Strictly Commercial

There's a really bad trend right now that is threatening to ruin new music for me, or at least mainstream new music. Instead of songs becoming hits from radio airplay, they are getting on our radar first by being used in commercials. If it was just one or two songs like in the past, I wouldn't mind it so much, but if you go through the Alternative charts right now, it seems like every other song came from an ad campaign.

I already dislike commercials on the radio, as most people do. As someone who comes from and studies the world of radio, I understand the purpose they serve, but I also think that stations could dial back on the length of their breaks just a LITTLE. Yeah, you can make money by selling 15 minutes of commercials per music hour? Well guess what, you can also make money by selling 10 minutes of commercials per hour AT A HIGHER RATE! And you might actually keep listeners, instead of watching them peel off to iPods and Pandora (of course when they do, the regular radio ratings don't get affected, so station management sits in blissful ignorance that nobody has abandoned their station or medium). Anyway, I've made my point... I don't like listening to commercials, and when I hear a song of which I only am aware through a commercial, I'm going to think it's just ANOTHER commercial.

Yup, that's right, these songs have officially become 4-minute commercials for the products they were originally used to sell. Alex Clare? Yeah, your breakthrough hit "Too Close" is moving up the charts pretty quickly, but when I hear it, I think about how much I hate Microsoft Internet Explorer, and I change the station. Grouplove? I've seen you in concert, thought you were pretty good, but I've tried to listen to "Tongue Tied" on the radio, and I can't get past the mental images of teenagers making faces to each other with their iPhones, so I have to change the station. The Lumineers? Yeah, that "Ho Hey" song is kinda catchy, but I hear it and think about searching for something on Bing... and then I realize I'm a Google guy and I change the station.

Now I get the power of using songs in commercials. It can be a very useful tool for drawing attention to the song; I found as much in my Masters thesis. For established bands, it's not so bad. Coldplay had been big for a long time before "Viva La Vida" got used in an iTunes ad, and people got over that song being "the song from the iTunes ad" and it became a #1 hit. But when you tie your band's identity to beer or cars or smartphones, you're only doing harm to your future prospects.

Case in point: Foster the People. Their song "Don't Stop" was used in a Nissan commercial before they broke through with their massive hit, "Pumped Up Kicks." Of course, everyone is now sick to death of that song, but it was huge, and the follow-up, "Helena Beat" was one of my favorite songs of the last 12 months. Their album got a lot of critical praise... and then they put out "Don't Stop" as the 3rd single off of "Torches", and all people could think was, "It's the song from the car commercial." It stiffed. They tried a 4th single, "Houdini," a pretty good song as well, but the momentum was gone, and this song also stiffed. Is this the end of FTP? Just goes to show you, that song you sell to the ad agency may come back to haunt you once you get big and famous.

Now I know that you've gotta get your names out there somehow, and one use of Shazam can get an interested music buyer the name of your song when it's used in a commercial. I also get that some of these songs come from somewhat established bands that have new records to sell (Neon Trees, I'm looking at you on that one). But another thing I found when I did my Masters thesis is that people associate a song with feelings that come from visuals associated with it. When a song plays at an important moment in your life, those memories become entwined with the song. If your big break single plays during a crucial scene on a CW teen drama or (god forbid) a MTV reality show, you've hooked listeners who will associate the song with those key moments on their beloved series. That's worked very well for a lot of artists in recent years. But it also means that if you introduce yourselves to the world with a song that plays during a commercial, we'll hear that song on the radio and associate it with... a commercial.

Just think how differently we would feel if, say, "Call Me Maybe" was originally used to sell Verizon's 4G network. We probably wouldn't have 50 million YouTube videos paying tribute to this song. We'd probably hear it, think of it as "that song from that commercial," and be done with it. As weird as it may seem for me to say this, thank you Carly Rae Jepsen for NOT selling out.

It's far too easy to go into a diatribe about how this is all about evil commercialism and evil corporations and all that stuff, but whatever happened to using established songs in commercials? Songs that don't suffer any diminishing in our eyes (and ears) by being used in ads because they are already so omnipresent? Perhaps these advertisers have decided that mining the pop culture of our past just isn't worth it anymore. The problem is that in their zeal to mine the pop culture of our future past, they're not even waiting until it BECOMES pop culture. Worse, they may think they can dictate it by attaching the right song to the right product. Unfortunately, this works in very limited cases, and as I said before, doesn't bode well for the long-term popularity of an artist.

So I am making the following appeal to any just-about-to-break band or artist out there, particularly within the world of indie/alternative rock. PLEASE don't sell out before you "sell out." If you're in it for the 20-year-plus career, for the dreams of playing festivals and arenas and, in the long run, the state fair circuit once your target demographic ages out of importance, stay away from the commercials! Because we the radio listeners do exactly that, whether it's the actual commercial or your song that played in the commercial. If you steer clear of selling your songs to advertisers, you might actually be able to go beyond 15 minutes of fame, which in most cases, will be your 30-second commercial playing 30 times.

Politics Needs a "Mute" Button

This morning, I was watching the Sunday political talk show I normally watch, and it wasn't long before I had to start making fun of what I was watching... because if you don't laugh, you'll cry. It was yet another head-to-head debate between high-ranking politicos from the two major parties, each representing their party's chosen presidential candidate. Both following the lead of their leaders and saying little about policy, but saying much about the "other guy." Talking a lot and not saying much, but making sure to say it over the other person whenever possible.

