Rebecca Black and the Death of Mainstream Rock

[chas108]

A few days ago Bob Lefsetz posted this link regarding 13-year-old Rebecca Black's video "Friday" vis-a-vis the SXSW Festival which ran the same weekend.

http://blog.futurehitdna.com/archives/902

"Friday" may be the stupidest, worst pop song in history but then again when it comes to bubblegum the bar is pretty low and has been forever. With apologies to the one who exposed The DeFranco Family to America, I give you their second single...from 37 years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atnfWmqOJuI

What I found REALLY sobering was Jay Frank's analysis on Mainstream Rock, originally posted a couple items below Rebecca Black on Frank's website...

"Rock Is Dead"... http://blog.futurehitdna.com/archives/840

"Rock Is Dead" part 2... http://blog.futurehitdna.com/archives/852

Having lived thru Disco and the pronouncements of some at the time that "Rock Is Dead"...and seen Rock cycle back into the mainstream of popular music time after time since the late 70's...is 2011 different? Frank presents compelling evidence - from record sales to Pollstar data - that has me wondering...

...are we now witnessing the end of the Rock era? Jay Frank sums up his analysis thusly:

"Sure, there will be some exceptions, but the days that a new rock band will achieve mainstream success are nearly over. I’m sticking with my assessment. Rock is dead. Long may it live in the underground."

Does radio bear any responsibility for this turn of events?

Does it matter if radio breaks new acts anymore? (Some would argue that was never radio's responsibility - a legitimate argument - although I disagree.)

How does this affect Rock-based formats? (Which may enter into territory previously discussed here: http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=185071.0)

How does this affect Top 40...a format that could zig-zag one direction or the other as popular tastes dictate...and now has fewer places to zig-zag? I remember 20 years ago when the public tired of hair metal, Wilson Phillips, and decided it wasn't ready for hip-hop...and the hottest artist in America was Garth Brooks...beyond the boundaries of where Top 40 was willing to go. (I don't think he'd have fit Top 40 anyway but it was a first in the Rock era: where the biggest artist in Pop culture wasn't a Pop/Rock/R&B act. Now it's a regular occurrence)

Furthermore...to Rebecca Black's success, is the Record Company model over? Is there anyone who would argue that it wasn't already seriously damaged? If the Record Company model is over...how does radio go about finding the hits?

Yes Rebecca's a one-hit wonder. That is assumed. It's not about her per se...it's what she potentially - or in reality - represents. Bob Lefsetz's analysis here:

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2011/03/25/rebecca-black-lessons/

 

[bbb]

The lyrics are pretty similar to this song (I don't know what happened to this group after this garbage came out):

Sitting on a cornflake
Waiting for the van to come
Corporation t-shirt, stupid bloody
Tuesday man, you been a naughty boy
You let your face grow long

I am the eggman, oh, they are the eggman
Oh, I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob

 

[steve63]

I stumbled upon that piece in Futurehitdna.com and it confirms what I have been thinking as well. Rock radio has been broken for quite a few years now. It seems trapped by its past, which it can't escape, nor seems inclined. Way too much 20 year old grunge rock and a real lack of risk taking with things that sound different. The modern rock format seems incapable of breaking hits to any kind of wider audience. Probably because so much of today's rock seems like a copy of a copy of a copy. Draggy, sludgy tempos, lack of melody and not much fun in it anymore. Rock used to be sexy and rebellious, now too much of it it seems dour and depressing.

The commercial decline of rock and consolidation of the record labels and ever decreasing sales of CDs is no accident. For today's kids rock surely must be seen as their parent's music and even that can be a stretch as hip hop, with its aging audience has been around over 30 years now. I DJ'ed a high school semi formal for about 600 kids in a (dry for the evening) night club and three requests out of hundreds were for rock songs, two for Paramore's Only Exception and another for Coldplay's Fix You. Not too many requests for hip hop either. The uptempo mix of dance, pop and r&b that Sean Ross calls Turbo Pop was what they wanted most.

Rock has been around, more or less since 1955, a 55 year run, if we look at 2010 as the end date. A much longer duration than jazz or swing or any other genre of 20th century music. Nothing lasts forever.

In Lefsetz's 'Rebecca Black Lessons' email one of his lessons really stuck out to me,

12. Don't equate fame with being rich or longevity. Fame is oftentimes brief and oftentimes the famous make almost no cash. I.e. reality TV. But there's an endless parade of wannabes willing to prostitute themselves for a bit of fame. Is it the human condition or a reflection of America, where the poor can no longer be rich and fame is a substitute?

