layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Jun 25, 2014 0:03:24 GMT -5
layne loathe Raised on It. Instant station changer on the Highway for me. However, I really liked Cop Car (as sung by Keith), and you didn't ask but I also really like We Are Tonight (as sung by Billy). I think Sam's a talented songwriter, but the songs he is putting out himself do very little for me as country songs. Something is lost in his translations. Thanks and I did mean to ask about We are Tonight. I felt just the opposite on Cop Car. I loved Sam Hunt's version but Keith's version just fell flat for me. However, I don't think Cop Car is really country sounding by either of them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2014 3:31:39 GMT -5
It should be obvious that the objections here are not, for the most part, to the blending of influences -- it's that a true blending of influences should leave something identifiably country in song and artist if they are going to claim a country label (which is why the boundary pushers I mentioned above retain support among several of the Sam Hunt objectors here). Nothing about "Leave the Night On" distinguishes it from The Script/Jason Mraz-type songs that were hot on Hot AC five years ago. There is nothing specifically country about the lyrics of this song, never mind the sound. As for the On the Verge treatment of "Leave the Night On," like most here I dislike the disruptive impact on the charts and the fact that it is being used in service of someone who hardly would have needed the help (as opposed to an artist on an independent label with a less conventional song). On the bright side, Sam Hunt's second single won't get the same treatment, and so there will come a time when he will have to prove himself, whatever that means in today's country radio and market terms. So with all those points in mind, I've come to get why there is corporate belief in Sam Hunt and why he is placed in the country market. But that really only goes to show that, much like Gary Allan told Larry King last year, the corporate conglomerates that control radio define format by demographics, not any real musical indicators. Country radio today has little connection to country music, yet sometimes our debates about whether it should intersect with our discussions of certain artists and singles. Sam Hunt may, whether for one single or for many, make sense for corporate country radio. But as far as I'm concerned, that alone doesn't make his music country, nor does it make him a country artist. Once again, Dudley wins the internet. It's always a treat to read strong arguments and such well-thought-out posts as this one. I completely understand why there is a huge corporate belief in Sam Hunt but I don't like how it's playing out, at all. If he truly is going to be such a game-changer, then why does he need sponsored airplay via On The Verge to get his music heard? That's the point I've been trying to make--he doesn't need the help. Either his music will find that audience and he'll develop into a potential format mainstay, or he won't. He has the same opportunity that any other newbie with a record contract has. I just don't like the preferential treatment. It reads to me as if Clear Channel finds Sam to be so much better than artists like David Nail, Kacey Musgraves, and Easton Corbin, whom plenty of people want to hear as well. The disruptive impact on the charts from this song's launch and the fact that there's nothing identifiably country about it is what really frustrates me and gives me concern, because as Dudley says here, country radio today is already so far removed from country music, and radio's total embrace of this song is only going to take country radio further away from the roots of country music than it already is. However, like carriekins said--my concern about country radio's future doesn't mean I am a 'purist' or anything like that. I happen to love artists like David Nail, Eric Church, Kip Moore, Carrie Underwood, Zac Brown Band, Keith Urban, Dierks Bentley, Little Big Town, and many others. But the reason I like so many of those artists is because they don't completely cut the country sound out of their music. They incorporate other styles of music but the songs are still country, because they blend those other musical influences with country music. But with Sam here I don't hear that--it sounds like a straight-up R&B/Pop song with nothing to identify it as country.
|
|
sabre14
Diamond Member
Vince Gill & the Muppets make everything better
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 26,916
|
Post by sabre14 on Jun 25, 2014 13:14:14 GMT -5
It should be obvious that the objections here are not, for the most part, to the blending of influences -- it's that a true blending of influences should leave something identifiably country in song and artist if they are going to claim a country label (which is why the boundary pushers I mentioned above retain support among several of the Sam Hunt objectors here). Nothing about "Leave the Night On" distinguishes it from The Script/Jason Mraz-type songs that were hot on Hot AC five years ago. There is nothing specifically country about the lyrics of this song, never mind the sound. As for the On the Verge treatment of "Leave the Night On," like most here I dislike the disruptive impact on the charts and the fact that it is being used in service of someone who hardly would have needed the help (as opposed to an artist on an independent label with a less conventional song). On the bright side, Sam Hunt's second single won't get the same treatment, and so there will come a time when he will have to prove himself, whatever that means in today's country radio and market terms. So with all those points in mind, I've come to get why there is corporate belief in Sam Hunt and why he is placed in the country market. But that really only goes to show that, much like Gary Allan told Larry King last year, the corporate conglomerates that control radio define format by demographics, not any real musical indicators. Country radio today has little connection to country music, yet sometimes our debates about whether it should intersect with our discussions of certain artists and singles. Sam Hunt may, whether for one single or for many, make sense for corporate country radio. But as far as I'm concerned, that alone doesn't make his music country, nor does it make him a country artist. The disruptive impact on the charts from this song's launch and the fact that there's nothing identifiably country about it is what really frustrates me and gives me concern, because as Dudley says here, country radio today is already so far removed from country music, and radio's total embrace of this song is only going to take country radio further away from the roots of country music than it already is. However, like carriekins said--my concern about country radio's future doesn't mean I am a 'purist' or anything like that. I happen to love artists like David Nail, Eric Church, Kip Moore, Carrie Underwood, Zac Brown Band, Keith Urban, Dierks Bentley, Little Big Town, and many others. But the reason I like so many of those artists is because they don't completely cut the country sound out of their music. They incorporate other styles of music but the songs are still country, because they blend those other musical influences with country music. But with Sam here I don't hear that--it sounds like a straight-up R&B/Pop song with nothing to identify it as country. This paragraph is exactly my feelings to a tee and the highlighted part is what bothers me the most about this. Right now we have 12 songs that have a negative bullet as of today on MB from #25-50. That's a remarkable number of songs seeing decreased spins and audience from the fact that Sam's song has already cracked the top 32 along with the fact that Kenny is top 30 as well. The fact I believe this song isn't country in my opinion has me concerned about country radio's future as a whole. I can't say for sure where the future is heading for country radio because like Jamie said, I'm not a "purist" and I love the output of artists like Keith Urban, Carrie Underwood, Eric Church, and Dierks Bentley, but the fact that music like "Leave The Night On" and "Get Me Some Of That" is not only successful but fully embraced with wide open arms is what worries me. Many probably feel this is overreaction and like Sam's song as well as Thomas Rhett's and FGL's latest singles and there will always be room for country artists who incorporate country style elements in their music, but for me personally it makes me at least ponder what's on the horizon.
