The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
SONY MUSIC IN ACTION
Old 7th August 2005
  #1
SONY MUSIC IN ACTION

This is lovely....(copied from recordingconsoles.org)


From the newswires today -

"Please be advised that in this week's Jennifer Lopez Top 40 Spin Increase of 236 we bought 63 spins at a cost of $3,600."

"Please be advised that in this week's Good Charlotte Top 40 Spin Increase of 61 we bought approximately 250 spins at a cost of $17K …"

Ironically, it didn't help, as the memo notes that the company actually lost spins — or plays of the record — even though they laid out money for them.

See above: The internal memos from Sony Music, revealed today in the New York state attorney general's investigation of payola at the company, will be mind blowing to those who are not so jaded to think records are played on the radio because they're good. We've all known for a long time that contemporary pop music stinks. We hear "hits" on the radio and wonder, "How can this be?"

Now we know. And memos from both Sony's Columbia and Epic Records senior vice presidents of promotions circa 2002-2003 — whose names are redacted in the reports but are well known in the industry — spell out who to pay and what to pay them in order to get the company's records on the air.

From Epic, home of J-Lo, a memo from Nov. 12, 2002, a "rate" card that shows radio stations in the Top 23 markets will receive $1000, Markets 23-100 get $800, lower markets $500. "If a record receives less than 75 spins at any given radio station, we will not pay the full rate," the memo to DJs states. "We look forward to breaking many records together in the future."

Take Jennifer Lopez's awful record, "Get Right," with its shrill horn and lifted rap. It's now clear that was a "bought" sensation when it was released last winter. So, too, were her previous "hits" "I'm Glad" and "I'm Real," according to the memos. All were obtained by Sony laying out dough and incentives. It's no surprise. There isn't a person alive who could hum any of those "songs" now. Not even J-Lo herself.

Announced today: Sony Music — now known as Sony/BMG — has to pony up a $10 million settlement with New York's Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. It should be $100 million. And this won't be the end of the investigation. Spitzer's office is looking into all the record companies. This is just the beginning.

But what a start: Black-and-white evidence of plasma TVs, laptop computers and PlayStation 2 players being sent to DJs and radio programmers in exchange for getting records on the air. And not just electronic gifts went to these people either. According to the papers released today, the same people also received expensive trips, limousines and lots of other incentives to clutter the airwaves with the disposable junk that now passes for pop music.

More memos: "We ordered a laptop for Donnie Michaels at WFLY in Albany. He has since moved to WHYI in Miami. We need to change the shipping address." One Sony memo from 2002: "Can you work with Donnie to see what kind of digital camera he wants us to order?"

Another, from someone in Sony's Urban Promotion department: "I am trying to buy a walkman for Toya Beasley at WRKS/NY.… Can PRS get it to me tomorrow by 3 p.m. … I really need to get the cd by then or I have to wait a week or two before she does her music again …"

Nice, huh? How many times have I written in this column about talented and deserving artists who get no airplay, and no attention from their record companies? Yet dozens of records with little or no artistic merit are all over the radio, and racked in displays at the remaining record stores with great prominence. Thanks to Spitzer's investigation, we now get a taste of what's been happening.

More memos. This one from Feb. 13, 2004: "Gave a jessica trip to wkse to secure Jessica spins and switchfoot." That would be Jessica Simpson, for whom Sony laid on big bucks in the last couple of years to turn her into something she's clearly not: a star.

And then there's the story of a guy named Dave Universal, who was fired from Buffalo's WKSE in January when there was word that Spitzer was investigating him. Universal (likely a stage name) claimed he did nothing his station didn't know about. That was probably true, but the DJ got trips to Miami and Yankee tickets, among other gifts, in exchange for playing Sony records. From a Sony internal memo on Sept. 8, 2004: "Two weeks ago it cost us over 4000.00 to get Franz [Ferdinand> on WKSE."

Franz Ferdinand, Jessica Simpson, J-Lo, Good Charlotte, etc. Not exactly The Who, Carly Simon, Aretha Franklin or The Kinks. The "classic" is certainly gone from rock.