Eventually, I just started tossing out one or two-word comments about everything I was seeing... "talking point... lie... exaggeration..." Then one of the guests pulled a maneuver we see more and more these days in political discourse, one that gets criticized when it's used, but shows no sign of abating any time soon. He responded to a question from the host by saying, "I'll answer that in a moment, but first..." And he then proceeded to get in some more shots at his opponent about the previous topic, before eventually giving a short non-answer to the question he was asked. At that moment, I was so fed up with seeing this lack of actual productive discussion that I tweeted the following:

"New rule for Sunday talk shows: If your guest says 'I'll answer your question in a moment' so he can sneak in more attacks, turn his mic off"


I immediately realized that I was on to something. No offense to the people who moderate our Sunday morning talk shows, but you're a bunch of wimps. These politicians may hold sway and power and influence, but they're your GUESTS. You invited them to come on the show, and they graciously accepted the opportunity for air time. Much like a person invites people to a party or social gathering. And at a party or social gathering, if people don't behave properly, then you, as the host, put your foot down, and tell them you'll have none of that. And as much as you tried to keep asking the question that your guest kept evading, the fact that you didn't put your foot down and eventually resigned yourself (as they all tend to do) to the "well, I guess that's the final word," makes you look less like a host and more like a referee who just took as many punches from the boxers as they inflicted on each other. And you don't get to fight back.


Believe me, I don't want our talk show moderators going down to the politicos' level. We've got enough of those types on Fox News and MSNBC. I want to see the moderator grow a pair and lay the smackdown. I want these shows to be like... "Around the Horn" on ESPN.


I'll explain.


"Around the Horn" is a daily sports talk show, in which the host/moderator throws out topics to an assembled panel of loudmouthed sportswriters from across the country. They take their turn giving their opinions, sometimes taking each other on directly. As this happens, the host has an array of buttons at his disposal, one gives a sportswriter points for making a good statement, one takes points away for giving a less-than-stellar argument... and there's a "mute" button. If the host feels that one of the talking heads has gone overboard and is violating too many rules of civil discourse, he can mute that person for 60 seconds. This is what we need on Sunday talk shows. If we're going to have to go through these obligatory one-on-one debates from now until November, the moderators need the ability to put these people in their place if need be.


Obviously, they could only do this for the obligatory split-screen debate between two people in separate off-site locations. It wouldn't look good for a host to kill the microphone of a guest sitting across the desk from the moderator... although sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. They also probably couldn't do this during the roundtable segments... unless Ann Coulter or Katrina van den Heuvel were on... and if they somehow were BOTH on, you'd definitely need it.


And since we're adding the mute button anyway, how about we do the points system too? You've heard of "scoring political points?" Well, let's do it for real! Score these politicos on their arguing abilities and declare a winner each week. Maybe it would actually make them (*gasp*) THINK about what to say and go beyond the talking points and personal attacks. Each time a guest repeats a talking point more than once, bink, you lose a point. Make a good argument about your guy or the issue at hand, bink-bink, moderator gives you a couple points. Say something that fact-checker sites have confirmed as inaccurate, bink-bink, lose a couple points. Start interrupting or talking over your colleague (or worse, pull a Barney Frank and claim that you're not being allowed to make your point when you've already been given more than enough time), BAM, the "Mute" button and you're silenced for 60 seconds. Oh you can go on talking... we just won't hear you. After a segment or two, decide who wins, and that person gets 30 seconds to advocate something important to him/her, just like on "Around the Horn."


Now I know that some people will think I'm not taking the art of debate or politics seriously. This isn't a game, this is our FUTURE we're talking about! These are important issues and need to be given proper respect. Well, I could just as easily argue that in this "end of the world" election year, there aren't many politicos out there who are taking the art of debate seriously or giving the crucial issues proper respect. If they're gonna make political discussion silly, then really my ideas aren't making things any worse. If anything, my brand of silly might bring things back around to where they should be... like two wrongs making a right (two sillies make a serious?)


And of course, once we have moderators assigning points and declaring winners, we'll get howls of outrage over perceived biases... the "liberal media" will get blamed on the weeks when Democrats win, and the "corporate media" will get blamed on the weeks when Republicans win. But again, people already say that about the Sunday morning talk shows, so again, how does my idea make things any worse?


Once we get people used to this idea of moderators actually, um, moderating and doling out proper rewards and punishments for good civil political discourse, maybe we could try it out during one of the presidential debates. Can't you just see Jim Lehrer at his console (which would of course have the green-yellow-red lights we already have to show people how much time they have left... only this too would be strictly enforced), bink-binking Mitt Romney and Barack Obama as they make their case to the American people. "That's a very enlightening take on corporate taxes, Governor Romney, a couple extra points to you... ohh, sorry, Mr. President, you went over time, gotta take one away... no, Governor Romney, you may not go back to the previous question, you get muted for 60 seconds." People and pundits alike already spend the hours and days after a debate trying to decide who won or who lost, now we can know for sure!


Besides, judgments based on points systems never go wrong... well, except for the occasional title fight in boxing... and Olympic figure skating... and when NBA refs affect the outcome of playoff games... Hm, maybe I oughta rethink this whole points thing and just stick to advocating the "mute" button...