MickyDolenz said:

Shaolin325 said:

I enjoyed the tribute done for BB King earlier this year. I personally was only familiar with Bonnie Raitt. There were two men with her. Did anyone see this? Were these obviously talented individuals considered relevant? I don't know. But what I could tell was BB King was very relevant to them. It showed in their performance.

I saw that. I think one of them was the new country singer Chris Stapleton. He's performed B.B. King's songs in his own show. Chris is more bluesy than the more mainstream popular "bro country" acts.

I thought they did a great job! I have a feeling Ms. Perry would consider that group irrelevant though. Is relevance one of those subjective words?

I think Madonna will do a good job. But Chaka, The Time, Sheila E. and some others could too.

Shaolin325 said:

I thought they did a great job! I have a feeling Ms. Perry would consider that group irrelevant though. Is relevance one of those subjective words?

I think Madonna will do a good job. But Chaka, The Time, Sheila E. and some others could too.

She wasn't talking about anybody's music, but they are not household names in that a general audience would know them to make them watch a TV show. Like they're not really relevant to the mainstream public who are going to be the main audience of the awards. Look at the acts on these commercials for the show. It seems Britney Spears is the main draw. I wonder why the Go-Go's are going to be there though. It must be like Genesis & The Police on the Grammys, an advertisement for a reunion tour.

The Go-gos are doing their farewell tour.

Britney is doing a greatest hits medley. She was supposed to premiere her new single, but supposed "technical difficulties" have prevented it from being released so she won't be doing that.

Glindathegood said:

The Go-gos are doing their farewell tour.

Britney is doing a greatest hits medley. She was supposed to premiere her new single, but supposed "technical difficulties" have prevented it from being released so she won't be doing that.

The Who are on a greatest hits farewell tour...but they are in their 70s. Isn't Britney kind of young for that?

Glindathegood said:

lowkey said:

exactly. why do people try to act like mj,prince and madonna were the only big stars in the 80s? lionel ritchie, george michael, springstein and others had just as big eras (besides thriller) as those 3.

They had hits and sold records, but they didn't have the same cultural impact, as MJ, Prince and Madonna. They weren't as visual, they didn't have a strong point of view as far as gender, sexuality and race. They were more conformist and bland. they didn't challenge society like MJ, Prince and Madonna.

sooo everybody else from the 80s were just acts who sold records and had some hits, nobody else has resonated in pop culture?

Cinnamon234 said:

I don't know why some are making such a big deal of Madonna paying tribute. There will be many other tributes to come and I'm sure Chaka, Graham, Sheila,etc. will get to pay tribute. I wouldn't expect the "Billboard Music Award" organizers to choose any of them to do the tribute. They're all about mainstream and big names. I'm sure BET and the Soul Train Awards (among others)will do a very nice tribute where Chaka and the like are sure to be involved. I'm looking forward to all the tributes to Prince, including Madonna's. I'm sure she'll do a fine job. [Edited 5/20/16 12:35pm]

purplethunder3121 said:

Glindathegood said:

The Go-gos are doing their farewell tour.

Britney is doing a greatest hits medley. She was supposed to premiere her new single, but supposed "technical difficulties" have prevented it from being released so she won't be doing that.

The Who are on a greatest hits farewell tour...but they are in their 70s. Isn't Britney kind of young for that?

The Go-gos are doing a Farewell tour, not Britney. I think they are in their mid to late 50's. which does seem a bit young. Kathy Valentine the original bassist is no longer part of it. She was involved in some type of lawsuit with the rest of them which was settled. To me, a farewell tour should include the classic original lineup or it's not worth doing.

Britney is coming out with a new album, but as I said it's not ready for the show, so she is doing greatest hits.

Linda Perry needs to Sheila E, Chaka Khan and The Time will Always be relevant! Just like Madonna who I think will do a great job and slay

phunkdaddy said:

I swear some of y'all must be obsessed with the word mainstream. I've never heard of Linda Perry. I don't generally watch Billboard sort doesn't bother me that Madonna is doing even though I don't think she fits anything he's done. As far as Chaka goes,she's not as big as Madoona to pop audience but she damn sure isn't unknown to them so Linda Perry can kick rocks with no shoes on. Chaka with Rufus had some pop hits as well big solo pop hits with I Feel For You and Through The Fire so GTFOH with that shit. She's performed on the AMA's before so that dumb ass theory that she's not big enough to pop audiences is total bullshit.

exactly. since when did an artist have to be at a certain level of popularity to participate in a tribute? if madonna wanted to be involved fine, but she shouldnt be the only one .

lowkey said:

since when did an artist have to be at a certain level of popularity to participate in a tribute?

