Radio is out of touch!

[BossJock1947]

So. Trust me pal...his $ales are going to skyrocket whether radio plays him or not. There's a few in radio that think the world revolves around their thinking and opinions when in reality they're jerking themselves off.

What puzzles me is there are hundreds of thousands both well known and not beating the (bleep) out of their spouses. Why Chris Brown? Why NOW? Because all these do-gooders are piling on?

Maybe terrestrial radio isn't as "relevant" to the younger folks (teens to twenty-somethings) as it was when I grew up tuning in. Yet terrestrial radio, doing what they did, still holds some significance for the reasons David Eduardo explained in his post; that radio (in general...not that "select few") is following the reactions of their listeners. And I agree 100 percent.

It isn't just radio either. The Wrigley Company dumped Chris Brown as well as their "Doublemint" spokesperson. The Dairy Council also dropped Brown from the "Got Milk?" ad campaign. So the backlash is certainly taking on wings past the radio industry.

Yes, a person is innocent until proven guilty. That is the basis of American law, yes. But based on 911 tapes with Rihanna screaming, the guy has become a "hot potato". And unless Brown does a MAJOR "mea culpa" regarding his "alleged" actions (perhaps by apologizing, condemning his actions, donating money to a battered woman's shelter, etc) his career IS done. He'd be lucky to do a free concert at Rye-Playland and hope that people would stop and listen.

I agree it's a good thing to stand up for dometic violence i'm just stating that radio doesn't have the influence it once had. Just ask GOOGLE.

Which is exactly what I said when I stated "Maybe terrestrial radio isn't as "relevant" to the younger folks". I agree on that point. And the ones that are complaining are the parents of kids or women that have gone through such a bad experience. At least radio is being "responsible" and that's where credit is due. It's not being a "do gooder". It's being responsible. And perhaps that may be something "forgotten" in today's time in regards to the philosophical side of radio...."to serve the public interest" but radio IS addressing it in this case, for the common good of all and to condone domestic violence.

Maybe radio isn't a "big deal" like it was 20 years ago but radio still has some relevancy. But I do feel the dropped endorsements (Wrigley's, Dairy Council, etc.) will hurt Brown more.

The story isn't over yet, that's for sure.

With all due respect Tony...I think these radio statons especially the ones piling on after 4 days is not so much trying to do the good thing but to draw attention to THESELVES. Just a hunch i have.

 

[davideduardo]

So you're admitting that radio is picking and choosing when to take a moral stand.

No station or organization can support every good or noble cause. So we pick the ones that relate to our listeners.

 

[neo11]

So you're admitting that radio is picking and choosing when to take a moral stand.

No station or organization can support every good or noble cause. So we pick the ones that relate to our listeners.

Yes, and as soon as this blows over, I am sure we will hear plenty of Chris Brown on the radio again. Way to maintain the moral high ground.

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe...if he's aquitted.

The Dixie Chicks went away, and never really returned to country radio. Even after they won a ton of Grammy awards last year.

 

[TonySantiago]

For the sake of fairness, I post the following from the "Breaking News" (2-13) on the front page of this site.

================

Chicago's B96 and WGCI stand by Chris Brown, bucking a national trend to stop playing his songs

Since news broke of the alleged assault of singing star Rihanna by her boyfriend, singing star Chris Brown, stations across the nation have dropped his songs. But Chicago’s WGCI-FM (107.5) continues to play Brown’s music. Angela Ingram, vice president of communications for Clear Channel Chicago tells the Chicago Tribune the company “has not made any adjustments to our playlist in reference to Chris Brown, and has no plans to do so.” While Todd Cavanah, PD at WBBM-FM (96.3), says “If you really want to help the situation with domestic violence, you talk to listeners on the air, you take call-ins and you let people know where they can turn. But taking music off the air I don’t really think does anybody any good.”

================

So, in that sense, not every radio station in the country is following this "ban" on Chris Brown. And I do agree with Neo11, once all of this blows over, Chris Brown will be back on the radio. Though, IMHO, that can only happen if he does a "mea culpa" to the media and put himself out to causes against domestic violence.

 

[neo11]

Maybe...if he's aquitted.

The Dixie Chicks went away, and never really returned to country radio. Even after they won a ton of Grammy awards last year.

More proof of radio's hypocrisy. What exactly was the Chicks' criminal offense?

 

[andreajesus]

they had said some stuff about Bush 43 which was interpreted as basically "knocking" the President....

