Itunes, Billboard, and the marginalization of black music and black audiences in America

mention of 50 cent & "in da club" is interesting too -- apart from all of this accountancy, different genres do wax and wane in creative power and popular appeal. it's not a stable equilibrium of li'l genres pumping out the same stuff to the same people every year

very true. and to me that's a reason that the genre charts SHOULD have stayed as they were, those genres need to be able to keep defining themselves by what the core listenership likes rather than what's crossing over to whatever genre is doing bigger business at that moment.

YES

yeah it's just bad datagathering plain and simple. it's not like the r&b audience or country audience and the networks catering to them just disappeared (ok the record stores have obv been going, so argument for incorporating itunes exists but calibration is beyond fucked), but the data of what is succeeding in those markets isn't being captured.

so much contempo-country sounds like AOR rock that I wonder what this forced iTunes mash-up will do to Nashville A&R.

this is an unmitigated disaster

Bill Werde of Billboard seems very comfortable with the changes in that tumblr post above. Like its no big deal

"we are never ever..." was probably going to be tswift's first single (from an album release) not to go at least top 10 on the country chart, which is probably an accurate representation of how country audiences received the song. and now it's suddenly #1 due to a lots of pop/crossover downloads. i always found the genre charts interesting because they offer a glimpse into what more specific audiences are hearing through focused radio formats.

i cant believe he refers to wikipedia as determining what is hip hop w/ a straight face

On twitter Werde says he will engage in respectful discussions of this

i guess flo rida will be getting #1s on rap songs with these rules in place (his only song so far to do this was "low")

wtf wtf

well, one thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is that the Rap Songs chart already factored in airplay from non-urban formats, so Flo Rida and Pitbull etc. had been mainstays on Rap Songs already

but nobody ever really paid much attention to that chart, R&B/Hip Hop Songs was always the barometer of a rap song's success

I recommend everybody jump ship from all forms of popular music

man why would you kick me out, man, i wasn't hurting anybody

anyone here still involved w/ college radio: do cmj charts still matter a great deal or even at all anymore? i can remember thinking when the cmj payola thing happened that it would be a perfect opportunity for pfork to start their own college radio chart and finish supplanting cmj. as it happened they didn't need to and it definitely seems like 'best new music' has supplanted the cmj charts in terms of being the macro table setter for indie rock. at the same time college radio promotion companies like team clermont, etc are still going strong so college radio must still matter on some level which could mean that cmj still matters on some level. does it?

i can't imagine it happening w/ rural country radio but i do wonder if r&b radio could ever go the way of rock radio where it's replaced as an option by ipods, spotify, etc to the extent that a deep disconnect sets in (aided by innacurate billboard charts) leading to station losing more listeners leading to station changing format. i can't imagine this happening in atlanta, too huge a buppie community, but at the same time i was still shocked when the last two atlanta rock radio stations (well there's one left that's low wattage) switched to chr and talk.

anyone here still involved w/ college radio: do cmj charts still matter a great deal or even at all anymore?

It does only insofar as belonging to CMJ gets you "access" to shit.

Emphasis on 'shit.'

I know our radio station bases a fraction of its programming on CMJ charts, most notably what it places into the loop for rotation shows. But there's such a thing as "recurrent" play and "Midnight City" and a track from This is Happening and Malkmus' "Tigers" are on it (I know because I'm constantly telling them to change that shit).

CHR = christian hit radio?

"no less an authority than wikipedia" jesus fucking christ

contemporary hits radio

haven't had a chance to read this thread yet but rev you have a story here you could/should pitch IMO

so is PSY not a rapper?

alfred: ah ok

ok, found one of my twitter rants (their archiving system is terrible obv). from late August:

Right now, there are only three songs in the pop top 40 that are on the R&B chart AT ALL. #marginalizationofblackmusic

#19 "Mercy", #28 "No Lie", #32 "Work Hard Play Hard". All rap songs by male artists. No R&B. No women.

Is there any precedent for this? I know from 1965 when they reinstated the R&B chart to 2009 there was at least one dual chart topper per yr

And there hasn't been in the three years since, but this is ridiculous.

EZSnappin: @reverenddollars Rhianna and Nicki are on there - Nicki has 2 in the top 40. And Usher. Not at same time as R&B charts, though.

@EZSnappin None of those songs are in the the R&B top 100.

@EZSnappin There are actually two Usher songs in the R&B top 10, but neither is "Scream".

frogbs: "wikipedia" didn't think so particulary, until one guy two weeks ago changed the article name.

kinda think also that nobody in america's really taken advantage of ppl streaming stations on their iphones and disregarding geography. i know at work only local radio we listen to is sportstalk, npr, and maybe clark howard on wsb (and even then we stream it cuz the sound is much better), seems like there's a way to make alot of money setting up a bbc one for america. there are a few commercial stations - wfmu the big one - that seem to grasp this opportunity but so far, beyond half measures like 'i heart radio', nothing big on the commercial front as far as i can tell.

Other than Big Sean guesting on a Justin Bieber single, there are no black musicians in the top 10 this week. When was the last time that happened?

Hot 100 top ten, obv

yo rev check yr emailz

here's Rev's other twitter rant from June that i referred to earlier:

Black women are becoming increasingly marginalized in pop.

Other than Billboard changing the rules to let Whitney in, only Rih and Nicki have had top 10 hits as lead artist this DECADE.

And then people wonder why they make crossover songs?

