Why not - they *are* urban.

 

I would describe them as boyband R&B

 

"Urban genre music channels have just as wide a defintion of the term as you do though."

No, I said they're more R&B than "Russian Roulette". And they're both was on the recent NOW R&B Compilation that was in the charts a couple of weeks ago.

 

--

Richard

 

They're most definitely not more RnB than Russian Roulette.

 

And the reason they're on an RnB compilation album is that there's simply not been enough popular RnB songs this year to fill up a compilation album! If you look at the tracklist, you'll notice they've had to resort to including hip hop songs, songs that missed the top 200, and then electropop and europop songs by artists that used to do RnB.

 

A basic (I'll try to keep it basic so people don't accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about) tutorial on characteristics of RnB songs. Firstly, they have to have a SLOW tempo. Closer to 80 beats per minute. Secondly, they instrumentation is usually based around real instruments. So they often contain a lot of strings, brass, guitar, piano, etc. Many RnB songs today contain extra electronic sounds though. Thirdly, they have PERCUSSION. RnB (and hip hop) songs always use a lot of percussion. A strong characteristic of a modern RnB/hip hop beat is that, probably 90% of the time, they have a "loud" drum on the third beat of the bar, and there's syncopation in the drum patterns (kind of like off-beats).

 

So, let's look at Don't Stop the Party and Beautiful People. Are they slow? No. They probably have a tempo of 120 beats per minute. Similar to a song such as Poker Face. Instrumentation? No. Just pure synths. No strings, no brass, no piano, just synths. Similar to a song such as Poker Face. Do they have percussion? No. All they have is what's called a "kick", which goes on every beat of the bar. The purpose of this is that people can go to clubs and jump up and down in time to the kicks. No syncopation or anything.

 

Now, let's look at Grenade and Russian Roulette. Are they slow? Yes. A tempo closer to what RnB songs are supposed to have. Instrumentation? Not fully acoustic. Russian Roulette especially has a few synths, but they both contain piano and strings. Percussion? Now, BOTH of those songs have a lot of percussion. Russian Roulette's has a thumping beat that I think was supposed to sound like a heart beat. Both have syncopation in the percussion. Both have the important loud beats on the third beat of each bar.

 

Now, I HATE Grenade and Russian Roulette, as everybody knows, so I'll try and stop talking about them now. :lol: Not saying they're proper RnB, but we honestly haven't had many, or any, proper RnB songs in the chart this year. Beautiful People and Don't Stop the Party have no traits of RnB in them at all, except for the fact that Chris Brown and the Black Eyed Peas sang some RnB songs 5 years ago.

 

Urban genre music channels have just as wide a defintion of the term as you do though. I'm sure I've seen JLS on an 'urban' channel.

 

I could maybe understand some JLS songs being on urban MTV. Their new song sounds a bit urban, and does Love You More, a little bit.

 

But Eyes Wide Shut, One Shot, and most certainly, She Makes Me Wanna, are not urban in the very slightest. But I sympathize with the urban music channels really. If they're wanting to play songs that have actually been popular, they'll either have to have the same 10 songs on repeat, or they'll have to just play pop songs by black artists.

Edited October 22, 201113 yr by Eric_Blob

The other reason is I get sick of buying albums and then a year later they are re-released, sometimes with 8 new songs it - think Take That, Lady Gaga etc. I've got to a point now, that I'll probably buy an artists album once they've moved onto their next knowing full well it's not going to have a re-release.

 

Can't believe only 1 person has brought this up! This is what really pisses me off and stops me buying new releases. The record companies are really taking the piss with these. This time last year The Overtones released their album "Good Ol' Fashioned Love" with 12 tracks. Around Christmas it was re-issued with 3 extra songs. Last week it came out again and had 18 songs - including 4 new songs (one of the "bonus" tracks from version 2 was taken off). On top of that there is a download only version which contains 14 bonus videos.

Yeah, I've still not purchased Teenage Dream or LOUD because I thought there would be inevitable re-releases. Still not sure on Teenage Dream but only now can I buy LOUD! It's got to the point where re-releases are so predictable they might be damaging album sales rather than helping them.

I personally think that if a release has 7+ more songs on it then its justified.

But if downloads are significantly cheaper less people will buy the physical album which will put another nail into the coffin of an already dying product.

Rather that then the death of music sales all together.

I've said many times that record companies are running the risk that people will hold off buying albums when they're released anticipating the release of a deluxe edition or the price being reduced to a fiver.