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,586
|
Post by onebuffalo on Jun 25, 2014 14:11:47 GMT -5
While I agree with all the major points here, I want to remind everyone that Kenny Chesney did not need any special treatment and his American Kids debuted higher that Leave The Night On and is still higher up on the chart than Sam Hunt. Of course, Chesney is the superstar here while Hunt is the unknown quantity despite being a songwriter and having success with three of his songs.
P.S.: I used to like 43dudleyvillas until she went the Jerrod Niemann route!
|
|
carriekins
5x Platinum Member
With my mouth wide open in a whiskey rain, I could stand here 24 hours a day...
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 5,322
|
Post by carriekins on Jun 25, 2014 14:13:52 GMT -5
American Kids didn't need any special treatment but it still got a Clear Channel hourly debut last Friday, and many CBS stations did the same. So that statement doesn't make much sense?
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,586
|
Post by onebuffalo on Jun 25, 2014 14:28:47 GMT -5
American Kids didn't need any special treatment but it still got a Clear Channel hourly debut last Friday, and many CBS stations did the same. So that statement doesn't make much sense? You're right. I just went through the American Kids thread and this is what jhomes87 said: Obviously I'm not defending Clear Channel's "practices" here but I think Kenny is a big enough name that he'll recover more easily than most others who get the CC deal. Plus, this going out on a Friday should help a bit. Little Big Town's CC deal was a bit odd because they aren't a huge A-list artist at radio yet. I didn't think "Day Drinking" would go up quite as fast as, say, a brand new Kenny song (or Jason, Blake, etc), so it doesn't come as a surprise to me that LBT had a really rough 8th day update. Kenny will obviously have a negative one but he may be able to cancel it out with big gains on the other days next week.
|
|
Uncle Lumpy
3x Platinum Member
The poster formerly known as Lumpster
Joined: September 2005
Posts: 3,425
|
Post by Uncle Lumpy on Jun 25, 2014 14:45:49 GMT -5
Well.... I like his voice. But yeah, The genre split can't come fast enough for me. I'm so over carpet baggers.
|
|
|
Post by nncountrykid on Jun 25, 2014 21:05:57 GMT -5
Can someone explain why these radio stations have any obligation whatsoever to uphold the "roots of country music"
Where are these country radio bylaws that define what sounds the stations should be achieving?
There is no concern for "country radio's future." There's only concern for people's idea of what it should be.
Radio stations have a goal of playing music its listeners want to hear. If they did not do that, they would not exist. People very clearly want to hear many things that a lot of people on here, myself included, do not want to hear. People do. Real living, breathing people want to hear it. That is why it gets played. If they did not want to hear it and it was being played, then there would be legitimate concern for country radio because it would be operating in a manner that was not self-sustaining.
This "disrupting the chart" stuff just baffles me. Radio exists to make money. It is not, nor has it ever been, a beacon of professional fairness. It's Sam Hunt's job to succeed. It's his record label's job to make him successful. It's Clear Channel's job to make their stations successful. If all three of those parties feel they have a song at their disposal which can lead all of them to that success, they shouldn't be handcuffing it to preserve the integrity of something that's measured by popularity. That would be as manipulative, if not more so, than this is.
