Diagnosis: Mediocrity (Re: FW: Charts...)

Response to an email about SOHH.com's "Sales Wrap" posting: Wednesday, May 27, 2009)

What the hell is a "Freeway" or a "Sheek Louch"? I can't tell which amazes me more: that they thought of those names, or that they followed through on that thought. I was curious about the new Eminem album, but I feel like it's the wrong way to start a study of him--which I've been meaning to do for some time now.

I know how out of touch I am because I have no interest in about 95% of the people listed. I used to like Busta, but...I got bored and he became Mr. "Pass the Courvoisier." Jamie Foxx: yawn. Ludacris, Jadakiss, Cam'ron, Ciara--it's all another language to me. It is interesting--and somewhat sad--to see what has become the most celebrated stuff of all the R&B out there. Also interesting that a lot of the "hidden gems" are retro-styled, don't you think?

I was thinking about the days of 45s--and how this digital single thing isn't really new. It's always been this way--starting with the release of sheet music--then records (which went from glass to vinyl)--then "albums"--and 45s and lots of independent labels releasing them. Remember when artists used to get tried out via single--and how their careers rose and fell based on their success, which would lead to an album? An album--which, in the early days, was more a collection of singles (let's face it) than anything else. Then we got into the idea of an expanded body of work--a work with commerical appeal (which, back then, consisted of one or two singles).

I'm really trying to remember when it all started falling apart. Oh, wait--when the artists started getting those ridiculous deals. Janet got it started, then Madonna had to get in there, and Bruce Springsteen and a few other rock-and-soul legends got in before Michael got the $100 million deal with Epic/Sony...which was the beginning of the end. The industry started becoming producer-heavy: Jam & Lewis, L.A. Reid & Babyface, Teddy Riley, et. al--became what HDH, Goffin & King, and Norman Whitfield were to the era before the singer-songwriter took hold.

I wonder: Do you think the sharecropper royalty for artists forced the singer-songwriter thing to become as huge as it has? Do you think as many artists would have written their own work if the royalty rate had been better? Do you think that that, in turn, has led to the current deluge of green-eyed (as in Benjamin Franklin) mediocrity when it comes to songmaking? Has the greed reached such a point where it exceeds the creative impulse?

I think I just answered my own question.