If an album gets rereleased after I bought it, I just download the new tracks. The only time I couldn't was Pink-Funhouse Tour Edition. There was one new track that was album only. I still don't have it. I don't give a sh!t about one song.

People making their tracks album only is a BAD thing for so many reasons.

 

Making the songs downloadable individually means that only the albums with a lot of good tracks sell a lot. All those albums with just one or two good songs won't sell as much with cherry-picking possible, and will be forced to be made cheaper, and that's the way it should be.

 

Also, if all album tracks will be made album-only, we'll get EVERY song in the chart debuting at its peak again. At least at the moment we get a nice mix of the two with post-album singles like Sexy and I Know It, Last Friday Night, Right There, The Lazy Song, etc. having to climb their way up.

 

Albums are too expensive, especially for younger people. I hardly ever buy albums.

 

Albums are cheap I wish they was 7.99/8.99 when I was a kid, the young people should be able to afford it, When I was younger they was £12.99/13.99 which was nearly 3 weeks worth of pocket money.

If an album gets rereleased after I bought it, I just download the new tracks. The only time I couldn't was Pink-Funhouse Tour Edition. There was one new track that was album only. I still don't have it. I don't give a sh!t about one song.

 

But even then, if you pay for an album at £9 in 2010 - you then pay 99p per new track in 2011 - you've spent what could range from £10 - £18. Or you wait and get the deluxe album and get all the 2010 and 2011 tracks for £9 - or you wait longer after the deluxe album has been released and been out for a while and pay £5.

 

The other problem with this is the anticipation has then gone, you wonder if you really want the album at all, and then you lose a sale

But even then, if you pay for an album at £9 in 2010 - you then pay 99p per new track in 2011 - you've spent what could range from £10 - £18. Or you wait and get the deluxe album and get all the 2010 and 2011 tracks for £9 - or you wait longer after the deluxe album has been released and been out for a while and pay £5.

 

The other problem with this is the anticipation has then gone, you wonder if you really want the album at all, and then you lose a sale

 

I suppose I just don't care that much. If I want an album, I buy it. If extra tracks are on a rerelease and I want them, I download them. I'm not going to wait 10 months to hear an album just so I can save a fiver in the long run.

I personally think that if a release has 7+ more songs on it then its justified.

 

If it has that many new songs why not release it as a new album once the artist has recorded another 3 or 4 songs then???

Albums are cheap I wish they was 7.99/8.99 when I was a kid, the young people should be able to afford it, When I was younger they was £12.99/13.99 which was nearly 3 weeks worth of pocket money.

 

Yeah. And maybe they'll be £3.99 in the future, and then the kids will still whine about it being too expensive, and then I'll go "Well, when I was younger, albums used to cost £7.99". :lol:

 

Even when I was younger, I remember albums were a lot more expensive. I couldn't afford them then, and I still can't afford them now (well, I can get two or three a year now, but that's because I have a job). Even when I was at college, with albums, it was the sort of thing 3 or 4 people would put money together to buy as a birthday present for someone. They're really not that cheap imo, and hence, it was a rarity anybody I knew ever bought one (whether the people I knew are representatitve of the country in general, I don't know, but I can't see why not). Of course, I'm talking about teenagers though. Adults can afford albums more (and the types of albums that sell well, and the types that don't, are evidence of that I think).

 

Which is why I think if they did a full-length album chart show, it should air on Radio 2 rather than Radio 1, since it won't do much to help the sales on Radio 1 since most of the people listening to it aren't going to be buying many albums, even if they wanted to. The target audience of albums will be mainly listening to stations like Radio 2 and Heart.

How can you say eight quid is not that cheap? You've got to pay for the cost of manufacturing the CD, the packaging, the art work, distribution costs (transporting the CD to the retailer), profits for the record company and the retailer. That's before you add the royalties for the band and the songwriters (if different) and the producer.

If it has that many new songs why not release it as a new album once the artist has recorded another 3 or 4 songs then???

 

Because if your next album is going to have a different sound, then why put songs which sound like your last year on an album where you're trying to develope your sound. They also help when an album is underperforming.

Had Ellie Goulding not rereleased, there is no way in hell she would have gone double platinum, probably would have stalled at 350k.

They also help, say the artist is releasing after a 2 year gap, to keep them in the spot light in the second year after the promo is done and the writing of the next album is taking place.