The question now is: Who will take the fall at Sony for all this? It's not like payola is new. The government investigated record companies and radio stations in the late 1950s and again in the mid 1970s. (When we were in high school, we used to laugh about how often The Three Degrees' "When Will I See You Again?" was played on WABC. We were young and naïve!)

Spitzer is said to be close friends with Sony's new CEO, Andrew Lack, who publicly welcomed the new investigations earlier this year when they were announced. Did Lack anticipate using Spitzer's results to clean house? Stay tuned
Old 7th August 2005
  #2
Registered User
 
Anderson's Avatar
 

hmmm... Maybe I could get a spin for my band in Luxembourg for 30€...

Anyone interested?

Could make it 32€ if necessary... with a coke !
Old 7th August 2005
  #3
Gear Nut
 
wackowill's Avatar
 

Incredible... And I thought I was just a jaded 23 year old working in the music business. I didn't think I was RIGHT!
Old 7th August 2005
  #4
Gear Nut
 
gear chick's Avatar
 

All you need to do is listen to the crap on the radio to know this must be the reason it gets played.
Old 7th August 2005
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Jose Mrochek's Avatar
 

I don't think Record companies think that what they put out is crap. And I'm sure this was done with every single new band ever. From the top of the lines, to the not so good ones. It's still the people (consumer) who decide what's crap and what is not. And i'm sure teenagers love what's out there or else they would not attend concerts like they do.

I think we need to reflect a bit and not put down big labels for what they have done or do. Because thanks to these labels many many people and slutz have jobs and get to do what they love for a living. I'm personaly not against payola.
Old 8th August 2005
  #6
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek

I think we need to reflect a bit and not put down big labels for what they have done or do. Because thanks to these labels many many people and slutz have jobs and get to do what they love for a living. I'm personaly not against payola.

Yeah, I'm a slut too. Nobody gets anywhere on talent. More coke please!
Old 8th August 2005
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Jose Mrochek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Generic
Yeah, I'm a slut too. Nobody gets anywhere on talent. More coke please!
I don't know if I quiet understand your post. But anyways.. to clear up my position ...

I have a hard time understanding why people piss all over the big labels when these labels are 1.- the ones feeding alot of people and 2.- have put out to the market the best bands ever.

They are indeed having troubled times at the moment, and I agree some really ****ty stuff is on the air. But there is also some pretty good stuff. Nobody is perfect give these guys a break. It's thanks to them that we can have a PT set up in our homes and think we are the ****. If you need to pay radio stations to get stuf on the air, If you have the money to do it, then why not. If I were signed to a major, I would be happy, and expect them to do it. The majors are about business, and numbers and they have the right to do whatever they need to get those numbers flowing.

If you are against it or don't agree with it, stay away from the mainstream and have a happy life. Because your music is nor your talent is being hurt by the majors actions.
Old 8th August 2005
  #8
Gear Nut
 
wackowill's Avatar
 

Jose, I couldn't disagree with you more!

Payola is anti-competitive not to mention completely unethical. If one record company has the money spare to bribe DJs in radio stations to play their tunes at the expense of the other labels - how can independents hope to gain stronger foothold in the market?

Music mainstream is a business, sure - so lets have some competition!

Payola is a way for gigantic corporate multinationals to retain their foothold on the market illegally. It doesn't matter what crap they put out because they PAY for it to be drilled into the brains of the consumer.
Old 8th August 2005
  #9
Gear Maniac
 
Blue Bear Sound's Avatar
 

Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek
I don't know if I quiet understand your post. But anyways.. to clear up my position ...

I have a hard time understanding why people piss all over the big labels when these labels are 1.- the ones feeding alot of people and 2.- have put out to the market the best bands ever.

They are indeed having troubled times at the moment, and I agree some really ****ty stuff is on the air. But there is also some pretty good stuff. Nobody is perfect give these guys a break. It's thanks to them that we can have a PT set up in our homes and think we are the ****. If you need to pay radio stations to get stuf on the air, If you have the money to do it, then why not. If I were signed to a major, I would be happy, and expect them to do it. The majors are about business, and numbers and they have the right to do whatever they need to get those numbers flowing.