And I realize the first response is going to be some variation of "nobody claimed that" but it's practically pouring out of every passive comment on here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2014 21:43:31 GMT -5
Can someone explain why these radio stations have any obligation whatsoever to uphold the "roots of country music" Where are these country radio bylaws that define what sounds the stations should be achieving? There is no concern for "country radio's future." There's only concern for people's idea of what it should be. Radio stations have a goal of playing music its listeners want to hear. If they did not do that, they would not exist. People very clearly want to hear many things that a lot of people on here, myself included, do not want to hear. People do. Real living, breathing people want to hear it. That is why it gets played. If they did not want to hear it and it was being played, then there would be legitimate concern for country radio because it would be operating in a manner that was not self-sustaining. This "disrupting the chart" stuff just baffles me. Radio exists to make money. It is not, nor has it ever been, a beacon of professional fairness. It's Sam Hunt's job to succeed. It's his record label's job to make him successful. It's Clear Channel's job to make their stations successful. If all three of those parties feel they have a song at their disposal which can lead all of them to that success, they shouldn't be handcuffing it to preserve the integrity of something that's measured by popularity. That would be as manipulative, if not more so, than this is. And I realize the first response is going to be some variation of "nobody claimed that" but it's practically pouring out of every passive comment on here. A station that identifies as a country station should probably try its best to play country music, no? Clear Channel and the other big conglomerates own hundreds of stations that are branded as Pop, AC, AAA, Urban, etc. So why can't they (Clear Channel) keep the country stuff on the country stations that they own, and keep the Pop/AC stuff on the formats it belongs on? Unless of course you are advocating for the dissolution of genre-based radio. You are absolutely correct that there are a lot of people who want to hear a lot of the stuff that is out on country radio today. But there are a LOT of people who want to hear stuff that leans much more towards the country side of the spectrum as well, and we are living breathing people as well. I see it everywhere I go online (and in the real world too)...legions of disgruntled country fans who have essentially been left behind by country radio. As for the rest of your post, the business aspect of the country industry is one that most here understand. But that doesn't mean that this Clear Channel/MCA Nashville 'stunt' via On The Verge isn't disrupting the charts. The charts reflect popularity, true. But when you have a pre-arranged and fabricated launch like this, that's not a reflection of popularity, that is a reflection of a deal reached between Clear Channel and MCA Nashville. Meanwhile, nearly a dozen songs (mostly outside the top 30) from other new artists have completely come to a stop or even lost audience in the past week. That's an unusually high number, and it almost certainly comes as a result of all the airplay heaped on Sam's song (as well as Kenny's debut). Yes, it is Clear Channel's job to make money, but they don't make money by championing one song at the expense of a dozen others. Radio makes its money from other things--advertising, mostly. Anyway...so long as radio remains genre-based, there should be a format for almost every style of song. But right now there really isn't a format for the more traditional country sounds. Country radio was and should be its home format, because Pop and Rock stations certainly aren't going to start playing country stuff. So why is it that country radio should be forced to take on all the sounds of other genres?
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,586
|
Post by onebuffalo on Jun 26, 2014 11:08:50 GMT -5
Debuts at #26 on the mongrel chart, #19 on the digital chart with 22,000 downloads.
|
|
|
Post by nncountrykid on Jun 30, 2014 17:28:52 GMT -5
Can someone explain why these radio stations have any obligation whatsoever to uphold the "roots of country music" Where are these country radio bylaws that define what sounds the stations should be achieving? There is no concern for "country radio's future." There's only concern for people's idea of what it should be. Radio stations have a goal of playing music its listeners want to hear. If they did not do that, they would not exist. People very clearly want to hear many things that a lot of people on here, myself included, do not want to hear. People do. Real living, breathing people want to hear it. That is why it gets played. If they did not want to hear it and it was being played, then there would be legitimate concern for country radio because it would be operating in a manner that was not self-sustaining. This "disrupting the chart" stuff just baffles me. Radio exists to make money. It is not, nor has it ever been, a beacon of professional fairness. It's Sam Hunt's job to succeed. It's his record label's job to make him successful. It's Clear Channel's job to make their stations successful. If all three of those parties feel they have a song at their disposal which can lead all of them to that success, they shouldn't be handcuffing it to preserve the integrity of something that's measured by popularity. That would be as manipulative, if not more so, than this is. And I realize the first response is going to be some variation of "nobody claimed that" but it's practically pouring out of every passive comment on here. A station that identifies as a country station should probably try its best to play country music, no? Clear Channel and the other big conglomerates own hundreds of stations that are branded as Pop, AC, AAA, Urban, etc. So why can't they (Clear Channel) keep the country stuff on the country stations that they own, and keep the Pop/AC stuff on the formats it belongs on? Unless of course you are advocating for the dissolution of genre-based radio. You are absolutely correct that there are a lot of people who want to hear a lot of the stuff that is out on country radio today. But there are a LOT of people who want to hear stuff that leans much more towards the country side of the spectrum as well, and we are living breathing people as well. I see it everywhere I go online (and in the real world too)...legions of disgruntled country fans who have essentially been left behind by country radio. As for the rest of your post, the business aspect of the country industry is one that most here understand. But that doesn't mean that this Clear Channel/MCA Nashville 'stunt' via On The Verge isn't disrupting the charts. The charts reflect popularity, true. But when you have a pre-arranged and fabricated launch like this, that's not a reflection of popularity, that is a reflection of a deal reached between Clear Channel and MCA Nashville. Meanwhile, nearly a dozen songs (mostly outside the top 30) from other new artists have completely come to a stop or even lost audience in the past week. That's an unusually high number, and it almost certainly comes as a result of all the airplay heaped on Sam's song (as well as Kenny's debut). Yes, it is Clear Channel's job to make money, but they don't make money by championing one song at the expense of a dozen others. Radio makes its money from other things--advertising, mostly. Anyway...so long as radio remains genre-based, there should be a format for almost every style of song. But right now there really isn't a format for the more traditional country sounds. Country radio was and should be its home format, because Pop and Rock stations certainly aren't going to start playing country stuff. So why is it that country radio should be forced to take on all the sounds of other genres? My point is who dictates what country "is" in 2014? Again, I think a lot of people here have their idea of what it should be, but that idea is starting to differ more and more from the general populace in terms of what it is. It's no different than when things got more modern and a previous generation's sound became more niche and moved to AM stations. The average listener is going to dictate what it "is" and the taste of the average listener, for better or worse, is changing. It's a reality that more hardcore fans are probably going to be more reluctant to accept. You're right about the stations making money on advertising. But the money you make via advertising is relative to the amount of people listening to your stations and if you're tailoring your stations to some seemingly outdated model of what a country radio station is supposed to be, you're going to lose advertisers, lose money and then lose the station as it was. Radio is remaining genre based, it's just that longtime hardcore listeners aren't in favor with where the genre is going, which is fine. I just think it's ludicrous to expect a station to conform to a standard that the majority of people obviously aren't into right now. There are obvious exceptions to every rule, but for the most part, the sound is becoming what people passionate to post here online don't necessarily have a penchant for. It's also entirely possible things regress to the mean and we get back to where we were. But radio evolves and I think what you're seeing now is only going to grow, whether we like it or not. If MCA Nashville and Clear Channel have reached a deal, so what? If people don't like it or don't want to hear it, things will go as they should've gone and all that will happen is both sides will have lost money - MCA through whatever they're doing to get this on the air and Clear Channel through lack of audience because people turn the channel when it comes on. If people like what they hear, what's the deal here other than people's personal tastes regarding how the song/artist was advanced?
