TheMusicBizTruth

Jul 8, 2004

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 6

All the world's a stage…
By "The Truth"
July 8, 2004

What constitutes an artist? Do you consider anyone who releases an album to be an artist? Or do you consider anyone who has written a song to be one? Maybe it's someone who plays an instrument. Or maybe it's just someone who performs. The problem is that there is a huge difference between artists and musicians in our industry. Musicians are easier to define. Anyone who plays an instrument and/or writes music is one. But artists are a more confusing lot. If you made your decision by surveying today's Billboard charts, you would say that an artist is someone who performs or interprets another's work. Many of the artists on the radio today do not play instruments, produce songs, or write their own material. It's frightening. I know this is a popular argument amongst music enthusiasts and record label executives but I still want to add my own two cents. Is it fair (or healthy) for those that get a shot at stardom to really do nothing but perform? What's up with that?

There is an old saying "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach" which I think is very applicable in the music business. There are plenty of songwriters and/or musicians who are not natural born performers. They are uncomfortable on stage, they are unattractive, they can't dance, etc., and record labels regularly employ them to help those who can perform with the actual music. They are brought on board to help uphold the farce that these media darlings actually do know a thing or two about chords and harmonies and bridges. But I always thought that if these recording artists are the chosen ones who get to perform on the Grammys, embark on worldwide concert tours, film music videos, and release records, then for sure they can at least write their own material, correct? Wrong. Many of those who get to do all of the above don't even know their scales. They've probably never taken a music theory class in their lives. Does this bother you? I think it should. And I'll do you one better…

Even taking into account the above, I know there is still an element of sheer enjoyment which comes into play when choosing something to listen to. It's possible that you may simply enjoy listening to Britney Spears, or Janet Jackson, or Jet, or The Killers, and you can care less whether or not the person on the CD knows anything about music. There's nothing wrong with that. I, for one, am a fan of Brandy. Rather, I'm a fan of Brandy's albums. I can't even say her music for reasons you will learn later on, but I don't necessarily think she's attractive, or can dance, or comes across well in interviews, I just always like her albums. They are usually full of nice, cohesive, enjoyable contemporary R&B songs. One thing I always appreciate about Brandy's songs is that they are relatable. The lyrics seem real, the sentiment is understandable and the material reflects whatever Brandy is going through at that time (according to her press releases and interviews). Brandy supposedly found real love in 2001 / 2002, and "Full Moon" was born. Brandy broke up with her husband and moved on to find her peace of mind in 2003 / 2004 and birthed "Afrodisiac". But wait…this is not entirely true. In recent interviews, Brandy now claims that "Full Moon" was just a figment of her imagination. She wasn't really feeling any of those songs at the time, she only wished she was. In actuality, she was dealing with a very uncomfortable relationship that was on the verge of ending. Those songs were written with the hopes that she would find a love like that someday. Huh? Back when "Full Moon" was first released in March 2002, Brandy went on a full-fledged promotional tour touting love and happiness and her perfect marriage. I heard her with my own ears going on and on about how she felt content, and sexy, and jubilant and wanted to share that with her fans. So was she lying? Or has she just forgotten about how she felt two years ago? And does this make her an artist or just an actress?

