TheMusicBizTruth

Feb 27, 2006

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 3, Issue 1

Fuck You, Pay Me

By "The Truth"

February 26, 2006

A lot has been written about "payola" (the illegal practice of record companies paying radio stations to play their artists' songs more than others) in recent months. Even Dateline NBC has profiled the recent crackdown on bribery in the radio business. We have all been taught in the music business that payola = bad. However, the practice has been used since the inception of radio and I don't see it ever really stopping. Reading so much about it lately has caused me to ponder its supposedly negative repercussions. Why is it that payola is so evil? Has it really ruined the record industry?

In many of the recent writeups on the subject, Sony Records has been singled out (it should be stated that SonyBMG settled a lawsuit on this matter after evidence was presented and proven). Artists such as Jennifer Lopez and Celine Dion have been named as just a couple of the mainstream performers embroiled in this mess. It is alleged that monetary rewards were distributed to radio stations across the country if and when they agreed to give top rotation to La Lopez and Mrs. Angelil. Is this true? I have no idea (although court papers do say that it is). Do Jennifer Lopez and Celine Dion receive a lot of radio play? Yes. Was the only reason their songs were played so often because the program directors were paid kickbacks to play them? I have no idea. What I do know however is that both of those artists have large fanbases. Jennifer Lopez was a popular (I didn't say talented) actress before she recorded her debut album "On The Six". Hoardes of young girls admired her good looks and seemingly sweet persona and probably would've bought anything she released. Think about it. If a movie like "The Wedding Planner" could open up at #1 in the box office, anything can happen. So are Jennifer Lopez' albums only successes because of payola? I don't think so.

Those fighting the practice of payola are using the defense that payola gives an unfair advantage to some artists. Playing their songs morning, noon, and night, will undoubtedly make them sell more than lesser-known artists. I'd like to know how they came to this conclusion in the first place. Music is subjective meaning one person can hate a song while another loves it. Therefore, playing something over and over and over again on the radio still won't cause everyone to love it. True, it gives the song exposure. But does exposure automatically mean hits? No. Look at an artist like Rihanna. Def Jam put a lot of promotion behind her last year in order to build up her debut album "Music of the Sun". Her lead single, "Pon De Replay" was played on Urban stations and Top 40 practically every five minutes. I by no means am saying Def Jam bribed anyone for airplay (and I have never even heard such a thing) , I am just trying to prove that excessive radio play does not always equal big sales. Rihanna's album subsequently tanked.

And on the other hand, if Eliot Spitzer and his cronies are using Jennifer Lopez' success as an example that payola works, than they are barking up the wrong tree. True, Jennifer Lopez' songs may suck. And true, her songs get played a lot regardless of them sucking or not. But the bulk of her sales are not from those who have heard her song SO much on radio that they just had to go out to the record store to buy it. In the same vein, I do not like Celine Dion or Jennifer Lopez. I know this already. So you can play one of their songs for me as much as you like. I am still not going to wander into The Virgin Megastore like a zombie repeating "give me Jennifer...give me Celine". It is J.Lo's young female fans running to the Best Buys and the Sam Goodys of the world to snatch it up. They are the same youngsters trolling internet message boards gathering up the fan club troops to flood radio stations with requests for her latest single. Half the time the radio stations are just playing the song because their listeners want to hear it. Then again, other new artists who are just like Jennifer Lopez have tried to breakthrough in the past few years and just didn't cut it. Is this just because Mrs. Anthony's record label had the money to buy her airplay and other upstart artists' labels didn't? Could be, but what's so out of the ordinary about that?

Those with money always have had more of an "in" in this world. A regular Joe may not be able to score courtside seats to a Nets game (notice I didn't say Knicks because not even a regular Joe would want those) but someone with real money probably could. A regular Joe may not be able to gain access to an exclusive V.I.P. nightclub on its opening night but someone with real money probably could. Is this fair? I guess not but this world is run by money. If its taken payola to make you realize that then you're an idiot. Whoever ends up finding those tickets for the rich guy (a broker), or unbuckling the red velvet rope outside the club (bouncer) is getting something in return. They are in charge of an in-demand service and they can be bought. Much like Program Directors supposedly can. Again, is it fair? Not really but life is not always fair. Get over it.

Don't get it twisted. I understand that payola is illegal and that is why Eliot Spitzer focused on his crackdown. My question is aimed at the reason its illegal in the first place. What is so wrong with payola? People are not forced to listen to radio in the first place. In the age of the iPod, I believe that whatever's promoted on the iTunes music store homepage has more of a chance of influencing people to buy a song than payola does. So what's next then? Will too much promotion be deemed illegal? Is it unfair if one company has the money to buy more ad space than others? Not really. Because in the long run the artist who signs to a major label is guaranteed more ad space and more radio play but they will make less money than an artist who goes at it independently. They may not get the front cover of Rolling Stone and Vibe Magazine but they do get more money to line their pockets with. There's an upside and a downside to it all. It's up to you to decide what road you want to take and I don't think it's necessary to attack the bigger cars on the road when you travel. Just do you, don't let the big dogs get you down, and work it out.

# # #

Posted at 09:20 am by MusicBizTruth
Comments (2) Permalink

Nov 30, 2005

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 2, Issue 5

Stay In Your Lane

By "The Truth"

November 30, 2005

Creative Control. Artistic expression. Musical experimentation. There are many things that can cause an already established artist to record an album that goes off the beaten path of their typical sound and/or genre. A famous rock artist decides they want to do a techno album, an R&B sweetheart wants to do a country LP, or a Christian artist wants to release a heavy-metal offering. If you were said artist's A&R rep or labelhead, what would you think upon hearing this? What do you do? Now how about if you were one of said artist's #1 fans? Are you excited? Intrigued? Or annoyed? It's a funny thing these explorations that many artists go through from time to time because it usually causes some form of mayhem. The artist thinks they are doing the right thing by growing and trying new things but that's not always the reaction they receive. Either the label is furious and refuses to release the album the artist has submitted, or it is released and critics and fans alike are unmoved. However there is a very interesting element to this backlash that I want to bring forth in this installment of "The Music Biz Truth" and that is hypocrisy.

For years fans have cried and complained that the big bad major labels do not care about artistic growth. Popular arguments include the fact that all major labels care about is money (big surprise) and what's fresh and new (again, big surprise) and therefore do not allow an artist to truly develop anymore like they used to in the 50s. This is all very true. It is very rare that an artist will be given the time to sit around on a label for a decade or more releasing album after album without an initial boom or platinum LP out the box.

The old formula used to look something like this:

1. Label guy hears about a hot new talent and either goes to see them perform in a small club or talent show or invites them into the office to showcase their abilities.

2. Upon hearing this ingénue "do their thing", they are signed on the spot, handed an agreement (which may or may not be fair) and signed, sealed, and delivered that very day.

3. A single is released and may not do so well.

4. Label pays for artist to go on tour and nurture their craft.

5. Label decides the artist should release a different kind of track which could reach a wider audience.

6. If the next single still doesn't hit it big, the label may give the artist a new name, or put them in a group, or let them release a song they personally wrote, or a plethora of other things just so that they could find somewhere for them to "get in where they fit in".

7. So on and so forth…

But nowadays, it looks more like this:

1. Label guy/gal avidly reads the radio reports and sends proposal to any indie unsigned talent making noise across the nation.

2. If deal is reached, artist is signed and hands over the single that has been getting said buzz so that it can be repackaged and re-released through major distribution.

3. If the single doesn't explode like the label thought it would, they either opt out of signing a full length recording agreement with the artist, or they give them such a small budget for their full-length album that it subsequently bombs and the artist's attorney is sent a termination agreement to review.

Or sometimes, it looks like this:

1. Label guy/gal avidly reads the radio reports and sends proposal to any indie unsigned talent making noise across the nation.

2. If deal is reached, artist is signed and hands over the single that has been getting said buzz so that it can be repackaged and re-released through major distribution.

3. The single explodes and label exercises their option with the artist requesting that a full-length album be recorded and delivered ASAP.

4. The artist submits an album that doesn't really sound like the successful single.

5. Label tells them to go back to the lab.

6. Artist says they don't want to and want to instead go in a different direction.

7. Label shelves the product until artist begs to be let out of their agreement with a company who doesn't truly "believe in them".

