We had another tight week on the charts with incumbent Sleater-Kinney looking for week #5 at #1.
Last week The Decemberists dominated the #1s but came up short when it came to the Core stations.
Father John Misty being the hot new record looked to have an easy path towards the top.
I really thought that The Decemberists would of been done a few weeks ago. But they kept on pushing. It looked like they were bridging the gap and making some real strides with CORE stations.
It was much like last week. Every time I checked the race between the 3 was incredibly tight. I thought early on that it would be either Sleater-Kinney or Decemberists and found myself pulling for the Decemberists as if it were a sport of some type. In the end though Father John Misty is the new #1. It is hard to hold off a new record with momentum. While the Decemberists had another great week of #1's and improved core, Father John Misty also had a great week with #1's and had slightly more Core under its belt.
That brings me to the rest of the top ten. I can't remember a top 10 this tight. Nothing seems be moving. This week only 2 records in the top 10 changed and six of the records are six weeks or older. I have been expecting some of the older records to start falling out but the newer records don't seem to have enough behind them. Is it that the older records are bigger names, or that the companies pushing them don't want to let go?
How long does Father John Misty hold the top now. Is Jose Gonzalez a contender? Last weeks #1 most added Dan Deacon could see itself in the FJM role and shoot past Jose for a clearer shot at #1.
This weeks most added race while not all that close did produce three 100 ADD records. The top add Purity Ring will likely shoot up into the top 10 next week. Will the other 2 Of Montreal and Matthew E. White join them? Are either of those top spot contenders? I think our next best bet for #1 has to be Dan Deacon followed closely by Purity Ring. We shall see though.
Over the next few weeks I would love to write more about changes we as a college radio community would like to see CMJ make. I have been at this for a while now and for the most part there have been very few changes recently. There was once a CORE chart that gave us a look at what just the larger stations were playing. There was a spin count chart that helped to legitimize a lot of stations charts. There was a print magazine that had reviews, interviews and profiles. These changes are neither wholly good or bad but they are up for discussion. Lately though, I find myself wishing CMJ would try some new things, and perhaps as a community we should let CMJ know what it is we need and might be missing.
Should we be asking for a CORE chart to return, should we look at which stations are CORE or not, should we be looking at some new chart that we haven’t even thought of yet (some new genre, or a specific chart just for non-CORE stations to see what’s bubbling under at the 100s of smaller stations out there)? What would you change?
The question I wanted to pose this week involves what you can and cannot chart. Should there be a set of charting standards or should stations be able to chart whatever they want? This question came up specifically a few weeks ago when a station pointed out to me that somehow Iggy and the Stooges and The Kinks both made it on the HIP HOP top 40 chart.
(You might remember back to early last year when Sharon Jones made it onto the Hip hop charts and that also had some people up in arms. )
But should these stations be able to chart those records? I have reached out to CMJ and they are aware of the station and I have reached out via twitter and email to the MD of the station to see what they have to say about it and will update if I hear back.
My stance is that yes there should be standards by witch stations have to adhere to. The specialty charts lose their credibility when records like The Kinks make it on the Hip Hop chart before artists that are trying to make a name for themselves at the genre. I would go way beyond that though. Not only would CMJ be vasty improved, in my opinion, if there were genre constraints but time constraints as well. A station 3 weeks ago charted records that were over 10 years old on their CMJ chart. I am sure there are arguments for allowing the station to do this. I would LOVE to hear them.
Thank you for reading, let's continue the conversation on twitter!
2 comments:
"While the Decemberists had another great week of #1's and improved core, Father John Misty also had a great week with #1's and had slightly more Core under its belt."
>>If anything is to prove that the only stations that truly matter are CORES, then look at Recap for issue #1381. The current status of College Radio, next to modern media conglomeration for radio airplay elsewhere, is antithetical to this concept. We are not Billboard, we are not FMQB. The metrics that make a CORE, minus ERP, are subjective. The work is done on the ground, in aggregate. Every station pays the same to report, but are not seen equivalent. It's a have and have-not caste system. There is no recourse with limited resources without external monitoring systems. We have not reached progress - we have reached a system where very few are truly counted. Some university in select academic departments some twenty years ago put resources into their radio station. Now they determine the charts. Again, apologies to 'The Decemberists'.
