hesalive
What do you think about Nick’s column this month. Nick usually tells it like it is and this month is no exception. I’ve often wondered what the big deal is about NQC. It’s seems that everyone that I talk to in the industry considers it a hassle to be there and they show up out of some obligation to the “powers that be”.
The custom record business....every one is entitled to earn a living but I don’t want to support it. If I ask to be removed from a mailing list so that I don’t give credit to your business, I should be able to be removed. Don’t these artists know what’s going on?
Nick was bold to lay it out there and I thank him for it.

There are 5 pages of discussion on the old board.  I am including the last page here:

TonyWatson

Originally Posted by songscribe View Post I would argue that the locals, regionals and what Nick calls “newbies” have strengthened the genre in some ways. Take a look at the Top 80. Pick any month from 2007 and compare it to any month in 1997. I would almost bet that bottom forty is stronger as far as singing quality & songs than it was 10 years ago. Why? Because of diversity.

I would wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. The market has been watered down too much. It has made it harder for the top groups to survive because the lines are blurred between the top tier and lower tier groups. One of these factors is the lack of quality radio. Another factor is the affordability of recordings and the improvement of technology to where a sub-par group can get a project out there that appears to be a top quality project but sounds sub-par.

I used to spend a good bit of time looking at the Top 80 chart each month. Now it’s on the short list of things I don’t even give more than a passing glance to in the Singing News.

hesalive

Originally Posted by TonyWatson View Post I would wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. The market has been watered down too much. It has made it harder for the top groups to survive because the lines are blurred between the top tier and lower tier groups. One of these factors is the lack of quality radio. Another factor is the affordability of recordings and the improvement of technology to where a sub-par group can get a project out there that appears to be a top quality project but sounds sub-par.

I used to spend a good bit of time looking at the Top 80 chart each month. Now it’s on the short list of things I don’t even give more than a passing glance to in the Singing News.

Perhaps it’s not just the number of groups trying for a slice of the pie, its the visibility of the groups. Any group with a pretty picture can purchase advertising right along side of the top groups. This gives the group a certain perceived credibility.
Add to this perception the fact that it is rather easy to get into the top 80 chart (I think you can do it my getting as few as five radio stations to chart your song) and you end up with a watered down product that hinders real growth and expansion in SG music.
I look forward to the Top 80 chart but really could get by with just the top 20 (maybe 30) as a yard stick of what’s really happening.
You mention quality radio as blurring the lines between the top and bottom. This might be true but in reality it is all media and entities like the NQC, (or other major events) when they allow subpar groups to perform under the NQC banner (be it on the main stage or related showcases). When John Q Public sees or hears subpar talent on the same page, stage or song set as top tier groups they gain credibility in the consumers mind while the perception of the genre at large is diminished. To many groups hinder effective branding of the genre and that is what is hurting the top tier groups and SGM in general.
(Side note: whatever happened to American Gospel Music? The attempt at quality branding of SGM?)