Granted, things are different now. The climate has changed thanks to the age of the internet and the digital download. Labels are not given as much time to wait around and see if they can make an already signed artist work another way because they are too busy looking for the "next big thing". Personally, I don't agree with this tactic. I think it sucks for the artist and it sucks for the state of music in America and I'm sure many of you agree with me. But before you go getting all "music industry execs are the devil" on me, let's discuss another side to this story. Let's discuss those aforementioned artists who want to explore new territories with their newfound love of techno, or country, or heavy metal. Let's discuss how you would react if you were those artists' labels, and if in fact you would be delighted to release their new experimental album, or instead frustrated and upset that they just won't give you what you want. It's all relative. The labels don't want to take a chance but then again you as the fan or music lover don't want to buy that new "different" album anyway. So then is the label wrong to refuse to release it in the first place? Or are they being unfair to the artist who just wants to flex their creative muscle and keep it fresh and new by going in another direction? After all, isn't that what the labels want? If they kept releasing the same kinds of records over and over, wouldn't we all eventually get bored? Or would the public accept the fact that this artist just happens to be so good at what he or she does that we don't ever want them to do something different? I know there are a lot of questions to tackle at one time. I just wanted to get them all out there in a stream of consciousness so that you can see how much really goes into these very difficult decisions. Artists don't want to be put in a box where they feel as if they can't breathe. They want to know that label execs and fans alike are both behind them 100% no matter what road they want to travel. But labels want that winning formula. They want "Thriller 2" from Michael and "Purple Rain 2" from Prince.

In order for me to fully illustrate my point though, I offer up some recent examples to you to think about.

1. FIONA APPLE. Apparently Fiona wanted to do something a little more off-kilter than her usual fare and employed Jon Brion to give her an odd Tin Pan Alley feel on her latest effort "Extraordinary Machine". This in turn caused Sony to shelve the project for quite some time until she rearranged it a little under the supervision of new executive producer Mike Elizondo. The album was finally released this year to mixed reviews. So did it work out for Fiona in the end to release this experimental work? Or did Sony prove their point that it wasn't really worthy in the first place? Well with an artist like Fiona, just getting her vision out there is all that matters. She is proud of the final product and is currently touring and performing the work in front of sold out crowds. So I guess in the end, her fans still love her and accept her current album as creative and cool.

2. QUEEN LATIFAH. After years of releasing rap albums, the Queen decided to show the world that not only could she rap AND act, but she could sing too. Queen's singing ability was already known to her fans and viewers of some of her films. She sang jazz/blues in the movies "Living Out Loud" and "Chicago" and regularly spoke of her love for jazz and blues standards, and how she dreamt of recording an album like that in the future. Last year, Interscope Records allowed Latifah to release "The Dana Owens Album" thus helping her to realize that dream. So did it work out for Dana Owens in the end? "The Dana Owens Album" was well received and her performances around the globe promoting the album on awards shows, talk shows, and on tour were very well received. I've even heard talk of her "bringing the house down" during her shows with Erykah Badu and Jill Scott over the summer (two women who have been known as talented songbirds way longer than her).

3. MADONNA. Ah, the queen of re-invention. Madonna has been testing the waters of pop ("Borderline", et al.), rock ("Act of Contrition"), electronica ("Bedtime Stories"), techno ("Ray of Light"), burlesque ("Hanky Panky"), and political activism ("American Life") for the last twenty years. Now just when you think she'd pick one genre and settle, she's decided to release the electronic disco opus, "Confessions on a Dance Floor". Did it work? Sure, there are naysayers but there always are wherever Madonna's involved. However, the album did debut at #1 and received many rave reviews so…

OK, so most of the examples I used have turned out in the artists' favor in the end, but there are plenty that don't work out. My point was to expose the paradox that is the relationship between labels, artists, fans, and critics. Everyone wants what they can't have just so that they will have something to complain about.

Granted, there is a difference between what's blatantly bad and what's just cool and different but who should be in charge of deciding what's what? Shall we as the consumers and critics make that judgment? Or shall the labels act as gatekeepers and try to prevent that product from reaching the store shelves in the first place? If you are going to pan it regardless, aren't they doing you a favor rather than cruelly stifling your favorite artists from expressing their newfound interests? Think about it. Discuss with some executive friends and fellow artists and most importantly, work it out.

# # #

Posted at 09:08 am by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Sep 7, 2005

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 2, Issue 4

Empty-V?

By "The Truth"

September 7, 2005

So another MTV Music Video Awards has come and gone. Did you watch? Were you entertained? Were you disappointed? Round-ups have made the rounds in newspapers and on entertainment TV shows. Well now I have something to say about it all (big surprise).

I'm not going to discuss Do Wah Diddy. Not that I don't have an opinion about his hosting skills (or lack thereof) but I think that has been the main focus of many reviews that have come out and I want to discuss a different area: the music. I know, shocking, isn't it? I actually want to discuss the music performed, awarded, and snubbed at this year's MTV Video Music Awards.

Personally, I found the awards to be pretty entertaining. They were eons better than last year's televised train wreck but still miles away from the shows of the past (the ones actually performed on ONE stage in a theater instead of an arena). The 2005 installment of this 20+ year old show was actually pretty diverse. I was pleasantly surprised by the array of performers. However, I knew not to expect the same reactions from our smug media friends. I am now completely used to being "odd one out" when I have any positive feelings whatsoever about anything having to do with today's pop culture. It seems many of today's reporters (all in their late 30s to early 50s I might add) tend to be out of touch and therefore condescending when discussing the current chart-toppers. So I totally expected the negativity to be flowing on the Monday morning after the show. And it was. Over the past week and a half, I have surfed the 'net in search of the common consensus. It seems that many "music industry insiders" and "music enthusiasts" thought the show was terrible. They dogged every performance. They insatiably dogged MTV itself.

The most common gripe tended to be towards the overexposure of hip-hop and the fact that MTV "knows nothing about music anyway since they don't play any". Funny they (meaning the MTV-haters) should bring that up because MTV actually launched a new ad campaign on the night of the awards show which was centered on the actual statement "MTV doesn't play music". The commercials showed various vignettes depicting people having something happen to them that their parents warned them about i.e., face frozen after contorting it in weird ways, palms growing hair after…well, you know. The tagline in the end was "Not everything you hear is true. MTV doesn't play music." So they are obviously aware of the criticism. Do I think it bothers them? Not at all. MTV has evolved way past the days of just playing videos. It's a shame that they did not stick to their original game plan but what company really does? One of the most basic rules in business is that in order stay afloat, you must be open to change. MTV realized that many other channels had popped up during the years since their own inception that also played music, and some of them were doing it better than them. Some had request features which meant that viewers could actually interactively take part in the channel's programming and ask for the next video they wanted to see. Others showcased a particular genre that began to become hugely popular in the 90s: hip-hop. Yet others were able to play videos without kowtowing to the major labels and the restrictions of censorship you must deal with on basic cable. Either way, MTV created a successful brand and has now become more concerned with lifestyle programming. Teen dating shows, car makeover shows, lifestyle reality shows, and pop culture documentaries all have their place on the network. Videos are only shown on TRL and in the early morning.

But back to Sunday's award show. There were a plethora of high energy performances. Green Day, Kanye West with Jamie Foxx, Shakira with Alejandro Sanz, and Kelly Clarkson all tried hard to bring the crowd to its feet. And they did. I did not see any fans looking bored or indifferent in that audience. MTV's new format puts the fans close to stage instead of their fellow artists. I don't like it because it just makes it look like a televised concert to me but I've heard many artists say they actually like it better because their "peers" aren't always as enthusiastic while they are performing. The celebs are more concerned with looking cool, not messing up their hair, or not showing too much love for their competition. But the fans go wild. They have no qualms about going berserk for their favorite artists when they rock the stage.