When it's on a network like ABC. They're not going to put Latimore or Denise LaSalle on a tribute for a major act over Madonna, Adele, Stevie Wonder, John Legend, etc. You must not know how the major TV networks run. If you've ever watched the Grammys, there's categories that don't broadcast on TV. That's because they are not as much of an interest for the majority of the TV audience. On the most recent Grammys, the R&B categories have been off air. The network don't want people to change the channel and lose Nielson ratings.

phunkdaddy said:

Chaka with Rufus had some pop hits as well big solo pop hits

Many acts had pop hits decades ago like Air Supply and Johnny Rivers. That doesn't mean they're relevant to a TV audience today as far as the networks are concerned.

Se7en said:

On Behalf of musicians, artists, creators, performers and anyone aspiring to be one of those, YOU ARE RELEVANT! It was exactly that type of attitude and comment, recently conveyed on a talk show by a misinformed guest, that Prince, Paisley Park and those who have been an extension of, continually fought, and still fight, against. The creations and the creators, contrary to fleeting popularity or fame, is what breathes life into art. The lack of understanding, and myopic view of dollars over sense is what perpetuates the ignorance that continually works against the artist, and the industry.

I am offended! ‪#‎RELEVANT‬ -Sheila E.

MickyDolenz said:

lowkey said:

since when did an artist have to be at a certain level of popularity to participate in a tribute?

When it's on a network like ABC. They're not going to put Latimore or Denise LaSalle on a tribute for a major act over Madonna, Adele, Stevie Wonder, John Legend, etc. You must not know how the major TV networks run. If you've ever watched the Grammys, there's categories that don't broadcast on TV. That's because they are not as much of an interest for the majority of the TV audience. On the most recent Grammys, the R&B categories have been off air. The network don't want people to change the channel and lose Nielson ratings.

There's a reality of ratings. That's no surprise to most people. But one can take account of the logic of commerce without blithely trying to rationalise every decision a commercial entity like Billboard makes on those grounds. (Remember, companies do make mistakes, bad calls, fuck ups, etc, even as they pursue commercial success.) Chaka Khan is hardly as far removed from being a well-known act as Latimore or Denise LaSalle. My next door neighbour would here in the English suburbs would know who she is, as she's had pop hits for decades, whereas he probably wouldn't have heard of those acts, so that's a daft comparison.

Analogising a performance by Chaka Khan to some obscure award is similarly daft - almost offensively so. There's no entertainment value in people trotting to the stage to receive those awards like there is in seeing a great performer do their thing on the stage. The idea that 'mainstream viewers' would have no way of connecting with that, and could only cope with seeing someone they're more familiar with is a rather tragic view that puts us all in our boxes and imagines we can never leave them. It reminds me of Nile Rodgers' comments about how Duran Duran's record company was unsure about whether his remix of The Reflex made it sound "too black" and thus likely to alienate their pop audience. His take was that that's not how people experience music: they don't fetishise marketing categories like the suits do; they're more interested in whether it makes them feel good.

People would've been dimwitted to nod along with the label bosses' thinking in that case, because the bosses were mistaken that this 'black-sounding' single wouldn't entertain a wide audience. Likewise, I think it's entirely possible that a performance by a great act like Chaka Khan (or Stevie Wonder, or Lenny Kravitz, or other well-known Prince influencees/ers with some actual talent) could easily entertain those tuning-in for ten minutes - and I almost feel a little sorry for anyone who thinks it couldn't.

deebee said:

There's a reality of ratings. That's no surprise to most people. But one can take account of the logic of commerce without blithely trying to rationalise every decision a commercial entity like Billboard makes on those grounds. (Remember, companies do make mistakes, bad calls, fuck ups, etc, even as they pursue commercial success.) Chaka Khan is hardly as far removed from being a well-known act as Latimore or Denise LaSalle. My next door neighbour would here in the English suburbs would know who she is, as she's had pop hits for decades, whereas he probably wouldn't have heard of those acts, so that's a daft comparison.

