Radio is out of touch!

[TheBigA]

Only in the world of radio can the Dixie Chicks' so-called "lack of hits" since 2003 be interpreted as outright career failure.

Depends on what you consider "career success." I know a lot of recording artists who consider themselves successful, and they don't have the private plane, the five mansions, and the huge bank account. But they're happy and content.

The radio hits generally lead to album sales (despite what the MusicFirst says) and huge tour grosses. When the radio hits stop, so do the other things. What the Chicks' management decided to do (as seen in their movie "Shut Up & Sing") is replace the radio hits with a mission. They were now going to be martyrs for the First Amendment. And it worked for them. Their 2006 album sold a couple million copies and won 5 Grammy awards. That's better than nothing.

So now they have control over their career, they can release music when they want, and they're free from the "star making machinery" that Joni Mitchell sings about. So OK, they're still a success. But they've also become flash points for controversy. You can mention their name or play their music to a group, and a percentage in the room will boo. Which is why radio avoids them. And the Chicks are fine with that. They didn't like radio when they had hits.

But yes, I agree with your point that there are perils to success. Miley Cyrus found that out last year, just as her father found it out 15 years ago. You become a big star, and peopl want to knock you down. And the role that plays in art is a whole 'nother discussion.

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.

That's an interesting observation. Funny that the ones making that point are the liberals. As Bill Clinton said, they want an equal playing field in talk radio. So they want to get Congress to come up with a law to force their point of view on the radio. Perhaps they aren't satisfied with the White House, Congress, and most of the decision makers in the media. They want world domination! So who is sick? The ones who want the radio airplay, or the ones in radio? Perhaps they're both a little sick.

 

[lalumia]

I agree with Bill Clinton, TOTALLY...

 

[adma]

So now they have control over their career, they can release music when they want, and they're free from the "star making machinery" that Joni Mitchell sings about. So OK, they're still a success. But they've also become flash points for controversy. You can mention their name or play their music to a group, and a percentage in the room will boo. Which is why radio avoids them. And the Chicks are fine with that. They didn't like radio when they had hits.

Well, consider carefully. Beyond the fact that "percentage" can mean anything from 1% to 100%, who happens to be that "percentage in the room"? You might as well say that "a percentage" in said room will also boo at the name "Barack Obama", and all the more so if it's juiced up into "Barack Hussein Obama"--and in a room with "a percentage of" Dixie Chicks booers, I reckon there'd be a strong overlap between the two, especially given the pinheaded jingoistic redneck nature of the anti-Dixie Chick faction.

Thus, my point about liberalism vis-a-vis radio...which leads us to...

That's an interesting observation. Funny that the ones making that point are the liberals. As Bill Clinton said, they want an equal playing field in talk radio. So they want to get Congress to come up with a law to force their point of view on the radio. Perhaps they aren't satisfied with the White House, Congress, and most of the decision makers in the media. They want world domination! So who is sick? The ones who want the radio airplay, or the ones in radio? Perhaps they're both a little sick.

Well, if that's the way you feel, you truly are sick.

 

[adma]

Though to ratchet a little more on topic, I find this business about listeners *not* supporting Chris Brown interesting--and it may say something about how, especially these days, they're not the simple screaming-meemie moral cretin pigeonhole of mythical "hit radio" lore. I mean, I can see how that kind of listener ideal might have been prized in the past--pliable, naive, overexcitably devoted to a fault, and in extreme cases willing to drop their bras and pants for a creepy perv radio DJ (I suppose). But maybe society's gotten too sophisticated for that; and while that strain of listener/devotee may still exist, it's got an uncomfortable whiff of lunatic-fringe about it. It's similar to how Michael Jackson devotees these days, never mind Michael Jackson himself, can scare people away. (Okay, maybe current Jacko isn't heard that much anymore. But one can say much the same about hardcore Dittoheads and Delilah devotees as well--such is 2009, as opposed to 1994 or 1999 or whenever commercial radio could still coast on its erstwhile mass-mediumness.)

I suppose that the gravity-center shift away from radio to the more interactive, multifaceted, and discussion-friendly realm of the Web carries some of the blame for engendering a more sophisticated grassroots "moral fiber" re the Chris Brown/Rihanna(?) incident. And those who're instilled in "radio ways" find it hard to grasp.

The Dixie Chicks incident doesn't compare--indeed, I'd categorize the anti-DCs more with the cretins than against them. And so would, I suppose, most of the Chris-Martin-is-an-abusive-creep grassroots--most especially in an overwhelmingly Obamaphilic/Palinphobic market like New York. (This is a New York board, remember.)

 

[TheBigA]

Interesting to see you get passionate about something. We really touched a nerve!