But even with the variety in this year's performances, I still heard many complaints about the show not celebrating "good" music, or "real" music, or being too hip-hop-heavy. I don't understand that. How are Green Day, Shakira, My Chemical Romance, and Coldplay considered hip-hop? True, 50 Cent, Ludacris, and Kanye West performed, but it's only right. They are big sellers. And they are what the "kids" want. And the "kids" are MTV's target audience. It's as simple as that. That's why I never got the whole "MTV sucks, they don't play music, they only play reruns of The Real World" comments coming from 35-yr. old washed-up musicians and jaded music journalists. Huh? What are you doing watching MTV in the first place? We all know the kinds of programming they have. It's nothing new. Where have you been? Everyone I know from age 12 to 22 automatically turns on MTV when they enter a room. But 35 year olds? No, it's not for them. Maybe if Rolling Stone Magazine had a television station……but that probably wouldn't be "cool" enough for them either.

The one complaint I do get though is when those same aforementioned people say that today's music sucks, isn't real music, or that they miss the awards shows of old. Perhaps that's because the "shows of old" were actually the shows that featured your favorite musicians and videos when you were growing up? Think about it. No music fan is going to name a particular year's award show or concert as their "favorite" if it didn't include the music they actually like. And the popularity of certain genres changes with the tides. If you don't like guitar-heavy Spanish music, you are not going to like watching Santana win a truckload of awards and perform. If you don't like piano-driven pop R&B, you are not going to like watching Alicia Keys win a boatload of awards and perform. And if you don't like hip-hop, you are not going to like watching Ludacris, or Kanye West, or Eminem, or 50 Cent win anything. You like, and enjoy, and feel comfortable watching the artists you've grown up admiring.

Interestingly enough, this is a dispute that has gone on for many, many generations. I mean, think about it. Pretty much, anyone age 30 and above probably complained about the MTV Awards. They don't find Diddy entertaining, and they don't think 50 Cent is talented. However, the artists that they believe make "real" music are not making money off of the same teenagers that watch MTV. And if any of those thirty-somethings actually have children who they try to push their self-righteous "real" music on, well then they are just repeating the vicious cycle we've all fallen victim to. C'mon now. I'm sure there are hundreds of, if not thousands of, parents out there right now trying to push some good ole' 70s rock on their children who would rather listen to Eminem. Or maybe they are trying to convince their 16 year old daughter that Mariah Carey can only mimic the soul and depth of an artist like Minnie Riperton. Then again, when those same individuals were teenagers themselves, their parents probably yelled at them that The Doors or Jimi Hendrix albums that they were listening to were garbage and were nothing like the "real" music of their generation including Elvis Presley and Little Richard. Meanwhile, when those same parents were 40 years younger holed up in their own rooms blasting "Jailhouse Rock", their parents were poking a broomstick into the ceiling screaming at them to turn that junk off and listen to some "real" music like Frank Sinatra or Buddy Holly. And I know for a fact that when Ole' Blue Eyes came out, parents everywhere were disgusted. They said he had no talent and was nothing but a womanizing mobster. He was no Bing Crosby after all. So you see, it's very rare that the younger kids will like what those fifteen to twenty years their senior will like. Don't get me wrong, I know there are exceptions to every rule. College kids near and far still blast Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. But for the most part, the youngsters are listening to Ashlee Simpson, and Kanye West, and G-Unit which is why this week's charts list Kanye West and Tony Yayo in the top two spots while other lesser-known "real" musicians are not even in the top 200. MTV promotes what is on the charts. They invite the popular artists to perform on their show every year. So if you found yourself hating what you saw on the tube this year (when I thought it was actually a pretty good, diverse show), just know that you have become your parents. It's not a bad thing. It's just the truth. So sit back, don't hurt your back, browse the early-bird specials, and work it out people.

# # #

Posted at 09:14 am by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 20, 2005

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 2, Issue 3

Aural Sex
By "The Truth"
June 20, 2005

Rap music is usually attacked for promoting violent acts and excessively violent lyrics. I do believe that violence is still glorified in rap, but there is now a larger issue at hand. The bigger problem now facing our nation's impressionable youth is rappers pushing porn. I know this is not a new topic, but it is now becoming an all too common topic. Rap videos regularly feature half naked women bouncing and bending over for the camera but that point has been disputed enough. The difference now is that MCs are making sure that just in case you didn't know what kind of point they were trying to make with that visual offense, you now also get a lyrical description of exactly what they want to do to these women (and others they meet in clubs, backstage at concerts, and on the street (literally)) while you are watching the amusing acts performed on screen.

Rappers like Akinyele, Too Short, and the godfather of debauchery - Luke, have been doing this for years. Songs like "Put It In Your Mouth", "Blowjob Betty" and "Me So Horny" are considered classics to some. The difference is that these artists were typically kept underground when they first came out in the early 90s. Their songs would receive club play, late-night radio show play, or background music play on porno movies or pay-per-view specials. Other than that, they did not receive much mainstream shine. Each of those artists had more of a cult following that would attend their shows and buy their new CDs once they hit the stores regardless, but they were not waiting with baited breath to see their new video premiere on MTV. If so, they'd be waiting a long time. Now there is definitely a niche market for this type of music and I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with however, is the fact that this type of music has now received a rebirth of sorts in the mainstream media. I understand rappers adding one or two "sex tracks" to their albums to spice it up knowing full well that they will not be released as singles. But when these tracks are serviced to radio, attached to a promo video, and given extensive radio play, I shudder.

Chris Rock spoke of the trend in his 2004 HBO comedy special "Never Scared". He made fun of women openly dancing to and celebrating songs like Lil' Jon's "Get Low" without even paying attention to the X-rated lyrics. "To the window to the wall…to the sweat drip down my balls…to all these bit*hes crawl…to all skeet skeet skeet skeet mutha**ck**" is the hook to this popular song. Mind you, the "skeet" quoted in this song is a slang term for a man relieving himself sexually. How beautiful. Chris was absolutely right. The danger was not necessarily in the lyrics themselves but instead lies in the influence it has on our women and children. Mr. Rock made a joke out of women nonchalantly shaking their groove thang like they were dancing to Kool and the Gang's "Celebration". Either the women themselves don't understand the lyrics or they have no self-respect, because to dance with a smile on our face and your hand in the air to "all these bitc*es crawl" is an embarrassment to females everywhere. Nonetheless, "Get Low" became a huge mainstream hit. And that was only the beginning.

About six months ago, a good friend of mine told me he had a great new track to send me. It turned out to be Ying Yang Twins "Wait (The Whisper Song)". I can't lie, I thought the beat was hot and I thought it was an interesting element to have the rappers whisper through the whole song rather than scream or ramble, but I was completely taken aback. The hook to this gem in case you haven't heard it is "Ay bit*h! Wait til you see my d*ck…Ima beat that pu*sy up" over and over again. Once again, a beautiful rap ditty represented a beautiful relationship between a man and a woman. And just like "Get Low" was a smash hit almost two years ago, "Wait (The Whisper Song)" easily became this year's smash hit.

It doesn't stop there. Due to the success of Ying Yang Twins' lyrical poetry, remixes and answer songs (recorded replies from other artists) have been popping up like crazy. The original song has not only received frequent airplay all over the nation, but now the remix featuring Busta Rhymes, Missy Elliot, and BET personality Free has also been receiving attention. And just this morning I heard a female version of the song recorded by the songstress Kelis with her own batch of XXX lyrics. I can't even bring myself to quote them here but let's just say her version focuses on informing a man how good she tastes.

In a recent CBS interview, musical artist Prince was asked what he now thought of his older lyrics and how they were billed as being "explicit" and "racy". Prince replied that he never thought his lyrics were that sexual to begin with but instead could be considered sensual. He went on to explain that when he turns on the radio or TV and hears what is actually considered music now, he cannot believe that he is even still questioned about his art in the 80s and 90s when straight up pornography is now broadcast through the airwaves morning noon and night. It is true. Prince did say some crazy things, but they were nowhere near as bad as "Play", a new song by the Southern rapper David Banner. Also produced by DJ Smurf (the same producer that cooked up "Wait (The Whisper Song)", "Play" finds David Banner whispering instructions to a woman on just how he wants to see her "play" with herself. Do not get it twisted. This is not for the children. The difference between what Prince did and what David Banner does is imagination. Prince left something to your imagination. Sure he might have told you to take your clothes off or let him lick you but he wasn't telling you exactly which finger to place inside yourself and to which hole he wanted to see it thrust.