What makes this story even funnier is that now Brandy claims that "Afrodisiac" is her most personal album to date. How convenient. "Afrodisiac" just happened to land on the charts a little over a week ago. Therefore, if you really want to get to know Brandy, you need to go cop "Afrodisiac" and not one of her earlier releases because those are just filled with lies. And what's really interesting about her recent statement is that the current album is the ONLY album she's ever released that she hasn't written a damn thing on. She did co-write a bunch of stuff for "Full Moon", and for her previous album "Never Say Never", but not a thing for "Afrodisiac". So has she regressed? Or are her albums suddenly more personal when someone else writes them??? It's true that "Afrodisiac" is filled with some pretty basic sentiments about relationship strife. Your man's cheating. Your man doesn't spend enough time with you. You are going through depression because you and your man broke up. So it's not unbelievable that anyone who can write could've written those songs and just had Brandy sing 'em. But that's disheartening. Especially because the first track on the record, "Who I Am", not only promises to be personal from the title, but also because the lyrics are delivered in first-person. It's supposed to be as if Brandy is apologizing to her fans for what has gone in her life the past couple of years, the craziness of it all. So how does something like that happen? You just tell someone else what you have been up to, and then they go put it to music? Why can't the "artists" eliminate a step in the recording process and just do that themselves? Maybe it's because they can't. But in Brandy's case, she has done it before. So it's possible that she just thinks others can do it better than her. Well if that's the case, then why is she the famous one? Good question. In fact, her case is so out of control that in reading through the "Afrosdisiac" liner notes, I saw that the entry "Vocals: Brandy" was listed under the writing and producing credits on each song. Now I've heard of "Background Vocals" and "Vocal Production" being listed, but "Vocals"??? Isn't that a given? I would truly be shocked if I purchased a Brandy album and the Vocals were done by someone else. This isn't Jennifer Lopez or TLC we're talking about. I mean, if you haven't written or produced anything on the album, I would HOPE that you at least did the Vocals.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not like Brandy is the only one at fault here. There are plenty of other artists that are in the same boat. One that springs to mind right now is Ashlee Simpson. At least we already know why Ashlee is famous. She is Jessica's little sister and is also managed by their uber-Dad, Joe Simpson. I have no idea if she will succeed, but I do know that she is not writing her own material. I know this because she has a reality show on MTV (just like her big sis!) and on this reality show you get to sit in on label meetings between Ash and the head of her record label, Geffen. Back and forth, forth and back, they toss around ideas about Ashlee's debut album. What direction does she want to go in? How can they make her the "real deal"? Who should she work with? The head of the label, Jordan, then goes on to name several different songwriters and producers that he thinks can help make Ashlee a success. And one by one Ashlee meets with these geniuses and tells them that she wants to sound like Hole and that she doesn't want to sound like her sister. How cool! In the end, she's just a puppet. A hook-nosed, squeaky-voiced puppet. I'm joking. She doesn't have a hook nose. It's more like a beak.

In the end, I guess this is just the way the cookie crumbles. Since the days of Motown, artists have been signing someone else's material. After all, isn't that what an A&R is for, to gather that material for the artist?

To think that Hollywood types have been complaining about singers and rappers trying to muscle their way into their territory with acting jobs. Aren't they all just actors anyway? Putting on a show, regurgitating someone else's work, smiling in the corresponding video and attending press junkets, it's very similar. Maybe Brandy should win an Oscar for her latest album instead of a Grammy. After all, actors' names do get listed on every role they take on. And, if the role of "artist" is being played by the Brandys and Ashlee Simpsons of the world then maybe their names should be listed somewhere in the liner notes as such (as they were on "Afrodisiac"). So for you label folks out there, maybe you should approach your production departments and ask them to add a new credit to their CD liner notes: "The role of the artist on this album was played by [ENTER NAME]". Work it out.

# # #

Posted at 01:34 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 9, 2004

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 5

I'm gonna need to see some ID…
By "The Truth"
June 9, 2004

Why do we feel it's necessary for artists to lie about their age? Years ago, I would become confused when my favorite singers would stay the same age for years. (When you are a teenager and a big fan of any performer, you know how old they are. I mean you probably know the color of their eyes, their favorite dish, and the name of their childhood pet, so of course you know their birthdate and age.) I wondered why so many magazines seemed to be making mistakes when publishing ages of some of the most popular singers of that time. Just what was going on? And then I started working in the industry…

One of my first internships included organizing drawers of press clippings, CDs, bios, and pictures for countless artists. Naturally, I would read through most of the material daily. On a regular basis, labels would send over updated press clipping and bios when their artists were about to release a new album and I started to recognize discrepancies. How was it that these people were 21 one year, 22 the next, and 21 again the following year? Were they mutants? It was bizarre. And then I started to see this more and more often and began to get annoyed. What did they take the general public for? Idiots? Would consumers just accept that Alicia Keys supposedly celebrated her 21st birthday three years in a row?

I began to ask around to friends who don't work in the industry. How old did they really think these artists were? And would it make a difference if you find out that they were actually older than they originally thought? Would you stop buying their music? Thankfully, no one cared. Many of them didn't even know how old the artists were in the first place. So if it turned out the singer behind the CD they'd been listening to on repeat for the past year was actually 5 years older than they thought, it didn't matter.