Analogising a performance by Chaka Khan to some obscure award is similarly daft - almost offensively so. There's no entertainment value in people trotting to the stage to receive those awards like there is in seeing a great performer do their thing on the stage. The idea that 'mainstream viewers' would have no way of connecting with that, and could only cope with seeing someone they're more familiar with is a rather tragic view that puts us all in our boxes and imagines we can never leave them. It reminds me of Nile Rodgers' comments about how Duran Duran's record company was unsure about whether his remix of The Reflex made it sound "too black" and thus likely to alienate their pop audience. His take was that that's not how people experience music: they don't fetishise marketing categories like the suits do; they're more interested in whether it makes them feel good.

People would've been dimwitted to nod along with the label bosses' thinking in that case, because the bosses were mistaken that this 'black-sounding' single wouldn't entertain a wide audience. Likewise, I think it's entirely possible that a performance by a great act like Chaka Khan (or Stevie Wonder, or Lenny Kravitz, or other well-known Prince influencees/ers with some actual talent) could easily entertain those tuning-in for ten minutes - and I almost feel a little sorry for anyone who thinks it couldn't.

Madonna has actual talent and she's influenced by Prince. The only difference between Madonna and the artists you named is they are African American and she's white. What are you saying? White people can't like Prince's music or be influenced by it? This racial separation that's being promoted went against everything Prince stood for.

phunkdaddy said:

I swear some of y'all must be obsessed with the word mainstream. I've never heard of Linda Perry. I don't generally watch Billboard sort doesn't bother me that Madonna is doing even though I don't think she fits anything he's done. As far as Chaka goes,she's not as big as Madoona to pop audience but she damn sure isn't unknown to them so Linda Perry can kick rocks with no shoes on. Chaka with Rufus had some pop hits as well big solo pop hits with I Feel For You and Through The Fire so GTFOH with that shit. She's performed on the AMA's before so that dumb ass theory that she's not big enough to pop audiences is total bullshit.

Exactly. I don't believe viewers would be put off at all. It's the logic of the suits that we all fit in our boxes and can't ever deviate. And if there are viewers who are that irked by Chaka and all the other people whose music fed Prince's, they're hardly going to have much time for a tribute to him anyway, even if they reinvigorate the corpse of Nancy Reagan herself to perform it.

Glindathegood said:

deebee said:

There's a reality of ratings. That's no surprise to most people. But one can take account of the logic of commerce without blithely trying to rationalise every decision a commercial entity like Billboard makes on those grounds. (Remember, companies do make mistakes, bad calls, fuck ups, etc, even as they pursue commercial success.) Chaka Khan is hardly as far removed from being a well-known act as Latimore or Denise LaSalle. My next door neighbour would here in the English suburbs would know who she is, as she's had pop hits for decades, whereas he probably wouldn't have heard of those acts, so that's a daft comparison.

Analogising a performance by Chaka Khan to some obscure award is similarly daft - almost offensively so. There's no entertainment value in people trotting to the stage to receive those awards like there is in seeing a great performer do their thing on the stage. The idea that 'mainstream viewers' would have no way of connecting with that, and could only cope with seeing someone they're more familiar with is a rather tragic view that puts us all in our boxes and imagines we can never leave them. It reminds me of Nile Rodgers' comments about how Duran Duran's record company was unsure about whether his remix of The Reflex made it sound "too black" and thus likely to alienate their pop audience. His take was that that's not how people experience music: they don't fetishise marketing categories like the suits do; they're more interested in whether it makes them feel good.

People would've been dimwitted to nod along with the label bosses' thinking in that case, because the bosses were mistaken that this 'black-sounding' single wouldn't entertain a wide audience. Likewise, I think it's entirely possible that a performance by a great act like Chaka Khan (or Stevie Wonder, or Lenny Kravitz, or other well-known Prince influencees/ers with some actual talent) could easily entertain those tuning-in for ten minutes - and I almost feel a little sorry for anyone who thinks it couldn't.

Madonna has actual talent and she's influenced by Prince. The only difference between Madonna and the artists you named is they are African American and she's white. What are you saying? White people can't like Prince's music or be influenced by it? This racial separation that's being promoted went against everything Prince stood for.

