First off, here it is -- this week's top 10 adult comtemporary chart, from the AP, via Billboard:
Adult Contemporary
1. Love Song, Sara Bareilles
2. Bleeding Love, Leona Lewis
3. Bubbly, Colbie Caillat
4. Apologize, Timbaland feat. OneRepublic
5. Lost, Michael Buble
6. Say, John Mayer
7. Teardrops on My Guitar, Taylor Swift
8. Tattoo, Jordin Sparks
9. Big Girls Don’t Cry, Fergie
10. No One, Alicia Keys
There are so many reasons to hate this chart ...
First off, the same songs stay on it for what seems like forever. That horrible Colbie Caillat song has been atop the chart almost since its release, what seems like an eon ago.
The Timbaland and OneRepublic song has been on it just about as long. Same goes for Fergie's "Big Girls Don't Cry." Now, I don't listen to adult contemporary radio -- or much of any radio, for that matter -- but it pains me to think that if I did, these three songs would be in heavy rotation for months and months. Good thing I have my own CDs to play in the car.
Second, John Mayer is always in there with one song or another, and those songs usually are pap. Mayer is, I think, an amazing guitar player. Seems that all the pop culture and music magazines agree. His live CD, cut with drummer Steve Jordan (if God were having a party, he'd want Jordan in that band, I'm sure) and bassist Pino Palladino, shows that he has a firm grasp of putting on a killer blues-rock show. I guess he likes making money, though, so we hear a bunch Mayer-lite. That song "Daughter," or whatever it was, telling mothers to be good to their daughters, was on the ac chart for about a year.
Finally, witness a number such as Sara Bareilles "Love Song." Long after it has been in and out of the larger pop chart, it remains No. 1 in adult contemporary hearts. Leona Lewis is No. 2, and guaranteed a long run. What does this say about "adults" who are allegedly "contemporary." Do they like to hear the same songs over and over? Guess so.
And for all of you adult contemporary music lovers whom I've offended. Hey -- sorry you like crap!
Comments
[June 27, 2008 1:13 PM]
PeteYou're so polite; don't hold back, Tad, how do you REALLY feel? I recall Ralph once wrote about being forced to listen to his older female co-workers' radio countdown, too, with similar results.
On the subject of Billboard charts, many years ago their pop chart often lagged what seemed to apply in this area, then I realized during a cross-country roundtrip that pop hits in many places in provincial America seemed to occur a little later, up to several weeks in some cases, or just to hold on longer. But that was in the old media 70's, when AM radio and jukeboxes were still dominant, so I agree it's hard to fathom why it should be so today. BUT, there is the perhaps relevant fact that as recently as 2005, Warner Music (3rd biggest in US) payed five million dollars to settle payola charges. So it's easy to think that these charts reflect more than a pure gauge of a songs' current standing.
And some songs just seem to take forever to go away, like James Blount's "Beautiful", because they are the aural equivalent of gum on one's shoe.
[June 27, 2008 2:56 PM]
DanWow, you didn't really think about the "why" of it all before writing, did you?
The adult chart moves slowly because the songs aren't beaten to death like on Top 40 radio. While a Top 40 station will play a hit song 80-100 times a week, completely burning it out in a few weeks, an adult station plays its hits more like 25 times a week. It turns out adults hate hearing the same songs every 2 hours. But that less frequent airplay means the song takes much longer to develop an audience, and to become familiar. Unlike Top 40, adult contemporary stations also play several generations of music... usually a lot more titles than Top 40. If you look at the audience for these stations, they tend to be adult women without a lot of time on their hands. They've got jobs, kids and husbands to look out for. If you're new-music obsessive, this isn't a format for you. If you like your favorite songs from several eras and otherwise have other things to do, you will probably be quite satisfied.
Pete's theory about payola is just wrong: Record labels want stations to MOVE ON and play their latest single, not the one that came out six months ago. Radio stations don't move on because they get research back saying their audience is just getting familiar with the songs Top 40 listeners are sick of. If the adult contemporary chart moved too fast, then your theory would be more likely to have relevance.
[June 27, 2008 4:49 PM]
Tad : →http://www.roanoke.com/entertainment/insideout/musicSo Dan, you're saying that adults don't hear this mess in the same tight cycle, so it takes them longer to get sick of it than it did for the young'uns -- force-fed the pablum -- to, uh, move on.
I'm sorry, Dan, adult contemporary is my Achilles heel when it comes to musical objectivity. I hated most of that stuff the first time I heard it.
But I will admit a grudging respect for Bareilles and her "Love Song." My pal, online entertainment editor and former Idol Times blogger Wendy Maxey, told me that Bareilles wrote it as a retort to record execs who wanted a "love song." If it's true, I hope that song makes her money for a long, long time.
I'm not going to agree completely with Pete on payola, but it would be naive to say it doesn't sometimes play a role. I mean, this is the music "business," and the radio "business." Maybe a little nose candy helps a jock or two "move on" to the next adult contemporary crowd-pleaser.
There have been convictions and settlements. I think disgraced New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer was involved in one or two. Link | Link. The second one is funny, because it's a news release from Spitzer's office, but Andrew Cuomo's head at the top of the site. Dan, maybe you have some thoughts on this story, from the Village Voice.
But to get back to your first point, I have to assume you've researched this. Please tell me your source, so I can check it out.
You wrote:
> If you look at the audience for these stations, they tend to be adult women without a lot of time on their hands.
So they like to hear these same songs, because it makes for an easier chill-out, and they like the familiarity? Just curious.
Thanks for jumpin in, Dan, and Pete, thanks as always.
[June 29, 2008 2:36 PM]
kerWow. Cut n Scratch guys...You are really working that snob thing. Sure, lots of people get tired of hearing the same songs of ANY genre over and over again. Totally agreeing with you there. But could you work on the tact a little bit? Not everybody who doesn't score on your hip scale is just some mindless, "crap-loving" idiot. You just kind of sound like jerks, and there's no reason for that, is there?
[June 30, 2008 11:25 AM]
TadDon't blame Ralph. This is all me, Ker. And yes, you're right, though I don't mean to be a big music snob. Like I replied to Dan, this music just pushes all the wrong buttons with me, and it kind of makes me crazy.
I realize that music is a subjective pleasure, and just because you like it doesn't mean you're an idiot. But I will admit that listening to even a small amount of the genre once known as "easy listening" makes me feel like I should check to see if I've drooled on myself. Again, that's just me -- and I have problems that go well beyond my musical taste!
[June 30, 2008 11:26 AM]
MattName calling is name calling from both sides of the fence, whether you're a "crap listener," "music snob," or a "jerk". Now think about how far these songs would actually get if these artists didn't have the music labels behind them. If say "Big Girls Don't Cry" was released on an independent label and we never knew that Fergie was nice to look at. Now consider the fact that record companies don't care what you like to listen to, they tell you what to listen to.
Conspiracy theories, everyone needs one.