Arcade Fire and Indie music

[Buckethead]

Btw - Arcade Fire wasn't exactly a low selling album.
Here, they top Eminem to hit number 1 album sales.
You'll also notice that Lady Gaga is number 6 on the same chart.

You may not like it, or the fact that they are able to perform an entire song live instead of dancing to a prerecorded auto tuned track,
but number one is number one. Word.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/arts/music/12arcade.html

 

[davideduardo]

I wish you'd let somebody else have an opinion about this topic. You've pretty much shut down any idea that doesn't correlate to your notion that if it's artistic, and made by English speaking bands then there must not be a market for it in LA.

I don't own or control this board. You are free to ignore my posts, in fact, just as I am free to respond to yours.

The simple facts of demographics are a reality I did not create but which show where there is potential for formats in the future and where there is not.

In LA, over 70% of the population is less likely to listen to a rock format than the remaining population. Let's say the Census shows 45% Hispanic instead of the current 42%. That means we have 65% Hispanic and Black, and another 10% in first generation immigrants from places like RUssia and Iran. 75% of the market... and about 80% in 18-49... will not use a rock format or will use it much less as a group than non-Hispanic whites.

That's simply factual.

Then go to the Edison studies on the youth market 12 to 21 years of age in 2000 and 2010 and you see the interest in "rock" among music genres has declined by about half in the last decade. That is just another fact, and one that explains why we see fewer big rock stations in the PPM... it is both the methodology and the declining interest in rock by younger demos. Oh, and the Edison study showed what the year 2000 respondents, now 22 to 31, were doing... and they were similarly less interested in rock than they had been 10 years ago. So there is a dwindling 12-31 rock base, which is frightening if you are thinking of a current based radio station.

While KROQ, KYSR and Indie got/get Hispanic listening, it underindexes the market as a whole, indicating that what would be a higher share in a less diverse market will necessarily and certainly be a lower one in LA.

You may actually benefit from a currently Spanish language format flipping to a Alt/Indie format.

Unlikely, particularly if you look at the Indie combo itself. 0.3 12+ in its last months as Indie, to an average of 1.4 for the three books prior to "HolidaY" last year.

 

[RockTheGlobe]

You are missing my point which is that Gaga, based on her CD and her impact on music sales, is more deserving of a Grammy than Arcade Fire. It's even been written that Gaga is in part responsible for a greater interest in music by the younger demos and that translates into consumption of more downloads and listening to current music.

You're confusing sales with quality as a criterion for the awards. The Grammys are (supposedly) given on the basis of the quality of the product, not the amount of exposure they get or the number of CDs they sell. If creative awards were given merely on the basis of how much money a product made or how widely exposed it was, then how come the P.O.S. known as Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen's only Academy Award nomination was for Best Sound Mixing (which it lost)? The movie made $836 million globally to be the 4th highest-grossing film of the year, so did it deserve a Best Motion Picture nomination?

Given the kind of mentality that "sales = quality," I'm surprised that the Best New Artist win isn't generating as much consternation as this category. Then again, it's no wonder there's the attitude that if it sells, it must be good, since people around the planet are flocking to McDonald's in droves despite their mediocre-at-best product...

 

[davideduardo]

Btw - Arcade Fire wasn't exactly a low selling album.
Here, they top Eminem to hit number 1 album sales.
You'll also notice that Lady Gaga is number 6 on the same chart.

That's one week in time. And for Album sales. I don't know anyone who buys albums anymore; most people buy songs... particularly in the Gaga and Eminem demos.

Unfair comparison, too, because Amazon priced the Arcade Fire album on a special price, $3.99, that week.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm going to stop reading at the first sentence.
Clearly you feel that selling a lot of records is what deserves a Grammy, but fortunately the Recording Academy doesn't agree with you.

The artist or record with the most votes wins the Grammy.

It has nothing to do with either sales or quality. It has to do with who votes, and how they vote. Nothing more or less.

Which is why the number of Grammy awards has nothing to do with whether or not a station plays their music. Alison Krauss has won the most Grammys of any active artist, and she gets almost zero commercial radio airplay. Why? Because she records bluegrass music. Not a lot of bluegrass radio, especially in LA.

Selling a lot of records, however, is a tangible figure that demonstrates popular support for an artist. Just as the ability to sell out a major venue. But Grammy Awards don't mean much to a radio programmer.

You're confusing sales with quality as a criterion for the awards. The Grammys are (supposedly) given on the basis of the quality of the product, not the amount of exposure they get or the number of CDs they sell.

