No Subject

[microsoft!stevesc@uunet.uu.net]

Subject: Re: Implorings ..., new kid
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
References: <8909291710.AA23715@ide.com> <0Z9uSZy00UhBE1WBcl@andrew.cmu.edu>

Stewart, I generally agree with you:
>Can you imagine the head of CBS Records deciding that Kate Bush could be
>as big as Madonna, with the right changes to her "image"?  I can.

I could imagine this happening, but since Kate was in the choosing
position I'm sure that the promised to let her have her way when she
wanted her way (though she apparently thought it better to let them
have their way on choosing a U.S. single, which doesn't compromise
her creative freedom).  It amazes me that she ended up there instead
of the labels that most often carry worthwhile, non-mainstream music,
Sire and (recently) Elektra.

I wish I could imagine someone deciding that Kate Bush could be as
big as Madonna, without changes to her "image".  But the record
companies know their majority customers better than that.  Their
majority customers have the kind of attention spans that can't
deal with someone who takes so long to produce an album that she
sells albums to practically everyone interested, but still falls
off the almighty sheep-leading charts in the interim.

On the other hand, I think that a certain part of her failure to
reach sales proportional to her talent is cynicism on the part of
the record company people.  They observe how well shit sells, and
seem tempted to draw the impression that non-shit doesn't sell.
Record company peoples' expectations have a lot to do with what
sells, since they're willing to invest a lot of promotional money
in things they think likely to sell well.  Sales predictions in
the music industry selling to customers who tend to decide what
they like based on what's "popular" are remarkably self-fulfilling.

But in one important area I think you're wrong.

I think we who care what music we listen to _do_ have an interest
in what others like.  Why?  Because what other like decides what
plays on the radio.  So what?  Radio is a nice medium.  You can
listen to it in the car even on trips that are too short to put a
disc into the player.  You can wear a radio on your head when you
go jogging.  A restaurant can play a radio all day without having
people stepping away from their work to change the tunes, or argue
about what to play next.  Briefly, we all hear a lot of radio.  If
they play good stuff on the radio, it makes all those times when
we hear the radio (or would if it were good) more enjoyable.

Most people probably won't appreciate Kate like we do, even if
they had the chance to hear her.  Some would, and it's nice of us
to try to help her sell better so they get a chance to hear her.
But we have the self-interest reason to promote her too:  so we
can listen to good music on the radio at times when it's hard to
listen to our own copies of it.

Many people won't care about the difference between Kate and
Bon Jovi nearly as much as whether some dweeb on MTV tells them
it's cool.  Whether Kate is on the radio a lot because she people
recognize her godlike talent or because some dweeb on MTV told
them she's cool doesn't matter for us.  Even if she's on there
for the wrong reasons, at least she's there, and we can listen
to the radio with pleasure.

Why not have the sheep make radio a pleasure for us, instead of
cause for dread?

-- 
	Steve Schonberger	microsoft!stevesc@uunet.uu.net
	"Working under pressure is the sugar that we crave" --A. Lamb