Google Search

eobot

Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Continued. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Continued. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

(TALENT) The Blame Game (continued)

10-31-2012

Radio Ink publisher, Eric Rhoads, recently suggested that it was time for radio to take responsibility for its own situation. I would state in stronger terms that radio sits on the cusp of demise. If that?s too harsh for tender eyes, then, most certainly, stagnation. None of this, I contend, is necessary or inevitable ? for many reasons.

The circumstance in which radio finds itself is the responsibility of the people who own, run, and yes, staff the stations. Ownership and management do make for rich targets. And rightly so. The staff, meanwhile ? both on-air and creative ? are in no position to put on their whiner-hats and yip about the big, bad corporate entities that are getting in the way of their own superior wit, skills, and charm.

In his editorial, Mr. Rhoads accurately defines radio as a medium that gets better (read: more influential) responses when audience emotions are engaged ? more than if pure content is all that is provided. He didn?t have to say ?appropriate emotions? as the ones that drive listeners to jab the tune-out button are not those that anybody recommends. That, as is constantly being demonstrated, is something we can do all by ourselves. In fact, providing material in a manner that generates those exact undesirable emotions is what radio does ? as a default position.

The main factors that permeate the experience of the vast majority of radio folk include: 1/ An ignorance of how this medium impacts audiences; 2/ An unwillingness to consider newer or (seemingly) unrelated material that would influence programming and commercial production philosophies and techniques; 3/ An unwillingness and/or inability to adapt to changing environments; And, 4/ The unfortunate acceptance of a tainted and toxic hierarchy of values which places money/sales/revenue/profits as the first and highest priority.

The glaring and obvious irony here is that no one ? and I mean no one ? has been able to convincingly argue that audiences and clients have been the very last considerations of owners and management for decades. The bleating of management that ?our listeners and clients come first? is just pure, noxious tripe. In other words: They are lying ? and are so expert at it, they can do it with a straight face. There is, however, a bail-out position. They actually might be sincere. But, that?s even more frightening.

Further, and as mentioned earlier, talent is not being offered a free pass here either. As this is a business supposedly staffed by ?professionals," I would not be out of line to ask of every on-air or creative department staffer: ?What are the last three books on communication you read where you applied the material provided?? In other fields, ?professionals? are constantly being upgraded in their knowledge and skills ? most of which, by the way, is being provided by employers! (To expect that of radio is, I realize, to delude oneself.)

I really do tire of having senior on-air or creative personnel offering, ?That?s the way I have been doing it for years and it?s been working for me.? Twenty piggies crammed into a 15? x 15? slop-filled stall can make a similar claim. The only difference is the piggies don?t know that one day they will be bacon ? although rumors are rampant in radio.

I can pick any market of any size where the American model of radio is being practiced and know I am going to hear the most superficial, poorly-delivered, irritating, ill-prepared and seemingly mindless group of talent ever to grace a professional, electronic medium. While acknowledging the rare people-of-talent who do exist and who are plying their trade, I project that even the talent themselves would accept my description as being accurate. This doesn?t mean they have neither the potential nor desire to be superior communicators and/or entertainers. It is, unfortunately, a valid and sordid description of what is coming out of the box.

Talent will be forgiven for the claim of finding themselves in a terrible conundrum ? wanting and willing to be better at what they do, but given neither the skill-enhancement opportunities nor the air-time to master any skills they may already bring to the microphone. As has been suggested for those on the management side, there is that group of talent who don?t even know they suck, especially when PDs, who are incompetent anyway, tell the talent they don?t suck.

This is no time for radio to be digging in and continuing to strenuously do what doesn?t work. Please stop me if I seem a little maudlin here. I kinda feel for the poor salespeople who are thrown out on the street with the latest, greatest closing techniques to grind the unsuspecting (or not) client-base with more pleading bafflegab. White noise taking the form of ?Well, it worked for these guys!? is about all that is being provided. In terms of carrying briefcases full of powerful, broadcast solutions for their clients, most are just wandering around with empty sacks of confetti and sparkly beads ? and a firm, sincere handshake.

Speaking of further ironies: The one that has always impressed me the most about radio is that one that hardly anybody in the business can describe how, specifically our medium works/impacts an audience. Not only that, but the medium has a completely different impact on those who work in the industry. Audiences experience the radio. We think about it. It is called a ?meta-position."

Now, I do appreciate how laying out blame does nothing for the blamer ? other than tending to freeze them into inactivity. There is, however, a time and place to discuss responsibilities and alternatives. This may be one of those.