Andrea

 

[TheBigA]

More proof of radio's hypocrisy. What exactly was the Chicks' criminal offense?

Once again, it has nothing to with being convicted of something. It's the court of public opinion. OJ Simpson was never convicted of killing his wife. But everyone knows he did it. What was his criminal offense? Why has he been dogged for the past 15 years? Because everyone believes he's guilty.

The Chicks pissed off conservatives. And before they did that, they pissed off everyone else. So no one was left to defend them. And no one did. Even their record label was powerless. But their label didn't care, because the Chicks had just sued everyone there, and got a lot of people fired.

Radio isn't hypocritical. It's not in that business. It simply follows popular opinion. If you do something that everyone agrees is terrible, and you run to the radio for help, you're not going to get any.

 

[neo11]

they had said some stuff about Bush 43 which was interpreted as basically "knocking" the President....

Andrea

I know that, but you didn't understand my question. Where was the criminal offense in that? Or the moral offense, for that matter.

 

[neo11]

More proof of radio's hypocrisy. What exactly was the Chicks' criminal offense?

Once again, it has nothing to with being convicted of something. It's the court of public opinion. OJ Simpson was never convicted of killing his wife. But everyone knows he did it. What was his criminal offense? Why has he been dogged for the past 15 years? Because everyone believes he's guilty.

The Chicks pissed off conservatives. And before they did that, they pissed off everyone else. So no one was left to defend them. And no one did. Even their record label was powerless. But their label didn't care, because the Chicks had just sued everyone there, and got a lot of people fired.

Radio isn't hypocritical. It's not in that business. It simply follows popular opinion. If you do something that everyone agrees is terrible, and you run to the radio for help, you're not going to get any.

No, my point is that radio seems to pick and choose when to take the moral "high ground," which our friend DE was patting the industry on the back for.

 

[davideduardo]

Yes, and as soon as this blows over, I am sure we will hear plenty of Chris Brown on the radio again. Way to maintain the moral high ground.

Public opinion is sort of like jail sentences in that, after a while, the term is up.

After a while, Brown will either repent and say something appologetic or not. He may be guilty or not. In the meantime, radio has a chance to make a point about domestic violence, and, at the end of the day, that's a good thing.

The fact that radio can not stop all the ailments of the world does not mean it can not make a contribution.

 

[adma]

The Chicks pissed off conservatives. And before they did that, they pissed off everyone else. So no one was left to defend them. And no one did. Even their record label was powerless. But their label didn't care, because the Chicks had just sued everyone there, and got a lot of people fired.

Who was said "everyone else"? And who was the "no one left to defend them"?

Judging by everything from the positive (yes, positive) brouhaha over their nude Entertainment Weekly cover to their 2007 Grammy sweep, the Dixie Chicks actually hit the ground running and fared quite well as heroes of principle against the grain of their boycott--if anything, it led to the left-of-centre to embrace them all the more avidly. Though of course, within the radio-biz universe where McCain-Palin would have got something like an 80%+ mandate, said "left-of-centre" might as well be "no one"--and re their label not caring, it isn't like such fired/endangered record-label sleazebags would earn mass sympathy, either.

Now, Michael Jackson is more of a "no one left to defend him" situation...

 

[TheBigA]

The Chicks pissed off conservatives. And before they did that, they pissed off everyone else. So no one was left to defend them. And no one did. Even their record label was powerless. But their label didn't care, because the Chicks had just sued everyone there, and got a lot of people fired.

Who was said "everyone else"? And who was the "no one left to defend them"?

Country radio. Their record label. The structure that had created their career and helped them sell 25 million records.

the Dixie Chicks actually hit the ground running and fared quite well as heroes of principle against the grain of their boycott

Their manager made them martyrs for freedom of speech. And it worked. But they haven't had any hits since, they haven't released any more music, and they haven't toured. So they are effectively over as an act.

 

[adma]

Their manager made them martyrs for freedom of speech. And it worked. But they haven't had any hits since, they haven't released any more music, and they haven't toured. So they are effectively over as an act.

Er, re "haven't released any more music", you forgot about this

Taking the Long Way is the multiple Grammy Award-winning seventh studio album by the American Country female band Dixie Chicks. It was released on May 23, 2006 in the U.S. and on June 12, 2006 worldwide. The album debuted at #1 on the Billboard 200. It sold over 2 million copies in the U.S., being certified 2x platinum by the RIAA as of July 11, 2007. It won 5 Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year in February 2007.