If you are against it or don't agree with it, stay away from the mainstream and have a happy life. Because your music is nor your talent is being hurt by the majors actions.
There's not a single point in this post I can agree with........
Old 8th August 2005
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Jose Mrochek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wackowill
Jose, I couldn't disagree with you more!

Payola is anti-competitive not to mention completely unethical. If one record company has the money spare to bribe DJs in radio stations to play their tunes at the expense of the other labels - how can independents hope to gain stronger foothold in the market?

Music mainstream is a business, sure - so lets have some competition!

Payola is a way for gigantic corporate multinationals to retain their foothold on the market illegally. It doesn't matter what crap they put out because they PAY for it to be drilled into the brains of the consumer.
I knew I was going to get flamed for this.

Independents should use payola aswell, I'm sure they do in a smaller way maybe. Why is payola anti-competitive ? You don't think the Beatles used payola ? or any other band ?

I will agree with everyone that some worthless **** is being played, no doubt about that. But the concept of payola is not entirely to blame. It's just a part of the process of people involved from The engineer who records crap, all the way up to the CEO are guilty. I find it ironic everytime people piss all over the big labels. When there are so many equaly guilty people in the chain.
Old 8th August 2005
  #11
Gear Nut
 
gear chick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek
I knew I was going to get flamed for this.

Independents should use payola aswell, I'm sure they do in a smaller way maybe. Why is payola anti-competitive ? You don't think the Beatles used payola ? or any other band ?

I will agree with everyone that some worthless **** is being played, no doubt about that. But the concept of payola is not entirely to blame. It's just a part of the process of people involved from The engineer who records crap, all the way up to the CEO are guilty. I find it ironic everytime people piss all over the big labels. When there are so many equaly guilty people in the chain.
What? The engineer that records the crap in the first place is to blame. Jose, let me explain the way the system is supposed to work. A radio station hires a DJ and program director who are generally considered "tastemakers" and they play music that is cool, and because they do this people actually "tune in" in mass and because of this they can charge high ad rates so they can pay themselves and turn a profit for the station owner. If they are not good tastemakers, people don't turn in, they lose their jobs etc.

When the creepy payola enters the picture, the market gets inflated not with music and stars that warrant it, but with music that is crapola, which is what payola creates. The listener is duped. You as an engineer should know that even when you record crap, many times the crappy music engrains it self into your brain until your tapping your foot to crap even when it's not playing. This is what record companies do when they pay a station to spin crap 200 times. They're hoping they can brain wash people into buying crap. It pollutes the whole industry. If my music is rejected, I want it to be rejected because it is crap not because I can't come up with $14,000 for 250 spins.
Old 8th August 2005
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Jose Mrochek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gear chick
What? The engineer that records the crap in the first place is to blame. Jose, let me explain the way the system is supposed to work. A radio station hires a DJ and program director who are generally considered "tastemakers" and they play music that is cool, and because they do this people actually "tune in" in mass and because of this they can charge high ad rates so they can pay themselves and turn a profit for the station owner. If they are not good tastemakers, people don't turn in, they lose their jobs etc.

When the creepy payola enters the picture, the market gets inflated not with music and stars that warrants it, but with music that is crapola, which is what payola creates. The listener is duped. You as an engineer should know that even when you record crap, many times the crappy music engrains it self into your brain until your tapping your foot to crap even when it's not playing. This is what record companies do when they pay a station to spin crap 200 times. They're hoping they can brain wash people into buying crap. It pollutes the whole industry. I want my music to be rejected because it is crap not because I can't come up with 14,000 for 250 spins.
I disagree. Regular Joe listener CANNOT be brainwashed. Why is it that people think that because they can engineer or play a guitar and sing, think that they have better taste in music. It's stupid. Sorry.

The radio thing never worked that way, it has always been about payola. I guess we can agree on that part.