|
|
|
Post by 43dudleyvillas on Jun 30, 2014 20:55:45 GMT -5
My point is who dictates what country "is" in 2014? ... But radio evolves... When a song like "Leave the Night On" faithfully recreates a sound, lyrical sensibility and vocal quality that was all the rage on the Hot AC format (with some Top-40 crossover) in 2009 and an Avril Lavigne-idolizing Cassadee Pope faithfully recreates the female pop-rock sound, lyrical sensibility and vocal quality that was all the rage on the Top-40 and Hot AC formats from 2002-2006, and the only real difference in 2014 is that both are marketing to country radio instead of Hot AC and/or Top-40, it is certainly the radio formats, as opposed to the music, that are evolving. To answer your earlier question, I don't think country radio is obligated to play country music, though I suppose for truth in branding purposes it would be nice. But on the flip side, knowing that radio formats determine the music they play based on demographics and with no concern for the musical signatures that identify any genre of music, we cannot logically be expected to alter our definition of country music based on what gets played on country radio. Country music is indeed evolving, but independent of country radio. The country format is indeed evolving, but independent of country music. The debates we occasionally have here arise when some of us try to impose country music on country radio, or country radio on country music.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 22:55:57 GMT -5
My point is who dictates what country "is" in 2014? Again, I think a lot of people here have their idea of what it should be, but that idea is starting to differ more and more from the general populace in terms of what it is. It's no different than when things got more modern and a previous generation's sound became more niche and moved to AM stations. The average listener is going to dictate what it "is" and the taste of the average listener, for better or worse, is changing. It's a reality that more hardcore fans are probably going to be more reluctant to accept. You're right about the stations making money on advertising. But the money you make via advertising is relative to the amount of people listening to your stations and if you're tailoring your stations to some seemingly outdated model of what a country radio station is supposed to be, you're going to lose advertisers, lose money and then lose the station as it was. Radio is remaining genre based, it's just that longtime hardcore listeners aren't in favor with where the genre is going, which is fine. I just think it's ludicrous to expect a station to conform to a standard that the majority of people obviously aren't into right now. There are obvious exceptions to every rule, but for the most part, the sound is becoming what people passionate to post here online don't necessarily have a penchant for. It's also entirely possible things regress to the mean and we get back to where we were. But radio evolves and I think what you're seeing now is only going to grow, whether we like it or not. If MCA Nashville and Clear Channel have reached a deal, so what? If people don't like it or don't want to hear it, things will go as they should've gone and all that will happen is both sides will have lost money - MCA through whatever they're doing to get this on the air and Clear Channel through lack of audience because people turn the channel when it comes on. If people like what they hear, what's the deal here other than people's personal tastes regarding how the song/artist was advanced? I think you're still missing my main point. Legions of country music fans have been left in the dust by country radio, because as 43dudleyvillas noted, today's genre-based radio is no longer focused on what sounds/styles actually classifies music as a certain genre...it's all about the demographic, so in this case, all the emphasis has been placed on bro-country because that's the audience buying digital singles. I think so many defenders of today's country radio underestimate that there is still a very large number of people who would like some more 'country' put back in their music. The 90's and early 2000's were, after all, when the country industry was truly at its peak. I think the digital single actually really hurts genres, and I think it's a big reason as to why genre lines have blurred, but that's for a whole 'nother discussion. Anyway, I disagree that the listeners are controlling what radio plays. I think that's a ludicrous notion, especially in light of the deal we're just seeing with Sam Hunt. Corporate radio gate-keepers are ultimately who decides what radio will play. Listeners weren't lining up demanding to hear Sam Hunt. He's built a pretty good 'underground' fan-base but to 99% of the general listening public, he was a completely unknown artist. So regarding his deal, I care about it because payola is illegal, and this looks an awful lot like that. I doubt MCA is actually paying cash to Clear Channel, but every single time Sam's song plays on a Clear Channel station (I've heard it on several CC stations this week), when the song concludes a robotic voice comes on saying "That's iHeartRadio On The Verge artist Sam Hunt with 'Leave The Night On', sponsored by MCA Nashville". The fact that we don't know anything about this 'deal' is very suspicious to me, and it seems like just a loophole in the illegal pay-for-play laws. Finally, I still feel like I'm being painted as some sort of fist-thumping traditionalist (perhaps not, but that's how it read to me). And that's simply not true. I love all kinds of modern country music, from Eric Church to Carrie Underwood, Keith Urban, David Nail, etc. My beef is not entirely with the change in sounds (so long as the songs still remain identifiable as somewhat country--instrumentally, vocally, lyrically, etc), but rather with how corporate radio has been moving forward, and with certain songs/artists that they have chosen to champion at the expense of others. I realize radio can't support everyone, but it's the trends in championing the least country-sounding artists and playing the top few songs more than ever that bothers me. Songs are now getting spun 70-80 times a week or more when they are in power rotation. Audience numbers (for the top 20-30 songs) are way up as a result, and the variety of music on playlists is way down. I simply long for music with better lyrics, and for radio stations to truly listen to their listeners (which again, I don't think they are really doing). So many playlists are heavily syndicated now and many are pre-programmed days in advance. What radio plays really doesn't have much to do with the listeners in any given local area. Country music can evolve and change--it always has--but when country radio changes into something completely different, I simply don't understand why the "country" moniker needs to still be attached to it, especially when so many artists are still releasing great music that fits within the genre lines much better. The whole point of having musical genres is to break the different music styles up into categories that each have their own unique sound, but today's country music isn't very unique at all. It sounds like recycled pop/rock/AC music and there are already genres for that type of music. My idea of what country radio should be is obviously different than what country radio actually is, but when it comes to country as a genre, my idea of what it should be is exactly how that genre has always been defined--a genre that is about strong, well-written and story-driven songs, which typically make use of at least some instruments that are unique to the country genre.
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Jun 30, 2014 23:36:48 GMT -5
I've said before, I like this "On The Verge" program because it introduces Sam Hunt immediately to a radio audience that would not normally be hearing his debut single until months down the line if it even was able to make it that long before fizzling. As for some of the Artists that Sam has passed, some of them I would love to see be a part of this same deal. I don't however feel sorry or bad for Artists like Kip Moore, Gloriana, Easton Corbin and others that have had Albums and singles that have already been tops on the charts. Those Artists should be able to climb the chart based on past success that radio has already given them. I don't really feel like Dustin Lynch needed any help being introduced to radio but I'd be all for Chris Stapleton, Natalie Stovall, Maddie&Tae, Brothers Osborne etc getting this same treatment since they all are brand new with no albums.
|
|
blueguitar
New Member
Joined: February 2013
Posts: 265
|
Post by blueguitar on Jul 1, 2014 0:01:26 GMT -5
Pay to play is not natural chart progression. I hate this manipulation! This song is not country and should not have been considered. Any program of this sort should be impacted by audience feedback. Period. And not manufactured and forced upon the audience. I can think of a lot more artists worthy of this treatment with actual country songs. Jamie Lynn Spears comes to mind, for example.
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Jul 1, 2014 0:06:46 GMT -5
Pay to play is not natural chart progression. I hate this manipulation! This song is not country and should not have been considered. Any program of this sort should be impacted by audience feedback. Period. And not manufactured and forced upon the audience. I can think of a lot more artists worthy of this treatment with actual country songs. Jamie Lynn Spears comes to mind, for example. The chart is and has been manipulated weekly with the revolving door of #1's,and the CC treatment of A-list Artists debut singles. If anything, this program is at least promoting something that needs to be promoted and marketed. If the people don't like it, sales will reflect such and the single will stall ultimately.
|
|
rsmatto
6x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2008
Posts: 6,527
|
Post by rsmatto on Jul 1, 2014 2:03:00 GMT -5
Pay to play is not natural chart progression. I hate this manipulation! This song is not country and should not have been considered. Any program of this sort should be impacted by audience feedback. Period. And not manufactured and forced upon the audience. I can think of a lot more artists worthy of this treatment with actual country songs. Jamie Lynn Spears comes to mind, for example. "Natural chart progression?" There's nothing of the sort. Things like these programs have been around in some form or another on radio and such since the industry of popular music was created. No matter what you think of this song, to state anything about chart "progression" and "natural" is unreal to me.
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,586
|
Post by onebuffalo on Jul 1, 2014 9:30:44 GMT -5
I'm surprised the bottom did not fall from under Sam Hunt. #30 in its third week and still managed to move UP!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 13:15:44 GMT -5
I'm surprised the bottom did not fall from under Sam Hunt. #30 in its third week and still managed to move UP! On The Verge is a sustained-push type of program. It's a more steady climb than the once-an-hour Artist Integration thing. Sam and MCA don't have to worry about falling back any (and neither did Craig Campbell or Dustin Lynch). Basically the songs 'selected' for On The Verge just get put into higher rotation quicker than they normally would but then they don't lose that airplay; they just keep adding to it.
|
|
blueguitar
New Member
Joined: February 2013
Posts: 265
|
Post by blueguitar on Jul 1, 2014 15:52:57 GMT -5
Pay to play is not natural chart progression. I hate this manipulation! This song is not country and should not have been considered. Any program of this sort should be impacted by audience feedback. Period. And not manufactured and forced upon the audience. I can think of a lot more artists worthy of this treatment with actual country songs. Jamie Lynn Spears comes to mind, for example. "Natural chart progression?" There's nothing of the sort. Things like these programs have been around in some form or another on radio and such since the industry of popular music was created. No matter what you think of this song, to state anything about chart "progression" and "natural" is unreal to me. Maybe I used the incorrect words. I am just saying that its not taking the same path up the chart as every other new artist and I don't like it. Seems to take the wind out of the sails of other newbies at the bottom part of the chart. And also, I feel like they should only give an artist this treatment if the Audience Feedback continuously ranks a song much higher than its place on the charts. That is all.
|
|
rsmatto
6x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2008
Posts: 6,527
|
Post by rsmatto on Jul 2, 2014 12:36:02 GMT -5
"Natural chart progression?" There's nothing of the sort. Things like these programs have been around in some form or another on radio and such since the industry of popular music was created. No matter what you think of this song, to state anything about chart "progression" and "natural" is unreal to me. Maybe I used the incorrect words. I am just saying that its not taking the same path up the chart as every other new artist and I don't like it. Seems to take the wind out of the sails of other newbies at the bottom part of the chart. And also, I feel like they should only give an artist this treatment if the Audience Feedback continuously ranks a song much higher than its place on the charts. That is all. Well, they had audience feedback of every city he's played in, they had radio's reaction to his music via the radio tours. Radio needs to make stars and all signs pointed to Sam Hunt being a star (the buzz in Nashville's been huge, the buzz from his free mixtapes too). It may suck that Maggie Rose or a Kira Isabella or Chasin' Crazy, Gloriana, Jon Pardi, or Eric Paslay. Would it have been very awesome to have it happen with Chris Stapleton? Yeah, I think so but Sam checks ALL of the boxes from a mainstream perspective (lyrical, melodic and singing talent), strong, model-like looks. All of this being said, who knows if he'd have the 'normal' run up the charts (Stalling) w/o the initiative. I have the feeling that it may have gotten where it is slower but still been very huge.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Jul 2, 2014 12:42:18 GMT -5
Maybe I used the incorrect words. I am just saying that its not taking the same path up the chart as every other new artist and I don't like it. Seems to take the wind out of the sails of other newbies at the bottom part of the chart. And also, I feel like they should only give an artist this treatment if the Audience Feedback continuously ranks a song much higher than its place on the charts. That is all. Well, they had audience feedback of every city he's played in, they had radio's reaction to his music via the radio tours. Radio needs to make stars and all signs pointed to Sam Hunt being a star (the buzz in Nashville's been huge, the buzz from his free mixtapes too). It may suck that Maggie Rose or a Kira Isabella or Chasin' Crazy, Gloriana, Jon Pardi, or Eric Paslay. Would it have been very awesome to have it happen with Chris Stapleton? Yeah, I think so but Sam checks ALL of the boxes from a mainstream perspective (lyrical, melodic and singing talent), strong, model-like looks. All of this being said, who knows if he'd have the 'normal' run up the charts (Stalling) w/o the initiative. I have the feeling that it may have gotten where it is slower but still been very huge. Save for Maggie Rose, I don't think any of those people have a valid gripe. The Kira Isabella song is an abomination, the Chasin' Crazy song isn't good enough to warrant focus attention, and the other people have all received radio exposure before. They're names - if they can't repeat, that's on them and their music. A little worried that this song is slowing so early (On the Verge songs seem to have a lengthier explosion period), but the strong iTunes sales (it's now on the cusp of Top 50) suggest audiences like what they're hearing. So I still see this one smashing.
|
|
rsmatto
6x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2008
Posts: 6,527
|
Post by rsmatto on Jul 2, 2014 12:47:04 GMT -5
Well, they had audience feedback of every city he's played in, they had radio's reaction to his music via the radio tours. Radio needs to make stars and all signs pointed to Sam Hunt being a star (the buzz in Nashville's been huge, the buzz from his free mixtapes too). It may suck that Maggie Rose or a Kira Isabella or Chasin' Crazy, Gloriana, Jon Pardi, or Eric Paslay. Would it have been very awesome to have it happen with Chris Stapleton? Yeah, I think so but Sam checks ALL of the boxes from a mainstream perspective (lyrical, melodic and singing talent), strong, model-like looks. All of this being said, who knows if he'd have the 'normal' run up the charts (Stalling) w/o the initiative. I have the feeling that it may have gotten where it is slower but still been very huge. Save for Maggie Rose, I don't think any of those people have a valid gripe. The Kira Isabella song is an abomination, the Chasin' Crazy song isn't good enough to warrant focus attention, and the other people have all received radio exposure before. They're names - if they can't repeat, that's on them and their music. A little worried that this song is slowing so early (On the Verge songs seem to have a lengthier explosion period), but the strong iTunes sales (it's now on the cusp of Top 50) suggest audiences like what they're hearing. So I still see this one smashing. The program's first two artists were Craig Campbell (a few Top 20 hits) and Dustin Lynch (A Top 10 and Top 30s). So the other names were relevant. Isabella's song is GREAT. It's just tough for radio to play tough topics like that. Maggie Rose is actually a GREAT candidate for such a program when she's done with her sophomore album's stuff.
