In the radio world, there's a never-ending debate on how stations should choose new music and new artists.
I think it comes down to how much your station can afford to risk adding "unknown" artists to your airwaves.
I thought about this some more yesterday and here's the debate I keep having with myself:
If your station is in a ratings game, about making money and being successful -- then the station cannot afford a lot of opportunities to "break in" new artists. That's why I believe in playing only known, recognizable groups or artists. Granted, there are no guarantees anywhere, but I'd wager a whole lot more on a Gaither Vocal Band song, Gold City song, Greater Vision, or Hoppers song. These groups have hard numbers that tell me they have done extremely well in the past, so I have more evidential reasons to trust these winners. After all, if you're into ratings, success and playing the songs that people are buying, how can you lose?
Sure, if you have a really strong gut feeling on an unknown, then roll with it -- but again, it goes back to how much your station can afford. I think that it is a risk to start airing a group/artist that has no proven track record of sales, following, hit songs, etc.
Now, the other side of the debate is if your station has a lot of room for error...if you're a non-profit and don't care about ratings, and can afford to play possible "duds" and have a patient audience who will sit through lesser known stuff, even if they don't like it -- then, you have far more freedom to fill your playlists with good quality new music by people we've never heard of. This thought would also apply to stations that are totally ministry oriented and only want to focus on the messages of songs, not the messenger. If a station is that extreme (like some stations that won't even announce the singer's name), then what does it matter, so long the message and quality is good?
By no means do I know it all or have it all figured out, but I would love to hear your thoughts on this. As someone already said, we'll probably continue to debate it 'til the cows come home and still not have one definitive answer, but discussion is good for creativity and growth. Send me
an email or leave a blog comment. I'm willing to stand corrected!
UPDATE: I know my thoughts may sound extreme, but I really do agree: there should be a balance. I just think the scales should lean heavily to the side of "known" artists and only a few of the exceptional unknowns that blow your socks off should be aired (again, this philosophy is for stations that desire the broadest audience).
One issue that keeps coming up is the attitude that "if radio doesn't break an artist, how will that artist get played?" Is it really radio's job to be a talent scout? Radio doesn't HAVE to allow that music a chance. What rule is there that says we're obligated? Our job is not to find new talent and give a break to up-and-comings, unless that's what your station's success model is based on. Maybe I'm not cynical enough yet, but I still believe that if you're doing good music and have some savvy business skills, you should be on your way to success (including radio airplay). It may not be overnight (probably won't be), but a grassroots movement starts to take hold and soon you become one of the successful, proven track record artists that is profitable for radio to play.
(Lest you think I'm catering to big labels, I'm not. That is only one of many measuring rods. I don't play a song/artist just because it's on a major label, but it does make a good impression).
Some have even said that by only playing the top sellers, you're playing a game of follow-the-leader. With all due respect, I'd rather follow a leader than follow a one-hit wonder.
But, having said all of what I've said, I think it boils down to this:
If you're talking about creating a "revolution" within the Southern Gospel music industry (in other words, SG stations competing against other SG stations to attract listeners), then take a radical approach of putting EVERY ARTIST on an even playing field, irregardless of popularity or past commercial success and consider every single song that crosses your desk. You air the songs that are of high quality and have good messages, period. Then, you'll have a library of new artists and legendary artists and you honestly are not discriminating based on name recognition at all. I really do think you would have a fresh, new sound -- one that is so different I'm sure it would be successful in that environment. Yes, there is more risk, but if it works - it's incredible!
But, if you're trying to pit your SG station up against secular counterparts (which I believe is the case with most SG stations -- there aren't many who are competing with another cross-town SG station), then I believe you've got to attract them with the commercial success stories like Crabb, Gaither, Cathedrals, Booth Bros, Martins, Easters, etc... I imagine it's a lot like promoting a concert in your area. Which concert is more likely to sell-out: no-name indie group or a big-name million seller? That really is the only point I'm making here.
-
Daniel BrittLabels: commentary