Another superstar who hit it big in the 80s, Madonna, recently denounced her sexier past saying she made herself believe she was making a statement with her raunchy behavior when in fact she realizes she was just looking for attention. Will the rappers of today ever come to that realization? Or do they even think they are making a statement at all in the first place? I don't think so. Unfortunately, I believe these "artists" only care about the here and now and not the effect these lyrics have on the future of America. Each rapper is trying to outdo the one before them by getting nastier and more explicit each time a new track is recorded. And instead of bringing attention to the issue, magazine articles and industry watchers have actually referred to this as nothing more than a new trend. Wow, public pornography as a trend, that's nice.

As always, the rappers themselves will most likely say things like "I didn't ask to be a role model" or "it's not my job to raise someone else's kids" or "that's the parents' responsibility to make sure their child doesn't listen to that song" when questioned about this nonsense. If their songs weren't particularly marketed to the mainstream by being sent to radio and MTV with the corresponding videos, I wouldn't mind as much. Maybe they're right. Maybe it is the parents' job to make sure their child doesn't purchase the new Ying Yang Twins CD, but I believe it's the radio and video programmers' job to make sure these kinds of songs aren't just accepted as the norm and innocently placed on rotation. These sex songs should stay in their niche. Leave them as album tracks. Don't publicize them to the point where they are played on Top 40 radio and Kindergarteners are singing along to "Wait til you see my dick". Please people, work it out.

# # #

Posted at 12:25 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Apr 13, 2005

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 2, Issue 2

Time for a Reality Check
By "The Truth"
April 13, 2005

Hip-hop is suffering. The culture in general is faltering. This is nothing new. Tales of violence and misogynistic undertones ruining America's youth have been a common complaint for years, but lately it's exploding in the mainstream media largely because the 50 Cent/The Game shooting at Hot 97 sparked the current uproar. The Reverend Al Sharpton held his first Town Hall meeting last weekend to discuss possible solutions to the problem. Shootings and criminal trials are all too common amongst the major players in this genre. Radio stations are being held under a microscope and landlords are threatening to evict dangerous entities. The entire issue is much too large to tackle in a single article. I am not even going to attempt that. What I am going to discuss here and now though is the element of being "real".

From as far back as I can remember one of the most common claims MCs and hip-hop artists would make in their rhymes was whether or not someone was "real". The term depicted someone who truly "lived the life". "The life" in this case was a reputable background of hustling, drug dealing, robbing, gangsta leaning and sometimes even shooting others in the streets of your hometown. In order to rap about being gangsta, you had to be a gangsta in the eyes of the record-buying public. No one wants to be accused of being a "studio gangsta". It's a major insult if someone says you only act tough on a mic. This is so ridiculous. Denzel Washington is not a joke because he is not really a corrupt cop like he played in "Training Day". He is actually a wonderful actor because he made you believe he was. Why can't it be the same with rap? Why must you actually have fought through a dark past in order to be considered talented? And why are we literally awarding those who have dealt crack to babies on street corners and done jail time for robbing and beating innocent victims? Being "real" is a good thing to these kinds of people. Repping yourself as real is like wearing a badge of honor. Therefore, boasting of one's "realness" is commonplace in many hip-hop lyrics, a sampling of which I've included below.

"Real Nig*as" by The Notorious B.I.G.
On the road to riches and diamond rings
Real nig*as do real things
Hanging wit the nig*as is the song I sing
Real nig*as do real things

"The Realest" by Mobb Deep
Yo when the gats reveal
You cats get peeled and that's the deal
Fu*k a bit*h-ass that switch has nig*as that lack the real When the slugs burst
G.Rap be aiming at your mug first
Nig*as is blood thirst
We'll see who get plugged worst
We dug earth

"Holla If You Hear Me" by 2Pac
To all my boyz
Know tha real from tha bustas
And the decoys
And if ya hustle like a real 'G'
Pump ya fists if ya feel me
Holla if Ya Hear me

Now please don't get it twisted. This is not the same as Jennifer Lopez declaring "I'm Real" in her 2001 song of the same name. In that case, Jenny from the block is only trying to prove to her fans that she is not just a Hollywood honey just because she now makes that Hollywood money. In hip-hop, being "real" evokes a sense of criminal behavior. Evidence of one being "real" can include a history of arrests and court cases, experience as a drug dealer, or a robbery inflicted past. When Jay-Z was accused of stabbing fellow record exec Lance Rivera in December of 1999, many surmised that this would only help Jay gain much desired street cred. Still to this day some people believe that Jay didn't even commit the crime but willingly took the rap in order to build his sparse rap sheet (no pun intended). A couple years later, when Jay and fellow rapper Nas traded barbs in a very public hip-hop beef, one of the main bones of contention for both rappers was whether or not the other had ever really been involved in drug dealing or had ever really held a gun. Fans laughed along with Jay-Z when he said "I showed you your first tec (a gun) on tour with Large Professor" in his battle song "Takeover", as if Nas not being familiar with holding and owning guns somehow made him less of a man.

On February 28, 2005, shots were fired outside of NYC hip-hop radio station Hot 97. There have been many rumors about what actually went down that night but the clearest picture seems to involve 50 Cent's disrespectful on-air talk of former G-Unit crew member The Game. Apparently The Game had mentioned on several occasions that he did not agree with 50's beef records recently released attacking both Jadakiss and Fat Joe. The Game said that he was not about that (meaning beefs with other rappers) and would step back if any altercations ensued over said beef. For this reason, many fans called him a punk. 50 and the rest of his G-Unit crew, including Lloyd Banks and Tony Yayo, loudly denounced The Game as a baby, a fake gangsta, and a pus*y for not standing up to the confrontation with his team like he should have. Prior to the radio station nonsense, The Game's reputation was depleted even further when a questionable picture began rapidly circulating the internet. The often-emailed screen shot showed The Game appearing on the reality dating show "Change of Heart" with his then-girlfriend, who ultimately decided to have a "change of heart" and dumped him on the show. Animated tales of Game having platinum blonde hair and a tongue ring on the show became humorous industry fodder. Some Game-haters even claimed they saw him shed a tear after his girlfriend dropped him. Unfortunately for The Game, the culmination of all of the above led to him being referred to as "soft", or "fake". Therefore, 50 Cent did not want to be associated with him and dropped him from his team, despite that fact that only a month earlier his "The Documentary" album sold more than a million copies and was critically lauded by some as just what the West Coast needed to return to the forefront of hip-hop glory. Just because Game did not want to be connected to an insult song, he was now not worthy to be a G-Unit member, no matter how good of a rapper he really was.

A couple of weeks later Jadakiss released a song entitled "Checkmate" which, aimed at 50 Cent as retribution for his "Piggy Bank" song against Jada, included such lines as "Since when has it become cool to get shot and not shoot back" clearly aimed at 50's well-known history of being shot several times without there ever being any real reports of 50 ever shooting at anyone himself. No matter how you look at it, 50 Cent getting shot many times is a shame. No one should have to be targeted by such violent crime in their life. But why should he be downgraded in his fans' eyes as a joke just because he has never shot someone himself? Is that really bad? Would it make him a better man for having been involved in more gunplay? Not at all. It's a travesty that so many of our youth are even concerned with how many times their favorite rapper has been involved in violent altercations or been to jail. These are not badges of honor but instead badges of dishonor. Labeling yourself as a convicted felon is not cool and does not make you real. It makes you guilty of committing a crime, that's all.

In order for hip-hop to repair itself at this point, all of the pawns in its game need to dig down deep and change the foundation of what it is currently built upon. Punishing those that have been involved in violent acts by banning their music from radio and TV stations for 90 days as Rev. Al Sharpton has recently proposed is a start. But teaching the youth of America, as well as the current chart-topping rappers of today, that being real is not what life's about is even better. The fact that someone like an Eminem or a Nas hasn't actually dealt drugs themselves or someone like Kanye West is still close with his working-class-educated parents does not subtract from their talents as hip-hop artists and celebrated lyricists. It can only strengthen them. I firmly believe that our most talented wordsmiths of the future can and will be college-educated adults with a head on their shoulders and a distaste for violence. We can achieve this goal by starting from the bottom up and educating our friends, children, and fellow artists that denouncing someone for not being "real" is not cool. It's stupid and dangerous and can only lead to bad things. Work it out people.