|
|
sabre14
Diamond Member
Vince Gill & the Muppets make everything better
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 26,916
|
Post by sabre14 on Jul 2, 2014 12:52:15 GMT -5
Well, they had audience feedback of every city he's played in, they had radio's reaction to his music via the radio tours. Radio needs to make stars and all signs pointed to Sam Hunt being a star (the buzz in Nashville's been huge, the buzz from his free mixtapes too). It may suck that Maggie Rose or a Kira Isabella or Chasin' Crazy, Gloriana, Jon Pardi, or Eric Paslay. Would it have been very awesome to have it happen with Chris Stapleton? Yeah, I think so but Sam checks ALL of the boxes from a mainstream perspective (lyrical, melodic and singing talent), strong, model-like looks. All of this being said, who knows if he'd have the 'normal' run up the charts (Stalling) w/o the initiative. I have the feeling that it may have gotten where it is slower but still been very huge. Save for Maggie Rose, I don't think any of those people have a valid gripe. The Kira Isabella song is an abomination, the Chasin' Crazy song isn't good enough to warrant focus attention, and the other people have all received radio exposure before. They're names - if they can't repeat, that's on them and their music. A little worried that this song is slowing so early (On the Verge songs seem to have a lengthier explosion period), but the strong iTunes sales (it's now on the cusp of Top 50) suggest audiences like what they're hearing. So I still see this one smashing. Care to explain why Chasin Crazy's song isn't good enough to warrant focus attention? Some may find "Leave The Night On" not good enough to warrant such focus attention. I personally would prefer that this program not continue with any artist and let the well received radio tour do it's good and have a normal opening week to country radio with a natural chart run, which obviously we've beaten that back and forth into the ground about "On The Verge" and I do understand why you and others are for the program. As for the others mentioned already receiving radio exposure before; Craig Campbell and Dustin Lynch who were iHeartradio's "On The Verge" before Sam, also received radio exposure before and had top 20 singles just like Jon Pardi, and Gloriana, so to say that having already received radio exposure and therefore they don't have a gripe (which I was unaware that those artists were griping to begin with) is simply not true.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Jul 2, 2014 13:01:51 GMT -5
Save for Maggie Rose, I don't think any of those people have a valid gripe. The Kira Isabella song is an abomination, the Chasin' Crazy song isn't good enough to warrant focus attention, and the other people have all received radio exposure before. They're names - if they can't repeat, that's on them and their music. A little worried that this song is slowing so early (On the Verge songs seem to have a lengthier explosion period), but the strong iTunes sales (it's now on the cusp of Top 50) suggest audiences like what they're hearing. So I still see this one smashing. Care to explain why Chasin Crazy's song isn't good enough to warrant focus attention? Some may find "Leave The Night On" not good enough to warrant such focus attention. I personally would prefer that this program not continue with any artist and let the well received radio tour do it's good and have a normal opening week to country radio with a natural chart run, which obviously we've beaten that back and forth into the ground about "On The Verge" and I do understand why you and others are for the program. As for the others mentioned already receiving radio exposure before; Craig Campbell and Dustin Lynch who were iHeartradio's "On The Verge" before Sam, also received radio exposure before and had top 20 singles just like Jon Pardi, and Gloriana, so to say that having already received radio exposure and therefore they don't have a gripe (which I was unaware that those artists were griping to begin with) is simply not true. I just think the Chasin' Crazy song is horrible - it's like an ugly hybrid of Scotty McCreery and Gloriana (who I like individually, but not mixed together). But that's an opinion. I *personally* would hate to see that get extra help at radio. As for comparing the others to Lynch and Campbell; I'm not defending those decisions by CC. I think I've been pretty consistent in how I feel an On the Verge program should work and even made the unpopular Pulse Music choice of arguing *against* it on the pop board with regard to Clean Bandit's "Rather Be."
|
|
sabre14
Diamond Member
Vince Gill & the Muppets make everything better
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 26,916
|
Post by sabre14 on Jul 2, 2014 13:08:23 GMT -5
Care to explain why Chasin Crazy's song isn't good enough to warrant focus attention? Some may find "Leave The Night On" not good enough to warrant such focus attention. I personally would prefer that this program not continue with any artist and let the well received radio tour do it's good and have a normal opening week to country radio with a natural chart run, which obviously we've beaten that back and forth into the ground about "On The Verge" and I do understand why you and others are for the program. As for the others mentioned already receiving radio exposure before; Craig Campbell and Dustin Lynch who were iHeartradio's "On The Verge" before Sam, also received radio exposure before and had top 20 singles just like Jon Pardi, and Gloriana, so to say that having already received radio exposure and therefore they don't have a gripe (which I was unaware that those artists were griping to begin with) is simply not true. I just think the Chasin' Crazy song is horrible - it's like an ugly hybrid of Scotty McCreery and Gloriana (who I like individually, but not mixed together). But that's an opinion. I *personally* would hate to see that get extra help at radio. As for comparing the others to Lynch and Campbell; I'm not defending those decisions by CC. I think I've been pretty consistent in how I feel an On the Verge program should work and even made the unpopular Pulse Music choice of arguing *against* it on the pop board with regard to Clean Bandit's "Rather Be." Fair enough. Personally I love "Keep Them Kisses Comin'" and I still despised the "On The Verge" program, even though it obviously helped that song which I enjoyed become a hit. To be honest I'm not the biggest fan of Chasin Crazy's song either for the fact of the vocals on the chorus. Sam's song is pretty good but not in any way country to me, and I like Kira Isabella's song due to the lyrics even though it's devoid of a strong melody. But again, those are my opinions. Like I said, I'd rather "On The Verge" not exists at all, regardless of whether I enjoy the song it's helping or not.
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Jul 2, 2014 13:56:20 GMT -5
On The Verge does exist and so far it has promoted three very different songs and Artists. To me if you are going to be so upset about this, shouldn't we be in all the threads with the CC lead single debuts by every A-lister talking about how unnatural their chart run is and how there was no feedback on that particular single before it went up the chart? Radio is not fair. They are a business and it's their job to promote songs and Artists. Just because they haven't chosen so far who you want or like, doesn't mean they won't. I don't see how anyone here can keep talking about chart integrity when in fact their isn't any and hasn't been for a long time.
