Hoobastank (et al) vs. U2: On The Wrong Bandwagon Fighting A Lost Cause?

[jick]

Here's a news snippet I gathered:
-----------------------------------------------------
Pro Radio Ad Champaign Announced.

Terrestrial radio is fighting back against the growing threat from other sources of media of the past few years, including satellite radio, with a new campaign of its own. A series of high-profile print and broadcast ads will roll out, starring music superstars Avril Lavigne, Alicia Keys, Ludacris, Nelly, Ashanti and Hoobastank. The spots, which are backed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), aim to remind people that new music is found on traditional radio, with the tagline "Radio: You hear it here first."
----------------------------------------------------

Here's what Avril said in her promo ad: "Before the cover of maxim, before stomping the red carpet, before I stole my father's ties, before the star on my wrist, before boy beaters, beat out wife beaters, before I got nominated...again, before the pop chart drama, before I toured the world at 19, and Complicated made things so complicated, you heard me, Avril Lavigne on the radio." (Just put this so you'll get more of the gist of what thi campaign is all about)

It seems clear that "other sources of media" also include iPods, streaming radio, and Internet file sharing (legal or illegal). Radio stations are threatened as they will be put on the endagered species list because radio has lost its luster. With iPods and similar devices, people can choose their music setlists without having to deal with ads or annoying deejays, or watered down radio-edit versions of songs. With the advent of the Internet age, music geeks get the latest music in pristine better-than-radio-broadcast-quality mp3 formats even before they get their first airplay. Hell, even radio stations who can't wait for their promo cds to arrive just get music off the Internet just to be the first one to play the song. Radio is a dying breed.

It seems like Hoobastank, et. al are jumping on the wrong bandwagon trying to save radio. Radio was on the decline for some time, but the nail on the coffin was U2's support for iPod. Let's face it, Vertigo barely cracked the American Top 40 - so there were at least thirty songs that got more airplay than U2. Nevertheless, U2 debuted at #1 on the charts and beat out Eminem. This was because of the iPod ads on tv and the iTunes downloads that hooked them to the song - not because they heard it on radio.

Another reason why radio will be extinct soon is MTV. In the future, you can proably view music videos through you iPod so why in the world would you still bother listening to radio when you can satisfy your visual desires in addition to your aural desires?

It's funny how these new artists who appeal to the teenybop brigade can have such an "old-school mentality" while an old dog like U2 learns new tricks through progressive thinking and accepting change to embrace new methods of distributing music and getting exposure.

U2 are in the correct bandwagon. They have proven you don't need extra radio exposure to bag #1 in sales. They have embraced altenative forms of media. Meanwhile, these supposedly hip artists like Hoobastank are fighting a lost cause that will be extinct soon.

Cheers,

J

 

[LiveFire]

MTV is already extinct. I don't get why you said that.

Radio will just transfer over to more live talk and on command music systems whether it is through iPod or through XM/Sirus.

XM/Sirus or a system like it will be almost everywhere for people to listen to during their driving hours in five years. Local radio really serves very little purpose other than providing a local personality for local advertisers. Unfortunately for radio listeners don't care that much about that.

 

[lazarus]

Wow, I'm amazed at how little trolling there was in that post. Well done, J.

But I'd like to point out that U2 is hardly ON a bandwagon. They are the horses pulling the damned thing.

And we can only hope that MTV will become extinct, although I'm sure they will be all over whatever media is poised to replace them.


laz

 

[the tourist]

True.

 

[nurse chrissi]

great comments
If the music industry wants to save itself it needs to be as progressive as u2 has been

There are a lot of people (say anyone over the age of 13) that are being underserved by commerical radio right now

I expect u2 to continue to lead with downloads from concerts this coming tour

 

[HelloAngel]

Did Avril Lavigne seriously say that? I REALLY hate the term "wife beater." It bothers me that people say it with such ease.

Hoobastank

 

[The_One1932]

I can't believe radio is trying to blame anyone but themselves!?? Infinity and clear channel are the devil, they deserve what they get.

 

[beli]

With iPods and similar devices, people can choose their music setlists without having to deal with ads or annoying deejays, or watered down radio-edit versions of songs.

Agreed

Radio has made its own bed with all the pulling stupid jokes, location of cars giving away shitty advertising material, general moronic dj yabbering, and crappy music.

To some extent its radios own fault if it becomes extinct. There are a few radio stations that are broadcasting on the net who are competing with local stations. I'm more likely to listen to a foreign radio station over the net then the local garbage.

Radio is good for introducing new music. Something I have missed out on by listening to my own collection instead. There is still a need to allow people to hear new music. How that is achieved, and via what medium is muddied at the moment. A market ripe for the picking I guess.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

To put it simply, choice is what is killing radio, and will mostly do it in. Certainly the massive commercial stations who have incredibly limited playlists. People want to hear a) what they like b) new stuff c) not ads and people screaming at them.

U2 are pretty much the guinea pigs. They say themselves that their deal is a 'digital record contract' and the first of it's kind, with their merchandise (iPod) and their 'digital box set' and everything. It's an amazingly smart move on their part. If it works even semi-well (and it certainly appears to be) there'll be a long line of artists and record co's beating down Apples door.

 

[Bunbury]

Hoobastank have no musical merit whasoever

 

[starsgoblue]

But I'd like to point out that U2 is hardly ON a bandwagon. They are the horses pulling the damned thing.

I rather like that sentiment.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Good post jick

 

[stagman]

I only listen to the radio like once a month....I bet a lot of other music fans are getting close to that.

 

[jick]

But I'd like to point out that U2 is hardly ON a bandwagon. They are the horses pulling the damned thing.

I disagree with this statement.

The first example is Live Aid and Band Aid. U2 joined the bandwagon of music for a cause, but now they seemed to have invaded that bandwagon to become the kings of it.

Another example is POP. They tried to join the Chemical Brothers, Prodigy, Beck bandwagons but trying to integrate those sounds into their music. I haven't heard many bands in the past two decades imitate U2 sounds. Sure 90% of the bands you'll ask will list U2 as among their favorites but none of their really integrate U2 styles into their music (U2 are too hard to imitate). So there is U2 influence all over but no U2 bandwagon.

Also, while many artists were jumping into the Greatest Hits collection plus a brand new song bandwagon in the early to mid-90s, it took U2 until 1998 to join that bandwagon.

So I don't think U2 are the horses. They join bandwagons, suck them dry, and then take complete control over it. That's a better analogy I think.

Cheers,

J

 

[sue4u2]

I haven't heard many bands in the past two decades imitate U2 sounds. Sure 90% of the bands you'll ask will list U2 as among their favorites but none of their really integrate U2 styles into their music (U2 are too hard to imitate). So there is U2 influence all over but no U2 bandwagon.
J

Well then what do you want a bunch of bands imitating U2?? And no inovative music by artist who really do like U2's music and invent their own by their influence? i.e Green Day & The Killers.
Then everyone woul just say they are trying to sound like U2, which alot of people have said about Coldplay..

Also, while many artists were jumping into the Greatest Hits collection plus a brand new song bandwagon in the early to mid-90s, it took U2 until 1998 to join that bandwagon.
J [/B]

Oh, sorry.. They were just trying to be their own band by putting out new music to try to make themselves and some of their unworthy fans happy.

So I don't think U2 are the horses. They join bandwagons, suck them dry, and then take complete control over it. That's a better analogy I think.

Cheers,

J [/B]

Geez, you just called U2 - Wal Mart. (Which in a way could be a compliment since they are so huge) anyway, heard this argument before, it doesn't fly. but good try anyway!!! IMO

There is so much good music out there, some influenced by U2 and some, mostly alot, not. It doesn't mean that U2 isn't a good influence, it just means that no one - who is influence wants to have it said they ripped off U2. And like you said, it is incredibility hard to copy U2. Unlike U2 who will be the first to tell you the songs/bands that have influencec them. They like to acknowledge good music... period..

 

[indra]

I only listen to the radio like once a month....I bet a lot of other music fans are getting close to that.

Close to it? Ha! I haven't listened to radio (except in a few extremely limited cases -- like when the power's out and I need to hear the radio for weather reports ) in about a decade. For me music radio died a long time ago.

 

[eviltwin]

The only way to sell your music it to get it heard. Bands need publicity, or word of mouth, etc.

In the fifties radio was the dominant plugging force, in the sixties live music became strong, in the seventies albums sales based upon woth of mouth ruled. The eighties are video oriented, the ninties clubs had a big influence, rigth now it's the internet. Some of these trends are influencd by technology.

From a record company perspective, albums are just a "music delivery devic", selling polycarbonate discs, that's where your money is coming from, since royalties go to the artist. If you can get a cheaper delivery device, a cheaper per unit carrier, with ther same returns and the same royalty costs, you're doing good business.

Music companies are now part of media conglomerates that require content, for whatever carrier. When they want to make money on the internet, that's what they push.

Behind that, is the deeper necessity to sell playing devices such as Ipod. Record companies used to be owed by electronics firms like Philips or Sony. They needed content to sell phonographs, tape players, cassette-tape desks, CD players, walkmans etc. (Just like they needed porn to sell VCRs or LOTR to sell DVD players)
As the inventors, Philips Electronics NV used to make money on every single empty audio cassette sold, they still make money on every single CD sold, they also own the rights to the mp3 format.