# # #

Posted at 12:01 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Feb 15, 2005

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 2, Issue 1

Are you in it for the long run?
By "The Truth"
February 15, 2005

At this years Grammys we saw the legendary artist Ray Charles posthumously win eight trophies. We saw another 70-something celebrated artist, James Brown, perform with the Michael-Jackson-du-jour Usher. And we saw yet another 70+ artist, Loretta Lynn, pick up the Best Country Album statuette. This made me think: do you think we'll be seeing Britney Spears, The Killers, and Kanye West doing the same at the Grammys in 20 years? Will Maroon 5 be able to release a Genius Loves Company-ish duets album that will win Album of the Year in 2035? Why is it that artists who began their careers in the 60s, 70s, and 80s seem to experience better longevity than those that started out in the 90s and 00s?

Is it simply a talent issue? Are we more tolerable of junk nowadays? I know there are plenty of music industry naysayers who believe that almost everything that hits the record store shelves in recent years is pointless drivel. They call them manufactured-straight-off-the-assembly-line pop / r&b / rap stars if you will. However, I don't believe this is true. I think there are some truly talented artists that have come out since the start of the 21st century, but I'm still not sure they will be in the public eye in 30-40 years. I have come up with five major reasons for this for your consideration.

(1) There was a stronger sense of loyalty back then. In the 60s, you picked a favorite artist – be it The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Elvis, or Ray Charles – and you stuck with them. You couldn't wait for their new material to drop, year after year, decade after decade. Now it seems as soon as an artist gets to their second or third album, fans and music critics alike are turning their backs on them and complaining that the new album isn't as good as the last so they are "over" that particular artist.

(2) We love to kick them when they are down. We love to build celebrities up to gigantic proportions and then knock 'em down once a scandal or lawsuit arises. Artists like Ray Charles and James Brown are definitely not without their own sordid tales. Serious issues like drug problems, frequent womanizing, and tales of abuse have haunted them both. But this did not ruin their careers or diminish their popularity in any major way. However Christina Aguilera decides to adopt a sexy (some would say sleazy) new image and the backlash is felt across the nation. The girl definitely can sing but she is not well-liked personally so she is suppressed from becoming a true legend. Janet Jackson suffers a 10-second wardrobe malfunction and former fans are burning her latest album, "Damita Jo" in effigy. Janet may not have a strong singing voice but she is definitely a talented and sexy icon. But you would never know it now. Now she's a joke, a laughingstock, a scorned woman forced to wear a scarlet letter, nothing more than Jermaine Dupri's girlfriend. Madonna is now constantly berated for her praise of Kaballah so she too has been kicked off her precious pedestal.

(3) Hip-hop. Rap is not exactly a long-term career. No one wants to hear 40-years olds rhyming on stage. It's a shame too because pioneers like LL Cool J and Chuck D and The Beastie Boys are not ready to hang up their mics yet, but Soundscan sales dictate that they should. Artists that have attempted recent comebacks like Eric Sermon and Heavy D are told not to mention their age in interviews and press releases, and to try to emulate a younger sound in order to succeed. And they still don't. Don't get me wrong. Rap as a whole runs things right now. It is a multi-million dollar genre and it rules the charts. But even the current kings of hip-hop will not be running across the Grammy stage in 30 years. We know this. Will Ludacris be asked to come back and perform "Move Bitch"? Will 50 Cent be asked to organize a G-Unit reunion so that they can perform "Stunt 101"? I doubt it.

(4) Labels don't give many artists a chance to cultivate their talents like they did years ago. Perhaps if an artist like Raphael Saadiq wasn't dropped from their record company once their debut solo set didn't go platinum, we would have experienced more quality music from him down the line. Maybe if a genius like Prince wasn't told to stop releasing so many albums at once or risk being let go from Warner Bros. Records, we would have received countless other classic albums from him rather than suffering a five year drought between a subpar record like "Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic" and his current set "Musicology". However, we'll never know. And we'll also never know what would have become of other artists that are dropped way before their time. Just think of all the good music we may have missed out on if Ahmet Ertegun had a shorter attention span with Ray Charles or if the aforementioned Warner Bros. wasn't willing to wait it out with Prince after his first two albums "For You" and "Prince" didn't garner accolades and sold-out shows like they would've liked. "1999", "Purple Rain" and "Sign O The Times" didn't come until much later on, we must remember this.

(5) Some artists just can't deal (or don't care to deal) with the pressures of the industry for very long. Take someone like D'Angelo. He is extremely talented but has only released 2 albums in the 10 years since he broke onto the scene. Granted, "Voodoo" alone could probably win him some awards in the future but who knows if we will ever see anything else from him. Most recently, his mug shot popped up online after he was picked up for a traffic violation and possession of drugs. An artist like D'Angelo or even a Lauryn Hill has trouble dealing with temptations in an often difficult and dangerous industry. Whether it is drugs, abusive relationships, or mental instability, becoming a celebrity and having to face the sudden onslaught of interviews, promotional tours, tabloids, and groupies is just too much for some people to handle. Unfortunately, we hear stories everyday of young girls like Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and the Olsen twins facing adversity as a result of too much fame and subsequent partying. Eating disorders, alleged drug use, and multiple marriages at such a young age eventually deplete the reputation and performing ability of many. Granted, those girls were not exactly on the road to musical genius by any stretch of the imagination, but they are just three examples of what happens when fame gets to young people. Seven years ago, Lauryn Hill seemed a shoe-in for legend in the making. She actually was on the road to musical genius. Since then, she has only gotten press for having breakdowns on MTV and in front of the Vatican.

It makes me scared to think of what will happen when all of the true musical pioneers have finally left us. Luckily, Rock n' roll is still pretty young (it's only 50) so several of the original players are still alive. But once they are all gone, who will we be honoring at award shows of the future? The parameters to which someone will be considered a legend will probably need to be loosened up a bit. Otherwise, there will be no one that can merit a speech as long as we'll soon give James Brown, Stevie Wonder, and Quincy Jones after they leave the Earth.

It would be really sad if this generation does not produce any real legends. Unfortunately, if we continue in the same direction with which we have become accustomed, this may happen. I do think artists like Alicia Keys and John Legend have a chance of sticking around. They are both talented individuals who release classic material. Also, the 90s introduced us to Mary J. Blige, a remarkable talent who will undoubtedly be honored in the next thirty or so years. But how many others are there like them right now? Not many. Brandy, Monica, Ashanti, Mya and countless others have all tried to be "the new Mary" but none of them really has what it takes. So who will be receiving the lifetime achievement awards at the 2035 Grammys? Jennifer Lopez accompanied by her 17th husband suffering through another Spanish duet performed completely off-key? Michael Jackson live via satellite from San Quentin State Prison? Or maybe it will be James Brown. After all, he seems to be outliving all of us. Why shouldn't he reach 100 years old? But instead of obsessing about the future, I think we should pay attention to the here and now and try to do what we all can to make sure we produce more legends than one-hit wonders or studio-only singers from here on out. Work it out people.

# # #

Posted at 12:03 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Jan 3, 2005

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 10

Pres to the Izzo, Den to the Tizzay
By "The Truth"
January 3, 2005

Are people like Jay-Z qualified to run major record labels like Def Jam? About a month ago, Jay-Z was appointed President of Def Jam Records and certain old school executives balked. However, a lot of the "old school" executives are not so successful right now. So maybe they are not the best critics. Of course long time fans of Hova cheered. But then again, they also believe that Jay is qualified to be the President of the United States.

Bottom line, the record business is suffering big time. Everyone knows that. Label heads are clamoring to find a solution to the problem. Electing Jay-Z to the forefront of one of hip-hop's legendary shops may start a trend if found to be successful in the long run. Before we know it, Bono may be tapped to run Interscope, and Diana Krall may take the helm at Verve. But is this a good idea? Do artists really know what they are doing on the other side?

Sure, it's been an Achilles Heel between label execs and artists for years that the execs don't know how to run an artists' career. Rappers and rockers and crooners alike have publicly declared that they know what's best for single choices, marketing plans, and album concepts. One of the many issues that have kept the executives laughing off that theory though is the fact that many artists don't have college degrees. They haven't gone to business school, or law school, or majored in communications. Not to say that artists aren't intelligent, it may just be that they went on tour right out of high school, or spent most of their free time working in recording studios since they were teens. And has a university background helped the label heads anyway? Or would a degree from "the streets" benefit them more? Possibly. Especially when dealing with rap music, a street-savvy-former-hustler-turned-hip-hop-superstar may know a lot more about steering fellow rappers down the right path career-wise than the latest batch of Ivy League grads.