I've said it many times, if anyone does music for the love of it, why would you even care if you get radio play ? The mainstream was, is and will only be reserved for a lucky/unlucky (depends on how you view it) few. That have aspirations of being famous that go beyond their aspirations for making "artistic or whatever" music.

The only reason Pink Floyd became worldwide famous is thanks to 3 or 4 songs that appealed to a large audience, and had probably gone through the same payola process. They self admit that their main intention with the release of the song "money" was to become rich and famous. which they did.

I don't know how many times I'll have to say this, but the hardest music to make is the music that appeals to a broad audience. that's the music that usually makes it to mainstream, it may be crappy to you or me, but a hit does not become a hit only because it was played 250 times a day. It doesn't work that way. I guess you are not at the level to understand that.

There is a big difference between "beautiful music" and "music that people like".

McDonalds is a great example. I personally love it.
Old 8th August 2005
  #13
Lives for gear
 
FMNYC's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gear chick
I want my music to be rejected because it is crap not because I can't come up with $14,000 for 250 spins.
yeah... what she said... minus the part about being rejected and my music being crap... heh

just kiddin'.

seriously though, Jose, how can you defend a practice that you know is just plain unfair?
i work in the graphic arts in NYC and many, many times i couldn't get jobs because i wouldn't play ball, regardless of how talented and experienced i am and regardless of the fact that i had more skill and experience than the other "bidders".

it's fine to say payola is a fact of life, fine, it is and the human capacity for greed may be greater than its capacity for fairness and yes, payola is not the disease, it's one of the symptoms but when you say that you are not personally against payola well... it sounds like you are pro-payola.

i do apologise if i am not understanding your point.

FM

FM is the inspiration for single beds.
Old 8th August 2005
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Jose Mrochek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FMNYC
. it sounds like you are pro-payola.

i do apologise if i am not understanding your point.

FM

FM is the inspiration for single beds.
I would be against payola if we lived in a perfect world which we don't.
The music business process is so fuked FM, that it's really irrelevant if payola comes into play or not. So using the payola thing to start blaming labels again kind of pisses me off.

My dissapointed comes in when people flame at these labels When these labels are giving jobs to thousands of people. From caterers, to studio managers, to dancers.. to the guy cleaning the toillet in britneys bus. It's a huge business that would never be achieved without the use of a major label system, and well.. payola included ofcourse. It's not that unfair.
I'ts not that unfair FM. think about it.

Big Labels are and will be the backbone of the music business. The "high end" was made for the big labels.

It's like NASA. Many people are against NASA funding now, but they forget that thanks to nasa we can do many many many things today that we never dreamed where possible.

I would not be aware of who the beatles where if it wasn't for the big labels and i'm sure payola. SO?? I guess i like payola.
Old 8th August 2005
  #15
Lives for gear
 
TheReal7's Avatar
 

Quote:
I disagree. Regular Joe listener CANNOT be brainwashed
sorry, I disagrue strongly here. The average Joes are mostly brain washed. Look at religion, how many people are hearded and brainwashed how to live their lives? Same with music, the payola brainwashes the listeners. Unlike 99% of us here, who know what talent is and know a great song when we hear it we don't succumb to thier payola tacktics. I for one, have physically disconnected my antenna from my car stereo. No radio for me and if I must at home, it will be the classic rock station. Unfortunaley, I can't see this ever changing. As long as their are your average Joes, and below average Joes who can decide whats right in life and need to be told there will always be **** like payola to feed them.
Old 8th August 2005
  #16
Gear Nut
 
gear chick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek
I disagree. Regular Joe listener CANNOT be brainwashed.

.............It doesn't work that way. I guess you are not at the level to understand that. ........



