Conference mr1pst::music

    
-----> Tuesday, August 16, 1994 <-----

========
Opening:
========

  From New York, I love this place, it's the Late Show with David
Letterman.  Tonight - Kirstie Alley and singers Youssou N'Dour and Neneh
Cherry.  Plus Paul Shaffer and the CBS Orchestra.  And now, disgraced
former tele-evangelist, David Letterman.

=====================================================
Top Ten Ways Madonna Is Celebrating Her 36th Birthday
=====================================================

  [Madonna's birthday is today.]

10.  Just quietly exposing herself to a few close friends

 9.  Going one-on-one with members of Dream Team II

 8.  Making cone-bra party hats

 7.  Naked Jello shots with Boutros Boutros-Ghali

 6.  Free meal at Denny's

 5.  Nailing every birthday clown from here to the Mason-Dixon line

 4.  Marrying Tito

 3.  Three words:  Sean Penn Pinata

 2.  Playing horizontal "Price is Right" with Bob Barker

 1.  Oil change and lube job

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| This Late Show with David Letterman Top Ten list copyright 1994 World Wide |
| Pants. Lists are contributed by Bob Lennard and Rick Nebel.                |
|                                                                            |
| To subscribe or unsubscribe to the list send your request to               |
| [email protected]. In the BODY of your message put:                 |
|    subscribe top-ten first last                                            |
| Replace first and last with your name. To unsubscribe, put:                |
|    signoff top-ten                                                         |
|                                                                            |
| If you have any questions or comments send them to [email protected] |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us3rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA06315; Tue, 16 Aug 94 22:31:12 -070
% Received: from TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA02417; Tue, 16 Aug 94 22:28:47 -070
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Received: from TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU by tamvm1.tamu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6068; Wed, 17 Aug 94 00:04:44 CD
% Received: from TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@TAMVM1) by TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0016; Tue, 16 Aug 1994 23:28:51 -0500
% Date:         Tue, 16 Aug 1994 21:27:31 -0700
% Reply-To: Late Show Top Ten List mailing list <[email protected]>
% Sender: Late Show Top Ten List mailing list <[email protected]>
% From: Bob Lennard <[email protected]>
% Subject:      David Letterman's Top Ten List for 08/16/94
% To: Multiple recipients of list TOP-TEN <[email protected]>

    Do we have to? She's managed to take me from thinking that she was a
    pretty talented singer/entertainer/etc and shrewd business woman to
    thinking that she's really nothing more than a low-class, obnoxious pig.

    Not that there's anything wrong with being a low-class, obnoxious pig.

    well, not that I care one bit but tonight on A&E she is featured on
    Biography. 8PM here in the east....

    Hey, some of my best friends are low class obnoxious pigs.
    
    What's it to ya?

    
    Madonna's last lp bombed compared to earlier releases. In fact, her
    fan club in England has disbanded.
    
    Look for her to get dropped by her label next year. In fact, look
    for MANY 80's bands to get dropped.
    
    -prc

    She reminds me of some bratty little kid who looks for "negative" 
    attention since it's the ONLY major attention she gets. She also keeps 
    her name in the public eye by the "negative press is better than NO
    press" attitude.
    
    It's a shame actually, because even I think she's got talent.
    
    	JMO
    
    
    		Warren

  >  Look for her to get dropped by her label next year. In fact, look
  >  for MANY 80's bands to get dropped.

IMO that would be *very* positive. There is little going on in the
pop music world worth preserving. New blood would be welcome. 

 >   It's a shame actually, because even I think she's got talent.

yabbut her talent has little to do with music. She's an entertainer,
she can dance, she puts together a great show and works her butt off.
Her music is secondary and nothing special.

josh

    
    
    >Her music is secondary and nothing special.
    
    Anybody else notice how many of these manufactured "entertainers" are
    out there?  It gripes me all to hell that some schmuck gets some dance
    and voice lessons and all of a sudden the public thinks he/she is
    something extraordinary...when at the same time, serious musicians are
    busting their asses for next to no money.
    
                         There ain't no justice!
    

    >RE: ...when at the same time, serious musicians are busting
    >	 their asses for next to no money.
        