However, there is one genre where age actually does make a difference. It's with the pop boy bands. I know, I know, you can't stand them. But pre-teens and teenagers love 'em. Unfortunately, many members of these bands like the Backstreet Boys, the now-defunct 98 Degrees, and the 80s super-group New Kids On The Block, were a lot older than their label-issued bios stated. I happen to have a lot of younger cousins who were big fans of a couple of those groups when they were on top, and then once they disbanded, or fell off the top of their charts, and the truth came out, they were disgusted. Who wouldn't be? Nick Lachey is almost 31? Kevin Richardson will be 33 this year when the Backstreet Boys try to make a comeback (yes, they really are coming out with a new album)? These guys were singing love songs to an arena filled with 12-year olds when they were 27? It is a little disturbing. Therefore, the labels issue press releases that say the guys are 10 years younger than they really are, or they don't mention their age at all.

So I do understand why age would become an issue in that situation. But why are R&B singers (who don't have one set demographic) lying? While changing the channels a couple months ago, I heard someone on the 10 o' clock news actually refer to Usher as the 21-year old heartthrob. I mean the heartthrob part can and should be argued, but the age? 21? Last I checked Usher celebrated his 25th birthday this past October. Did I not get the memo about him inventing and building a time machine with Christopher Lloyd? Alicia Keys is another one. I understand that the label was all about touting her as a teen prodigy when she debuted in 2001 (when she was being called 17 or 18), but 'when at first you practice to deceive'…now the label is tripping up trying to stay on track with how old she really is at any given time. (For the record, she turned 23 this year.)

However, I think the funniest situation involving an artist's age went down on the old "Star and Buc Wild Morning Show" on Hot 97 in NYC. A couple years ago an artist named Sharissa came out on Motown Records. I think she claimed she was around 21 years old at the time. However, her voice and her face told another story. When Sharissa appeared on the morning show as her debut CD was about to be released, Star called her on it. I laughed hysterically when he said, "You ain't 21 years old and you know it. I am 37 and proud of that, and I have a feeling you are much closer to my age that you are actually letting on." The exchange became funnier when Star asked Sharissa what music she listened to at home and she replied "I'm a big fan of The Whispers actually". Star lost it. "Oh, you definitely are NOT 21 years old then. You are definitely pushing 35 if you even know who The Whispers are." She laughed and called him crazy, but she did not produce ID when he asked for one to verify her tall tale. My question is: What's so bad about her being 30, or 35 years old if that's the case? Does that change her voice? Should she not be allowed to release an album?

So where does all this come from? I speak from experience when I say that publicists are actually told to NEVER use the words "pioneer", "classic", or "longevity" when writing press releases for rappers who have been around for a while. Apparently, according to them, it's like the kiss of death when it comes to sales. Are they serious? It's actually detrimental for someone to admit that they are mature and possess experience in their field? I don't know. Maybe it's true that rappers need to lie about their ages as well. But those that are still releasing albums almost twenty years since their debuts (LL Cool J, Erick Sermon) are not really fooling anyone. So instead of trying to come off as younger to draw a fresh, new fan base, they need to start marketing themselves as legends in the game to their die-hard supporters. In all honesty, no 15-year old is going to pick up the new Erick Sermon record over the new Chingy record in the stores anyway. Then again, maybe there isn't a place in rap for thirty-somethings at all. Does anyone really want to hear someone rap about changing diapers or AARP membership dues? It's kinda sad. But it's the same way with Mariah Carey trying desperately to battle her newer younger counterparts (Beyonce, Christina Aguilera, Ashanti) on the shelves. She is NOT 22. She should NOT be wearing pink plastic backpacks, pigtails and butterfly chains on her low-rider jeans. She is 34 for heaven's sake. And she hasn't been doing well with album sales wearing that look anyway. Maybe she needs to put down the lollipops and rainbow tank tops, and start donning classier clothes and sensible heels.

And on that note, is that what we're doing this for? Those same 15 year old consumers? They don't buy records people! Many of them haven't seen the inside of a record store in ages. They are more familiar with the homepages of iTunes and Kazaa, than they are with the inside of a Best Buy or Virgin Megastore. It's time to abandon that age-old theory that only teenagers buy music. Plus, this is leading to the spread of suspicion amongst fans about something so insignificant within the big picture. I can't tell you how many times I've now heard folks questioning Beyonce's age. She is supposed to be turning 23 this year and I actually believe that one. I've seen the videos of her performing in the late 80s clothing in her living room and she does look 11 years old at that time (like they claim). But unfortunately, people feel suspicious of everyone now because it's been brought to their attention that it is commonplace in the music industry to lie about your age.

It's all very silly if you ask me. Everyone is collectively living a lie. If everyone was forced to produce a birth certificate to verify their age, I have a feeling we'd see that many of today's popular singers ARE in fact all in the same age bracket, the 25-35 year old one. We need to accept this, rise up, and get a bouncer to start working the doors of these record labels. Get someone to start checking IDs before they cross the threshold and start producing the lies. Kill the age discrimination people. Work it out.

