17 October 2010

Well, I thought it was so wrong for the BBC to have been granted a “world exclusive” for the first single off the new My Chemical Romance album (to be released in November). Just imagine how great it would have been for the record label to have emailed it to every radio station (including community/public stations), in each country… I tuned in of course to hear an overexcited Zane declare to Gerard on the phone that the single had been on “fast-forward” since its arrival, to which Gerard offered a grovelling thank-you. But wait just a minute! Zane said “fast-forward” not “repeat play” - Zane speaks a lot faster than he thinks so no real surprises there… And in this digital age there was something else that was no real surprise - the BBC had been beaten by Phily 104.4 (and perhaps even KROQ) in the States by playing the single several hours earlier after the song had mysteriously turned up in the station’s in-box. Any producer or dj worth their salt would have played it - I certainly would have.

But what of the song? I’ve heard it a few times now and can understand the band’s enthusiasm for it. MCR had reached a hiatus in its career with one new album rejected and a good drummer departing - the band needed a real kick up the arse. ‘Na Na Na’ is throwaway pop-rock but it’s the kind of song to get you off your feet and Gerard admits that this is precisely what happened to the band. Perhaps the band and the powers-that-be had been thinking too much, planning too much, worrying too much. ‘Na Na Na’ is none of those things, it’s throwing caution to the wind, it’s ‘I don’t give a fuck’, and it’s what the band badly needed. The real question is ‘what will the album be like?’ after two previous slam-dunk album releases. Label mates Green Day has proven it can progress with each album, and I suspect the band is the benchmark for MCR. I hope it’s bloody brilliant and I can’t wait to see MCR perform the new songs in October.

The BBC is a publicaly owned, public service broadcaster which is funded through an annual licence fee paid by everybody who has a TV in the UK. It is therefore not a commercial broadcaster who relies on advertising income to survive. So why then does it continually participate in marketing campaigns for books, films and music - across its national radio and TV networks? Does it charge for these advertising services - most recently Stephen Fry, Michael Caine, Alan Sugar and Michael McIntyre on the Chris Moyles radio show when they are actually on air for at least thirty minutes? And if the airtime is not given for some financial return then what is given in return? BBC presenters are often used by music promoters to advertise their wares - Zane Lowe’s album/track of the week, etc. The Jools Holland Later show always flashes an album cover and openly advertises, even going as far as featuring acts because they have released a new album - it’s no wonder that the show has gone so mainstream (in years long gone would the Ting Tings have secured airtime on the show?).

If pay-back by record companies means exclusive and free live performances for the BBC then this is effectively payment-in-kind which is not allowed by the BBC Charter. My radio show tonight is two hours long and I’m playing 26 songs from 21 different quality acts. In 3 hours of weekly broadcasts, over a period of 12 months, I will rarely play 1 song more than once. The reasons are pretty simple: I play album tracks from artists and albums that I feel are excellent. This means that I usually have a choice of playing at least 6-7 songs from each album. There is a third reason and it is that we are 100% independent and don’t do deals with record companies to feature their artists. The BBC on the other hand…

UK’s Labour Party has elected a new leader who looks like Wallis (of Wallis and Gromit fame) as soon as he opens his mouth. The party is so devoid of leadership talent (just look at the contestants…) but Ed won the day, helped by the block trade union vote. Will he make a difference? Rhetoric for Labour front-runners has always come cheap and plentiful. Problem is that for a working-class party is never delivers - certainly in modern times - and I suspect Ed’s fine words will also come to nothing.

What the hell was she thinking about in selecting the two young white ladies to compete on the X-Factor live shows? I’m talking Cheryl Cole of course who seems to have checked with Ladbrokes before deciding on her three contestants. In the past she’s been lucky in that the final three have really picked themselves. But this time she was faced with eight young women most of whom could have been picked, until the final auditions took place… What Cole effectively did was invalidate this contest by ignoring the best talent and going for
white-skinned quirkiness plus gambling odds. The show, Cole and her contestants will lose, and lose badly. Perhaps she should have listened to the person she asked to help her choose - I bet he’s as puzzled as everybody else, and not a little disappointed (despite what he is purported to have said publicly). However, he has befriended one of the least talented singers ever to appear in the pop charts… I watched the first live show and the only one artist appealed to me - Aiden Grimshaw. He has a distinct vocal and performance style which I just hope is not bludgeoned out of him (why, for example, is it wrong to sing with eyes closed????). Incidentally, did you notice how all on the show supporting Cole and her artist choices? It’s all so transparent and false. Can you believe anything you see, hear or read today? I can’t. In fact midway during the second live show I switched off because it’s garbage pure and simple, with its dreadful screaming audience, lacklustre talent, overproduction, laughable makeovers and deaf judges. It’s now a very unfunny joke.

I keep reading that “rock is dead” or that so-and-so is about to “save rock ‘n’ roll.” Last week my cup ran over with great rock with albums from the likes of Robert Plant, Linkin Park, Interpol, Jimmy Eat World, Disturbed, Volbeat, Stone Sour, Murderdolls and a few others. So where or what is the problem? I think I have the answer. You see if rock was declared by the media to be in the best shape ever (which it is) then controversy or the discovery of the next big thing suddenly becomes difficult. Most recently a broad-sheet journo declared that Kings Of Leon are about to save rock ‘n’ roll with the band’s new album. To me that stinks of blind ingnorence of the great rock music out there, and is anything but a good review or great news story.

Seanie at DIS says he was invited by the BBC TV to share his views on the future of music on TV…”I found myself on a panel alongside Neil (’Bring back TOTP’) Tennant and Mark Cooper, the force behind Later and the BBC at Glastonbury…” Mmmm, sounds like a hyper-critical, angsty panel of true music lovers… Not! Look, the BBC on TV and Radio is killing the UK music industry by its reliance on just a few artists through its killing-fields playlists, growing monopoly on live music, huge costs and disregard for the best music from this and other countries. The BBC is not only far too expensive but has a deeply worrying influence on music played nationally. That’s what has to be dealt with so very urgently. I reckon a guillotine is what’s needed at the BBC, not a panel of friendlies…