Well, Prince's views on race were actually quite complex, as far as I can tell - but that's another discussion. In fact, if you look at what I said about Nile Rodgers, you'll see I'm saying the precise opposite of what you're suggesting. I'm saying that the Billboard people have chosen Madonna, likely imagining (at least if we go along with Linda Perry's take on it) that an act like Chaka Khan would alienate their core audience. They're the ones with the rigid, categorical thinking. What Rodgers' success with The Reflex - rightfully disregarding such thinking - proves is that people tuning-in to be entertained couldn't really give two fucks. If it sounds cool, they'll enjoy it - so best to just get someone who can pull off doing Prince and forget the categories. Like Nile, I'm saying the marketing mens' anxieties are often misguided, though they obey a familiar logic, so we shouldn't just nod along to their pronouncements as a matter of course, assuming that their logic actually stands up in reality.

[Edited 5/21/16 5:10am]

laurarichardson said:

Se7en said:

deebee said:

deebee said:

Likewise, I think it's entirely possible that a performance by a great act like Chaka Khan (or Stevie Wonder, or Lenny Kravitz, or other well-known Prince influencees/ers with some actual talent) could easily entertain those tuning-in for ten minutes - and I almost feel a little sorry for anyone who thinks it couldn't.

I never said anything about the entertainment value of Chaka Khan vs Madonna, but that Billboard/ABC picked a performer based on popularity. Madonna has sold way more than Chaka. Pretty much the purpose of Billboard is to rank the popularity of songs/albums. So I don't know why people are getting upset about who was chosen, when listing who's "relevant" to the majority is what Billboard magazine (and ratings for TV networks) has always been about. The main charts are the Hot 100 for songs and Top 200 for albums. The rest of the charts are sub-charts for niche audiences (.ig. dance music, jazz, adult R&B, country, classical, AC, modern rock, etc.). The term "Hot 100" does not refer to a specific genre like the others, that's why it's "pop music" short for popular music, which is what sells the most to mainstream USA. So of course they're going to choose someone they think is more of a draw. Today, Madonna's tours make more money than tours by The Time, Larry Graham, Shiela E & Chaka Khan put together. Look at the Original 7ven album Condensate, most people don't know it exists. But the videos from Madonna's most recent release has many millions of views. Recently Billboard has said they're going to use views on Youtube and other streaming sites as part of their criteria for their chart data. That so many views will be the equivalent of gold or platinum sales.

.

Whenever someone says an act is a "one hit wonder", then they're going by Billboard. When an act releases a Greatest Hits/#1's album, they're going by Billboard. In the thread about the Michel'le movie, people are talking about why is she getting a movie, she only has a few hits. So they're judging her relevancy by Billboard stastistics. Whenever a thread about the TV show Unsung gets started, some people say so and so is too popular to be "unsung". Well, it's pretty much the same thing as this. The makers of Unsung mostly chooses acts that will draw as many people as possible to watch it. They have to sell advertising time to businesses.

Who cares about record sales? That's like saying McDonalds is betta than a burger you can grill at home.

MickyDolenz said:

lowkey said:

since when did an artist have to be at a certain level of popularity to participate in a tribute?

When it's on a network like ABC. They're not going to put Latimore or Denise LaSalle on a tribute for a major act over Madonna, Adele, Stevie Wonder, John Legend, etc. You must not know how the major TV networks run. If you've ever watched the Grammys, there's categories that don't broadcast on TV. That's because they are not as much of an interest for the majority of the TV audience. On the most recent Grammys, the R&B categories have been off air. The network don't want people to change the channel and lose Nielson ratings.

i dont know who latimore or the other person is but i do know who chaka khan,sheila e , and other prince-related artists are. from what ive seen billboard is mostly using britney spears, justin beiber,rihanna,ect to hype the show, the fans of those artists could care less about who is doing a prince tribute. are you saying people would tune in to see madonna tribute prince but turn the tv if a chaka,sheila, the time, larry graham was part of the tribute? sorry but that makes zero sense.

2freaky4church1 said:

Who cares about record sales? That's like saying McDonalds is betta than a burger you can grill at home.

Billboard does and so does the RIAA. Or do you not know what Billboard is? If Billboard ranked restaurants instead of music, then McDonald's would be a bigger hit than a vegan soul food restaurant. That Billboard is having a Prince tribute at all is going by his mainstream popularity in the 1980s. They're not having a tribute to William Guest from Gladys Knight & The Pips, Nicholas Caldwell from The Whispers, or Lemmy from Motorhead. They're not mainstream.

lowkey said:

from what ive seen billboard is mostly using britney spears, justin beiber, rihanna,ect to hype the show, the fans of those artists could care less about who is doing a prince tribute. are you saying people would tune in to see madonna tribute prince but turn the tv if a chaka,sheila, the time, larry graham was part of the tribute? sorry but that makes zero sense.

So is Madonna. Watch the 2nd commercial I posted above. They wouldn't have put Shiela E in an ad to draw viewers. That is what Linda Perry was saying, not that she herself thought they were not relevant, but that Billboard and the general public doesn't think they're relevant. People are shooting the messenger. Since Linda is in the music business as a songwriter, she would know more about how it works behind the scenes.

MickyDolenz said:

deebee said:

Likewise, I think it's entirely possible that a performance by a great act like Chaka Khan (or Stevie Wonder, or Lenny Kravitz, or other well-known Prince influencees/ers with some actual talent) could easily entertain those tuning-in for ten minutes - and I almost feel a little sorry for anyone who thinks it couldn't.

I never said anything about the entertainment value of Chaka Khan vs Madonna, but that Billboard/ABC picked a performer based on popularity. Madonna has sold way more than Chaka. Pretty much the purpose of Billboard is to rank the popularity of songs/albums. So I don't know why people are getting upset about who was chosen, when listing who's "relevant" to the majority is what Billboard magazine (and ratings for TV networks) has always been about. The main charts are the Hot 100 for songs and Top 200 for albums. The rest of the charts are sub-charts for niche audiences (.ig. dance music, jazz, adult R&B, country, classical, AC, modern rock, etc.). The term "Hot 100" does not refer to a specific genre like the others, that's why it's "pop music" short for popular music, which is what sells the most to mainstream USA. So of course they're going to choose someone they think is more of a draw. Today, Madonna's tours make more money than tours by The Time, Larry Graham, Shiela E & Chaka Khan put together. Look at the Original 7ven album Condensate, most people don't know it exists. But the videos from Madonna's most recent release has many millions of views. Recently Billboard has said they're going to use views on Youtube and other streaming sites as part of their criteria for their chart data. That so many views will be the equivalent of gold or platinum sales.

.

Whenever someone says an act is a "one hit wonder", then they're going by Billboard. When an act releases a Greatest Hits/#1's album, they're going by Billboard. In the thread about the Michel'le movie, people are talking about why is she getting a movie, she only has a few hits. So they're judging her relevancy by Billboard stastistics. Whenever a thread about the TV show Unsung gets started, some people say so and so is too popular to be "unsung". Well, it's pretty much the same thing as this. The makers of Unsung mostly chooses acts that will draw as many people as possible to watch it. They have to sell advertising time to businesses.

I think the point that some acts have sold more than others, and that Billboard is highly attuned to sales, is well understood. The drive for commercial success is obviously going to be a part of all of these industries - that's no surprise to anyone. I don't agree that we should blithely co-sign that, though, as it can often mean that more talented or deserving artists get frozen out or ghettoised into "sub-charts for niche audiences" and denied the chance to 'cross over'; and that saying, "That's just how it is", ends up quietly co-signing this state of affairs. But, in any case, that's not what I was saying above.

What I was saying took account of the need to appeal to people so as to be commercially viable. I was saying that, though they of course desire commercial success, music business execs frequently get it wrong in terms of predicting what will have appeal or be 'popular' with people; and that conservative 'stay in your lane' thinking being accorded such golden-egg-laying powers here can be a shackle in that regard, not a guarantee of 'popularity'. In reality, people are often - thankfully! - more open to who they're entertained by than the marketing men realise (as Nile Rodgers rightly figured in my example). The huge commercial success of a boundary-defying artist like Prince is also testament to that. When, as a youngster, he told the Warners VP, "Don't make me Black!", he perhaps saw the perils of being confined to his lane, marketed only to a "niche audience" by unimaginative suits, when he could see his own potential to have a wider appeal. Thankfully, he got a chance to prove that when someone managed to see beyond the the dull conservative logic the bean counters are convinced we flesh-and-blood music listeners never step outside.

It's on those grounds that I question the rather tragic notion that everyday viewers tuning in expecting a Prince tribute would be so unable to find entertainment value in a great act like Chaka Khan paying tribute to her friend and collaborator, or perhaps even a great legacy act like Stevie Wonder, they'd experience it as something analogous to sitting through one of those 'minority interest' awards at long, drawn-out award shows. I suspect that that's another instance where the conventional wisdom of the bean counters and their co-signers underestimates what people will be capable of connecting with. Telling me about 'popularity' demonstrates a misunderstanding of that point, I think.

[Edited 5/22/16 5:46am]