# # #

Posted at 01:35 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

May 14, 2004

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 4

Well maybe you shouldn't floss after every meal…
By "The Truth"
May 14, 2004

For the most part, I am a Hip-Hop fan. R&B, Rap, Soul, Reggae, those are my favorite genres. I do however like several different artists in other genres as well; Jazz, Alternative, Classical, Pop, Bossa Nova, and Rock, which is why I paused on the MTV2 Rock countdown while looking for something to watch a couple weeks ago. I must say, I was very impressed. I was entertained, even if I wasn't familiar with, or didn't particularly like, some of the songs that were playing. This led me to beg the question: why do so many Rock videos have an interesting storyline and cool effects, and Rap videos do not?

Those who do not like or understand Hip-Hop music most likely have answered with "Because Rap sucks" or "Rappers aren't creative at all". Some may have instead replied "Hip-Hop artists are just obsessed with half-naked women so that's all they show in their videos". Well it's a tough one ladies and gentlemen. It's very true that Hip-Hop culture is rooted in braggadocio. Some say it started with Bad Boy Records in the early '90s. Puffy (now the Broadway star P. Diddy) was all about the floss. Bottles of $250 Cristal, gargantuan diamond-encrusted crosses, and several Bentley convertibles were ever-present in his label's videos. It's true that Rap videos in the '80s weren't as floss-heavy, but I don't think Puffy is the reason why Rap videos are swankier today. There is another difference between Rap music and rappers in the '80s, and their more recent counterparts, which lends itself to why these videos have evolved into all-out floss-fests.

For one, many didn't know what to even make of rap music in the '80s, so the artists themselves weren't excessively rich…yet. The music industry was still pretty new to them, and they were more interested in just telling their stories to those who would listen. There were fun stories filled with tales of parties and dancing, or darker ones filled with drug deals and poverty. Also, there was an element of caution on the part of the record labels themselves. Execs were not all that willing to shell out big bucks for flashy, special effects-laden rap videos. It was a gamble. Therefore, many of them were performance videos shot on stage at a show, or in a club, or they were gritty "lifestyle" videos where you saw the rappers just hanging out, talking to girls, or walking through a house or hotel.

Then again, there is also the extremely unfortunate reality of the racial divide. Except for Eminem, all successful popular rappers are Black (with the exception of a few Latino artists). Not only are the future rappers of America usually Black, but they usually come from sorrowful pasts. Most were either brought up in government housing, on welfare, or in street gangs. You've heard it all before. Biggie was dealing drugs on street corners in Bed-Stuy Brooklyn, 50 Cent was shot 20,000 times, and J-Kwon was homeless. Any fast money they earned was illegal and acquired through dangerous activity. Naturally, when they start to make quick cash legitimately (through music) they are eager to brag about it. I can understand that. You have gone from 0 to 60 in less than twenty seconds and you are damn proud of yourself.

To be fair, there are other rappers who try to steer clear of the floss, and instead rap about how they are disappointed in their peers for wasting their money on jewelry and clothes such as Kanye West, Mos Def and Common. Unfortunately, many of those artists don't experience the same level of mainstream exposure that the boastful ones do (although Kanye is having a really good run right now so there may be a change upon us). You must admit that videos by Kanye West, Mos Def and Common are thoughtful and do not contain half-naked "video hoes" shaking their tailfeather for a diamond "rolly" or an impromptu shower in Cristal.

Don't get me wrong, I get the whole "sex sells" thing. I know there are countless men out there who watch the Nelly "Tip Drill" or Mystikal "Danger" or Lil' Jon "Get Low" videos with their boys and marvel at the breasts and thighs that are squeezed into the revealing bikinis on the screen. And I'm OK with that. My issue is with the excessive cloning. My issue is with the fact that BET is extremely repetitive and shows the same type of video morning, noon, and night. And I understand that it's entirely possible that those types of videos are the only ones that are submitted to them by the popular hip-hop artists that their station generally plays. But that doesn't mean that they can not put their foot down at some point and reject some of these clips. Maybe just enforce a new policy that only allows half-naked bent-over woman for 30 seconds in each video. That would at least be a step in the right direction. And it may lead to us witnessing the birth of some new, interesting, thought-provoking Rap videos in the future.

Now getting back to the MTV2 Rock countdown…

As I sat there watching The Vines' "Ride" or Hoobastank's "The Reason" or Jet's "Cold Hard Bitch", I was alert and smiling. There were actual storylines, or interesting visual tricks that made me want to watch more, instead of just changing the channel. It made me disappointed in my rappers. As I mentioned before, R&B/Hip-Hop are my favorite forms of music, but the diamonds and breasts alone are beginning to get on my nerves.

Now readers, don't you get worried that I am going to leave you on a negative note. Just when I was about to give up on watching Hip-Hop videos altogether, a ray of sunshine shone brightly in my eyes and rescued me from the perils of hopelessness. Jay-Z's "99 Problems" gave me back my strength. "99 Problems" bought Rap another lifeline in my world. "99 Problems" is interesting, cinematic, and riveting. And Jay-Z agreed with me during MTV's special "Making the Video" where he took you behind the scenes of this shoot. Jay said something along the lines of "I wanted to do something original and fresh, something that would be valued. I'm tired of all the cookie-cutter stuff that's out there right now. I wanted to make a work of art". And in my mind, he did.

So in conclusion boys and girls, I don't think this problem will disappear overnight. It's gonna take some time. It's gonna take some effort on the part of the record labels, the video channels, and the artists themselves. This has to be a collective effort. But we can make a change. So let's all do our part. If you are friends with a rapper, talk to him. If you know a video director, convince him to go on strike until this is taken care of. If you are having dinner with Judy McGrath or Tom Calderone or Stephen Hill this weekend, try to get through to them. In other words, say it with me...Work it out.

# # #

Posted at 01:36 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Apr 26, 2004

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 3

Everyone Should Be An "American Idol'
By "The Truth"
April 26, 2004

"That was absolutely dreadful". You've heard it before. They are the infamous words of one Simon Cowell. "Americal Idol" is a guilty pleasure of mind that I got into around the time Season 2 was down to 12 finalists. I was instantly hooked. Ruben could sang!!! And others really couldn't, and I wanted them off my television screen pronto. So when Simon looked at those same finalists with boredom eyes in his eyes as he uttered "That was by far the worst performance I have ever seen", I laughed and cheered saying "FINALLY!!!". Finally someone was willing to TELL THE TRUTH when it came to talent.

See one of the main problems in our industry is that people are willing to settle for less than perfect. Sometimes they're willing to settle for less than alright. And that's just ridiculous. I mean some of these mediocre artists are actually making good money. Just for laying down so-so tracks in the studio and having producers and engineers fix it up after they leave to make it sound like they CAN ACTUALLY SING. So when someone just sounds OK, or can just get through a whole song without cracking, and Simon berates them that they are "nothing special", he's right. When the peanut gallery hoots and hollers behind him as he's explaining to someone that they don't have star quality, or that they can carry a tune but not much else, they are acting like asses by yelling at him that he's wrong. I mean really. If I only had a chance to face that vapid audience, I would LOVE it. I would ask: "Just what are you booing at? The fact that Simon pointed out that the last performance did not contain one single redeemable note? That he's not celebrating the fact that the performer should at least get an 'e' for effort? Give me a break!!! And besides, that's what the pain-killer-addicted-plastic-surgery-victim next to him Paula is for (not that Paula is truly addicted to pain killers, or has gone under the knife of cosmetic restructuring, but she sure as hell looks and acts like it). "You just have such a light around you when you are up there. Good for you." Uh yeah Paula, but can they sing?!?!?

It just continues to show that we as a society are way too brainwashed to believe that anyone could and should be a star. Now if we were talking "star" in the sense that the person is famous for being famous, or being in the news, or inventing something, or writing something, or acting in a movie or TV show, or had famous relatives, then yes, I see what you're saying. Follow your dreams. Reach your goals. Try to make something out of yourself, rock on with your bad self. But if you are talking about becoming famous as a recording artist? Then, um, you need to um, KNOW HOW TO SING REALLY WELL PEOPLE!!! And if you are voting in a contest that is about finding a great American singer, then what the hell does it matter if you just "like" the person? Or think that they are funny, or sweet, or pretty? All that stuff helps but THEY HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO SING REALLY WELL FIRST!!! It's not an automatic thing that you can do, or be, just because you want to, or just because you think you sound good in the shower, or just because the drunk men in the karaoke bar that are trying to sleep with you tell you so. It doesn't work that way. Now I do know that you do need to have that 'it' factor on top of having a great set of lungs in order to become truly successful in this business and I do understand why. Granted you can't sing your ass off and have no personality or good looks to back it up, because you do need to get out there and sell your product (touring, interviews, etc.) but the talent part CAN NOT be lacking!!! No excuse!!! Man, if that was the case, anyone who looked good, or had a dynamic personality could be a celebrity recording artist. Oh wait, that is the state of the music industry today. And that's what really gets me.

The fact that people like Ashanti exist and sell records is very disappointing. Ashanti has a marketable image, and became connected with the right people, but SHE CAN'T SING. She whines and hums off-key. And while we're on the subject, she can't dance either. She does some annoying two step thing with her arms bent up at the elbows ALL THE TIME. And come to think of it, she also don't look that good. I mean, she has sideburns and an underbite and sounds like an illiterate man when she talks but...LET ME STOP. It's not a good thing to just make fun of people. I know that. I'm sorry. But the subject of Ashanti really gets me going. Not to say that her hits were not melodic, catchy tunes that attracted consumers to the record stores, but COME ON NOW. Why are we being led like cattle to the cash registers for something that we know is fake and over-produced, but yet we aren't buying quality music?

Well that's why I think 'American Idol' is actually beneficial to the music industry as a whole. Wait, wait, wait, hear me out. I think 'American Idol' is actually beneficial to the music industry as a whole because it guarantees that at least one person that releases an album in any given year can actually sing. And interact with different personalities. And keep it up WEEK AFTER WEEK. And sing all different styles of songs thrown at them by judges, special guests, hosts, etc. I know that there is a debate hogging our airwaves right now about whether the voting system on the show is fair, and other sorted gripes, but I am not concentrating on that. I am just saying that if a singer wins on 'American Idol', you can can bet that they can at least SING. It may not be your bag, they may not perform your preferred style of music, but they can SING. It's a shame when you buy a CD and love it, and you see the videos and love them, and then you see the artist live and you're like "What the eff is this???" The curtain is lifted and you're face to face with Oz. It's just a short, ugly thing with a microphone. But when Ruben performs live somewhere? It's really him carrying that tune. Because he can.

Come to think of it, 'American Idol' should be required for ALL ARTISTS that want to release an album, video, go on tour, etc. Think about it - Jennifer Lopez being forced to stand in front of Simon cracking and wavering through "If You Had My Love". OK, stop laughing. Seriously though, 'American Idol' should become the new boot camp of sorts for ALL aspiring artists AND a required refresher course before you get into the studio to record ANY AND ALL new albums. Something tells me, we'd have a very different soundscape of artists on the Best Buy shelves if this was truly the case. Picture A&R execs saying "OK, but did you win a round of 'American Idol' yet? Well then, you haven't earned the right to record a new album." Hahaha.

So let's make it happen people. Write to your local congressman, er, I mean 'American Idol' judge. I'm tired of hearing Lumidee crack all the way through "Uh-Oh" on the radio. Work it out.

# # #

Posted at 01:37 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Apr 7, 2004

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 2

Singles need to be Quadrupled

By "The Truth"

April 7, 2004

What is UP with the music industry man??? I apologize for leaving you for a while but I just HAD to take a break because what's been going on for the past few months was blowing my mind. Major labels closing, good friends losing their jobs, everyone hatin on Janet. (Believe me, I am NOT ABOUT to get into that whole Super Bowl incident AT ALL so you don't have to erase this email [yet]. I WILL say however that you shouldn't believe all the bad things people have been saying about her and her album. I actually think that "Damita Jo" sounds like a "Janet – Part 2" and that ain't a bad thing. But I digress.) My main reason for getting at y'all this time is to discuss the issue of singles. Albums are just not given a chance to grow anymore and that's a shame. Remember when some LPs were just chock full of singles? Like "Thriller" for instance. Or "Rhythm Nation 1814". And it wasn't just the Jacksons in the 80s releasing several singles off of one album. There was Madonna's "True Blue" record, or Usher's "My Way", or even Jay-Z's "Vol. 2 - Hard Knock Life".

All of the above are classics for a reason. There are four or more singles/videos released from each one of them. And they were all big sellers for a reason. Show me an album from which more than three singles were released that bombed? It's tough. That's because if you give the public several reasons to buy a CD, they will. Give 'em one reason and it's still not enough to prevent them from picking up the new disc on their local train platform. Even two reasons can be counteracted with two very large (and very illegal) reasons not to. The Internet and the corner of 34th Street & Broadway. But if you give a potential buyer three reasons, they may start to bend. Four reasons??? They're standing online at Best Buy.

Now I understand there are a couple reasons why the labels haven't given many albums a chance to reach that multiple single plateau. For one, they don't wanna spend the money on more videos (any respectable "single" has a corresponding video). Two, they might not think there are any other marketable singles on the album after they release the first. Well what they aren't realizing is that the more money you spend to push an album, the more money you will make back IF THE ALBUM IS FULL OF QUALITY SONGS.

So they're right in one respect. If they don't hear another single on the album, then maybe it is time to throw the towel in and have the artist start working on another project. HOWEVER, there is a catch here. Who really decides whether or not more singles exist on a certain project? After all, one man's trash is another man's treasure. Case in point, Atlantic Records was done with Kid Rock's "Cocky" album long before he was. They told him to get back in the studio and start working on a new record because this one just wasn't going to be the success he had imagined. Ha. Kid fought and fought. He asked them to release "Picture" (his duet with Sheryl Crow) to radio, and if it didn't work out, he'd drop the issue. Well they did, and you all know what happened next. "Cocky" rose from the bottom of the charts all the way back to the top and re-entered the Top 10 for the first time since the album's debut month. Kid was smug. And he had every reason to be. After all, he was the one that told them to continue pushing another song instead of walking away from the record. And he was right. Atlantic would've started shelling out another huge recording fund for Kid to get back in the studio rather than continue to collect on an already paid for release. Insane.

If you don't believe me yet, check this out.

Recent artists who have reaped the benefits of a multi-single format: Ashanti's debut, Beyonce's debut, Justin Timberlake's debut and Pink's "Missunderztood". All went multi-platinum and all had four videos released from their respective projects. Granted they all also had months of buzz leading up to their album release dates but Beyonce and Justin did start to falter a bit after the initial run for the record, and because the labels stuck with them and released second, third and fourth singles, they are now all stacking up their platinum plaques. Pink is a great example to use because her new album hasn't done so well. The now-defunct Arista only released one single from the new project ("Try This") and walked away from the rest. They have told Pink that it's a tough album to market and that there are no other "radio friendly" tracks to release. But if that truly is the case, then why did Arista release the album in the first place?!?!?! Make the artist go back in the studio to record better tracks if you don't hear hits while they are submitting roughs. Don't go the trouble of paying out a hefty advance, packaging costs, advertising/marketing dollars, a large video budget, etc. if you don't fully believe in the album's potential. Take the time instead to wait until you know you have a gem in your hand. Maybe it's not your type of music. Or maybe you don't see the potential yourself. But listen to the artists themselves. See what vision they have for the tracks on the project. Let them explain what they would like to see released as singles, and just how the videos would play out.

And I'm not just saying that the artists are always right (like in the Kid Rock situation) and that labels should totally cater to them. But have a focus group of sorts before you just kill the album and move on to the next. But DON'T, I repeat DON'T just release one or two quick singles and walk away. (A) It leads to labels spending swiftly and frequently, which leads to friends of mine losing their jobs and paychecks. (B) It leads to quality artists becoming disillusioned with the industry as a whole and giving up. Brandy's "Full Moon" album was CHOCK full of singles and was abandoned after the title track was released to a lukewarm audience. So what Brandy's pregnant? She still coulda entranced her core audience with another catchy song and video. Same goes for Mya's "Moodring". There are plently of songs on that CD that could have had the young females rushing to the stores to pick up their copy. But alas, the second single/video was given limited play by MTV and BET, and Interscope seems to have given up as well.

That's all I have to say for now. Stay tuned for next month's newsletter. And please, feel free to forward this on to your friends. We in the music business need to open our eyes as well as our ears sometimes and WORK IT OUT. Peace.

# # #

Posted at 02:02 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink

Mar 8, 2004

The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 1

Benzino Exposes Eminem As A "Racist"?

By "The Truth"
March 2004

Benzino is the biggest joke this industry has ever seen. He is nothing but

a jealous, bitter, ugly man who thinks his claim to fame is going to be

ending someone else's career. That is so sad.

Even if the general public reacts by revolting against Eminem and never

buying his music again, what the hell can Benzino really feel he

accomplished? All he can truthfully say is "Well gee, I make the worst rap

songs in the world, and this kid Marshall has genuine talent (even if he

uses mysogenist, violent lyrics to sometimes showcase that talent), and

since I'm jealous of that talent, I'll just use my pull as the owner of a

prestigious hip-hop magazine to hold a press conference where I'll play a

song he wrote on a whim as a disgruntled youth, and then I'll get my way and

he'll be forced to retreat to his home and watch TV and eat bon-bons on his

couch for the rest of his life." Give - me - a - break. I think the big

B's just jealous that he doesn't have a production credit on the Top 3

Albums in the country right now and Eminem does. (Yes, Eminem actually

does. He produced something on (1) Jay-Z - The Black Album (2) 2Pac -

Resurrection and (3) G-Unit - Beg for Mercy.)

No doubt, I'm a fan of Em so you may think my comments are slightly skewed

but they're really not. I don't over-analyze his lyrics like a lot of the

protesting folks out there and I don't stand by everything he says but I

appreciate his undeniable creativity. He's not scared of saying something

that might be taken the wrong way. And he's not scared of acting silly and

looking dumb either. He brings a fresh voice to this industry at a time

when it so desperately needs it. Benzino whines that since Eminem arrived

on the scene, black hip-hop artists have seen their own sales decline and

they are at a danger of losing ownership of the art form they created. Oh

poor, misinformed Benzino. Granted, there IS a very successful white artist

on the scene but is Em REALLY the reason other rappers (like yourself) are

experiencing lax sales? Hell no!!! Others are not selling (including you)

because your raps suck. You have nothing to say. Your flow is garbage.

And you're never gonna have a successful record so let it go. There are

PLENTY of BLACK rappers who are still experiencing abundant success in the

wake of Eminem's rise (i.e., 50 Cent, Jay-Z, 2Pac, Outkast, Ludacris, etc.)

and there are plenty of other WHITE rappers who couldn't sell an album if it

was free (i.e., Bubba Sparxxx, Haystak, Stagga Lee, etc.) so hip-hop is not

"in danger" of being lost to the undeserving white folk. However, it is "in

danger" of being lost to the unimaginative, the boring, and those with no

talent.

So if some do want to jump on the Benzino bandwagon and claim Eminem is the

"white devil", and claim his "true colors" are finally being exposed, and

believe that the existence of a song where Eminem says black girls are only

after money and for that reason white girls are better than black girls

proves that he HATES black people and is a card-carrying member of the KKK,

so be it. I think that's ridiculous. If Eminem is full of disgust and

hatred for anyone, it's everyone. He has made derogatory (or rude)

statements towards and about white men, white women, Christopher Reeve, his

ex-wife & mother of his child, gays, politicians, music journalists, the guy

he caught his ex-wife kissing outside of a bar, Sonny Bono, Mariah Carey,

his mother, and many others. So now we can add black women to his already

extensive list. Big surprise - the guy has issues with everyone. All that

really proves is that he needs a therapist. It's just his style. If you

don't like it, don't buy his albums, or wear Shady clothing, or rent "8

Mile" or attend any of his shows. Really, knock yourself out.

Benzino is trying to say that the sheer existence of a figure like Eminem

sends the wrong message (not because of his violent lyrics mind you - of

which Benzino is equally guilty - but simply because he's white) and he

thinks that by successfully chasing Eminem out of the game and therefore

sending a message that "white people are not allowed or accepted in

hip-hop", he is rectifying the situation and sending the right message.

Never mind that statements and beliefs like that are only prolonging and

supporting racism in America and that is the LAST thing we want our youth to

witness and get behind. Would he really feel better if in the future white

rappers were literally banned from performing or releasing rap music? And

if he's trying to say that Eminem (as a white man) shouldn't be allowed to

capitalize on a predominantly black genre, then that's REALLY interesting

being that he partnered to form The Source in the last 80s with a WHITE

JEWISH MAN himself. Guess there was nothing wrong with a white man

capitalizing on a predominantly black genre then. As long as Benny's making

some dough off it too (because we KNOW he is not making 2 cents off his

royalties as an artist), then it's OK.

So read the article in today's Daily News which sheds some

light on this whole sorted tale and decide for yourself what you want to

believe (if you even care AT ALL). I personally couldn't care less if

Eminem disappeared and never made music again - I already have a collection

of his music that I can listen to whenever I want in the future if I felt

like it, and I have nothing personally invested in him or his career that I

need or want him to stick around for. I just couldn't stand by and let

Benzino make a fool of himself again, while trying to settle a personal

vendetta, without speaking my mind and getting my own message out there.

# # #

Posted at 02:07 pm by MusicBizTruth
Make a comment Permalink