He really nailed it. Rock music happened in an environment of a growing and at the time affluent middle class, that seems less prosperous and attainable for too many kids today.

 

[TheBigA]

Does radio bear any responsibility for this turn of events?

This is a great topic, and one that I've been thinking about, having spent some time in rock radio.

In my view, radio has always been, for the most part, a follower, not a leader in music. Sure we all can name the DJ who played The Beatles in the US in 1962 or 63. If radio was a leader, why did it take Sullivan to really set off Beatlemania? Go back to Alan Freed in Cleveland. He's playing obscure R&B at 11PM. But what was he really doing? First of all, he's selling records. His sponsor was a local R&B record store. But the music was only "obscure" to the mainstream audience. The true R&B fans knew the music already. I find this a lot today. The real fans start following an act very early. Tom Donohue didn't invent progressive rock music. He knew there was a scene for it in San Francisco, and decided there was a market for it. On the East Coast, Scott Muni felt the same thing at exactly the same time.

But when did it start to fall apart? I trace it to the late 80s. At that point, grunge was big among young rock fans, and radio wasn't sure. Same thing with the Aerosmith/Run DMC version of Walk This Way. That song was a huge hit on MTV, but rock radio wasn't sure it fit. What do you do with Lenny Kravitz. To me, he was Jimi Hendrix reborn. Why didn't he get more airplay at rock radio? It was a real battle for him. And why? Because radio programmers were second guessing themselves. Rather than listening to the fans, they were more concerned about following the format. So as the music changed and evolved, as it continued to do in the 90s, the format remained largely the same, and grew stale and tired. Meanwhile, pop radio wasn't as constrained. So that's where a lot of songs and artists ended up who might have had rock careers.

At the same time, you had country shifting its direction. By the late 80s, the careers of George Jones, Merle Haggard, Kenny Rogers, and Dolly Parton were mostly over. Country was looking for new stuff. Enter a whole new generation of artists raised on Charlie Daniels, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and southern rock, rather than Roy Acuff or Hank Williams. To them, Hank Williams was Bocephus, and he sang about Skynyrd. And amazingly, country radio embraced this new generation. I say amazingly because they had every reason to hang on to the Mandrells and Oak Ridge Boys, but didn't. That led to the huge explosion in country during the 90s, but stole the southern rock side away from rock radio. So rock radio lost the Gen Xers by not playing grunge, and they lost the southern rockers to country. No wonder rock is stale now. It's driven by head bangers and metal fans, but that was always a small fringe of what rock was.

So what does this mean today? It gets back to the importance of social media. Rather than hanging in the club scene all night with your clothes smelling like cigarettes, all a DJ has to do now is follow the music on social media. The radio futurists advocate moving some of that discussion over to radio sites, which is great if you can do it. Some companies are committed to doing that. Some aren't. But there will be positive implications for the music stations play on the air IF they follow the fans and what they want. Rebecca Black is an interesting story, but the one that's most interesting to me is Justin Bieber and the role CHR radio played in helping him reach the mainstream. Very similar to what radio used to do, putting unknown new artists on the air. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Taylor Swift was a big hit on the internet, but she really didn't translate to the mainstream until her third country radio hit. That's what led to the album and concert sales. Not unlike what Alan Freed did with R&B in the 50s. I'm just entertained that SXSW has always been a festival for alternative and obscure acts, and who steals the show? A young pop singer. It's like putting Justin Bieber in Austin. But what it proves is that people just want hits. And now radio has to do what it's supposed to do and that's embrace it and bring it to the mainstream.

 

[Paul_Warren]

Rebecca Black seems like a sweet kid. It's hard to imagine she'll get rich off "Friday."

A big part of the reason radio became less adventurous in the 1980s was the rise of auditorium music testing. The Research Group and others went to group owners and individual GMs and guaranteed them top-5 in their demos, or bankable mediocrity, at the expense of a chance at brilliance.

In fairness to the researchers, it was short-sighted radio management that considered music testing a replacement for programming skill, rather than what it should have been - just one of the tools in the box.

 

[TheBigA]

In fairness to the researchers, it was short-sighted radio management that considered music testing a replacement for programming skill, rather than what it should have been - just one of the tools in the box.

No it was really the programmers and the people on the front lines. Even some major DJs. I was there. I can name the names. Maybe not the ones in Buffalo, but you'd recognize their names. They were nervous about grunge and rap. They were so swept up with the increased ratings and revenues that the hair bands and the power pop folks brought that they didn't wanna risk it. Their free concert tickets, their spiffs and other benefits. So they played another Elvis Costello song and skipped Soundgarden. Meanwhile, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam were building their fan bases among the younger audiences, the Gen Xers. Those fans were ignored by most rock radio at the time, and they started finding other ways to hear their music. They're now 35-45, our money demo, and they remember how radio ignored them 20 years ago. But these music decisions weren't being made by "management." And this was 10 years before consolidation.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Beats me. I only know what I like. Something like this.

 

[heydaybegone]

A big part of the reason radio became less adventurous in the 1980s was the rise of auditorium music testing. The Research Group and others went to group owners and individual GMs and guaranteed them top-5 in their demos, or bankable mediocrity, at the expense of a chance at brilliance.

In fairness to the researchers, it was short-sighted radio management that considered music testing a replacement for programming skill, rather than what it should have been - just one of the tools in the box.

That's pretty much it!! Those of us that were in it...won't deny it...cause we don't work there anymore!! Thanks to Paul for opening the BOX (so to speak!)

HDBG

 

[GeorgeKramer]

"It's Friday, Friday... blah, blah, blah....."

 

[topsound]

A big part of the reason radio became less adventurous in the 1980s was the rise of auditorium music testing. The Research Group and others went to group owners and individual GMs and guaranteed them top-5 in their demos, or bankable mediocrity, at the expense of a chance at brilliance.

In fairness to the researchers, it was short-sighted radio management that considered music testing a replacement for programming skill, rather than what it should have been - just one of the tools in the box.

I'm turning into GKramer today

Not all research is created equal. I'm convinced that the work we did with Broadcast Architecture in the 90s is what cemented our success at WHTT. Twice a year we tweaked the music library based on the results. Yet we still maintained the programming instinct and "predictable unpredictability" that made the station interesting.

If anything, today's smart programmers would probably say they'd like more research, not less. It makes their stations better.

 

[John C]

I'm turning into GKramer today

What, you're going to turn Rebecca Black into ANOTHER WECK thread?

 

[Paul_Warren]

Not all research is created equal. I'm convinced that the work we did with Broadcast Architecture in the 90s is what cemented our success at WHTT. Twice a year we tweaked the music library based on the results. Yet we still maintained the programming instinct and "predictable unpredictability" that made the station interesting.

If anything, today's smart programmers would probably say they'd like more research, not less. It makes their stations better.

Well, it can make stations better. If it's sorted by scores and and dumped into Selector by an intern at the order of the GM or owner, good luck with that predictable unpredictability. That happened in a lot of places.

As for Broadcast Architecture, my only exposure was in the Smooth Jazz world. They've taken the entire format down the toilet by trying to clone Chicago in other markets with little in common, where its now disappeared or become just an HD channel. (If that's not redundant.) If they brought value in other formats, good on 'em.

 

[SirRoxalot]

"Rock is dead. Long live Rock."

Haven't I heard that somewhere before?

 

[umtrr-author]

Well, all I can say is that I've finally heard the song "Friday" courtesy of my daughter and if it is not the worst song I've ever heard, it's certainly the worst one I've heard in a while. Interestingly, I found a clip from Good Morning America in which Black sang the first two lines of the National Anthem, and sans-Auto Tune, her voice is not that bad. I think she's right when she says she's neither the best nor the worst singer ever.

I don't know if Rebecca Black, or more specifically Rebecca Black's parents, will get rich off this, since they paid a "vanity record label" (I see someone's erased this term from the Wikipedia page on Black since last night) to bring this to fruition, though they kept the rights. What does iTunes pay the artist for downloads these days? It had to have some sales, since it got to #58 on the Billboard Hot 100.

But as of last night, the "official music video" on YouTube had over eighty million views. What's the most played song on radio ever, and does it have eighty million plays? If it does, did it take only two months to get there? And all but 1,000 of the the 80+ million views were from March 11 on, not from February 10 (egad, my birthday!) when the clip was first put up on YouTube.

In addition, this video has gone platinum in dislikes - over one million. If any publicity is good publicity, this clip is swimming in it. Not since the soundtrack of the film "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," which hastened the end of superstardom for the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton, has there been such a negative "phenomenon."

Does it mean the death of rock? I'm not sure, but it definitely is a message to promoters-- get your clip on the 'net and figure out how to make it go viral. Just skip all that other stuff... like broadcast media.

 

[TheBigA]

get your clip on the 'net and figure out how to make it go viral. Just skip all that other stuff... like broadcast media.

So how do you monetize a clip on YouTube?

No, you need all the other stuff, because you give it away on the net.

Justin Bieber got discovered on YouTube, but then he went on a radio tour. A broadcast radio tour.

