Rolling Teenpop 2007 Thread

country

country w/ recurrents

mainstream top 40

mainstream top 40 w/ recurrents

Christian AC

Christian AC w/ recurrents

mainstream urban

mainstream urban w/ recurrents

alternative

alternative w/ recurrents

AC overall

AC overall w/ recurrents

CHR/pop (These are now labeled "Top 40" and are basically the same as the "mainstream top 40 lists," which are also labeled "Top 40" but have slightly different totals)

CHR/pop w/ recurrents(ditto)

CHR Rhythmic

CHR Rhythmic w/ recurrents

active rock

active rock w/ recurrents

Limitations of these numbers: Obviously, they only take into account stations that report to Mediabase, and the rankings are based on total plays without regard to the size of the listenership or what time of day a song is played (though info on that is included in the chart).

The basic Mediabase URL is http://w2.mediabase.com/mmrweb/AllAccess.

For KDIS in Los Angeles, click on "7-Day Reports," click on "Station Playlists," tick "Station" rather than "Market," then type in "KDIS" and hit "Go," then click on "7-Day Playlist" on the right. Radio Disney has 51 affiliates, I think, so multiply each song's number by 51 to get national plays.

If you want to know whois playing a song, find it on some list and then click on the song. For instance, if you go to the "mainstream top 40" list you see that Avril Lavigne's "Keep Holding On" is 25th with 2,134 plays. If you click on "Keep Holding On," you get a list of the 50 stations in the genre ("mainstream top 40") that are playing it the most. She's doing pretty well in Salt Lake City, Raleigh, and Wilkes-Barre. (If you want to see who's playing her in different formats, choose another format.)

"Celebrity" being a modern-day analogue to what "juvenile delinquent" was in the the '50s, perhaps? (E.g., mainstream culture didn't take rock 'n' roll seriously as music but did take it seriously as a potential cause of vandalism and crime. And now pop - with the aid of reality TV - is a potential cause of celebrity.)

Forget where it was (Poptimists?) but there was a discussion about artists coding male/female, and about the new crop of emo rock stars trying to have it both ways (or something)...anyway, I think the idea was floated, or at least I took from it, that Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton were the only two unapologetic rock stars to make any kind of impact in 2006 (Lindsay maybe tail-end of '05?), with Britney on the back-burner since it's been a while since she recorded anything.

*Me.

Paris and Lindsay are too apologetic. Rock stars don't play dumb and then insist they're smart, or confess to eating disorders and then take it all back. Britney comes closest to the kind of iconic, defiant rock stardom you're talking about, Dave, in that she seems to really not give a shit.

Not that I really value the rock star archetype. I'm just saying. I'm also saying that I have erred by helping to prolong a discussion that is way past its sell-by date.

Who are these "people" who don't want to Lindsay do that thing? Somebody bought her album. I'd also argue that plenty of people don't want to hear Mick Jagger, either--is that relevant to whether or not he's a rock icon?

Britney's apology was not really an apology. "Ha ha, sorry I didn't wear panties, y'all! But seriously, I'm just gonna go fuckin' crazy for a while. Laterz."

2. What was more popular, dance-pop Lohan or emo Lohan, is my point.

3. Check the record, yo. Just neglecting your children doesn't make you Courtney Love.

2. So if she's not popular when acting rock-y, she's not actually acting rock-y? Also, if you close your eyes, people can't see you. It's true!

3. Yeah, but neglecting your kids and getting lots of plastic surgery does. Dropping a baby is TOTALLY rock-n-roll, dude!

Vying with Stone for Worst Actress will be repeat offender Jessica Simpson (nominated this year for EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH), teen-idol (and terrible role model) Lindsay Lohan in JUST MY LUCK, newcomer Kristanna Loken in BLOODRAYNE and spelling-challenged risible siblings Hilary and Haylie Duff in MATERIALS GIRLS.

What I heard, I liked. Though I'm not sure what makes her special -- didn't we also make the Arctic Monkeys famous? Or is Youtube more special than Myspace?

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/01/25/youtube-phenom-mia-rose-has-her-thorns/

The Stone writeup on Mia Rose is coyer and more irritating than she is, but in a dull journalistic way that tries to hide its tracks. "In the last few weeks, vlogs from Mia Rose, a disturbingly well-packaged 18-year-old singer-songwriter, have become some of the most-viewed videos on YouTube. Rose is a well-scrubbed but coy girl-next-door with decent guitar skills, a welcome-to-Hollywood worthy voice and a knack for bearing her midriff without seeming trashy (harder than it looks)." "Obviously this girl is manipulating the YouTube system for her own gain, but is there anything wrong with that?" Well, Elizabeth, I don't know, you're the one who called her "disturbingly well-packaged." Why don't you tell us why you think there's something wrong with it, rather than suggesting that there is and then covering your ass by rhetorically implying there isn't, and not giving a single reason one way or another? "And what do you think of the tunes?" Well, Elizabeth, what do you think of them? Pretend social analysis, pretending to rise above the slime sell while being a dull little slime sell all its own. Journalism seems full of this.