On the publicity side, a record company will pay for videos if that sells more records, you fund a tour if that's what gets record sales going. For some artist that don't get played much, you may even see commercials. Huge sums of money used to be paid to DJs for plugging certain records. Now DJ are overpirced blabbermouths and a rapidly diminishing force in the music business. That's why you see so many of them moving onto TV, after turning their radio programs into personality shows. Many of them don't care about good music, only their own ego. They have outgrown their own use.

Moby got his record selling album sold, by deliberately writing songs for movies and commercials. Nor Moby nor his record company needed to spend a dime on publicity or videos, it was done for him, there are some earlier examples of this, Grace Jones comes to mind.

I think U2 made a smart business decision to go along with Apple. Knowing their business savvy, Paul McG probably got them paid in Apple shares, like he got them paid in Island shares when they signed their extension after JT ro so. but that kind of discussion should probably be in the slappingdown$bills forum. Because of their size, it becomes difficult for them to be THE first, but you could say that are early adopters.

As for those artist like Hoobawhatever, slagging off digital music delivery devices, this is always bad business. It never did 'tallica any good to publicly battle over mp3s.

 

[jick]

Where did Metallica go when they fought Napster? Never been heard of anymore.

What happened to Pearl Jam when they fought Ticketmaster? They got lost from the limelight. They got lost more when they tried to fight the bootleg market by releasing every show from their tour on CD.

As U2 once said during Popmart, they never let the corporate monster eat them but instead ate the corporate monster. Look a them now, they are the corporate monster. They make music carefully calculated to sell, and they go on promotional campaigns that ensure the best income and sales.

U2 are just as good in being a profitable corporation as they are in making good music.

Cheers,

J

 

[eviltwin]

Where did Metallica go when they fought Napster? Never been heard of anymore.

exactly my sentiment, jick, for the record, 'tallica ended up in therapy, as the movie clearly documents.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

pearl jam decided to make the music they wanted to make rather than what the record companies wanted them to make... the record companies wanted ten part 2... pearl jam wanted to go in a different direction. pearl jam won.

are they the megaband that people thought they might become when ten first broke? nope... but they still sell out where ever they go, they still own the record for most albums in the top 100 at once, and they now don't even have a record label, and it's by choice... they are completely free to make whatever music they want and do what they want to do, and i'd look for them to also join the iTunes fray (they already have their own iTunes section, and i wouldn't be shocked if they become the first major recording artist to release their new album exclusively on iTunes, at least at first... they don't have to answer to anyone, so they can do as they please.

they are very much still heard from.

metallica still sells when they release an album or release a tour... they're very much still heard from, also... only difference is people now look at them as sellouts 'cause of the whole napster thing. you can't compare what's happened to them and pearl jam... pearl jam took a stand in favor of the fans and against the major labels... metallica took a stand in favor of the labels and against the fans. BIG difference.


as for radio... the only thing that's killed radio is radio it's self. if all of the major stations in all of the major markets weren't owned by one of two major broadcasting companies that set mass set lists to the point where the exact same songs are playing in new york and LA at the exact same times, all but killing off the job of the PM, then maybe radio might be worth something. but that won't happen anytime soon, so radio will eventually fade to oblivion. and i say good riddance.

the only real radio left is small market radio and college radio... on those stations, program managers still exist... jocks still get to play what they want to play... requests :gasp: are actually taken!

 

[eviltwin]

forgot to mention that I did buy St. Anger the week it was released...so If anyone (anyone?) here still wants to buy Avril or Hooba cds...? go right ahead.

I also love Pearl Jam...saw them on a club tour before they were famous. When mike McG was still performing in the nude, but that didn't stop me from buying 'tallica tickets through TixMr.

 

[verte76]

Close to it? Ha! I haven't listened to radio (except in a few extremely limited cases -- like when the power's out and I need to hear the radio for weather reports ) in about a decade. For me music radio died a long time ago.

Me too, which is strange because I used to be a total radio addict. Radio is self-destructing. Hell, I don't even own a radio now.

 

[yolland]

As U2 once said during Popmart, they never let the corporate monster eat them but instead ate the corporate monster.

Bono Ate America, Before America Ate Him...?

U2 are pretty much the guinea pigs. They say themselves that their deal is a 'digital record contract' and the first of it's kind, with their merchandise (iPod) and their 'digital box set' and everything. It's an amazingly smart move on their part. If it works even semi-well (and it certainly appears to be) there'll be a long line of artists and record co's beating down Apples door.

U2 are more like the sure-fire test run than the guinea pigs. They got the iPod deal because they were ALREADY huge (thanks to 25 years of 'old-school' marketing)--not because Paul McGuinness was unique in recognizing where music distribution is headed.

There is still a need to allow people to hear new music. How that is achieved, and via what medium is muddied at the moment. A market ripe for the picking I guess.

Right. And whatever becomes the next big marketing medium will in all likelihood eventually wind up replicating most of radio's weaknesses, because those weaknesses had nothing to do with radio as a medium to begin with.