Quality is a subjective criterion. There is no real way to measure quality, except that the recording meets certain technical criteria. But beyond that, it's personal taste. As I said, the only sure thing is the Grammy is given on the basis of Academy votes. Even then, voters use whatever criteria they choose. Some only vote for what they know. Some vote in blocks with other like-minded or like-employed people. But to say a Grammy equals quality may work for people who have won. But the list of people who haven't is also pretty impressive.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm surprised that the Best New Artist win isn't generating as much consternation as this category.

I think everyone on this board lacks Bieber Fever, if you know what I mean.

That being said, after the Grammy Awards, and despite his loss in the new artist category, two of his albums registered a huge increase in sales. I don't even see the actual winner's record in the latest sales figures. Meanwhile, several other artists who didn't appear on the Grammy awards also registered huge increases in sales. So there you go.

 

[WBIMDJ]

I'm with Buckethead. Indie music has been an ignored and dismissed music as "hipster" or "niche" for years. Now a band that mainstream America literally had no idea even existed (check THIS out: http://www.funnyordie.com/articles/...my-upset?playlist=featured_pictures_and_words)
has stolen the crown from millions of Gaga, Katy Perry and other pop act fans. #1 albums galore, and other acts dominating at same said Grammy's show (Mumford & Sons, The Avett Brothers, Black Keys). Indie music is on the rise is NOT going anywhere, anytime, soon. And I'm damn happy about it.

 

[Buckethead]

David, first of all your numbers are faulty about the ethnic non white percentages.
Lets forget that though.

Have you ever been to a Morrissey concert, or Depeche Mode, or Danzig?

You will find a majority of the audience to be of latin american origin.

 

[RockTheGlobe]

You're confusing sales with quality as a criterion for the awards. The Grammys are (supposedly) given on the basis of the quality of the product, not the amount of exposure they get or the number of CDs they sell.

Quality is a subjective criterion. There is no real way to measure quality, except that the recording meets certain technical criteria. But beyond that, it's personal taste. As I said, the only sure thing is the Grammy is given on the basis of Academy votes. Even then, voters use whatever criteria they choose. Some only vote for what they know. Some vote in blocks with other like-minded or like-employed people. But to say a Grammy equals quality may work for people who have won. But the list of people who haven't is also pretty impressive.

I agree, quality is subjective, and who knows what the Recording Academy voters individually consider to be "good." But my point was not that quality is a subjective criterion or that those who don't win aren't good, my point was that the award is given on the basis of perceived quality and not simply on how many records/downloads they sold or how widely known an artist is -- as DavidEduardo seems to feel that they should be. If that were the case, then the Academy should be giving out awards based solely on hard numbers like web metrics, radio-listener requests and SoundScan figures, not what some people consider "best."

I'm surprised that the Best New Artist win isn't generating as much consternation as this category.

I think everyone on this board lacks Bieber Fever, if you know what I mean.

That being said, after the Grammy Awards, and despite his loss in the new artist category, two of his albums registered a huge increase in sales. I don't even see the actual winner's record in the latest sales figures. Meanwhile, several other artists who didn't appear on the Grammy awards also registered huge increases in sales. So there you go.

Well, it wasn't just Bieber... honestly, given this thread's initial question about an indie Alt artist, it could've easily been about "how come Florence + The Machine/Mumford & Sons didn't win Best New Artist?" Everyone else in that category got pretty substantial radio airplay in their primary formats and there was crossover to other formats as well (who would've thought a band with banjos would be heard on Top 40 or Hot AC?), but it was a largely unknown jazz artist who won, despite pre-award show album sales and airplay.

I'm not saying that album/download sales and airplay shouldn't be taken into account, nor am I saying that a Grammy nomination or win isn't good for sales and airplay. I'm just saying that sales and airplay shouldn't necessarily be the biggest deciding factor in who's best and Grammy-worthy, since these award shows aren't simply popularity contests.

 

[davideduardo]

You're confusing sales with quality as a criterion for the awards. The Grammys are (supposedly) given on the basis of the quality of the product, not the amount of exposure they get or the number of CDs they sell.

You missed my point about "if a tree falls in the forest..."

Or my point about Shakespeare and Dickens.

Popular culture is art. In many cases, it defines an era, while in others an era defines the art (as in the music, writing and plastic arts of the Great Depression). So yes, sales and airplay and acceptance are good measures. The votes of the representatives of the music industry are insider opinions... and given the music buisiness' amazing stumbles and errors in transitioning to the digital era, opinions that may best be kept to themselves. If they want to fall on their collective knives yet again, please don't bother me with the story.

