Is "making news" with the BBC Sound Of... within the beebs remit?
Was just looking at the BBC site and saw this comment, wondered if anyone here knows whether the BBC is wrong-doer-ing? Seems like this guy may have a point but I'm not too au fait with BBC's policy...
"6. At 11:31am on 07 Jan 2010, Phil wrote:
I have reservations about the BBC doing this. Is it really within the BBC's remit to select bands (which regardless of the rationale behind these choices is still based on arbitrary and subjective opinions) and then plug them across their TV / Radio and online channels? I'd have to ask what precisely does the BBC seek to gain from this? How does it benefit the BBC's viewers and listeners? And, mainly, why does the BBC feel that it has to set the (if you will) "musical agenda" for the coming year? The BBC should stick to reporting the news, not attempting to make it with meaningless guff like this"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/01/sound_of_2010.html
- Relevant artist taggings:
- Ellie Goulding »[x]
- Marina & the Diamonds »[x]
- Gold Panda »[x]
- Joy Orbison »[x]
- Delphic »[x]
- In Photos: Ellie Goulding @ The Roundhouse, London
- In Photos: V Festival 2011 @ Weston Park, Staffordshire
- Somerset House announce Summer Series line-up ft. Eels, Lamb, Blondie
- In Photos: V Festival 2010 @ Hylands park, Chelmsford
- In Photos: Lovebox Festival @ Victoria Park, London
- In Photos: Glastonbury Festival 2010 - Day 2
- In Photos: Ellie Goulding @ Manchester Academy
- NewsRound: The first quarter of 2010 in NEWS
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
STEP AWAY FROM THE HAVE YOUR SAY
indeed
but it's certainly an interesting point and am curious if this guys argument has a leg to stand on.
It has dawned on me over the past few years, especially seeing the PR machine this year, that this list is driven and dominated by major labels, who fight to get acts the right profile to be on these lists, has kind of made them another publicly funded outlet for flogging major label product.
I think it's really interesting that an artist like Ke$ha whose sold shedloads since this list was compiled, didn't make the list. And that Lady Gaga was only at 6 last year.
Also, was a bit put out that I wasn't allowed to vote for Jedward, as no reality TV was allowed. Only a fool would bet against them being big this year.
I dunno
but did you see how they were telling people to listen to tUnE-YaRdS the other day? Bloody disgrace.
FEATURES, VIEWS, ANALYSIS
voted democratically.
thus, not technically the BBC's views.
aside from the Sound Of... thing,
the way they ram particular artists down the public's throat through Radio 1/Radio 2 A-listing, Radio 1 Big Weekends, Jools Holland, etc, is bloody annoying.
I thought about it recently during the Xmas Number 1 battle - I'm sure a lot of the people complaining about how Cowell was using blanket coverage and relentless exposure to "manipulate the public" had no objections to La Roux, Florence or Paloma bloody Faith being promoted incessantly by the BBC. I know it's different because the BBC gets no material gain out of it like Cowell does, but by tipping artists and then helping them dominate the market or the commercial indie scene, it surely helps the BBC justify its position and its role.
But people like La Roux, Florence
are getting plugged on music dedicated shows where the whole point is to get people watching but promoting bands that the people of that target audience will like. How else would you intend the BBC to broadcast bands and artists? The whole point of a arts & culture show is to present the films, art, music that those critics are into. These bands, artists etc. will change depending on what channel radio station you listen to. Hence, the BBC has many channels and radio stations to try and cover the spectrum of different cultures. Which if you think about how much music, art, books etc are released every year it is admirable that they are able to give you the amount of coverage that they do. Perhaps there are a few areas they miss out on but you have to remember that ratings are extremely important and a show has to be able to justify its funding by producing figures as well as quality of content which any channel must do. And when do bands get rammed down people's throats on Jools Holland, Radio 1 etc. If you like it you keep listening, if not then change the channel, its really not hard. What else would you want? For every band in the world to only get one song played until you had covered everything and then back round? But then you would have to ensure that no-one was in a more prime time spot then anyone else. Therefore, different stations have different remits on what they like. The public aren't complete idiots all the time. If someone doesn't like a song then they wont buy it or they wont listen to their songs, they are not being forced down people's throats.
but the remits aren't being met...
and that's the problem. daytime radio on radio 1 and 6 music is almost exactly the same, and there's still loads of crossover with radio 2. as i posted elsewhere the other day, the bbc have too many 'business' links with the pluggers/managers/labels and don't play enough variety of music and force feed us (yes they do) with the same few artists day in, day out. it's about doing people favours rather than quality programming, hence george lamb got a show on 6music.
because of this i don't listen to any of their stations during the day. all of them 3 stations will play florence and the machine, la roux and little boots on rotation all day every fucking day. two years ago it was kaisers chiefs, hard-fi and razorlight, before that keane and franz ferdinand.
surely one station playing these same artists is enough?
no, the public aren't idiots but the people who run the 3 bbc radio stations are.
^ pretty much this
I didn't mean it to come across as an anti-BBC whinge, or suggest that the public are idiots, I just think that if a song is given blanket exposure over a number of different radio stations/arts programmes, its popularity is going to go up. Look at the way that You've Got The Love has rocketed up the charts after radio A-listing, soundtracking BBC adverts, etc. And sometimes the exposure goes beyond Radio 1, 2 and 6 - I remember listening to Radio 5 in the car early last year and they'd got Little Boots in to perform her single. On a news and sport channel. That's when it starts to fuck me off - when it almost becomes a love-in between the BBC's media and particular artists, when an artist's music and hype becomes inescapable. Perhaps I should just switch to Radio 3.
By the way
I don't even know who Paloma Faith is, which shows that if you know its not going to be you're you steer clear and head to one of the other services by the BBC that you might enjoy.
Tipping artists is something we do all the time
The difference between the BBC doing it and me doing it is the amount of people reached, other than that I don't see the difference.
How many threads on these boards are started because we want to be tipped. We want to be tipped, and apparently many people listen to the BBC's tipping, so let them tip away.
If you're going to take that kind of view though,
(and it's one that is reflected thoughout the corporation when it comes to other forms of product placement - sticky-backed plastic anyone?), then the BBC wouldn't be allowed to play any music on any of it's radio stations, it wouldn't be allowed to run the Proms, the Big Weekends, it wouldn't be able to show coverage of Glastonbury, it wouldn't be able to broadcast Film 2010, Newsnight Review, the Culture Show or Front Row (what are they if not a preview/advert for exhibitions, films, books and plays).
You might say that I'm building a strawman out of your initial point, and that your objection is to the BBC 'creating' a story in which they are complicit with the music industry, but then again, they play the 'official' (i.e. industry-sanctioned) top 40 every week too, and that makes the news.
the problem is
that the BBC are supposed to be impartial as they are a public service. By promoting one band over another is tricky to justify. They went wrong last year too with their U2 week which secured massive publicity for the band for free. I think the BBC has to be careful these days what with murdoch and the government breathing down their neck.
Yeah, but you could say that about anything
wasn't there a Beatles week too? And I remember years ago when one of the Harry Potter books came out there was a 'Harry Potter week'. And I'm pretty sure, when high profile films have been released, there have been relevant documentaries on.
I think it would be worse if the BBC had to try NOT to over-promote bands etc, and would probably just result in a complete decline in music coverage on the BBC.
Surely the 'impartiality' is meant to be political
rather than arts-based?
Ellie Goulding is fantastic though
so I have no qualms.
If you were take this point to its logical conclusion
then you wouldn't allow any reviews of films, books, art. Pretty much all of The Culture Show would have to go. Anything on radio that touches reviewing something. Newsnight Review would have to go as well. The U2 thing was maybe close to edge because they had an album out but in all honesty I doubt many people bought the album on the back of those shows. Impartiality shouldn't, and I don't think, does mean the same thing when you're discussing art as opposed to political parties. It isn't canvassing for a particular band because people on different radio stations and different djs will probably have differing opinions.
In short, its just another moaner complaining about the BBC to try and stir things up. To be honest, I don't think it should even justify my comment let alone a whole thread.
If you ain't seen it...
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/
If you read the BBC Charter
one of the six "Public Purposes" that defines its public service remit in the first place is "stimulating creativity and cultural excellence." I would suggest that Sound of 2010 falls within this definition.
Where does cultural excellence come in
with the 'Sound of'?
ZING.
Good point :D
Not really a problem.
Well, not really THE problem.
oh god
"Why should we pay for a 'public service' broadcaster to do the work of the music industry. When considered alongside the ludicrous salaries paid to the likes of Jonathan Ross and world beating management at the BBC, it all adds up to a compelling case for the abolition of the license fee. Letting the BBC compete in the real world and perhaps then the management can prove their worth! I resent being compelled to prop up an organization that promotes this type of nonsense.
How does the license payer benefit from this type of activity?
It is also worth pointing out that as a bastion of the establishment, the BBC is hardly rock & roll! Once again they completely miss the point!"
Yup, a really compelling case for abolition of the licence fee. I like it when people bring that up - any little thing that they consider to be of no interest to themselves is like a personal affront because they have 'paid for it'.
the playlists are
a source of complete mystery, it doesn't feel like there is any rhyme or reason behind it. My perspective is that I listened to exclusively Radio 1 at work for almost five years (it was a democratic decision between my workmates) and we would hear songs about three time a day over those 9-10 hour days and the playlist was a horrid mix of pub rock and BANGING CHOONS, one particularly offensive 'song' that came up again and again was some bad rave tune that banged about "ain't nobody got your body" etc etc and I actually wrote and complained about having to hear it three times a day. Couple of years down the road, occasionally listen to radio 1 in the morning and that fucking awful 'song' still has primetime syndication! There's no wonder that the playlisters have to be told what to play, they obviously haven't a clue.
Isn't mr mike diver working for the Beeb now? anyone prodded him for some input?