Still, my thanks and a tip-o?-the-hat to Mr. Rhoads for reinforcing that which has been obvious to some for decades. Someone of his stature making the admonition can only help the proposition to be moved along.

Ronald T. Robinson has been involved in Canadian Radio since the '60s as a performer, writer and coach and has trained and certified as a personal counsellor. Ron makes the assertion that the most important communicative aspects of broadcasting, as they relate to Talent and Creative, have yet to be addressed. Check out his website www.voicetalentguy.com

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend


View the original article here

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Ask Billboard: Which Superstars Have Yet To Hit No. 1? Readers Respond, Continued

Ask Billboard is updated every Friday. As always, submit your questions about Billboard charts, sales and airplay, as well as general music musings, to askbb@billboard.com. Please include your first and last name, as well as your city, state and country, if outside the U.S.


WHICH SUPERSTARS HAVE YET TO REACH NO. 1? READERS RESPOND, CONTINUED

Dear Gary,

I thought of yet more artists that fit the "Ask Billboard" discussion about star acts haven't topped both the Billboard Hot 100 song chart and the Billboard 200 album chart. In fact, the following five acts, amazingly, never hit No. 1 on either chart.

How about the English group that impacted the world from the "generation" of the British Invasion to the generation currently watching "C.S.I." ... Who is this act? the Who.

If you think "My Generation," "Who Are You" (the "C.S.I." theme), "Won't Get Fooled Again" ("C.S.I.: Miami") or "Baba O'Riley" ("C.S.I.: New York") were Hot 100 No. 1s, think again. None is even the Who's highest-charting song.

The band's top-peaking title remains "I Can See for Miles," which reached No. 9 in 1967. The song marks the first and only top 10 for the group from Shepherd Bush, London.

On the Billboard 200, two albums from the Who reached No. 2: "Quadrophenia" in 1973 and "Who Are You" in 1978.

How about another group that helped lead the British Invasion yet never hit No. 1 on both the Hot 100 and Billboard 200: the Kinks.

If you believe that "You Really Got Me" was this band's greatest Hot 100 hit, you'd be incorrect (and could fittingly repeat the song's title upon being stumped). Two other songs peaked higher, but again, not at No. 1: "Tired of Waiting for You" in 1965 and "Come Dancing" in 1982, both at No. 6.

On the Billboard 200, the Kinks' only top 10 album - among 33 visits - was "Greatest Hits!," which peaked at No. 9 in 1966.

A legendary American band that never topped the Hot 100 and Billboard 200? the Grateful Dead. On the Hot 100, "Touch of Grey" became the group's only top 10 (No. 6, 1987), while parent album "In the Dark" (also No. 6) is its only top 10 among a whopping 49 chart entries.

Two more: Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers' highest-charting Hot 100 single is "Stop Draggin' My Heart Around," with Fleetwood Mac's Stevie Nicks (No. 3, 1981). On the Billboard 200, "Damn the Torpedoes" in 1979 and "Mojo" in 2010 each peaked at No. 2.

And, the Pretenders' best showing on the Hot 100 remains "Back on the Chain Gang" (No. 5, 1983). On the Billboard 200, their highest-ranking album is "Learning to Crawl." In 1984, it climbed to No. 5.

Despite not topping the Hot 100 and Billboard 200, the Who, Kinks, Grateful Dead, Petty & the Heartbreakers and the Pretenders share a more important trait. All have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, music's number one honor.

Sincerely,

Mackenzie (Mac) Scott,
Fajardo, Puerto Rico

Hi Gary,

I think that Bruce Springsteen requires an asterisk when listing major artists that haven't scored Hot 100 and Billboard 200 No. 1 hits.

As a songwriter, the Boss has done quite well on the Hot 100, notching a No. 1 back in 1977 with Manfred Mann's Earth Band's "Blinded by the Light."

Springsteen also wrote Hot 100 top fives for the Pointer Sisters ("Fire," No. 2, 1979; coincidentally, the closest that he group would come to No. 1, along with "Slow Hand" two years later) and Natalie Cole's "Pink Cadillac " (No. 5, 1988, again, tying the legendary R&B singer's best chart placement).

Springsteen also penned "Because the Night," the highest-charting Hot 100 singles for two acts: Patti Smith (No. 13, 1978) and 10,000 Maniacs (No. 11, 1994).

Best,

Brad Lyman


View the original article here