    It's ALWAYS been that way! Where have you been? It's who you know and
    how much money you have to pay people to play your tunes on the radio
    (when you're attempting to get into the business). It's been this way
    forever it seems! Not all, but more DJ's than you realize want a good 
    reason to play an unknown band's tune on the air. College stations
    aren't normally this way and in my opinion the best place to start 
    pushing your tunes, but try to get your tunes on _BCN, or _AAF! With 
    larger stations you need a 1st place win on the "battle of the bands" that 
    the specific radio station sponsored. At least this was true with my
    experiences.
    
    Welcome to "MusicBiz 101"! 
    
    
    		Rock on,
    			Fred (who's been there)

    I'm curious, are you of the opinion that record companies can make
    the public like something that is actually (or whatever) not "good".
    
    I.E.  what is your spin on the fact that Madonna sells so many albums?
    
    	db

    Marketing is a major factor in the music business (as in any business).
    The greatest musicians (like us Dave :-) without marketing go nowhere.
    The less great musicians; well they can go further with the right
    marketing. But marketing requires something to market and someone to
    market to. Madonna is very marketable for a number of reasons, so her
    record company is willing to sacrifice a little in the depth department.
    Stick her with the likes of Patrick Leonard (a great musician who keeps
    an eye on the "product"), and Madonna becomes a superstar. Madonna is
    probably fair to good in most categories, but they package her well,
    and the results are usually very good.
    
    But my spin (and yes, I know I'm sticking my nose in here) is that
    Madonna sells a lot of albums primarily because of successful marketing,
    and secondarily because of Patrick Leonard. Madonna as a personality
    would be very high in the list of reasons, Madonna as a musician and
    singer would probably be low.
    
    Brian

    OK, fair enough.
    
    My only comment is that as much as I like truely great musicians,
    I've really come to the conclusion that "musicianship" as musicians
    tend to define it, is not what the public looks for in music.
    
    Even with as much respect as I have for him, I don't think ANY amount
    of marketing would make Steve Morse much more popular.   
    
    Now understand that I'm not disclaiming the importance of marketing
    in becoming a success.   I realize that Madonna would not be as famous
    without it, and that there are people who might have been more popular
    had they been given the same support that Madonna got.
    
    But, as you well know, I tend to question things, and I just hear
    a lot of people saying "well, if these guys got the kind of marketing
    that so-and-so got..." and frankly I don't think there's all that
    strong a correlation between most people's idea of "musicianship"
    and wide appeal.
    
    	db
    
    p.s. Amen on your comments about Patrick Leonard.  The guy does
         fabulous work, and I do confess that most of the reason I listen
         to Madonna is to hear his productions.

    
    re. Brian
    
    > But my spin (and yes, I know I'm sticking my nose in here) is that
    > Madonna sells a lot of albums primarily because of successful marketing,
    
    Does "marketing" (do I see a snarl when you say that :^)) make you buy
    things you don't enjoy listening to?
    
    - Sean

    Sean:
    
    >Does "marketing" (do I see a snarl when you say that :^)) make you buy
    >things you don't enjoy listening to?
    
    No, and I doubt it makes anyone else do it either.
    
    And no, no "snarls" about marketing. Marketing serves a critical
    function in *all* business.
    
    My points are:
    
    1. Good marketing can take the otherwise "mediocre" to another level;
       however, good marketing can seldom save the truly terrible.
    
    2. The music business and the art of making music have little or
       nothing to do with each other. Good business is not necessarily
       good art, and good art is not necessarily good business. What
       is made available to the general public is generally good
       business, but not necessarily good art. At times, the two
       happen together. For the most part, they do not. Further, due
       to the nature of all this, the general public gets to choose
       from a lot of artistic mediocrity that makes good business
       sense; in general we do not have access to a lot of good
       art that makes no business sense. From this perspective, our
       listening choices are not entirely our own.
    
    Brian

    Hmmm.... actually *I* do  believe that marketing can make people buy things
    they don't enjoy listening to.
    
    I just don't think it happens nearly enough to turn someone into
    a superstar.   In other words, I don't believe "Superstars" are
    synthesized out of thin air.  I think they are merely people who
    both HAD and REACHED a high potential.   Marketing helps with the
    "reaching" part.
    
    People buy Madonna records because they like listening to them and
    that means that in some very reasonable sense it is "good music".

    
    	Also, remember that record companies really aren't interested
    	in catering to an audience of musicians, they're catering to
    	an audience mainly comprised of your average, everyday consumer
    	between the ages of 13 and 25 or so.
    
    	Of course there are musicians in that grouping, but they are a
    	minority.
    
    	So they don't worry too much about advertising acts that they
    	know include great musicians, they advertise the ones that are
    	going to appeal to the public, meaning the act looks good on
    	stage, sounds nice and clear, etc.  The "band" [and I use the
    	term loosely, since the majority of the big names these days
    	are just vocalists getting all the credit when it's actually
    	the band behind him/her doing all the work] doesn't even have
    	to be musically competent, just "pleasing" to the ears of the
    	buying public.
    
    	"It's got a good beat, and you can dance to it" goes a long
    	 way these days.  Too far, IMO.  And for that reason, I dis-
    	agree with anyone who says Madonna will be gone soon.  She
    	still looks good, sounds like someone the public wants to
    	hear, and gets the publicity she needs to keep the public's
    	interest up.
    
    	I'd love to see an "alternative Grammys" award, run parallel
    	to the "original Grammys", but run by musicians counting votes
    	submitted by musicians.  It'd be a worthwhile experience to
    	actually go through the ballots [and winners], line by line,
    	and compare results.  There would be a few similarities, but
    	my estimate is that you'd see a 10-15% similarity rate between
    	the results.
    
    							GTI
    

    
    
>    	I'd love to see an "alternative Grammys" award, run parallel
>    	to the "original Grammys", but run by musicians counting votes
>    	submitted by musicians.
    
    NARAS (the organization behind the Grammies) is almost like that -- you
    don't get to vote if you're a marketing guy or some bean counter or
    softtware weenie...  even so, I can't explain why each year a single
    artist gets picked to win everything.  Therefore, I don't think any
    sort of organization is likely to casually do a good job of selecting
    the year's best whatever in so many categories.  The hits stick in
    peoples' minds, and those are what they remember when it's time to vote.
    
    The only way I see for an honest evaluation of a year's worth of music
    to be done is to conscientiously listen throughout the year, write down
    some notes about the best things you hear, and then go back and compare
    the best in each category when it's time to make the nominations and
    then the final vote.
    

    RE: db...success stories may not be "synthesized" from thin air, but is
    manufactured a better word ??  case in point, NKOTB...a producer gets
    in his limo, drives around Boston neighborhoods and picks kids from
    street corners to become stars...

    In concert with many of the replies here, I'd have to say I agree.
    Think back to (set back folks, as we take a trip down memory lane)
    the very early part of the sixties. Songs like, "Take Good Care of My 
    Baby", "Last Kiss", "Itsy-Bitsy, Teenie-Weenie...", "Breakin' Up Is
    Hard to Do"...........Okay, I had to go barf; I'm feeling much better.
    
    Elvis himself was slick marketing. My musical heroes, the Beatles,
    were marketed, too. Madonna, I'm afraid, has been marketed, but I still
    like some of her stuff. Whoever wrote and produced the songs did a fine
    job in many cases.
    
    So, it's the old story - "I knew (fill in the band) when they were
    still practicing in their garage, and let me tell you, *that's* when
    they were really good, you know." It seems to be a natural reaction to
    success; success is defined as moving cd's and cassettes. If the artist
    can be promoted and packaged such that the lemmings follow one another
    to buy the albums, then that's success. The closer the product is to a
    "universal" appeal, the more units get sold. Another part of the play
    is, let's face it, "isn't this artist strange-looking and weird? I'll
    bet my parents will hate this right away." Again, "universal appeal"?
    
    On the other side of the coin, independent labels, the very few that
    are left, give us some great music sometimes. An example in my mind
    would be Tonio K. An artist too enigmatic to be stuffed into a
    corporate mold, his three albums are great musically. 
    
    Bill

    
    Negative press is better than no press at all. The key is to get your
    name known to the public. The more controversy you create, the more
    interest and curiousity you create. This quickly adds up to more
    record sales depending on your distribution.
    
    -prc

    It's all Marketing and Advertising...
    
    How else do you explain Michael Bolton ???
    
    Really, music is just another business. The musicians (or entertainer
    in the case of Madonna, et al) and the producers make the product
    and the record companies market that product. You either learn to play
    the game or continue to make tapes in your basement that no one will
    ever hear. Until recently, Madonna "has" played the game very well.
    However, there comes a time when the nothing but "negative" publicity
    begins to wear on the public. A celebrity cannot keep the public
    interest on negative publicity alone. It's easy to be really "bad" if
    you're putting out product that's really "good". Just like Axl Rose, 
    Madonna has had nothing but bad press, and has not redeemed herself by 
    balancing that with some quality work... 

  >  Anybody else notice how many of these manufactured "entertainers" are
  >  out there?  It gripes me all to hell that some schmuck gets some dance
  >  and voice lessons and all of a sudden the public thinks he/she is
  >  something extraordinary...when at the same time, serious musicians are
  >  busting their asses for next to no money.
   
Wow, this turned real interesting all of a sudden! Brian made the point a 
few back that the Biz and the Music are totally different beasts. This is 
very true, and I'll take it a step further. The music is it's own reward -
fame is secondary to a serious musician, so is money. If they wanted fame
and money they'd do something else. Madonna is an example of someone who
wanted fame and money first, she never pretended to be a serious musician
and will never understand the rewards of making great music. She is very
successful at being *famous*, period. Nothing wrong with that aside from a
certain shallowness, she worked her butt off to get where she is, gotta 
respect it.    
 
  >                       There ain't no justice!

And?

josh

    re: .21, .18 et al
    
    > It's all Marketing and Advertising...
    > How else do you explain Michael Bolton ???
    
    Easily.  Michael Bolton, NKOTB, Madonna, and others are entertainers
    who have something that consumers (i.e. audiences) want.  So is Steve
    Morse, but his consumer base is smaller.  Bolton fits easily into the
    tradition of heart-throb ballad crooners, NKOTB in the pre-teen/teen
    idol mold, and Madonna in the overtly sexual, femme fatale bag.  
    
    Now these are all shows that have been done before in preceding
    generations, but the point is that some significant portion of the
    population likes them.  I readily acknowledge that these performers
    have been well-marketed.  In Madonna's case it looks to me that she's
    tried to extend the self-marketing to the level of life-as-performance
    piece. But sooner or later the product hits the consuming public and
    either consumers buy or they don't.  
    
    Like db, I agree that a clever marketing campaign can make people buy
    something they don't like. ..once.  But for the product to keep
    selling, it has to give the consumer something (s)he wants.  Such is
    the case of Bolton, NKOTB, Madonna and every other successful
    entertainer.
    
    And while my tastes in entertainment may be different, there's no way I
    can prove that what I like is intrinsically "better" as music or art or
    even entertainment.  I don't think anyone else can, either.  Because in
    the final analysis, it all comes down to personal taste.  There's
    simply no way to prove that one form of music is "better" than another.  
    
    > The musicians (or entertainer in the case of Madonna, et al) and the
    > producers make the product and the record companies market that
    > product. 
    
    I'd say that *any* musician that steps on a stage is, by definition, an
    entertainer.  Further, the act of presenting one's show is an act of
    marketing as well as entertainment.  
    
    Steve

re:                <<< Note 662.12 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "db" >>>

>    My only comment is that as much as I like truely great musicians,
>    I've really come to the conclusion that "musicianship" as musicians
>    tend to define it, is not what the public looks for in music.

   Geez db, twice in one day I agree with you.  Must be because it's Sunday,
   and I'm feeling particularly generous.  :-)

   I play in a little two piece folk/country/blues outfit.  Frankly, I
   think (or realize) we s*ck, but we play a selection of songs that our
   audiences like, do them acceptably, so we're successful.

   Personally, I think Madonna's popularity came from being one of MTV's
   first major marketing successes.  Those first few songs, "Borderline",
   etc, were actually pretty good for the "pop" market, and she just took
   off from there.  No, she's no Aretha (sorry I even mentioned the great
   lady's name in this topic :-)), but she did appeal to the bubblegum set.
   When she started in on the tramp/stripper/hooker image she lost it, IMO.
   (And eeew, those Penthouse pictures.  Not that I saw them, of course. :-))

   -- Sam
   

    >  Geez db, twice in one day I agree with you. 
    
    I'm sure that as you get older and wiser, you'll find this happening
    more and more.   ;-0)

   Don't count on it.  :-}

   -- Sam
   

    In regards to marketing, I have to say that good markting makes us do
    things we might not have done all the time, such as coupons in the
    paper, trailers for movies, etc.
    
    MJ
    
    P.S. New to this file, just added it to my directory.  "Hi!"