"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:lx2lXuCBI5CIFwcf@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 at 13:53:16, Chris Brown 
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>70% of Hip-Hop is bought by WHITE SUBURBAN FANS.
>>>>.They seem to be getting a slice of life
>>>>they are fascinated about but have not experienced.
>>>
>>> Given the dubious pasts of many rappers, they might not be so keen if
>>> they
>>> *had* experienced it...
>>
>>Though that's not a genre-specific factor, of course.
>
> Riiight... I forgot Dido & Kylie grew up in ghettos, too... :)

Some people did; for that matter plenty of rappers didn't. And I wasn't 
being that specific - I just mean that there are elements of the lives of a 
lot of stars that we wouldn't envy.

>>And for that matter, it's not a medium-specific one either.
>
> This part I don't get?

It's not very clear is it?
I mean that nobody questions the fact that people watch films or read books 
that don't relate directly to their everyday lives.

>>> I would have assumed these genres emerged from the Euro-dance scene.
>>
>>And you'd have been wrong - it's well-documented that these types of music
>>emerged from cities in the US but, because of the way the industry
>>functions
>>there
>
> i.e. Only urban music gets a look in?

Nope - for a start this happened a long time ago.

>>, never really made any headway into the mainstream until it was
>>exported to Europe.
>
> Who fortunately have better taste than the Americans IRO the dance genre.

ie they have no taste at all as long as there's some Scandinavian blonde 
showing her cleavage.

>>> Really? The first song I can recall that I'd describe that way was the
>>> Sugarhill Gang with 'Rappers Delight' in late 1979.
>>
>>That is the usually agreed starting point, as far as hit records were
>>concerned - but that said, it didn't appear from nowhere.
>
> Of course, that record barely resembles what we know as rap today.

Certainly not what's the mainstream of rap now - but that's sort of the 
point.

>>> But it wasn't that, that allowed it a breakthrough - that didn't happen
>>> until the early 90's when the US chart rules changed.
>>
>>Indeed not - but that tells you more about how the charts are counted than
>>anything else.
>
> I've always thought they over-corrected, and now are too bound by PC to
> swing the pendulum back towards mainstream America again.

Who swung what where now?
The point I'm referring to is that the US charts (particularly singles 
charts) have little room for anything not on a major label.

>>> But that's not really true - it is regularly playlisted on R1.
>>
>>And on most of its commercial rivals. But they tend to make it part of the
>>mix, as Top 40 stations in the US do - there's probably less specialist
>>programming here, and AFAIK there are no legal FM stations that specialise
>>constantly in it.
>
> Though that's probably due to market forces, than anything else. Few
> stations aiming at a R2-type demographic would risk touching it, for
> example.

You've not been checking out Trevor Nelson's new show on there then?

>>> Nowadays of course, the internet means that record labels can be
>>> bypassed
>>> altogether if the artist wished, at least in terms of launching a music
>>> career. If/when they've broken through, they can then negotiate much
>>> more
>>> favourable terms with a label than if they'd started from scratch.
>>
>>Or, depending on their intentions, simply not bother approaching a label
>>at
>>all.
>
> I don't think we're quite at that point yet - maybe in 5 years time...

Well, people have already been doing that for years. Like I said, it depends 
on what your intentions are.

    Chris

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:3EYx65A$$sDIFwkP@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 at 22:47:14, Chris Brown 
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the dubious pasts of many rappers, they might not be so keen if
>>>>> they
>>>>> *had* experienced it...
>>>>
>>>>Though that's not a genre-specific factor, of course.
>>>
>>> Riiight... I forgot Dido & Kylie grew up in ghettos, too... :)
>>
>>Some people did; for that matter plenty of rappers didn't.
>
> But I doubt *those* have the credibility of others who did grow up in
> 'deprived' circumstances.

With whom?
Kanye West seems to be doing OK.

>>And I wasn't
>>being that specific - I just mean that there are elements of the lives of
>>a
>>lot of stars that we wouldn't envy.
>
> Not that many though, judging by the success of 'Rockstar'...

Isn't that an example of what I was talking about? People want to identify 
with rockstars, or rap stars or whoever, but buying into that stuff doesn't 
bring with it all the real-life downsides.

>>>>And for that matter, it's not a medium-specific one either.
>>>
>>> This part I don't get?
>>
>>It's not very clear is it?
>>I mean that nobody questions the fact that people watch films or read
>>books
>>that don't relate directly to their everyday lives.
>
> How does that connect with the previous discussion, though?

I think it does - people seem to have a very different attitude where pop 
music is concerned, and they expect the producers and consumers to be 
directly and fairly literally identified with it.

>>> I've always thought they over-corrected, and now are too bound by PC to
>>> swing the pendulum back towards mainstream America again.
>>
>>Who swung what where now?
>
> AIUI, the US chart rules were changed late in 1991, partly because a
> number of records by black artists that had sold far more than those in
> the Billboard top 100, had been ineligible to chart.

Right, but they didn't write any rules about what colour people were. You 
can trace similar boosts in the chart prominence of urban music in other 
countries.

It's not as if the music isn't selling - remember Flo Rida's 3 million 
downloads.

>>The point I'm referring to is that the US charts (particularly singles
>>charts) have little room for anything not on a major label.
>
> Are you saying indie labels are deliberately excluded?

Not quite - remember that the US chart isn't compiled on behalf of record 
labels like ours is - but for various reasons it's harder for them to gain a 
foothold there.

>>> Though that's probably due to market forces, than anything else. Few
>>> stations aiming at a R2-type demographic would risk touching it, for
>>> example.
>>
>>You've not been checking out Trevor Nelson's new show on there then?
>
> Well, Trevor Nelson would tend to put me off any show involving Trevor
> Nelson... :)

Yeah, but what about Trevor Nelson?

>>>>Or, depending on their intentions, simply not bother approaching a label
>>>>at
>>>>all.
>>>
>>> I don't think we're quite at that point yet - maybe in 5 years time...
>>
>>Well, people have already been doing that for years. Like I said, it
>>depends
>>on what your intentions are.
>
> I'm thinking of people who want to break it big, rather than just have the
> odd hit or two, with a small but dedicated fanbase.
>
> When someone of the stature of Coldplay or U2 emerges, having bypassed the
> traditional record company route, *then* we'll know the power of the
> record companies has finally been broken...

Some people have suggested we may not get many more acts on the Coldplay or 
U2 scale, whether they have record deals or not. Of course only time will 
tell though.

    Chris