BRITNEY SPEARS' "IF U SEEK AMY" CAUSING POTENTIAL PROBLEMS FOR RADIO

[pjc1961]

http://news.google.com/news?q="if+u...&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=more-results&cd=1

A number of articles in link above about the difficulty in playing the rumored 3rd single from Britney's "Circus" album. If you say the title quickly you'll see what it "spells out" - you get the idea. This could become a novelty hit such as Denis Leary's "A--hole" song in 1993.

If you're a programmer, would you play this record? Censored or uncensored? If at all? What to do?

Of course, as many entertainment folks have said in the past: there's no such thing as bad publicity. Certainly an attention-grabbing stunt by Britney - following in the steps of her idol, Madonna.

 

[NoWayNoCC]

If you're a programmer, would you play this record?

No. Not because it has a "dirty" title, but because I didn't think anyone still listened to Britney Spears!

 

[john77]

http://news.google.com/news?q="if+u...&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=more-results&cd=1

Of course, as many entertainment folks have said in the past: there's no such thing as bad publicity. Certainly an attention-grabbing stunt by Britney - following in the steps of her idol, Madonna.

And it still hasb't changed... those entertainment folks are STILL wrong, and actually moreso than ever when they make that false statement. Bad publicity is just bad for you period!!! Just ask Bruce Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks, Oprah, Bill Clinton and outgoing President Bush. Bad publicity (whether deserved or undeserved) hurt each and every of these five to varying degrees the past 15 years, and to date NONE OF THEM has recovered!

Britney's "Blackout" album actually had some pretty strong tracks, and the bad publicity and personal problems she was having at the time of it's release SERIOUSLY hurt the chart runs of all 3 singles, not to mention the album's sales. Madonna's also a VERY bad example. I know a lot of people who just tossed her CD's and deleted their Madonna music libraries off their PC's and iPOds after the now infamous Sarah Palin expletive-filled meltdown she had at a recent concert. When you're an entertainer, you need to be looking out for all of your fans, not just the ones that share your political or personal views. Oops!

Today, it's all about the GOOD publicity. People look up to the Tony Dungys of the world... the Carrie Underwoods... the Jon Bon Jovis... the Ricardo Montalbans. The people that do it the right way.

 

[MassMusicMan]

There is nothing wrong with that title. It's pretty clear that it reads "If U Seek Amy." Any other interpretation is on the listener.

That said, these ******* that run radio stations are the same people who gave us "Don't Mess With My Heart", so you never know.

 

[pbf1]

Want a title? "If You See Kay" by April Wine.

 

[Mid West Clubber]

What is this about no one wants to hear Brittney Spears............ I get more requests for her music than any other single artist..... I havent heard the song,,, but if it turns out to research good and the GM okays it,, then yeah,,, I will add it,,, unless its a major stiff...

 

[Roger That]

There is nothing wrong with that title. It's pretty clear that it reads "If U Seek Amy." Any other interpretation is on the listener.

That said, these ******* that run radio stations are the same people who gave us "Don't Mess With My Heart", so you never know.

Have you ever read the FCC's policy on what, why, and how they can fine you? And PS...what the title LOOKS like has zero bearing on the issue. Ever heard the actual song?

It's entertaining to see people blame radio stations and the people that run them for something like this. Without public complaints, this becomes a non-issue. If the litigation-happy bottom-feeders that unfortunately make up a percentage of radio's user base would simply change the station, instead of crying to anyone that could hear them, the "******* that run radio stations" would have less to worry about.

At the very least, you can thank Janet and Justin for bringing the issue into the spotlight, causing fines to skyrocket in the past few years.

 

[MassMusicMan]

The song clearly said "phunk" (funk.) Sorry, that's on radio people.

 

[Roger That]

The song clearly said "phunk" (funk.) Sorry, that's on radio people.

That song was released in the middle of the CBS Superbowl fine having been levied. And you're surprised that radio had a knee-jerk reaction to any potentially sensitive lyrics?

 

[CHRles]

Here's how I see this.
The song is mainly a novelty record. It could prove to be a big hit with internet-only radio stations, it can become a big myspace hit with a lot of chicks as their profile song. You can also be sure that a lot of nightclubs will sure interest in it. So traditional radio's ban may prove to be irrelevant, or may actually even help elevate the song's success to new heights.
It'll be interesting to see how well the song will end up doing on Billboard's Hot 100 or on the charts in Europe.

 

[john77]

Here's how I see this.
The song is mainly a novelty record. It could prove to be a big hit with internet-only radio stations, it can become a big myspace hit with a lot of chicks as their profile song. You can also be sure that a lot of nightclubs will sure interest in it. So traditional radio's ban may prove to be irrelevant, or may actually even help elevate the song's success to new heights.
It'll be interesting to see how well the song will end up doing on Billboard's Hot 100 or on the charts in Europe.

Considering the inherent biases in the Hot 100 and their continued refusal to correct them, I'm not sure why anyone worth their salt or in the industry would even follow that chart... See Kid Rock's "All Summer Long" and Mariah Carey's "Touch My Body" for example. You and I know that the one that peaked in the mid-20's on that chart was a MUCH BIGGER hit than the one that got to "#1" there. It really hasn't been relevant since the record companies started phasing out the physical single in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

 

[MassMusicMan]

The song clearly said "phunk" (funk.) Sorry, that's on radio people.