You are sadly mistaken if you think the average Joe listener cannot be brainwashed. People are told what to like and exhalt all the time in the media and enough follow for the pushers of that crap to make money, but maybe you are not at that level yet to understand that.
Old 8th August 2005
  #17
jordan19
Guest
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReal7
sorry, I disagrue strongly here. The average Joes are mostly brain washed.
actually, i think most of us musicians overestimate the ignorance of your average Joe listener heh I think you're goin overboard here with the religion comparison.

sure, any label can package up a million singles of Jessica Simpson, get airplay 24/7 and call her single "a hit!!!!" BUT, if the listeners don't like the tune, they'll just turn the radio off. Airplay or no airplay, it doesn't do much if people ain't listenin.

And as a matter of fact, Jessica's album flopped when it came out. Dropped off the charts after a week or so, and then her reality show started up and her sales flew through the roof.

So now are all independents going to whine that they can't have a reality show so their sales can fly through the roof?? heh heh heh

I think we're getting a little carried away here...

I applaud Spitzer for what he's doing, and I agree that the playing field needs to be evened out so that music is picked on account of its merit rather than a free laptop and 2 weeks vacation attached to it.

What I disagree with is that listeners can be manipulated into liking music. Come on. Stop being ridiculous. People like what they like. It's like food; the fads come and go, but at the end of the day, people can't manipulate themselves into liking a type of food if they hate the taste.

What IS unfortunate however, is that they may find that they like a lot of other kinds of music as well, if radio stations were to give other artists and other types of music a chance.

Edit**

If you want to talk about REAL injustice to independent artists... let's start talking about ClearChannel specifically. They're a f'ucking monopoly... they own the radio where the artists are heard, they own the stadiums where the artists are seen... and of course they bully the little guy every step of the way when it comes to organizing tours. Labels are FORCED to use them if they want airplay for their artists.

The problem is systemic. It's a much bigger issue than laptops and PS2s heh
Old 8th August 2005
  #18
Lives for gear
 
FMNYC's Avatar
 

"I would be against payola if we lived in a perfect world which we don't.
The music business process is so fuked FM, that it's really irrelevant if payola comes into play or not. So using the payola thing to start blaming labels again kind of pisses me off."

alright, you gotta a point there.


"My dissapointed comes in when people flame at these labels When these labels are giving jobs to thousands of people. From caterers, to studio managers, to dancers.. to the guy cleaning the toillet in britneys bus. It's a huge business that would never be achieved without the use of a major label system, and well.. payola included ofcourse. "

true, you gotta point there too.

"It's not that unfair.
I'ts not that unfair FM. think about it."

so lemme see if i get what you're saying... you're saying the music biz is a screwed up game and if you want to play, well one of the games you play is payola, like it or not.
it's an accepted and expected practice, deal with it.

if that's what you mean then i have to agree.
i work in advertising and i know a few things about "questionable" business practices, i also know that if i want to play i have to accept it.
otherwise i would have to go do something else.

fine.
but that still doesn't make it fair.

don't get me wrong. you make some good, valid points to be sure.
i understand that labels are businesess out to do what businesses do, to turn a profit.
i also understand that turning a profit might mean selling the lowest common denominator, your mcdonald's example is perfect.

i guess what bugs me is that because of the nature of these practices some artists that could be presented to the lowest common denominator, aren't.
i hate to be excluded not based on my merits or lack thereof.

now here's my naive solution... maybe major labels could create some kind of open system in which independent artists like us can have access to their resources even though it will not turn as much of a profit for them...

yeah, i know... dream on...

FM

FM keeps his mind on his money and his money on his mind.
Old 8th August 2005
  #19
no ssl yet
Guest
With all due respect

[QUOTE=Jose Mrochek]I would be against payola if we lived in a perfect world which we don't.
The music business process is so fuked FM, that it's really irrelevant if payola comes into play or not. So using the payola thing to start blaming labels again kind of pisses me off.

My dissapointed comes in when people flame at these labels When these labels are giving jobs to thousands of people. From caterers, to studio managers, to dancers.. to the guy cleaning the toillet in britneys bus. It's a huge business that would never be achieved without the use of a major label system, and well.. payola included ofcourse. It's not that unfair.
I'ts not that unfair FM. think about it.

Big Labels are and will be the backbone of the music business. The "high end" was made for the big labels.



Man with all due respect this is BULL****. WIthout payola there would still be hit records. It would just be based on a more even playing field. This process was compounded when radio was deregulated. For an Indi to break in its harder now that Clear Channel and Radio One exist. Before a record could be broken on independently owned stations. The fact that majors employ alot of people has nothing to do with payola being wrong. One could argue that without payola there would still be hits but the records would hit more on the merit of the record than on being sold via repetition.

Payola is eliminates competition by giving a monopoly (semi) to those who can afford to pay to play. THis is never a good thing for product quality or the market.
Old 8th August 2005
  #20
no ssl yet
Guest
Jordan you just proved a point (not yours though

[QUOTE=jordan19]actually, i think most of us musicians overestimate the ignorance of your average Joe listener .


And as a matter of fact, Jessica's album flopped when it came out. Dropped off the charts after a week or so, and then her reality show started up and her sales flew through the roof.

So now are all independents going to whine that they can't have a reality show so their sales can fly through the roof?? heh heh heh

I think we're getting a little carried away here...


TO me this kinda proves that repetition and more of Jessica sold the album. THe album (according to your post) didnt sell in the beginning, but after rotation and a TV show the public decided to like it.

And you say the average Joe cant be swayed? Marketing is all it was. It's not like she actually made a different album
Old 8th August 2005
  #21
jordan19
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by no ssl yet
TO me this kinda proves that repetition and more of Jessica sold the album. THe album (according to your post) didnt sell in the beginning, but after rotation and a TV show the public decided to like it.

And you say the average Joe cant be swayed? Marketing is all it was. It's not like she actually made a different album
No no my friend tutt heh

What it proves is that the REALITY SHOW reached even more people who would potentially like the type of music she makes.

Sorry to bring up your MBA again heh, but it's just a matter of targeting your niche market. Newlyweds was watched by, what... 2, 3 million sixteen yr old girls?? That's her targeted market, yes?
Old 8th August 2005
  #22
Gear Nut
 
gear chick's Avatar
 

One of the keys to selling any product is repeat, repeat, repeat, spin, spin, spin.
This works from putting politicians in office to selling soap, and it has little to do with the quality of the product.

Some music genres today have more to do with image and attitude than music. The music just has to be competant enough, the image and attitude will do the rest. Then to sell it through to the market just follow this simple step: repeat, repeat, expose, expose. This is a science in the ad biz. They can predict sales fairly accurately by how much exposure a product gets in the market and it has little to do with the quality of the product.
Old 8th August 2005
  #23
Gear Nut
 
gear chick's Avatar
 

I wouldn't have a problem with payola if each spin was labled as a bought ad from Sony . Now, why don't they do that? LOL, It would be so simple to do. They don't do it because Sony wants to maintain the illusion that their bought and paid for artist is so hip the radio station is just playing their music because it's just so damn good. It would kill their product if each spin was labled as an ad from Sony BMG. This is why payola is sleazy. The radio just keeps spinning a single and calling it a hit. The DJ/station uses their political capital to give a lame single street cred. It doesn't always work, but it works enough.

As far as the Beatles go, I doubt you could have stopped the radio from playing them. Sometimes a phenom happens which can't be held back.
Old 8th August 2005
  #24
jordan19
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by gear chick
I wouldn't have a problem with payola if each spin was labled as a bought ad from Sony.



Now that's a good idea. Maybe even add a little punchline for each artist.

"Tim McGraw: everyone's favorite redneck!"
Side effects may include vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, and intense migraines.


Definitely don't agree with Jose about indies just having to roll with the punches and accept payola for what it is lol. I just don't think people can be manipulated into thinking they like music that they don't.... that's all. Music is intensely personal... and people gravitate to it in so many different ways for so many different reasons, I just don't accept the idea that people's musical tastes can be manipulated and purchased for a price.