(Writers of "Lose You" are Linda Sundblad, Tobias Karlsson, Alexander Kronlund, Klas Åhlund, the last of whom is in Teddybears STHLM and produced a lot of the most recent Robyn album. Producer of "Lose You" is Tobias Karlsson.)

Anyway, I enjoyed a couple of the songs that were posted, and didn't like a few others. I think there is definitely something charismatic about the girl - very sincere. And part of why her music is interesting is because of that personality. And I think that her circumventing of the traditional artist/audience divide (which isn't unique, but nonetheless) is very charming. Though I think the question of "is she for real?" is important, just not for the reasons that RS states. I think it's important because a lot of her appeal is her authenticity - not because it's undermining expectations if she's not. (And if it turns out she's not 'real,' whatever that means, she'll be interesting for that reason instead.)

Posing pirates, pink perky riots
Big D.P. bottles about to pop
Flamboyant peacocks, straight out of detox
And total chaos, it never stops... right?
--Linda Sundblad "Pretty Rebels"

If RS asked the first question outright, would you still consider it muddled?

If it is a marketing plan by a major label (or something) it was pretty poorly thought out since Youtube tracks the number of videos you watch, making inflation transparent to anyone patient enough to compile a montage of it happening (that's a link from Idolator, less nasty write-up than the RS one). So I can't say that the "anti-manufactured" tone is justified, but it is justifiable to say that whoever's aiding her popularity is doing it by creating the false appearance of grassroots democratic consensus. I'll bet it offends people as vote-tampering as much as it might as a "just another coporate manufactured pop star" story.

kokokokoii (12 hours ago)
no matter what was really going out there, these are what possible to happen in the future:

1)She is a cheater, and will never release any album.
2)Her is talent and has a attractive voice. There will be a company to contact her soon.

The reason for one to subscribe is because of her singing not the numbers or ratings. Why you wasted you time doing this?

It was the commenters, not Elizabeth, who brought up the dummy sites and the inflated subscriptions (unless Elizabeth was using her code words to try to suggest those, as well). I think that the - good - question she's trying to ask isn't "Is Mia diy or is she corporate?" but rather "No matter whether Mia is an actress playing a part, a singer coached on how to present herself, or someone who's in charge of her own presentation - or is even guilelessly being 'herself' - what's wrong with her trying to appeal to an audience?" This is a good question because sometimes there is something wrong, and also there's a deep culture-wide uneasiness with anything being straight-up appealing, as if pleasing an audience contaminates you.

As to the first point (whether there's sometimes something wrong), I think there's something wrong with the way Elizabeth Goodman is trying to appeal to her readers, so I'm not averse in principle to claims that there's something wrong with how Mia Rose is trying to appeal to viewers. As to the second point (a culture-wide uneasiness, that I share), that's what a good deal of my book is about, and so I hope that if you find my posts appealing you'll go out and buy my book (I get a dollar for every copy sold, and I need the money).

There's no inherent problem with the question "Is she real?" The problems arise because the reasons given to justify the answer "No" raise a whole bunch of questions themselves, and most people are intellectually lazy and don't ask the follow-up questions. But the problem isn't with the original question.

Another good question is why the question "Is she real?" keeps popping up throughout pop culture. If you dislike the question "Is she real?" you nonetheless will want to ask why the question is so persistent. Why are people asking it?

If someone claims that the Monkees are phonies because "they don't write their own songs" [incredibly, people still say this], the obvious follow-up question would be, "well, if I consider the Monkees fake for not writing their own songs, why don't I think the Animals and Aretha Franklin - who've hit with songs by the very same songwriters the Monkees used - are also fake?" (I've never in my life heard someone argue that the Animals and Aretha Franklin were fake for not writing "It's My Life" and "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place" and "Don't Bring Me Down" and "Natural Woman.") In the mid-Sixties an answer to the follow-up question might have been, "Aretha's real because she's black and sings the music soul; the Animals are real because they come on like hoods" - these responses, in their time, would not have been dumb at all, but are so problematic that they'd have inevitably provoked further thought.

THEY NEVER PLAY WEBSTAR F. YOUNG B'S "CHICKEN NOODLE SOUP."

No promotion at all for "Play With Fire" and now none for "With Love" either. I'm hoping, and choosing to believe, that they are waiting until it is closer to the release of the album before they start to push the songs hard. Maybe the sound of it is just so anti-American pop that they are just going to punt it in America.

I know.

other things wannabe pop stars and record companies can and do in fact do do: write their own reviews of their first records and send them to fanzines under pesudonyms (monster magnet did this, and i salute them for it; then again, monster magnet probably flunk every "authenticity" test you could come up with) ... "leak" their own records to the internet (pretty much every record company does this to one degree or another) ... request their own records on radio or anywhere else requests are taken (again, the whole industry can stand up and plead guilty to that one) ... acquire lots of "friends" in myspace who aren't really your "friends" and may not even have a clue who you are ... and so on and so forth. if mia rose is better at playing this game than other wannabe pop stars, then more power to her. in the end, either she's got it or she doesn't (i haven't heard a note yet), but what do a few thousand dummy accounts on youtube have to do with anything?