|
|
sabre14
Diamond Member
Vince Gill & the Muppets make everything better
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 26,916
|
Post by sabre14 on Jul 2, 2014 14:16:49 GMT -5
On The Verge does exist and so far it has promoted three very different songs and Artists. To me if you are going to be so upset about this, shouldn't we be in all the threads with the CC lead single debuts by every A-lister talking about how unnatural their chart run is and how there was no feedback on that particular single before it went up the chart? Radio is not fair. They are a business and it's their job to promote songs and Artists. Just because they haven't chosen so far who you want or like, doesn't mean they won't. I don't see how anyone here can keep talking about chart integrity when in fact their isn't any and hasn't been for a long time. I think I along with others have already said quite enough about why we're against this program. I was simply asking why kanimal didn't enjoy Chasin Crazy's song and pointing out that Dustin and Craig already had exposure at country radio, so to say that someone who already has had exposure would be incorrect. And simply saying why I personally don't care if I enjoy the "On The Verge" song or not. And never once, have I or really anybody (and I apologize if someone in fact has) that the chart is integrity based. Country radio has and never will be integrity based but that doesn't mean I should just accept "On The Verge" because radio already lacks integrity. To me it makes a out of whack entity, even more out of whack. I know it's a business. And I understand it's their job to promote songs and artists. As for A-listers getting CC deals; I don't like those either for obvious reasons, but country radio usually adds those artists songs quickly out of the gate because their audience knows who those artists are and already have millions of fans around North America. Sam is still a new unknown artist to 95% of the average country listener. Radio is not fair, as evidence by "On The Verge". Just like life is not fair and so on and so on. I feel like a broken record because I've repeated myself numerous times and I know that many disagree which is perfectly fine (overall discussion would be far less interesting if there wasn't disagreements) but I feel like what has been said in this thread by numerous posters has fallen on deaf ears.
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Jul 2, 2014 14:22:51 GMT -5
On The Verge does exist and so far it has promoted three very different songs and Artists. To me if you are going to be so upset about this, shouldn't we be in all the threads with the CC lead single debuts by every A-lister talking about how unnatural their chart run is and how there was no feedback on that particular single before it went up the chart? Radio is not fair. They are a business and it's their job to promote songs and Artists. Just because they haven't chosen so far who you want or like, doesn't mean they won't. I don't see how anyone here can keep talking about chart integrity when in fact their isn't any and hasn't been for a long time. I think I along with others have already said quite enough about why we're against this program. I was simply asking why kanimal didn't enjoy Chasin Crazy's song and pointing out that Dustin and Craig already had exposure at country radio, so to say that someone who already has had exposure would be incorrect. And simply saying why I personally don't care if I enjoy the "On The Verge" song or not. And never once, have I or really anybody (and I apologize if someone in fact has) that the chart is integrity based. Country radio has and never will be integrity based but that doesn't mean I should just accept "On The Verge" because radio already lacks integrity. To me it makes a out of whack entity, even more out of whack. I know it's a business. And I understand it's their job to promote songs and artists. As for A-listers getting CC deals; I don't like those either for obvious reasons, but country radio usually adds those artists songs quickly out of the gate because their audience knows who those artists are and already have millions of fans around North America. Sam is still a new unknown artist to 95% of the average country listener. Radio is not fair, as evidence by "On The Verge". Just like life is not fair and so on and so on. I feel like a broken record because I've repeated myself numerous times and I know that many disagree which is perfectly fine (overall discussion would be far less interesting if there wasn't disagreements) but I feel like what has been said in this thread by numerous posters has fallen on deaf ears. I understand and respect your views. I think I'm just feeling that most of the backlash of this program landed in this thread when in fact I don't see much of anything about it in the Dustin Lynch or Craig Campbell thread. I think it has more to do with the dislike of this Artist than the program itself and that's fine for people to feel that way.
|
|
sabre14
Diamond Member
Vince Gill & the Muppets make everything better
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 26,916
|
Post by sabre14 on Jul 2, 2014 14:33:25 GMT -5
I think I along with others have already said quite enough about why we're against this program. I was simply asking why kanimal didn't enjoy Chasin Crazy's song and pointing out that Dustin and Craig already had exposure at country radio, so to say that someone who already has had exposure would be incorrect. And simply saying why I personally don't care if I enjoy the "On The Verge" song or not. And never once, have I or really anybody (and I apologize if someone in fact has) that the chart is integrity based. Country radio has and never will be integrity based but that doesn't mean I should just accept "On The Verge" because radio already lacks integrity. To me it makes a out of whack entity, even more out of whack. I know it's a business. And I understand it's their job to promote songs and artists. As for A-listers getting CC deals; I don't like those either for obvious reasons, but country radio usually adds those artists songs quickly out of the gate because their audience knows who those artists are and already have millions of fans around North America. Sam is still a new unknown artist to 95% of the average country listener. Radio is not fair, as evidence by "On The Verge". Just like life is not fair and so on and so on. I feel like a broken record because I've repeated myself numerous times and I know that many disagree which is perfectly fine (overall discussion would be far less interesting if there wasn't disagreements) but I feel like what has been said in this thread by numerous posters has fallen on deaf ears. I understand and respect your views. I think I'm just feeling that most of the backlash of this program landed in this thread when in fact I don't see much of anything about it in the Dustin Lynch or Craig Campbell thread. I think it has more to do with the dislike of this Artist than the program itself and that's fine for people to feel that way. I can't speak for other posters, but I myself (and you can go back and look if you wish) have said in the Craig and Dustin thread why I don't like "On The Verge", just like Sam's thread. I have nothing against the artist, nor the song. The fact I don't find this song country, to me, is a completely different discussion entirely. I'm sure that the style of Sam's song has rubbed many the wrong way, but it would be unfair if I assumed that played a factor in anybody's feelings with "On The Verge". If I seem upset, I apologize. I also respect you're views and understand you're frustrations.
|
|