How can you say eight quid is not that cheap? You've got to pay for the cost of manufacturing the CD, the packaging, the art work, distribution costs (transporting the CD to the retailer), profits for the record company and the retailer. That's before you add the royalties for the band and the songwriters (if different) and the producer.

 

I don't understand how people think £8 is too much for an album, yet that's only two meals at mcdonalds, or three drinks in a nightclub. To me £8 is not a lot considering you have that album for life and can load it onto your computer and ipod.

 

If £8 is cheap for all of you, that's fine then. :lol: But I not going to be buying many albums unless they're cheaper.

There is something seriously wrong with you if you think £8 is expensive for an album. Do you have no concept of cost or the value of money? Ok, so the CD and case may cost 20p but when all the costs + more that Suedehead mentioned are added in £8 is a bloody bargain.

 

It wasn't that long ago £12.99 was a damned good value for money album. Hell WH Smiths still sell albums at that price! It's why their sales amount to 1 CD per year.

 

 

I most certainly to not begrudge having to pay for a good album. Even the CD's I've spent over £15 importing have been worth every penny (for a 10 track album!). Album sales have died because of today's youth just expecting everything to cost very little and to be able to have it now.

 

It wasn't that long ago you could buy both a litre of Petrol and 500ml of Coca Cola and still have change from £1.50. Now your lucky to get change from a £1.50 from them separately so realistically speaking albums have never been cheaper and as the price doesn't keep up with inflation they get cheaper each day. Mind you, that's a little bit complex despite being economics 101 for people who think £8 is expensive.

Firstly - I certainly don't think the quality of albums is worse than it was a few years ago! There always have, and always will be (for as long as albums exist) good and bad albums - if you consider bad to be rushed/badly produced/lazy/worse than the artist's previous/next album - all of which are subject to individual opinions anyway! All of which has nothing to do with why albums are selling less (OK - genre does have something to do with it - and the RnB/dance/rap/urban/pop/ mix that represents a lot of chart music right now isn't traditionally album-friendly - but that doesn't mean people aren't buying it).

 

Economics almost certainly does play a part - if it's a choice between filling your car with petrol or a couple of CDs, most people will choose the first. Same with lots of essential vs non-essential purchases.

 

That said, I don't think the cost of an album is the real problem. Chart albums almost always cost over £6, so they aren't loose-change purchases like fast food, magazines, etc. But them costing £7.99, £8.99, £9.99, I don't think that makes much of a difference. Despite the bad monetary situation well over 3m people have shelled out their £7-£11 on '21'. Maybe if it cost £2 or £3, then 4-5m people might have bought it - but personally I don't think only 300,000 people would have bought it if it cost at least £11.99.

 

Cherry-picking is the obvious answer - more so than illegal downloading I think, because illegal downloads obviously impacted on singles far more in 2003-07, when album sales were at their highest. People are so used to buying their favourite tracks now, and at any time, that they don't bother with albums as much - whereas 10 or 20 years ago if you heard a random album track in a shop/bar/radio/TV and liked it, you had to buy the album to hear it, now you can just get the song off itunes and ignore the rest of the album.

 

I think the idea of stopping cherry-picking should be up to the artist (or, unfortunately, the label) - if they choose, say, 4 singles off the album, then allow those 4 to be cherry-picked at any time, but make the rest of the album album-only. This would drive up sales for big artists a little - but not by much, since if an album is really anticipated it still sells well to start with - but I agree it might encourage illegal downloading of the 'forbidden' album tracks.

 

In short, I think the CD album is doomed (sadly) - not completely, there will always be a niche market, but not in terms of millions of sales - the album as a form depends on what artists want to do, and what their labels allow. Sales will never recover to 2003-6 levels though IMO, unless a brilliant new format comes out.

 

I suggest including a free album download code with every CD album - one for the car, one for the ipod. Wouldn't do much, but may help a tiny bit.

There is something seriously wrong with you if you think £8 is expensive for an album. Do you have no concept of cost or the value of money? Ok, so the CD and case may cost 20p but when all the costs + more that Suedehead mentioned are added in £8 is a bloody bargain.

30 years ago albums were £5, I remember that because you could neatly buy one with a £5 record token. Adjusting for inflation that's an awful lot more than the £8 you pay today. In real terms albums today must be cheaper than they have ever been, yet some people will always whine about the price. Perhaps it's just a piracy generation thing, objecting to having to actually pay a few quid for music.