If creative awards were given merely on the basis of how much money a product made or how widely exposed it was, then how come the P.O.S. known as Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen's only Academy Award nomination was for Best Sound Mixing (which it lost)? The movie made $836 million globally to be the 4th highest-grossing film of the year, so did it deserve a Best Motion Picture nomination?

In the real world, yep, it did. I saw that movie, and it was fun entertainment. All movies do not have to be the equivalent of Fellini directing a Kafka story. Some can be simple enjoyment, just like a football game or a hike in the forest... no James Joyce hidden meanings, no intellectual undertones. If the movie industry wants to honor films, they should honer ones that revitalize the movie biz, like Avatar, not just the ones that seem to "have something to say." If I want to hear someone with something to say, I don't listen to Barbra Streisand and Ed Asner.

Given the kind of mentality that "sales = quality," I'm surprised that the Best New Artist win isn't generating as much consternation as this category. Then again, it's no wonder there's the attitude that if it sells, it must be good, since people around the planet are flocking to McDonald's in droves despite their mediocre-at-best product...

McDonalds markets consistency and a "you won't spit up a half hour later" as sort of unspoken qualities. It has as much a place in dining as The Ivy. The fact that all McD's look alike and the menu has the same pop food fare across the country (although the McPalta in Argentina, a Big Mac with avocado on it, is rather tasty when added to the vastly superior beef used there) does not detract from the fact that most folks go for consistency and a degree of predictability in food and music... that's why stations that play no currents hold the majority of the sales-demo audience.

If sales are good, think of it as people, millions of them, voting with their own money. McDonalds wins, Gaga wins, the Transformer flick wins.

 

[TheBigA]

Indie music is on the rise is NOT going anywhere, anytime, soon. And I'm damn happy about it.

Of course it's not and no one ever said it was or it should. Indie music will continue because anyone who wants to make a record can, and if it's released commercially, even if the performer happens to be a dog or a whale, it still qualifies for a Grammy.

But this is not a music board or an indie board. It's a radio board, and radio airplay isn't based on Grammy Awards. It's just good for marketing.

 

[davideduardo]

David, first of all your numbers are faulty about the ethnic non white percentages.
Lets forget that though.

No, let's not forget it since you don't, obviously, have the data.

1. Current Hispanic population of the LA metro is about 42%, with slight variations if you use Claritas or ACS data update to 2010 estimates (not Census, which is not out yet for CA).
2. Current Black population is 8% (rounded)
3. Current Asian population is 12%
4. Current otherwise unclassified first generation immigrants who may be Russian, Persian, Arab or others that don't fall into Hispanic or Black or Asian are about 10%.

It is likely, based on the 9 states that have shipped (two more are released but not shipped), that Hispanic populations in CA were underestimated by the ACS annual projections. That means that perhaps 45% to 46% of the LA MSA might be Hispanic. That leaves only about 30% non-Hispanic white, and only about 25% in 18-34 (where Hispanics are already 55% of the population). In all the groups except non-Hispanic white, rock formats underindex.

Have you ever been to a Morrissey concert, or Depeche Mode, or Danzig?

The first two, yes... but in South America. And I can look up the attendance figures. Compare them to the fact that a top tier LA radio station needs to cume over 2,000,000 persons and you will see why concert attendance is a pretty unsafe measure of anything.

You will find a majority of the audience to be of latin american origin

Yeah, because those groups get tons of airplay in Latin America. Most of the ones appering at Coachella, other than Los Bunkers, etc., get no airplay to speak of in Latin America.

 

[Buckethead]

David,
As always the bottom line is profit.
The 1.1 El Gato is not as lucrative as Indie was, even though the overhead is almost nothing.

I guarantee you Entravision is wishing they has the 7-10 million a year that they were seeing with Indie.

 

[davideduardo]

As always the bottom line is profit.
The 1.1 El Gato is not as lucrative as Indie was, even though the overhead is almost nothing.

I guarantee you Entravision is wishing they has the 7-10 million a year that they were seeing with Indie.

Indie did about $7 million in 2006 and $8 million in 2008. By 2007, the station, which had been around a 1 share, was down to a full book average of 0.6 with 9,800 AQH persons. The market billed about $1.1 billion.

By 2008, we had a recession and PPM. Market billing was down around $700 million (nearly 40%) and PUR in the market went from 16 to around 10, which reset the pricing model for cost per point buys. And Indie slipped to around a 0.3 share and an average of 4,100 persons AQH.