Exposure is definitely a key component to people finding music however. Which is why the playing field has to be evened out somewhat... monopolies are never good for the market. Hurts the competition, which in turn hurts the consumer.
Old 8th August 2005
  #25
500 series nutjob
 
pan60's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gear chick
You are sadly mistaken if you think the average Joe listener cannot be brainwashed. People are told what to like and exhalt all the time in the media and enough follow for the pushers of that crap to make money, but maybe you are not at that level yet to understand that.
anyone thinking most people are not easily led, sorry, their just is not very observant of their surroundings. ( imho )
if you limit peoples choice's you will in essence dictate what they will or will not like.
it is not just the music industry that is plagued by such politics.
i honestly have no hate, or love for big labels, they are what they are.
when music gets back in the hands of artists and musicians, we will once again start seeing more material worth hearing. that will mean more work, and more money for all.
i say level the field.
Old 8th August 2005
  #26
no ssl yet
Guest
Jordan

All that it "PROVES" is your opinion. Who's to say that the people that watched the reality show are different from her market that ususally buys records?

Of course there's some overlap, and some of them bought the record after seeing the show.


Man this is the one place where an MBA turns out to be a bad thing

If I remember correctly from marketing it takes 7-9 views of an advertisment to elicit a response. All the reality show is, IS another big advertisment for her along with each of the Ads for the show.

You have a valid point, but it does nothing to discredit what I said
Old 8th August 2005
  #27
Gear Nut
 
gear chick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jordan19


Now that's a good idea. Maybe even add a little punchline for each artist.

Definitely don't agree with Jose about indies just having to roll with the punches and accept payola for what it is lol. I just don't think people can be manipulated into thinking they like music that they don't.... that's all. Music is intensely personal... and people gravitate to it in so many different ways for so many different reasons, I just don't accept the idea that people's musical tastes can be manipulated and purchased for a price.

Exposure is definitely a key component to people finding music however. Which is why the playing field has to be evened out somewhat... monopolies are never good for the market. Hurts the competition, which in turn hurts the consumer.
Now that's a good idea. Maybe even add a little punchline for each artist.

well, mabey just the announcement from Sony and a rim shot (that thing that drummers do after a comedian tells a joke).


I can think of a couple of times that I didn't like music initially, but it grew on me like a bad mold because of repeat, repeat, repeat.

"I'm too sexy for my shirt" for instance.
Old 8th August 2005
  #28
Gear Nut
 
gear chick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pan60
if you limit peoples choice's you will in essence dictate what they will or will not like.
thumbsup ............and that is the principle that is so essential to our 2 party political system. They must give the people the illusion they have a choice. Good point. It also works in the music biz, hence the practice of signing artists and shelving them because they're to much like another successful artist the label already has in their stable.
Old 8th August 2005
  #29
jordan19
Guest
[email protected] gear chick... (couldn't help editing my post to throw in a little punchline)

No SSL Yet, I basically agree with ya. more or less... and all this raises a very interesting question about Jessica Simpson... how did she get popular in the first place?? She hit the scene at the right time... when labels were spoon feeding Britney-formula to all the teen girls (and sexually confused teen boys lol, to quote a recent article heh)...

labels CREATE the buzz. people decide whether to bite the bait. they can't be manipulated into liking something they dislike, but i agree that their choices are dictated somewhat by the labels, since they're being served a platter of artists and genres from all the majors out there. thankfully we have people who recognize this and choose to snoop around the indie scene....

bottom line... money will always open doors. look at indie actors, actresses and filmmakers. now THERE is a tough career... they're up against $100 million dollar budgets and have to fight to get theater showings and distribution... if there's one field harder to survive in than music, it's acting.
Old 8th August 2005
  #30
Lives for gear
 
FMNYC's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gear chick
I can think of a couple of times that I didn't like music initially, but it grew on me like a bad mold because of repeat, repeat, repeat.

"I'm too sexy for my shirt" for instance.
aw come on... that sh_t's classic... heh

yeah, that was pretty sad... but hey there was a need and they filled it.
a need for muscle-bound, shirtless, cowboy boot wearing men pseudo-rapping about themselves over a drum loop.

FM

FM is too sexy for his hat.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump