Top chr/pop add this week ( 1/25/07 )

[spongebag7890]

Frankly, very few people in radio care about whether an artist is genuine or not. There are some very talented artists that release great songs.. but to the average listener, they don't click, and they end up not being hits. There are some very talentless artists that you hear all over the radio. Talent isn't for us to judge, that's the record label's job. Our job is to recognize if a release can make an impact and help our case out as a station. If a song's testing well and is a hit, we're gonna play it. If it's not testing well, and it's not a hit, it's not gonna get airplay. Everyone has their own opinions; but the end result is.. what will work? what will the listeners like? what will attract the average listener that has a few choices in the market to stop on my station instead of the competition?

Exactly. And the CHR chart consists of (whether you like it or not) rhythmic, pop-rock whiny bands I can't stand (Hinder, All American Rejects, and Nickelback), and pop-emo bands (FOB, P!ATD, GCH). Not much else besides that other than the occassional Hot AC crossover. As long as it fits in there it'll be a good hit.

 

[spongebag7890]

Still, two songs doesn't judge an album, let alone the band. And "The Queen & I" is a fun dance song about a hangover.

And since when did pure product not work on CHR?

Forgive Mr. SoulCrusher. He has issues with punk and emo bands, and makes sweeping generalizations about them, and then loves to beat a dead horse about it.

Fall Out Boy, Panic! At The Disco and Gym Class Heroes = NOT punk and emo. Let me just make that perfectly clear. Punk and emo bands do not have little girls in pink skirts making up the majority of their fanbase, and they certainly don't go whoring themselves on teenybopper shows like FOB is on the Noggin network this coming weekend. They also don't go around dating little pop tarts either, like Pete Wentz has with that trollop Ashlee Simpson. Finally, they don't write songs that sound like Justin Timberlake B-Sides.

Punk = Sex Pistols, The Exploited, Black Flag, Bad Religion, Pennywise, etc.
Emo = Rites Of Spring, Embrace, Jawbreaker, Thrice, Thursday, etc.
MTV Pop = Fall Out Boy, Panic! At The Disco, Good Charlotte, Simple Plan, All American Rejects, etc.

The MTV Pop bands really only care about money and fame. And that's fine - they can go off and do their thing. Just don't mix them up with bands that favor artistic expression over sales figures and groupies.

"Punk and emo bands do not have little girls in pink skirts making up the majority of their fanbase, and they certainly don't go whoring themselves on teenybopper shows like FOB is on the Noggin network this coming weekend."

"MTV Pop = Fall Out Boy, Panic! At The Disco, Good Charlotte, Simple Plan, All American Rejects, etc."

Teenybopper females are the core audience of CHR. That's why those "MTV Pop" bands chart so well.

 

[SoulCrusher]

The MTV Pop bands really only care about money and fame. And that's fine - they can go off and do their thing. Just don't mix them up with bands that favor artistic expression over sales figures and groupies.

How's the view from your high horse?

People who buy Fall Out Boy and Panic! at the Disco also buy Something Corporate, Taking Back Sunday, and Thursday. Elitists like yourself will not buy an album because the band is "too popular," but the rest of the world WILL buy an album because they like the music. Where do you think Fall Out Boy's new album will place on the Album chart after it's debut? Probably #1, definitely in the Top 10.... and that's not because they "favor sales figures and groupies." That's because they write songs that people want to hear, not because they only care about sales numbers.

We get it. You don't like Emo. Re-writing that in 5000 different ways doesn't change the fact that you post the same thing over and over.

For the record, I'm not an elitist. Among my top albums from this past year are discs by Tool, Gnarls Barkley, Underoath and Blue October, all of which have moved a pretty high amount of units.

Fall Out Boy and Panic! At The Disco are the new boy bands. Their top concerns are making sure they look like little heartthrobs when they go on TV and writing songs, most definitely in that order. What they are pushing is a triumph of style over substance. Yes, the bands write catchy songs, but commercial jingles are catchy as well - that's nothing special as far as I'm concerned. For every minute they spend on the creative process of their songs, they spend another 10 being total publicity whores, licensing their songs out to corporations, appearing on some corny teen melodrama, hooking up with some flavor of the month actress, etc. And their songs are every bit as whiny and self-obsessed as the shows on the CW Network that their fans eat up. Mark my words: A few years from now, the tastes of a good part of the core audiences for these bands will change to something less childish, some of the members of FOB and PATD will start balding or put on some weight, some may wind up getting married, and you know what will happen? That's right: Sales will fall, and the bands will inevitably get dropped. Their music is just too slick, commercial and inconsequential to stay in favor for very long - it won't hold up over time. The same held true for the stylistic predecessors of these bands, so I don't see why this would be any different.

I'll give these bands a chance if they decide to take chances themselves, like all good bands have done. Yeah - fat chance that will happen.

 

[jcolletta275]

And there you go. That's what points you out as an elitist.

Trust me, I agree with you on a certain level. Personally, I don't like the style-over-substance approach either. However, you also have to look at other genres where this is being done; most notably hip-hop, R&B and reggae (I'll never forget 2003... three reggae songs on the chart at the same time with the exact same sample loop as the basis for the track). As bad as that can be, however, some of those songs really stand out and have just the right amount of creativity to stick with you. Is that fluff? Yes, but it's good fluff. It's the bad fluff I'm opposed to (like this new Gym Class Heroes song).

 

[Beejus]

And there you go. That's what points you out as an elitist.

Damn.. you beat me to it.

SoulCrusher, you ARE an elitist. You don't listen to music because of name alone. That makes you an elitist. You think you are better because you slam FOB, P!ATD and more. If you weren't an elitist... you'd listen to the music and admit you do not like it because it does not suit your tastes... but slamming them just because they are popular DOES make you elitist.

 

[spongebag7890]

The MTV Pop bands really only care about money and fame. And that's fine - they can go off and do their thing. Just don't mix them up with bands that favor artistic expression over sales figures and groupies.

How's the view from your high horse?

People who buy Fall Out Boy and Panic! at the Disco also buy Something Corporate, Taking Back Sunday, and Thursday. Elitists like yourself will not buy an album because the band is "too popular," but the rest of the world WILL buy an album because they like the music. Where do you think Fall Out Boy's new album will place on the Album chart after it's debut? Probably #1, definitely in the Top 10.... and that's not because they "favor sales figures and groupies." That's because they write songs that people want to hear, not because they only care about sales numbers.

We get it. You don't like Emo. Re-writing that in 5000 different ways doesn't change the fact that you post the same thing over and over.

For the record, I'm not an elitist. Among my top albums from this past year are discs by Tool, Gnarls Barkley, Underoath and Blue October, all of which have moved a pretty high amount of units.

Fall Out Boy and Panic! At The Disco are the new boy bands. Their top concerns are making sure they look like little heartthrobs when they go on TV and writing songs, most definitely in that order. What they are pushing is a triumph of style over substance. Yes, the bands write catchy songs, but commercial jingles are catchy as well - that's nothing special as far as I'm concerned. For every minute they spend on the creative process of their songs, they spend another 10 being total publicity whores, licensing their songs out to corporations, appearing on some corny teen melodrama, hooking up with some flavor of the month actress, etc. And their songs are every bit as whiny and self-obsessed as the shows on the CW Network that their fans eat up. Mark my words: A few years from now, the tastes of a good part of the core audiences for these bands will change to something less childish, some of the members of FOB and PATD will start balding or put on some weight, some may wind up getting married, and you know what will happen? That's right: Sales will fall, and the bands will inevitably get dropped. Their music is just too slick, commercial and inconsequential to stay in favor for very long - it won't hold up over time. The same held true for the stylistic predecessors of these bands, so I don't see why this would be any different.

I'll give these bands a chance if they decide to take chances themselves, like all good bands have done. Yeah - fat chance that will happen.

Ever heard of Green Day? The Backstreet Boys? Papa Roach? Weezer? All of these commercial bands from the 90s still sell millions. So your "Sales will fall, and the bands will inevitably get dropped. Their music is just too slick, commercial and inconsequential to stay in favor for very long - it won't hold up over time." theory is false. And once again, commercial jingles is what makes CHR. If you hate it that much try Alternative or Active Rock.

 

[Beejus]

If you hate it that much try Alternative or Active Rock.

Please... PLEASE don't open that pandora's box. He's just as bad on the Alternative board moaning about the same thing.

 

[SoulCrusher]

Ever heard of Green Day? The Backstreet Boys? Papa Roach? Weezer? All of these commercial bands from the 90s still sell millions. So your "Sales will fall, and the bands will inevitably get dropped. Their music is just too slick, commercial and inconsequential to stay in favor for very long - it won't hold up over time." theory is false. And once again, commercial jingles is what makes CHR. If you hate it that much try Alternative or Active Rock.

The Backstreet Boys aren't nearly as popular as they used to be - at least they tried to evolve on their last album, which they deserve credit for. Weezer scored big because of two very simple songs that resonated with the masses - "Beverly Hills" and "Perfect Situation". The former in particular was big because it glorified everything that the youth of America loves today, as typified by shows like The OC and Laguna Beach. I'm sure both acts alienated their old fans with their changes in direction (do you actually think someone who liked Pinkerton would enjoy "Beverly Hills"?), and from all accounts Weezer is finished for the time being.

Green Day and Papa Roach regained their popularity by tying themselves to the burgeoning "pretty boys wearing eyeliner" movement that is so prevalent in Rock today. Both bands also wrote a couple of pretty ballads to court the teenage female audience as well. Green Day also went after President Bush big time on their album, which won them lots of publicity. Bush is really an easy target, and they did it in such an ambiguous way that I'm sure many die hard Republican soccer moms routinely jam to it in their SUVs.

If there's a point I'm trying to make here, it's this: While I'm all for evolution when it comes to music, these acts took the easy road to prolong their success. Green Day dumbed themselves down (which is saying something), Papa Roach ditched the rap-rock (guaranteed that if it were still popular, they would still be playing it), and Weezer gave up the soul searching for pop pablum.

But none of that really matters in the end, because CHR is the domain of teen girls anyway. They will listen to what the PDs and MTV tell them is cool, regardless of what it is.

And there you go. That's what points you out as an elitist.

Damn.. you beat me to it.

SoulCrusher, you ARE an elitist. You don't listen to music because of name alone. That makes you an elitist. You think you are better because you slam FOB, P!ATD and more. If you weren't an elitist... you'd listen to the music and admit you do not like it because it does not suit your tastes... but slamming them just because they are popular DOES make you elitist.

I try to look at music from a critical perspective, so perhaps I come off as an elitist by doing that. FOB and P!ATD are basically just pop acts - nothing more, nothing less. They're not reinventing the wheel or even coming up with a new way to roll it. But they sure do write some catchy songs and they're all easy on the eyes (speaking for the little girls). Yes, these bands have some male fans, but you can't dispute that the breakdown of their audience is about 80% female, 20% male. I dislike them for the same reason I dislike bands like Nickelback and Hinder - because they're generic, bland, and just plain dumb.

 

[DaytonRadio]

6) RELIENT K - Must Have Done Something Right

I wasn't crazy about this one at first listen but its growing on me... Could be at least top 20

 

[p_herring]

Ever heard of Green Day? The Backstreet Boys? Papa Roach? Weezer? All of these commercial bands from the 90s still sell millions. So your "Sales will fall, and the bands will inevitably get dropped. Their music is just too slick, commercial and inconsequential to stay in favor for very long - it won't hold up over time." theory is false. And once again, commercial jingles is what makes CHR. If you hate it that much try Alternative or Active Rock.

The Backstreet Boys aren't nearly as popular as they used to be - at least they tried to evolve on their last album, which they deserve credit for. Weezer scored big because of two very simple songs that resonated with the masses - "Beverly Hills" and "Perfect Situation". The former in particular was big because it glorified everything that the youth of America loves today, as typified by shows like The OC and Laguna Beach. I'm sure both acts alienated their old fans with their changes in direction (do you actually think someone who liked Pinkerton would enjoy "Beverly Hills"?), and from all accounts Weezer is finished for the time being.

Green Day and Papa Roach regained their popularity by tying themselves to the burgeoning "pretty boys wearing eyeliner" movement that is so prevalent in Rock today. Both bands also wrote a couple of pretty ballads to court the teenage female audience as well. Green Day also went after President Bush big time on their album, which won them lots of publicity. Bush is really an easy target, and they did it in such an ambiguous way that I'm sure many die hard Republican soccer moms routinely jam to it in their SUVs.

If there's a point I'm trying to make here, it's this: While I'm all for evolution when it comes to music, these acts took the easy road to prolong their success. Green Day dumbed themselves down (which is saying something), Papa Roach ditched the rap-rock (guaranteed that if it were still popular, they would still be playing it), and Weezer gave up the soul searching for pop pablum.

But none of that really matters in the end, because CHR is the domain of teen girls anyway. They will listen to what the PDs and MTV tell them is cool, regardless of what it is.

And there you go. That's what points you out as an elitist.

Damn.. you beat me to it.

SoulCrusher, you ARE an elitist. You don't listen to music because of name alone. That makes you an elitist. You think you are better because you slam FOB, P!ATD and more. If you weren't an elitist... you'd listen to the music and admit you do not like it because it does not suit your tastes... but slamming them just because they are popular DOES make you elitist.

I try to look at music from a critical perspective, so perhaps I come off as an elitist by doing that. FOB and P!ATD are basically just pop acts - nothing more, nothing less. They're not reinventing the wheel or even coming up with a new way to roll it. But they sure do write some catchy songs and they're all easy on the eyes (speaking for the little girls). Yes, these bands have some male fans, but you can't dispute that the breakdown of their audience is about 80% female, 20% male. I dislike them for the same reason I dislike bands like Nickelback and Hinder - because they're generic, bland, and just plain dumb.

Wrong on several accounts.

Green Day "dumbing themselves down" and going after an "easy target"? Pardon me if speaking out against one of the worst administrations in this countries history (I know, I know, it's just my opinion) is "dumbing yourself down." Sure Bush is an easy target, doesn't mean he's not a worthy one. And, if you ever bothered to listen to the entire album, most of the record deals with the whole idea of feeling out-of-place and disenfranchised in modern times, only one or two songs deal with actual anti-Bush ideals ("American Idiot" and "Holiday" which were ironically two of the biggest hits from the CD). Green Day has ALWAYS been smooth and poppy, even going back to their early Lookout releases. To say that they took the easy route is just plain ignorant. The band has been making growths ever since Dookie, with the harder-edged Insomniac, the pop-tinged Nimrod and the folky-punk acoustic-flavored Warning.

You obsessively complain about Fall Out Boy and Panic! At The Disco being "not punk, not emo." In reality, who the hell cares. To say these bands put style over substance is just unfair. Fall Out Boy STILL puts on a very similar show, albeit with slightly more theatrics since they are playing larger venues. Another newsflash for you is that none of these bands choose to be in magazines like Teen Bop or Tiger Beat. Those publications purchase the photos online and then use quotes from other articles to give the kiddies something to hang up on their lockers. Then again, who really cares in the grand scheme of things? If it sounds good to your ears, listen to it, if it doesn't, don't. It's too much of a hassle/waste of time to worry about credibility these days because, at the end of the day, everyone's selling out to make a buck. That's right, EVERYONE who records an album, writes a song, forms a band, picks up a guitar, is trying to be HEARD. By as many people as possible. The fact that we're STILL arguing about this garbage in 2007 proves that we never learn anything over time.

 

[SoulCrusher]

Wrong on several accounts.

Green Day "dumbing themselves down" and going after an "easy target"? Pardon me if speaking out against one of the worst administrations in this countries history (I know, I know, it's just my opinion) is "dumbing yourself down." Sure Bush is an easy target, doesn't mean he's not a worthy one. And, if you ever bothered to listen to the entire album, most of the record deals with the whole idea of feeling out-of-place and disenfranchised in modern times, only one or two songs deal with actual anti-Bush ideals ("American Idiot" and "Holiday" which were ironically two of the biggest hits from the CD). Green Day has ALWAYS been smooth and poppy, even going back to their early Lookout releases. To say that they took the easy route is just plain ignorant. The band has been making growths ever since Dookie, with the harder-edged Insomniac, the pop-tinged Nimrod and the folky-punk acoustic-flavored Warning.

You obsessively complain about Fall Out Boy and Panic! At The Disco being "not punk, not emo." In reality, who the hell cares. To say these bands put style over substance is just unfair. Fall Out Boy STILL puts on a very similar show, albeit with slightly more theatrics since they are playing larger venues. Another newsflash for you is that none of these bands choose to be in magazines like Teen Bop or Tiger Beat. Those publications purchase the photos online and then use quotes from other articles to give the kiddies something to hang up on their lockers. Then again, who really cares in the grand scheme of things? If it sounds good to your ears, listen to it, if it doesn't, don't. It's too much of a hassle/waste of time to worry about credibility these days because, at the end of the day, everyone's selling out to make a buck. That's right, EVERYONE who records an album, writes a song, forms a band, picks up a guitar, is trying to be HEARD. By as many people as possible. The fact that we're STILL arguing about this garbage in 2007 proves that we never learn anything over time.

Trust me, I don't like Bush either. I was just pointing out that the band went after an easy target in a way that would earn them lots of publicity, and they went about it in a rather toothless way. Leave it to artists nearly twice the age of the members of Green Day to deliver a far more scathing indictment of the Bush Administration (Neil Young, Rolling Stones). That said, I respect the ambition of Green Day for putting out a concept album of sorts, a rarity in the bathroom-humor and puppy-love-obsessed realm of pop-punk. But apparently a lot of very cringe-worthy balladry worthy of Michael Bolton came out with it as well.

On the FOB/P!ATD issue, I only brought up genre classification because it was posed by another poster, Beejus, if I'm not mistaken. Opinions may differ on these bands, but from what I can see they're very commercial pop acts with preening pretty boys as members who seem to be more concerned with looking cute for the camera than writing songs. And while you're right that the bands do not choose to be on the cover of Tiger Beat and Teen Bop, I don't think anyone poked and prodded the members of FOB to appear on cheesy teen network The N (which, for the record, is filled with just as many hokey melodramas as MTV) with stars from one of their crap shows to chat and promote their album. That's a very lame corporate whore move, and certainly not a good idea for anyone seeking longevity in this business. Tool and Radiohead have been around for 13 years and are going as strong as ever - FOB and P!ATD will be lucky to last half as long at the rate they're going. If they want any respect from the critics, they should make a greater effort to shake their teen idol images.

On the last paragraph about bands trying to be heard by as many people as possible, refer to Tool and Radiohead. Both bands may have several Platinum albums, but they certainly did not go about it the easy way. They're not writing 3 minute songs about wanting to party and make love with the girl next to you and they're not trying so hard to look sexy in their videos. Come to think of it, the members of Tool seldom ever appear in any of their videos. And they're also not whoring themselves out to big corporations by appearing in ads or licensing their music out. Radiohead had one big pop hit, but gradually became more complex and artsy with every album that followed. There's also Hardcore acts like Sick Of It All that have been at it for 20 years, and despite not being commercial or marketable, they still managed to land a major label deal (for about 2 or 3 releases) and have left a major influence on music. How about Indie acts like Pavement who held onto their DIY aesthetics for years (in terms of production) and managed a major cult following (and one big Modern Rock hit, "Cut Your Hair") despite a general lo-fi sound, quirky subject matter and even quirkier song titles? You are right about the majority of acts seeking big time success and being willing to compromise themselves in order to sell more albums, but there are plenty of bands that didn't seek success - success found them.

 

[p_herring]

Wrong on several accounts.

Green Day "dumbing themselves down" and going after an "easy target"? Pardon me if speaking out against one of the worst administrations in this countries history (I know, I know, it's just my opinion) is "dumbing yourself down." Sure Bush is an easy target, doesn't mean he's not a worthy one. And, if you ever bothered to listen to the entire album, most of the record deals with the whole idea of feeling out-of-place and disenfranchised in modern times, only one or two songs deal with actual anti-Bush ideals ("American Idiot" and "Holiday" which were ironically two of the biggest hits from the CD). Green Day has ALWAYS been smooth and poppy, even going back to their early Lookout releases. To say that they took the easy route is just plain ignorant. The band has been making growths ever since Dookie, with the harder-edged Insomniac, the pop-tinged Nimrod and the folky-punk acoustic-flavored Warning.

You obsessively complain about Fall Out Boy and Panic! At The Disco being "not punk, not emo." In reality, who the hell cares. To say these bands put style over substance is just unfair. Fall Out Boy STILL puts on a very similar show, albeit with slightly more theatrics since they are playing larger venues. Another newsflash for you is that none of these bands choose to be in magazines like Teen Bop or Tiger Beat. Those publications purchase the photos online and then use quotes from other articles to give the kiddies something to hang up on their lockers. Then again, who really cares in the grand scheme of things? If it sounds good to your ears, listen to it, if it doesn't, don't. It's too much of a hassle/waste of time to worry about credibility these days because, at the end of the day, everyone's selling out to make a buck. That's right, EVERYONE who records an album, writes a song, forms a band, picks up a guitar, is trying to be HEARD. By as many people as possible. The fact that we're STILL arguing about this garbage in 2007 proves that we never learn anything over time.

Trust me, I don't like Bush either. I was just pointing out that the band went after an easy target in a way that would earn them lots of publicity, and they went about it in a rather toothless way. Leave it to artists nearly twice the age of the members of Green Day to deliver a far more scathing indictment of the Bush Administration (Neil Young, Rolling Stones). That said, I respect the ambition of Green Day for putting out a concept album of sorts, a rarity in the bathroom-humor and puppy-love-obsessed realm of pop-punk. But apparently a lot of very cringe-worthy balladry worthy of Michael Bolton came out with it as well.

On the FOB/P!ATD issue, I only brought up genre classification because it was posed by another poster, Beejus, if I'm not mistaken. Opinions may differ on these bands, but from what I can see they're very commercial pop acts with preening pretty boys as members who seem to be more concerned with looking cute for the camera than writing songs. And while you're right that the bands do not choose to be on the cover of Tiger Beat and Teen Bop, I don't think anyone poked and prodded the members of FOB to appear on cheesy teen network The N (which, for the record, is filled with just as many hokey melodramas as MTV) with stars from one of their crap shows to chat and promote their album. That's a very lame corporate whore move, and certainly not a good idea for anyone seeking longevity in this business. Tool and Radiohead have been around for 13 years and are going as strong as ever - FOB and P!ATD will be lucky to last half as long at the rate they're going. If they want any respect from the critics, they should make a greater effort to shake their teen idol images.

On the last paragraph about bands trying to be heard by as many people as possible, refer to Tool and Radiohead. Both bands may have several Platinum albums, but they certainly did not go about it the easy way. They're not writing 3 minute songs about wanting to party and make love with the girl next to you and they're not trying so hard to look sexy in their videos. Come to think of it, the members of Tool seldom ever appear in any of their videos. And they're also not whoring themselves out to big corporations by appearing in ads or licensing their music out. Radiohead had one big pop hit, but gradually became more complex and artsy with every album that followed. There's also Hardcore acts like Sick Of It All that have been at it for 20 years, and despite not being commercial or marketable, they still managed to land a major label deal (for about 2 or 3 releases) and have left a major influence on music. How about Indie acts like Pavement who held onto their DIY aesthetics for years (in terms of production) and managed a major cult following (and one big Modern Rock hit, "Cut Your Hair") despite a general lo-fi sound, quirky subject matter and even quirkier song titles? You are right about the majority of acts seeking big time success and being willing to compromise themselves in order to sell more albums, but there are plenty of bands that didn't seek success - success found them.

The Radiohead and Tool argument is a very fair one. Both great bands and both are able to maintain artistic integrity while achieving massive commercial success (no one could probably name a less commercially accessible band that can sell out arenas like those too do). Maybe FOB and P!ATD do "whore" themselves out a bit, but they reach out to their audiences. They don't spit on their fans like Tool does (metaphorically speaking). To me, that says a lot about their character and their drive. So, most of their fans watch the pre-teen drivel that the N network caters to, that's where they want to be. They're not stupid. Tool bows down to the corporate media at times to (cover of SPIN magazine back in 2001 anyone?) Thom Yorke and Radiohead have also appeared on several "trendy" publications (again with Spin, Rolling Stone, etc.) Both bands still seek where their audience is, even though they will still claim that they "only make music for themselves".