Re: Marginalization of black women in pop, by this point in the last decade, the following black women had had top ten hits as lead artist:

Whitney (for real that time), Missy Elliott, Blaque, Destiny’s Child, Macy Gray, Sonique, Toni Braxton, Aaliyah, Janet Jackson, Erykah Badu

Samantha Mumba, Mya, Debelah Morgan (who?), Tamia, Lil Kim, City High, Eve, Blu Cantrell, Mariah Carey, Alicia Keys, Mary J. Blige, Brandy

Brandy, Tweet, Ashanti, and Truth Hurts

As compared to this decade so far: Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, zombie Whitney.

That's 25 to two (or three if you count Billboard changing the rules so Whitney could have a hit posthumously)

@theilliterate tastes change but you don't think it's odd that (with 2 exceptions) black women are being excluded from top40 radio entirely?

@theilliterate when even someone as universally beloved as beyonce can't even get on rhythmic radio, let alone pop stations?

@theilliterate sure, but if it was only beyonce, that would be one thing.

@theilliterate kube's playlist - rhythmic not even top40 - 1st appearance of a black woman other than Nicki/Rih is #51 http://www.kube93.com/iplaylist/playlist.html?net=41

@theilliterate I didn't say that though- "increasingly". I'm of the opinion that itunes inadvertently destroyed Black American pop music tho

@theilliterate And the start of that dates back to around 2005

@GracieLoPan @theilliterate lol. the problem was that the audience for black music was less likely to purchase itunes & the market adjusted

Itunes destroyed Black American pop music.

Can't let this thread die so soon here. Then again, I've been wondering what next -- IS there a next step? Can anything be done or are we all just watching on the sidelines?

my sense of Billboard is that they commit to any change of methodology wholeheartedly and permanently. i hope the uproar over this is huge but i kind of doubt it will make any difference, except maybe in effecting how they make similar decisions in the future.

rev check email again

it's also a matter of whether you want to reflect direct revenue generation based on sales of actual product (mechanical royalties), or if you want to have a reflection of the reach and penetration of your song. the latter is much harder to quantify and in turn, harder to generate value from. i agree this whole new methodology is ridden with holes tho

let's not forget that billboard exists for record labels and music biz folks, and not really for regular people, so they have to cater to the people footing the bill

the thing to me was that the genre charts were valuable BECAUSE they weren't simply "the top 5 country/R&B/etc. songs are whatever the top 5 songs on the Hot 100 are this week," that there was a demonstrable community or network arranged around that genre that existed more or less apart from what parts of that genre made it into the big crossover tent. making these charts more like the Hot 100 instantly renders them less interesting, less valuable, less able to measure any kind of success besides top 40 crossover.

xpost -- i'm not really sure how this move benefits anyone in the music biz at all, to be honest

i mean it's "good news" primarily for the Rihannas and Taylors of the world who already have more impressive stats on more general charts. being #1 on additional genre charts won't help them sell records or seem any more impressive, but it will definitely diminish the accomplishments of the artists who would've topped those genre charts before this move without being a major presence on the Hot 100.

not disagreeing at all, just making some probably-not-very-good points is all. agreed totally, especially with the last post

yeah, i mean you may not be wrong -- Werde's tumblr thing referred to discussions Billboard had w/ labels etc. about this decision so it's possible for some reason or anything people in the biz were jumping for joy at this change

Has anyone tried to engage Werde on his tumblr or via twitter?

the thing to me was that the genre charts were valuable BECAUSE they weren't simply "the top 5 country/R&B/etc. songs are whatever the top 5 songs on the Hot 100 are this week," that there was a demonstrable community or network arranged around that genre that existed more or less apart from what parts of that genre made it into the big crossover tent. making these charts more like the Hot 100 instantly renders them less interesting, less valuable, less able to measure any kind of success besides top 40 crossover.

so otm

also, billboard arbitrarily determining what songs (or really what artists, it would seem thus far) belong to what genre is just shameful

don't they test out new chart rules for at least a few weeks before they officially implement them? i am surprised they didn't realize what a shitshow it would be. but i guess they see nothing wrong with "diamonds" topping the r&b chart. i guess they'll see nothing wrong when taylor swift's album comes out and the entire country top 10 (probably even more than that) is taylor swift songs.

To be honest I don't have a problem with Diamonds topping the R&B charts at all. Crossover or not, Rihanna makes R&B and the divide between R&B and pop was definitely bridged as early as with So Sick. That pop-friendly style has been a part of R&B and somehow trying to exclude it smacks of purism. So I really think that part of the argument is a little shaky since it seems as if personal taste is shining through. As for the larger implications though, I totally agree. Just not sure if Rihanna is the best example to sell this with. The Gagnam Style one is infinitely more painful.

I've yet to hear the current number one Hot R&B/Hip-Hop single on any of Detroit's R&B/rap stations.

Does anyone know why tunein no longer publishes radio-station playlists?

i'd be interested to know why r&b/rap/country etc might not be as digitally-driven...?

That isn't quite true of country, but white demographics are a lot more likely to have internet in their homes than black/latinos. And even if they do, the white listener is a lot more likely to have spare $$$ to spend on digital music.

― Cap'n Hug-a-Thug (The Reverend), Thursday, 11 October 2012

speaking almost entirely from ignorance here but tho the above is doubtless right, i feel like ppl are quite well-connected generally these days (evidence: WSHH, datpiff, livemixtapes, youtube, "black twitter", bossip, necolebitchie etc.) Seems like internet has increasingly become a spending priority across classes, almost like tv. so i think a bigger distinction has to do with youth access to credit & access to credit generally: "i'll buy this on my credit card", "hey mom can u put this on yr credit card". that's what unlikely when $$$ aren't spare. round my way a lot of people who like music don't have even bank accounts (tho pre-paid disposable cards are becoming popular).

thats a good point

Yeah, that's something I hadn't considered at all, actually.