However, the problem doesn't lie with who has the best ideas for phat rhymes or dope promotion tactics. It goes without saying that someone like Jay wins hands down in that regard. A major problem could arise though when Mr. Jay-Z begins promising things he shouldn't or discussing matters that the corporate heads at Vivendi aren't too fond of. See there's a corporate culture that many in America may not be familiar with if they have worked as a teacher, or bartender, or graphic designer, or recording artist all their life. Those that attended business school, or worked behind a desk, or answered to a Director, and Vice President, and Senior Vice President know all about it. There's always a protocol. There are always rules you must abide by. And to be totally honest with you, they may not make sense. They may be frustrating as all hell. But they are corporate America. That's just the way it is. There are certain things you can't do when running Def Jam that you can do when running your own personal independent label. But are these rules easy enough to learn by doing? It's possible but there are also lifestyle changes that need to take place in order for it to work. Will Jay be able to make all of Def Jam's weekly staff meetings? What if Beyonce needs him to help her pick out a new dress at Louis Vuitton? I'm only joking of course. I doubt Mr. Carter will ever leave work to attend to Beyonce and her fashion emergencies. At least I hope not.

It's true that Jay-Z is no stranger to the business world. He has run successful business ventures in clothing (with Rocawear), liquor (with Armadale), nightlife (with his 40/40 Club), and in music (with Roc-a-fella Records). And it's true that Jay-Z took a little-known-Brooklyn-run label and turned it into a multi-million dollar empire. But one, he didn't do it alone. And two, he was closely monitored by upper echelon corporate brass from Universal and Def Jam once Roc-a-fella was partially acquired by their parent company (of course Damon Dash will tell you otherwise - he always says that Def Jam had no interaction with Roc-a-fella and the way he and Jay ran things, but anyone who has ever worked under a large corporate giant will tell you differently). I do believe it's evident when all of the above is taken into consideration that Jay-Z definitely has a successful track record. He has a stellar background. Who better to mentor up-and-coming rappers on the game than the current ruler? Clearly Jay has signed and nurtured talent before by running the record label that his own product was released on for years. But is that talent really all that?

Roc-a-fella's current roster at the time Jay-Z announced his retirement from recording solo albums included such names as Beanie Sigel, Memphis Bleek, Kanye West, Cam'ron, Rell and Young Gunz. Beanie, Cam and Memph are no doubt respected on the streets, but their record sales do not really put up the numbers that larger major labels like to see. Young Gunz and Rell hardly have had a chance to take off. But on the other hand, Kanye is a giant. He has become quite the media darling as of late and was recently nominated for several Grammy awards. But besides Jay, he is the only major talent to be developed on that label in the ten plus years it has been in business. Are those really the kinds of statistics a major label like Def Jam likes to see? I highly doubt it. Naysayers could say that Jay can and will finally flourish now though with Def Jam's power and money behind him. Very true. It can also be stated that Jay was very busy with his own career while running Roc-a-fella but now that he is retired and has several more years of experience under his belt, he will sign bigger and better artists. I do believe that could happen.

There is one last issue though. Does being a celebrity ruin your credibility and availability as a white collar executive? As an artist/executive, it's totally accepted if you want to take a month-long excursion to Capri or check out on work for a few weeks while you are brokering a deal to bring the Nets to Brooklyn. But as an executive alone, are these practices helpful and acceptable to the firm where you report? Does it hurt or harm your cause if screaming fans line up outside your office everyday to try and get an autograph before you enter the building? Can you stay truly focused? In order for Def Jam to climb back to the top of the charts (like in its' late 90s heyday when Jay-Z himself, DMX, Ja Rule, LL Cool J, Foxy Brown, Method Man & Redman were all dominating), they will need a label head who can focus solely on them. Someone who has interests in nightlife, clothing, and alcohol may have their eggs in too many baskets. Sure, Jay will be a great addition to the team. But maybe the best bet would be to have co-Presidents - one, a creative genius who has outside ventures and one, a business guru who can concentrate solely on the task at hand. That may not be a realistic ploy I know. It's just an idea.

It's just that when someone's as big as Jay, there are bound to be issues with his superstar status clashing with his executive status. Countless artists are awarded with imprints from their own record labels once they reach a certain level of success. But how many of those labels go on to bloom? How many artists themselves are truly running the labels? More often than not, the artists appoint outside General Managers and Vice Presidents to take care of business while they are on the road touring and schmoozing. Horror stories like Mariah Carey's Crave Records throb in my head. Insiders squawked that Mariah hardly made it into the office. Crave had no choice but to shutter its doors about a year after launching. I wonder how her current label MonarC is doing. However, Eminem's Shady Records is a great example of the other side of the coin. The sales from 50 Cent, Lloyd Banks, G-Unit & D-12 have overshadowed slight misses with Obie Trice. So it can work.

In the end, I do hope that Jay-Z experiences great success as the new President of Def Jam. He is an amazing inspiration to the youth. He's gone from living in the projects listening to Def Jam artists on his tape deck, to living in the corner office of Def Jam with a gold plated tape dispenser on his desk (well I don't know about the tape dispenser part for sure). And he did it all in ten years time. Not too bad. There's just a lot to think about. And I hope that other companies don't automatically jump on board with the same tactic without fully thinking it through. Jay has experienced a lot more than others have and that needs to be recognized. Many of his contemporaries either have stellar recording careers but not much business experience (like an Usher) or have worked on the business side for years but are not really respected as a solo artist (like a P. Diddy). So keep your eye on the presidential ball y'all and work it out.

# # #

Posted at 12:04 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Nov 2, 2004

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 9

YOU NEED TO VOTE (You just don't need to tell me who you're voting for)
By "The Truth"
November 2, 2004

Do we really care as a nation whether or not Bon Jovi is voting for Kerry? Or that Madonna believes in Jewish mysticism? It seems that lately everywhere you turn an artist/musician/actor/etc. is lobbying for something, be it President Bush or Scientology. Call me crazy but I like my singers to sing and my actors to act and that's about it. If I wanted an opinion on how I should vote from The Dixie Chicks, then I'd be a real dizzy chick. Understandably, artists have marketing power. If Kerry wants to attract voter attention, it's only natural that he would welcome a performance from Bruce Springsteen on his campaign trail. But do I need to read letters from Barbra Streisand fighting with the Republicans in various newspapers and on websites all over? No, I don't. I could care less about Barbra's rants. I think she has a wonderful singing voice, but I am not going to be swayed for or against Republicans just because "What Are You Doing The Rest Of Your Life?" is a beautiful song. I mean this is the leadership of our country we're talking about. Or better yet, the deity I worship. These are important elements of all our lives. Should we be affected in any way by what the latest box office star preaches? Or should they just shut their mouths? I believe it's the latter.

In some cases, it may even hurt the celebrity in the end if they are too vocal about their beliefs (political or religious) as media outlets begin to fear their random outbursts on awards shows or on talk shows. If I am the type of person that likes to tune in to David Letterman at night and watch the latest interviewees sell their latest project, I don't care to see said person start running off at the mouth about pro-choice issues or the state of the economy. I want to hear you talk about the MOVIE or the ALBUM.

Don't get me wrong. I completely understand and believe in the importance of voting in a general election, or following some form of organized religion. In my opinion, the problems arise when celebrities start using their soapboxes to ramble on about the particular candidate they are voting for, or the fact that L. Ron Hubbard is THE one to follow. In America, everyone has the right to cast their vote for whoever they want, or pray to whomever they wish. But I don't need to hear about Alec Baldwin's pledge to move out of the country if Bush is elected. Honestly, I could care less. (Stick to hosting Saturday Night Live Alec.) It seems to me like many actors and musicians are beginning to take advantage of their spot in the limelight. Honestly, celebrities are supposed to entertain us, tell us about their new album or TV show, or who designed the dress they are wearing. It's an empty life, yes, but it's the life they chose. No one ever said you need to have an MBA to release an album, or hold a PH.D before winning an Oscar. It's an industry built on creativity and talent (most of the time) and not intelligence and debate skills.

If you are a Michael Moore-type guy, people expect the long-winded rants and the persuasive propaganda-like documentaries. This is what you built your career on in the first place. There is a niche for this kind of thing and it is welcomed. But if you are Sheryl Crow, it's slightly annoying when you begin to complain to Jules Asner on the red carpet that Bush is the devil and you want him out of office pronto. There are plenty of people who feel the same way about Bush but they talk about it to their family, friends, and colleagues and I believe Sheryl Crow should do the same. Just because you have the advantage of being on TV doesn't mean you need to use that time to speak your mind about the President. Leave the lobbying to the politicians and pundits.

I remember a time not long ago when it was taboo (and possibly illegal) to mention who you were voting for on TV if you were a talk show host or radio personality. Now it's out of control. Howard Stern has used countless hours this past year to bitch about Bush and his administration while on the air. Rosie O'Donnell had vicious fights on her talk show with people like Tom Selleck who donated to causes that she was against. And actors like Martin Sheen use every interview and thank-you speech opportunity to advertise their own political agenda. My question is: are people OK with this? Is this behavior welcomed? Does it bother anyone? Or does it not matter that celebrities are becoming ornery and don't want to be known as only entertainers anymore but also brilliant scholars who enjoy debating the pros and cons of Kabbalah?

Religion is arguably the most sensitive issue in the world today. Wars are being fought and people are dying over religious beliefs. For this reason, is it right or fair for artists like Madonna and Prince to continue to force-feed their fans material dictating their own personal teachings? Madonna performed against a backdrop of Hebrew symbols during her recent summer tour and Prince was handing out leaflets of The Watchtower (the Jehovah's Witness newsletter) at his. Fans of these artists most likely have been with them since the early 80s (during their inception) and most likely want to hear music without prejudice when they see them in concert. Granted, Prince and Madonna are not around to simply cater to their fans, but they shouldn't make them feel uncomfortable either (especially when they are the ones who are keeping them rich and famous). It is perfectly natural for artists to speak about their religious background "I believe in Kaballah" or "I am actually a Jehovah's Witness now" but anything other than that tends to be intrusive and may push fans away. Maybe they don't care whether or not they lost some fans along the way, but when you are handing out religious leaflets at your concerts to people you don't know anything about except that they like your music, you are insulting many on a personal level as well. You are taking advantage of your place in pop culture. If a concert is advertised as a "Musicians Against John Kerry" benefit or the like, then attendees are fully aware of the situation before they plunk down their hard earned cash. But if they show up expecting to hear "Burning Up" and instead they hear you reciting Jewish prayers in a language they don't even understand, it's a bit much. (It's really a bit much considering you just spent $200 in that case.)

So in conclusion, I make a personal plea to the artists and musicians and actors clogging the airwaves with their religious and political rants and ask them to just be considerate of others in the future. Know your place people, and work it out.

AND MAKE SURE YOU ALL VOTE TODAY!!! YOUR LIVES DEPEND ON IT!!!

# # #

Posted at 12:06 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Sep 14, 2004

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 8

Déjà vu makes me blue
By "The Truth"
September 14, 2004

How annoying is it when you are browsing through the 'New Releases' section of your local record store and you see several albums that came out 5 months ago? Then you find out that these albums were originally released five months ago but that this is the re-issue. The what? Aren't re-issues issued when an album was out of print or hard to find for a while? Or better yet, re-mastered or released on CD when it hadn't been before? What's the point of re-issuing an album that came out no more than a year ago???

I'll tell you why. Record labels are presently re-issuing current releases like it's going out of style for three reasons: (A) the album didn't take off as they had planned; (B) the album is losing steam on the charts and they want to try and give it a boost back to the top; or (C) they can't find any other singles to release. I think all these reasons suck if you ask me. Quite honestly, if an album didn't take off the way you expected, and you really believe that it is chock full of quality material, then you need to re-examine your marketing plan. Instead of going through the trouble of recording new material, shooting new artwork, and producing new discs, you might want to meet with the marketing/promotions staff to see where they may have gone wrong. And if the album is simply falling off the charts, let it go. It's not the end of the world and the artist should just concentrate on touring or working on their next record (which they don't need to rush into stores, they should take their time). The last reason is quite possibly the most disturbing though. More often than not, this occurs after only one single has been released. If you can not find two worthy songs on an album, the album is not worthy of being released in the first place.

Unfortunately, there are situations where an artist records and records and records for years and every time they send a "finished product" to their label, it is not well-received. Either the A&R execs don't like the new direction the artist is going in, or they don't hear any "radio-friendly" material, and the artist is forced to return to their studio lair once again. I understand that this can become very taxing and disheartening for an artist but so is dropping one single and being told that there is nothing else to work on the album. So figure out what you'd prefer I guess.

Several examples of this "re-issue" craze include Mary J. Blige's "No More Drama", Usher's "Confessions", Janet Jackson's "Damita Jo", Trina's "Da Baddest Bitch", Jessica Simpson's "In This Skin", LL Cool J's "10" and Alicia Keys' "The Diary of Alicia Keys".

In my opinion, both Usher and Alicia Keys do not need to re-issue their respective albums. Both have sold really well, were well-received by critics and fans alike, and are still in the Top 30 on Soundscan's chart. However, both have recorded some new tracks (including duets with each other) and rounded up some previously rejected ones to compile a new "re-issued" version of their projects to be released soon. The only reason I can think of for why these two want to re-issue their albums is that they simply want to guarantee a spot for themselves on the chart through the end of the year. Well good luck to both Alicia and Usher with that, but I still think it's a waste. Why not direct your energy towards another project altogether instead of dwelling on something that's already been done and placed on store shelves months before?

As far as Janet Jackson, Trina and LL Cool J go, their stories are a bit sadder. None of the aforementioned albums sold well for them from the start and they were forced to resort to the old "let's strip something new on the album and put the new version back in stores with a sticker on the front advertising the added track" tactic. Janet's album still hasn't been re-released but there has been talk of this happening since the album came out the first time. Supposedly the new version will have some previously rejected tracks and some new remixes. In Trina's case the title track was released as her lead debut single and really went nowhere fast. So instead of servicing another song from the album, Atlantic Records decided to put out "Pull Over". That song did fare a little better for the raunchy rapper, but when fans who bought the CD when it first came out looked for it on the copies they possessed, they couldn't find it. Why you ask? Well it's simple. Atlantic apparently couldn't find another single to market off the original version so they released something else, and stripped in onto future copies of the album so the early buyers were just screwed. That's not fair and totally warped. How do the diehard fans that run to the records stores right away end up with an abbreviated version of the album? Not cool. And LL Cool J's album was doing so poorly that Def Jam decided to pull the album from store shelves so that they could add the duet he did with Jennifer Lopez for her album, "All I Have". Apparently that song was doing better on radio than his second single, "Paradise", so they figured they might as well try to use it to their advantage. The positive effects of that brilliant decision have yet to be seen.

At least in the "No More Drama" file, not that many people were running out to get the album right away. The radio success of the lead single, "Family Affair", wasn't translating over to sales. So Mary and MCA Records decided to reissue the album with several new remixes added and a prettier cover and it worked out well for them. The album moved up the charts a little, and after releasing the title track soon after, became an awards show darling that year.

For Jessica Simpson, the decision to re-issue her "In This Skin" album was a good one. The album tanked the first time around but after some careful re-tooling and the addition of a song that her viewers watched her record on her MTV reality show "Newlyweds" ("Take My Breath Away"), the album debuted much higher than before and continued to sell strongly for several weeks.

Even still, after all the triumphs and failures are tallied up, I think that the decision to re-issue a fairly new album is excessive and silly. There are two solutions to this problem before it gets entirely out of hand and there end up being two versions of everything – "the early bird" and "the late bloomer". Either the record labels need to wait a little while longer before releasing an album. Make sure that you have at least three strong songs that you can market and release as singles before you agree to put it on store shelves. If not, save yourself a future headache by having the artist record for a longer period of time so that you are not rushing out sub-par product. And if you believe that you must release a re-issue and it ends up being the right decision in the end, make it up to the fans who bought the album when it first came out by allowing them to trade their copy for the newer version. Seriously people, work it out.

# # #

Posted at 12:16 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Aug 10, 2004

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 7

And now for tonight's presentation of MASTERpiece Theater…
By "The Truth"
August 10, 2004

"It's not like we're against them or anything like that. The idea is that we find better ways of working with one another. It shouldn't be a situation where they own the album or the work. We're talking about intellectual copyrights. If they're going to, indeed, be a delivery service, then that's fine. But even FedEx doesn't say that they own the thing that they ship, right?" – Prince

The above quote is excerpted from a recent interview Prince granted for Canadian television. Now I like where he's going with this, but is Prince really justified in saying that record labels should NOT own the music they put in stores because they are only, in fact, delivering it for the artist? Yes, it's true that the record executives are not the ones actually performing on the tracks they release (although in some cases, they are: certain A&R execs trying to live vicariously through their artists by performing on their albums in some capacity) but does that mean they should not be granted any form of ownership for what they do? There are many facets to this argument that can easily be broken down into three sections: Marketing/Promotion, Advances, and Production.

First off, in many cases record labels are doing much more than just delivering the album to the consumer. If that is in fact all you need from the Columbias and Jives of the world, then by all means, try to secure yourself a distribution deal and you're set. In those cases, Prince is sorta right. Of course the label distributing your product should be getting paid something; they are after all doing a job for you. But should they stake a claim in the product they are only printing, packaging and shipping? I don't think so. They didn't write it, sing it, or play the sax on it. The artist only needed someone to step in and help press the CDs for them, and get them on store shelves. I mean if a friend came over your house to help you assemble and stuff your wedding invitations and then drove you to the post office to drop them in the mail; do you ask to have your name added to the envelope? And then on the night of the wedding, do you ask for a cut of the gifts? No, you don't. Unless you're rude and broke I guess.

However, there are more artists than not that need a little something extra. This is where the labels will step in and claim that only they can effectively market an artist to a record-buying public that they know and understand. "Sure you can film your own videos and buy your own ad time, but it's much harder to get it out there without our experienced team of seasoned professionals behind you" says the big bad record exec. Of course, there are exceptions to any rule. An independent artist from Bumblebee, OK can film a music video in their basement, ship it off to MTV, have it land in the right hands, and actually gain some airplay on their own, but these situations are few and far in between. Usually, that's the part of the equation that a new band or teen rapper needs help with. They can write and perform their own music (sometimes) but they don't know how to sell it to the fans. They need someone to plan and schedule in-stores, interviews, promotional events, etc. for them. Artists like Prince regularly state that they can do this all by their lonesome, and they may be right, but Prince can do this NOW because he has the money to do it NOW. Could he have done it on his own in 1978? I'm not so sure, which is probably the reason he signed with Warner Brothers in the first place. "The label wasn't marketing the album right, they weren't getting it to the right people, that's why it didn't sell well, I could've done a better job myself" says the disgruntled artist. But can they really? Marketing and Promotion is very expensive. Advertisements alone can cost millions (when you consider print and television ads, billboards, bus and subway posters, and radio spots). So is it really feasible for a new band, or rapper to pay for that out-of-pocket? I HIGHLY doubt it. Sorry Charlie, but it looks like you'll need to sign up with a label for that one.

Then there's the issue of Advances. For those who don't know, Advances are the monies a label will pay you upon signing a recording agreement and/or at the commencement of recording a new album. These can get pretty large. And they are recoupable. This basically means that the labels aren't in the business of charity. They may believe that you are the "next big thing" and that you will sell truckloads of CDs down the road, but they need some security in their investment. If they are going to send you a check for $75,000 just for signing your name at the end of a 60 page document, best believe you will have to pay that back BEFORE you start making money off of your record sales yourself. It's essentially a loan. So let's say worst case scenario, the label pays you $100,000 upon signing, and your record goes on to sell……nothing. The label is really the only person who loses out here. They put their money on a bet that didn't pan out. Granted, the artist will also be upset that their project didn't soar, but in many cases, if the album did really poorly, the label will drop the artist from their roster and terminate their agreement. And as long as the artist has a good attorney, they can usually negotiate to buy their masters back, or acquire the rights to the album they released for a certain fee. But are these practices justified and fair? Or should the artist still hold complete control of their masters, with the record label only taking a certain percentage of sales off the top? After all, they don't have anything to do with the actual product, do they? They are only helping to sell it……unless the artist needs something even more.

Prince is amazing no question. He can write his own music, pen the corresponding lyrics, play 26 instruments, sing like a sexy something-or-other, dance like it's going out of style, help design the clothes he's wearing while he's shaking his ass AND book concerts and appearances for himself. Most artists can not do more than two of those things at any given moment. So yes, I believe that Prince deserves to own his masters and do what he pleases with his career. But does Justin Timberlake have a right to say "I'm the artist, I am the one singing on these tracks, I should have sole ownership of the masters" when he didn't write, produce and record the album alone? Not from where I'm standing. The problem is that many of today's artists do NOT write their own material, do NOT play instruments, and do NOT produce the tracks on their album themselves. Granted, Justin plays a little, and writes a little, and even produces a little, but for the most part his label helped coordinate the recording of his debut album. Many times the label gathers songwriters, producers, and A&R representatives to help produce the album as a group effort. A certain image is created, clothes are chosen for said artist, and media training and/or choreography sessions are booked. In these cases, the label has much more of a "hands on" role than with a Prince album. Not to mention that the label sets aside a recording fund for the artist, so that all studio invoices and producer fees can be paid out directly from an A&R Administration department, who is closely watching budgets and spreadsheets. As you can see, the label is involved with the recording process every step of the way with these kinds of artists. But again, does that mean that they should have a right to claim ownership of the artists' masters? I mean in comparison, FedEx doesn't say that they own the thing that they ship, but they also aren't helping you to 'create' your package. Be it a manuscript for your boss or a present for a friend, FedEx did not edit, select, or pay for the item for you either. It's a toss up.

I believe that Prince is a brilliant musician, and deserves the rights to his master(piece)s. Personally, I think it's a shame that in the end he had to walk away from Warner Brothers and surrender the rights to such gems as "When Doves Cry" and "Little Red Corvette" but at least Prince is in a position to write, record, and package his masters himself all in the comfort of his home studio. Many artists do not have access to this luxury, but even if they did, they still wouldn't have the ability to do so. He's genuinely talented. So when Prince makes encouraging "learn an instrument, take control of your music" comments directed towards the youth of America and the up and coming artists of the day, I am right there along with him but I am also realistically aware that there are not many others like him. (Well actually, there is no one like him. He's the best. Seriously, don't even go there with me.)

It's true that artists should be taking more of an active role in their careers. They should be writing their own material, and they should be learning to play their own instruments and producing their own records (if they don't already). But what I'm saying is that there are more artists than not that actually do NEED the label to help them with many aspects of the recording process. They NEED someone to write for them, to sing background vocals, to play the guitar solos, to book the studio time, and to hire the producers. So those albums really are collective efforts. In those cases, the label definitely deserves compensation in some form. I truly don't believe that their payment should be in the form of master ownership. But I think that the issue here is not whether labels are "pimping" their artists but rather why the artists allow it. If it's because they can't do it own their own, then maybe they should learn. And maybe we should be teaching our kids, nieces, nephews, and sometimes friends what real music is about. I've heard about fans of Prince bringing their 8-yr. old nieces and nephews to his current shows and having the children come out totally in love with the sound of real music, even though they are not familiar with his hits. I personally made sure to take my sister, who is 23 years old, to one of his concerts this past summer because I KNEW that even though she has been to a bunch of shows in her life, she had never experienced REAL, LIVE MUSIC. She loved it. It was SO different from the Destiny's Child, P. Diddy and Britney Spears concerts she had grown accustomed to.

So in the end, I do agree with Prince. But I agree with him on a larger level. I agree with him that people need to embrace music in its purest form. People need to play music with real instruments and not just computers. And artists need to write their own songs, and do more themselves, so in the future they won't need to depend on the labels for so much and subsequently sign very restrictive contracts. If we could just get the next generation to appreciate and understand this concept rather than just accepting MTV's version of "music" as gospel, then maybe 10 years down the line, we won't have to worry about the issue of master ownership any longer. Work it out.

# # #

Posted at 01:33 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink