Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (471068)	4/12/2009 10:33:57 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1575596

>> Hit a nerve, did I? Must have been a fan. No, not a fan. I mean, out of 15,000 tracks on my ipod, none of them are Monkees tracks, if that's what you mean. But their talent was underrated due to their goofy TV show. They were hired to do a TV show and when they started wanting to do music that role was not very open to them. Yeah, they were so talented, you still hear their music on the radio all the time, just like many of their contemporaries. Oh, wait, that isn't true. Actually, they still get a good deal of radio play on those channels which play music from that style & era. For example, a search of XM's playlists finds them played them on Outlaw Country, The Village, SiriusXM Stars, Rock@Random, XMX, Sunny, The Blend, The Loft, The Spectrum, 60s On 6, 70s on 7, Cenemagic, 80s on 8 and shockingly, Hair Nation and Deeptracks. That's 15 of XM's 70 or so music channels playing Monkees tracks over the recent months. Obviously, the incidence of play is much heavier on the 60s channel than the others. >> Gee, i-node. That has only been true for, I dunno, decades. I wouldn't suggest it never happened in earlier times. But there is no comparison between today's music scene and that of 40 years ago. Today, money is pumped into an "artist" for all the wrong reasons, and that's why the quality of music has declined to an all time low. It never implied good, either. It was always predicated on whether or not they could make them into stars. I don't think you fully comprehend what payola was about. The concept was not like that of today. At all. Payola was based on the concept that if you get the music before the public it is good enough people will demand it. Today's Brittany Spears style of production is based on the idea that in spite of the lousy music, the person has "star qualities" that will enable them to produce revenue and drive sales. Those qualities need not include musicianship. Totally different principle from Payola. You will find plenty of stuff that made it to the top of the charts that no one even remembers. And then there is stuff that never made the top 100 who you can still hear now. There is NOTHING that made it to the top of the charts that "no one remembers". We're not all dead yet. There was some crap that made it, but out of promotion of bad music. It was more on the basis of a gimmick -- so-called "bubblegum" would be an example of this -- catchy tunes with teenybopper lyrics, something like that. Rather than argue the point, how about you list a few of the lousy, yet successful tracks that resulted from promotion out of the 60s?