that they've struggled to maintain the Hot 100's integrity in recent years. Only recently did the chart regain its accuracy, as digital music sales were factored in, but they were weighted to overcompensate, making it possible for a $.99 single to reach the summit with practically no airplay at all.
Perhaps the British Recording Industry got it right when they started discontinuing commercial singles after a certain amount of time to prevent saturation. In the U.S., however, it's airplay that kills a song, as evidenced by the hair-pulling ubiquity of "Irreplaceable." The track needs to go ahead and get gone—if not to make room for a dozen other songs worthy of the attention, then at least for Beyoncé's next single. So, until the day radio stations go back to being independent tastemakers, influencing the industry by taking chances and telling labels what people want to hear and not the other way around, or until Clear Channel starts self-regulating (ha!), perhaps songs should be forced into retirement with a cap on the number of times they can be played. Call it mercy killing. It might be the one thing TRL ever got right.
Categories
Archive
Links
- Cinematical
- Cinephiliac
- Elusive Lucidity
- Film Experience
- Film Freak Central
- fourfour
- Girish
- GreenCine Daily
- Hell on Frisco Bay
- The House Next Door
- IFC Blog
- Some Came Running
- Like Anna Karina's Sweater
- Movie Love
- The Nick Schager Film Project
- Nick's Flick Picks
- The Projection Booth
- The Reeler
- Reverse Blog
- Scanners
- Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule
- Shooting Down Pictures
- SpoutBlog
- The Stranger Song
- Termite Art
- Shut Up and Deal
- When Canses Were Classeled
Website