 

[umtrr-author]

So let's follow this... because, frankly, I'd like to be wrong in my assertion above.

What I've been reading is that the big money is no longer from sales of music product, whether hard copy or digitially, but from touring and sales of merchandise. Instead of the concerts selling the records, the records sell the concerts. This seems to be the case regardless of the age or longevity of the act.

So... realistically, how important is radio and broadcast media in making a star these days? Would a station, radio or television, have given Justin Bieber a break if he hadn't gotten all those hits on YouTube? (I probably should investigate how many that is... maybe I wouldn't be so shocked about what is now over 83 million hits for "Friday," and 1.6 million "dislikes.") Would he sell out shows and truckloads of T-shirts anyway, without a single appearance over the airwaves?

Reaching back to earlier threads, what about now established artists who never get any spins on over the air stations because their music is too profane? Could we suggest that they would have brought in more bucks if their music had been played?

I suppose I have a case of "it's only the present that stinks" since I can think of examples of successes that did not initially depend on radio long before there was an Internet.

 

[TheBigA]

So... realistically, how important is radio and broadcast media in making a star these days?

Depending on the format, radio puts butts in seats. Period. Radio attracts a concentrated listenership that can be driven to doing things in larger numbers than YouTube or web. But the radio station has to work "in concert" with social media in order to be relevant. The staff of the station has to be part of the community. Once that happens, radio is a powerful tool. Country radio is doing a great job proving its value to the music business, and it's why (as RadioInk has pointed out) that country artists thank country radio at every awards show. The big rock stars don't.

 

[heydaybegone]

Country radio is doing a great job proving its value to the music business, and it's why (as RadioInk has pointed out) that country artists thank country radio at every awards show. The big rock stars don't.

A...take that another step further...they WORK TOGETHER!!! The "big" stars are always "mixing it up" with other "Stars"! Internally I'm sure there are "headliners"...but define that for me in Country music ???
They are systematically beating the "system"...for the good of all (excuse this Star Trek quote..but it rings true: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one). Country music folks! ;D

Check out the line up for WNY's "Taste of Country"....

HDBG

 

[TheBigA]

A...take that another step further...they WORK TOGETHER!!! The "big" stars are always "mixing it up" with other "Stars"! Internally I'm sure there are "headliners"...but define that for me in Country music

You're right about mixing it up. The music business has its own internship program. The veteran artists sign the newcomers to appear on shows, which makes for a more diverse package for ticket buyers, and introduces the newbies to some new fans.

The radio version is "listener appreciation shows," usually featuring new artists at a small club at a cheap price. These are artist who are building their fan base. So a fan might be willing to spend $1.07 for a ticket to see someone with only one hit who they've never seen before. If that goes well, they might come back for a real show and pay regular price. The radio station gets a "presents" and the artist gets a full house. It's a win-win situation.

The Taste of Country thing you mention is copied in just about every city, where the radio station promotes an all-day festival with a couple of big stars and a lot of new ones. It's all not unlike what Alan Freed used to do 50 years ago. If you want to see who still listens to FM radio, go to these shows. This is what I mean by putting butts in seats.

 

[landtuna]

One of the members of this board is nicknamed "Video Killed the Radio Star" and IMHO that is exactly what happened. Oh, it happened before, like with the Beatles and their weird hair but fortunately they had the talent to continue making records (which didn't all sound the same) and built their popularity on talent, not how they dressed or their latest hair style. The same cannot be said for people like Lady GaGa or Justin Beiber. They are nothing more than pop icons and will blow away with the winds of teen change never to be heard from again much the same as Fabian did so many years ago.

The fact that more than a few people are still listening to songs recorded 60 years ago is not an accident. They were relevant. They were original (most of the time). The really talented musicians among them quit early bands and went on to create super groups which had a completely different sound than the original. There was much innovation and many flavors of Rock, unlike most other genres.

I can still hear my parents saying "you should listen to music in a proper setting being played by professional musicians" instead of the tinny AM radio I had. But it was good enough for me. Then came FM and the music got much better. It was good enough for me. Then came the music video's and the video-based performers. It was good enough for my kids. Now all the kids listen to highly compressed autotuned music with lousy ear buds. It is good enough for them.

It is interesting how many times my 20-somethings hear one of my classic rock songs and want a copy. One of them listens to KRTH a fair amount of the time she is online but it is still all about the video's. It is virtually impossible to sell classic rock to a person who has grown up on videos.

The future doesn't look good for a return to what we once called Rock music. And unfortunately music radio seems to be a follower and not a leader and is quickly becoming irrelevant to the younger set.