"Is it that the older records are bigger names, or that the companies pushing them don't want to let go? "
>>A little of the former, more that (most) records will take longer to gestate into the hearts and minds of persons having to consolidate and curate a massive amount of media content. Forget your standard issue college DJ who doesn't follow this media as general consumption. Many variables at play, but music is still consumed and shared by some form of organic means - alternate media, word of mouth, etc.. The myopic CMJ programmer concept that 'x' artist's ADDS on 'y' issue strongly points to a #1 shot by 'z' issue is played out so many times, which leads me to examples Doug mentions...
"Is Jose Gonzalez a contender? Last weeks #1 most added Dan Deacon could see itself in the FJM role and shoot past Jose for a clearer shot at #1. "
>>No, and no. Neither Gonzalez or the new Deacon have any shot at #1. Here is where too much stock put into ADDS charts. They are merely one point of data and reference at a finite time in any reporting cycle. Either of those two titles will have to hit on something outside of CR within popular culture: i.e. a crossover hit to other media, platforms, and/or other factors (i.e. PR, marketing 'spread', commercialized sound). These records themselves don't hold up to deep programming options or name recognition outside of the format. This is neither a good or bad thing, as these artists might be true crossover artists of the future. Purity Ring will be your next #1 in 2-3 issues. A great example of an artist with monied interests behind it, some established fan-base, and a LOT of faux hype surrounding a pretty stale act. It's all in the game, and you will get a couple "Purity Rings" per year always.
"Should we be asking for a CORE chart to return, should we look at which stations are CORE or not, should we be looking at some new chart that we haven’t even thought of yet (some new genre, or a specific chart just for non-CORE stations to see what’s bubbling under at the 100s of smaller stations out there)? What would you change?"
>>Unweighted charts. All CMJ reporting stations equal. Simple frequency/rank metrics for chart position. All charts open for reporting. More robust data management on CMJ's side: i.e. title metrics (dates, issues, expirations, valid specialty charts). All other data goes into a recurrent or 'legacy'. CMJ already auto compiles the data for their AAA "chart" based on select station's 200 submissions - so, they can easily auto-compile this. 95% of issues resolved...
AND
Do away with ADDS charts. Makes promoters silly, emphasizes bad data, bad MD's habits, and leads to rash programming decisions. In some cases, if not completely made up to appease distros pushing MD's already over their heads = ["Hey, you haven't given ME an ADD in weeks. Why!?"]
Ultimately, the question to ask is what would affect CMJ's 'product'? Some random station charting 'Goldfinger' or adding a title off adds-date three weeks left will not affect the data at the top. The data that CMJ reports in the issues. A station charting Sharon Jones to 'HIP-HOP' will not stem the tide of putting 'Sleater-Kinney' onto the exalted "COVER". Father John Misty is much sexier to highlight on March 4th than, say, 'The Decemberists'. Putting Purity Ring: Eternally Added on the this week's cover is much sexier than 'Matthew E. White' who has much less visibility, reach, and current name-recognition.
Re: CMJ. What sells a viable product? More importantly, what sells the influence of the CMJ Marathon? If you know those answers, then you'll understand the motivations (or lack thereof). At best, beyond subscriptions, the charts/issues and publishing of them are loss-leaders to a different business model and monetization path - i.e. their continuation on being the SXSW of NYC during the Fall and selling passes. Larger changes will have to occur in the marketplace in order for CMJ to digress from its own current ways of operation. So, expect nothing to change on the charting front until other external forces (or bankruptcy) prompt it.
Ultimately, it's not about breaking or championing 'new' artists anymore as a 'system', as a 'community'. It's not really about College Radio as a viable and recognized media platform. The more we remove ourselves from the core mission(s) and vision(s) of what College Radio is on a base programming level, the more it will continue to erode. It will further fall into a quantity over quality model for the distros. and a national reporting entity that aggregates the data they want at will that matches up to a 'brand' with no real progress towards good communication, community, and support for the stations it charges monies for the mere privilege to participate in.
And yes, I'll agree with Doug, stop charging 'Goldfinger'. That is all.
Post a Comment