So, it was reasonable to think that the billing would be off by the combination of AQH decline (50%) and market revenue decline in value per point or share by 40%. So the $7 million pre-recession gets us down to about $1.6 million using the same metrics. Gato bills much more, on much lower expenses.

So I think the Entravision people are thanking their lucky star that they moved before the higher expenses of Indie caused them to lose a lot of money.

 

[justpassingthough]

Let me preface what I am about to say, by admitting that I am an Arcade Fire fan. I have all of their albums and I've seem them live several times. Eminem is probably my favorite all time artist, though, and I can tolerate Lady Gaga in certain situations.

With that said, I resent the implication that what is popular is always crap, just as those who espouse the view that what is crap is always popular. Arcade Fire is an outstanding band (especially live) but it isn't a mainstream band. I feel like the heart of this issue is the long running debate that whatever music, art, television, literature, etc is popular at the time is disposable and only the enduring artists of our time will be remember decades or even centuries from now. As David pointed out, people like Shakespeare were considered blue collar and pedestrian at one time. When it comes to something as subjective as music, it is short sighted and close minded to think that one Grammy Award equals undying greatness, just as much as one stunt like arriving to the Grammys in a giant egg equals a level of absurdity that should negate Lady Gaga's merits as an artist. My point being- since music tastes are subjective and almost entirely unquantifiable, we shouldn't waste our time trying to point out what is crap and what is not crap. Its a dead end argument.

Radio is a business, and they are going to play what keeps you around longer, in the hopes that you will hear commercials and support their advertisers. Indie failed because it simply did not program to keep enough people interested in sticking around. I do, however, think there is room to add more Indie music to 98.7 and KROQ- it would certainly help to keep them fresh- but I think David has more than adequately pointed out why Indie was not and will never be a success.

 

[Buckethead]

Agreed.
Indie as it was back then did what it did, made the splash it made, had the impact it had, got the press it got
but clearly it was flawed and not done quite right or they'd still be around.

I believe done right it would be a very viable format, one that many in the city would love to see given a chance to be done right.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

Here's the thing from my POV.....
Are there no more clubs in Hollywood and elsewhere in LA/OC featuring modern rock as we know it?? Really? So there are still many rock fans in the metro area underserved. KROQ, KYSR, KSWD, and KLOS don't cover a whole swatch of good music that is played elsewhere i.e. in other large markets. Is there really a station in LA similar to two south of here--- FM 94.9 and KPRi? Why not? THERE'S the hole the 92.7 GM forgot about.

 

[justpassingthough]

Here's the thing from my POV.....
Are there no more clubs in Hollywood and elsewhere in LA/OC featuring modern rock as we know it?? Really? So there are still many rock fans in the metro area underserved. KROQ, KYSR, KSWD, and KLOS don't cover a whole swatch of good music that is played elsewhere i.e. in other large markets. Is there really a station in LA similar to two south of here--- FM 94.9 and KPRi? Why not? THERE'S the hole the 92.7 GM forgot about.

Equating club attendance on a weekend night into a viable radio format, though, just doesn't work. Its like using concert attendance as a validation of a music genre's popularity. Plus, San Diego is a completely different market than LA in terms of demographics and psychographics, that it makes no sense to compare the two and use it as a justification for the return of Indie.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

Equating club attendance on a weekend night into a viable radio format, though, just doesn't work.

Point taken, why doesn't it work? Those attending such concerts/performances are restricted to iPods etc I guess.

Its like using concert attendance as a validation of a music genre's popularity. Plus, San Diego is a completely different market than LA in terms of demographics and psychographics, that it makes no sense to compare the two and use it as a justification for the return of Indie.

Actually I was not a big fan of Indie...... And what do you mean by 'psychographics'?

Final note, my radio listening needs are met thanks to live streams of OTA stations. But it would be nice if the market could squeeeeeeze in a station serving as fare neglected music/artists that are played just about anywhere else... even in NYC (for now)! [KCSN doesn't count for Orange County folk like me ]

 

[Buckethead]

"The Year of the Indie" at the Grammys.

http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/a...dies-at-the-53rd-grammy-awards?ref=mail_recap

It's a wake up call. Prefab, lipsynced, auto-tuned, dance artists have been knocked off the top of the mountain.

Yes, it's one instance, but it is a very significant instance.

Remember the very poor reception to the pre-recorded Black Eyed Peas Superbowl "performance"?

The industry has taken the pre-packaged entertainment concept to the top of the mountain and it's now sliding down the other side.

If you can't see that trend then you are just foolish, but then again maybe you're just interested in nothing but spanish language formats.