That song was released in the middle of the CBS Superbowl fine having been levied. And you're surprised that radio had a knee-jerk reaction to any potentially sensitive lyrics?

I'm not at all surprised. It's just that they could have played the song anyway, got the fine notice, and then appealed the fine. As is my understanding, if there's no recording, there's no proof. Even then, a recording would have clearly indicated the use of "phunk."

 

[Roger That]

I'm not at all surprised. It's just that they could have played the song anyway, got the fine notice, and then appealed the fine. As is my understanding, if there's no recording, there's no proof. Even then, a recording would have clearly indicated the use of "phunk."

Wow. It's obvious you really need a refresher on the FCC's indecency policy. You can still be fined without there being a recording of the incident. And what something says versus what is implied has little bearing on the FCC's ability to deem something actionable.

If you have a problem with this, write your Congressman and complain about (and to) the FCC. You can't blame radio for not wanting to get tied up in litigation over one word in a song that most listeners don't care has changed.

 

[MassMusicMan]

Your industry needs an enema.

 

[burksy]

Your industry needs an enema.

Thanks for your highly informative thoughts, Ace. We'll be sure to adjust our world to better suit you

 

[MassMusicMan]

Your industry needs an enema.

Thanks for your highly informative thoughts, Ace. We'll be sure to adjust our world to better suit you

It's not about suiting me, it's about suiting people who keep losing their jobs.

 

[burksy]

Your industry needs an enema.

Thanks for your highly informative thoughts, Ace. We'll be sure to adjust our world to better suit you

It's not about suiting me, it's about suiting people who keep losing their jobs.

Yea, you're right. Maybe if more stations played a song that clearly spells out ******* me everyone would keep their jobs.

 

[MassMusicMan]

Yea, you're right. Maybe if more stations played a song that clearly spells out ******* me everyone would keep their jobs.

Maybe if radio stations had people talented enough to create programming more intelligent than playing suggestive songs, everyone would keep their jobs.

 

[CHRles]

Considering the inherent biases in the Hot 100 and their continued refusal to correct them, I'm not sure why anyone worth their salt or in the industry would even follow that chart... See Kid Rock's "All Summer Long" and Mariah Carey's "Touch My Body" for example. You and I know that the one that peaked in the mid-20's on that chart was a MUCH BIGGER hit than the one that got to "#1" there. It really hasn't been relevant since the record companies started phasing out the physical single in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

I think the Hot 100 is very relevant, and is a very good relflection of whats really hot as it includes both radio airplay as well as the most downloaded songs in America.
What the kids are buying or downloading have always been the true gauge of whats hot in a country.

BTW, I'm not sure I agree with what you wrote earlier in this thread. Oprah Winfrey seems to be doing fine, and Bill Clinton wasnt badly hurt by the Monica scandal.

 

[john77]

Considering the inherent biases in the Hot 100 and their continued refusal to correct them, I'm not sure why anyone worth their salt or in the industry would even follow that chart... See Kid Rock's "All Summer Long" and Mariah Carey's "Touch My Body" for example. You and I know that the one that peaked in the mid-20's on that chart was a MUCH BIGGER hit than the one that got to "#1" there. It really hasn't been relevant since the record companies started phasing out the physical single in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

I think the Hot 100 is very relevant, and is a very good relflection of whats really hot as it includes both radio airplay as well as the most downloaded songs in America.
What the kids are buying or downloading have always been the true gauge of whats hot in a country.

Perhaps you don't truly understand how the Hot 100 is complied or it's inherent HUGE flaws, so let me enlighten you with three recent examples.

How do explain Kid Rock's peak position on the Hot 100 peak of #23 for "All Summer Long" if it has relevance? His album was moving 100,000 units a week while his song was top 5 at 3 different formats!!! At the very least that song would have hit the top 3 of the Hot 100 if they figured out a way to include the actual sales of the song. People were spending $9.99 or more for one song. I was amongst those people. Shouldn't that count AT LEAST as much as someone spending .99 cents for a song?

Mariah Carey's "Touch My Body" is that song barely even reached the top 10 at CHR. The record company repressed downloads for a full 6 weeks to ensure it would get a bunch of sales in one week to buy a high position on the Hot 100. Hey, let's cram 7 weeks of sales into 1... yeah, that's fair... NOT! As a result, the song spent 2 weeks at "#1" on the Hot 100. If you split up those almost 300,000 sales or so the song "achieved" in "one week" and divide them by 7, you suddenly get a song that is borderline top 10 on that chart at best.

How about Estelle's "American Boy"?... it went up to #11 on that chart, then the record company decided to pull it from digitial download sites. People were still buying it, but on the albums only and it promptly fell to #37 the next week. A couple of weeks later they allowed it to be downloaded as a single song again and it promptly went back up to #10 there. Did people suddenly start not liking the song? Did it become unpopular those two weeks only? You see what I'm saying? It's a MESS!!!

If Billboard wanted their Hot 100 chart to have some sort of sense of relevance, it could. In it's current form, it's the laughing stock of the industry. They need someone with an actual math degree to fix it, but they refuse to.