And re "haven't toured", you forgot about this.

Methinks you've been stewing for too long in the realm of country radio, where they might as well be "effectively over as an act"--which says more about that realm (or your own appalling cultural acumen) than it says about the Dixie Chicks.

Just more affirmation of the thread subject header, I suppose...

 

[TheBigA]

Just more affirmation of the thread subject header, I suppose...

No...both of those things happened three years ago. They haven't released any new music, nor have their toured since.

Taking the Long Way Home sold 2 million. But their debut album sold 12 million. Their second sold 10 million. The third sold 6 million. Hmmm...what happened between 2002 and 2006?

 

[adma]

Just more affirmation of the thread subject header, I suppose...

No...both of those things happened three years ago. They haven't released any new music, nor have their toured since.

But that was three years *after* the incidents in question. And these days, two/three year breaks between new music or tours aren't uncommon, especially among artists with pretensions beyond a 60s-style churning-out-the-hits. And to say the least, the heightened expectations engendered by their Grammy sweep is enough incentive for them to take their time.

Taking the Long Way Home sold 2 million. But their debut album sold 12 million. Their second sold 10 million. The third sold 6 million. Hmmm...what happened between 2002 and 2006?

Well, falling record sales across the board is one explanation (how many 2 million sellers are there today compared to a decade ago?)...but all in all, under the circumstances, you might as well be saying that Van Morrison effectively ruined his career by opting for an Astral Weeks rather than "Brown-Eyed Girl" direction. You might as well be a tasteless parvenu in a big big McMansion who sneers at an artsy nephew in a cramped-by-comparison Billburg loft.

What happened is that the Dixie Chicks refocused themselves, quite successfully under the circumstances; and in the end, maybe it isn't worth contorting oneself in order to sell another eleventy-jillion records to the jingoistic Red America demo that swears by Lee Greenwood mantras and views the Grammys as some kind of irrelevant-at-best left-liberal-showbiz-type plot. You gotta remember: these are the days when "radio success" can say more about the tasteless, oblivious redneck hillbilly uglies still engaged to radio than anything...

 

[TheBigA]

You gotta remember: these are the days when "radio success" can say more about the tasteless, oblivious redneck hillbilly uglies still engaged to radio than anything...

They STILL haven't had any hits since 2003. And it was the "radio success" that made the current luxury of time possible.

 

[davideduardo]

And to say the least, the heightened expectations engendered by their Grammy sweep is enough incentive for them to take their time.

An ad agency years ago was concerned that the creative department was more concerned about winning peer group awards like addies and similar. They put up posters that said, "It's not creative unless it sells."

Winning Grammy's is a bit like preaching to the choir; a bunch of peers determines the winners, which is why we get many winners that neither sell a lot nor get much popular exposure.

Check back with use when the win a CMA award. Otherwise, they remain vastly less relevant to the country listener than they ever have.

 

[adma]

And to say the least, the heightened expectations engendered by their Grammy sweep is enough incentive for them to take their time.

An ad agency years ago was concerned that the creative department was more concerned about winning peer group awards like addies and similar. They put up posters that said, "It's not creative unless it sells."

Winning Grammy's is a bit like preaching to the choir; a bunch of peers determines the winners, which is why we get many winners that neither sell a lot nor get much popular exposure.

Check back with use when the win a CMA award. Otherwise, they remain vastly less relevant to the country listener than they ever have.

Well, it depends on how much you want to put said "country listener" upon a pedestal. Which, these days, is like putting Thomas Kinkade fans at the highest level of artistic conoisseurship...

 

[adma]

You gotta remember: these are the days when "radio success" can say more about the tasteless, oblivious redneck hillbilly uglies still engaged to radio than anything...

They STILL haven't had any hits since 2003. And it was the "radio success" that made the current luxury of time possible.

Maybe they discovered the perils of such "radio success", the hard way?

Well, re your post(s) together with David Eduardo's. Only in the world of radio can the Dixie Chicks' so-called "lack of hits" since 2003 be interpreted as outright career failure. And that the attempts to spin it otherwise (i.e. the Grammys) are but window dressing.

It's like claiming, even in the age of Obama, that liberalism (i.e. anything to the left of Atilla) is dead simply because there are no viable liberals left on commercial talk radio.

Culturally speaking, said radio industry is sick.

Sick.

Sick.

Sick.

Sick.