Red Mosquito

I do too.

Wait. Is indifference a feeling?

Simple Torture wrote:I get this weird sensation when I listen to this song now...I think they're called 'feelings'? I don't know how that happened.

theplatypus wrote:Wait. Is indifference a feeling?

Well, it is a more positive response than if it triggered your irritable bowel disorder.

theplatypus wrote:Wait. Is indifference a feeling?

apparently, indifference+holding a candle=entire arm on fire.

LetMeSleep wrote:

Varis wrote:Side note - the wiffey loves Just Breathe but has banned me from playing this at home.

Oh well.

Banned from just Sirens or the whole album?

Just the song. The album is still good to go. Pretty good album to, I'm most happy to say.

theplatypus wrote:Wait. Is indifference a feeling?

For the record, I appreciate that right from the beginning you were able to say what worked about the song in itself, even though you weren't into it.

McParadigm wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Wait. Is indifference a feeling?

apparently, indifference+holding a candle=entire arm on fire.

grunge was pretty flammable. That's why so few bands survived.

Simple Torture wrote:I get this weird sensation when I listen to this song now...I think they're called 'feelings'? I don't know how that happened.

i always feel like i should hit the skip button

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Wait. Is indifference a feeling?

apparently, indifference+holding a candle=entire arm on fire.

grunge was pretty flammable. That's why so few bands survived.

But it's also how Pearl Jam rose from the ashes of Mother Love Bone, so you know, gotta take the rough with the smooth. And now we're here, and shit is hot fire.

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Wait. Is indifference a feeling?

apparently, indifference+holding a candle=entire arm on fire.

grunge was pretty flammable. That's why so few bands survived.

But it's also how Pearl Jam rose from the ashes of Mother Love Bone

well done

theplatypus wrote:

stip wrote:parachutes was considered one of the low points of S/T round these parts when the album first dropped

by dummies

I've never liked it from first listen and my opinion on songs seems to usually change little over time (Wonderwall and Streets of Philadelpia are 2 of the only examples I can think of where my opinion has done a complete 180 from first listen).

But I'm not indifferent here, I actively dislike both songs (parachutes and sirens I mean).

Where are we going, lads?

To the toppermost of the poppermost.

I mentioned yonks ago that if Sirens could show strong enough on Triple A, it would have the potential to cross over to the adult contemporary stations. This is its third week at #1 on Triple A (Just Breathe managed 5 weeks at the top, by the way), and while Triple A is a small format (it took just 686 plays to an audience of about 2 million to earn the pinnacle position), this is also the week where that success finally translated to an AC arrival (something JB never achieved).

Sirens is #46 on AC, and #48 on Hot AC. Now, these are low positions, and not exceedingly remarkable....but the higher positions on these charts represent numbers far beyond what any rock format achieves.

Consider it this way: the number one song on just the Hot AC averages around 6,000 plays and an audience size of 42 million. By comparison, being #1 on all three of the rock charts at the same time would give you about 4,000 plays and an audience of 18.3 million.

I don't expect Sirens to get to the top of either of these charts, but every week it's on them is a boost. Hell, even being at the low positions it currently is, adding those two charts made this the biggest week at radio for either LB single...3,500 plays to 12 million people (Manners' peak was 3,000 plays to an estimated 9 million people). It's also bumped it back up a bit on the iTunes download charts, and continued to push it upward at streaming.

Side note: Manners is still #25 on Active rock and #15 on Mainstream, after 16 weeks. It's not going to reach Fixer numbers, but it is closer to that side of the equation now than it is to the WWS side of it.

Side note #2: I still fucking can't stand this song.

McParadigm wrote:Where are we going, lads?

To the toppermost of the poppermost.

I mentioned yonks ago that if Sirens could show strong enough on Triple A, it would have the potential to cross over to the adult contemporary stations. This is its third week at #1 on Triple A (Just Breathe managed 5 weeks at the top, by the way), and while Triple A is a small format (it took just 686 plays to an audience of about 2 million to earn the pinnacle position), this is also the week where that success finally translated to an AC arrival (something JB never achieved).

Sirens is #46 on AC, and #48 on Hot AC. Now, these are low positions, and not exceedingly remarkable....but the higher positions on these charts represent numbers far beyond what any rock format achieves.

Consider it this way: the number one song on just the Hot AC averages around 6,000 plays and an audience size of 42 million. By comparison, being #1 on all three of the rock charts at the same time would give you about 4,000 plays and an audience of 18.3 million.

I don't expect Sirens to get to the top of either of these charts, but every week it's on them is a boost. Hell, even being at the low positions it currently is, adding those two charts made this the biggest week at radio for either LB single...3,500 plays to 12 million people (Manners' peak was 3,000 plays to an estimated 9 million people). It's also bumped it back up a bit on the iTunes download charts, and continued to push it upward at streaming.

Side note: Manners is still #25 on Active rock and #15 on Mainstream, after 16 weeks. It's not going to reach Fixer numbers, but it is closer to that side of the equation now than it is to the WWS side of it.

Side note #2: I still fucking can't stand this song.

Good shit.

I was expecting this thing to start fading fast so I'm kinda shocked at this turn of events.

Thanks, dude, good info as always. It's a song that I was initially scratching my head on, but I am a huge fan of now.

That said, how do you think it all translates to popularity? I look at these charts a little, and I look at the pop top 40 and I see songs that get tons of spin and tons of exposure but not proportional popularity. I mean, Miley Cyrus had something like 100 million youtube downloads and just insane exposure and radio spins so over and above what PJ gets and she's not selling that much more. Then you have Lorde who's the opposite, as many spins as she's getting, she's selling proportionally alot of albums. How does that all jive? Is it simply the quality of which the audience percieves it, rather than how many spins? I remember Alabama Shakes making a little dent in the charts w/ only a modicum of spins, while Kesha had a ton but sort of petered out. I think Adele is truly the exception of the record industry. I don't get how the industry keeps putting their chips on the Katy Perrys of the world while someone like Adele completely dominated with not even half the marketing effort. Why can't a proven moneymaker like Adele wipe out the ridiculous amount of money they must pour in to Miley and Katy when you can try to find another singer w/ Adele-like ability?

Tuolumne wrote:That said, how do you think it all translates to popularity? I look at these charts a little, and I look at the pop top 40 and I see songs that get tons of spin and tons of exposure but not proportional popularity. I mean, Miley Cyrus had something like 100 million youtube downloads and just insane exposure and radio spins so over and above what PJ gets and she's not selling that much more. Then you have Lorde who's the opposite, as many spins as she's getting, she's selling proportionally alot of albums.

Some of that comes down to who you're marketing to. And Miley Cyrus is a celebrity to a greater degree than she is a music icon, at this point. Stations play her music and people check it out...but largely for the same reason they read Huffington Post articles on how this time she's gone too far! The level of attention being shown has little to do with musical interest.

How does that all jive? Is it simply the quality of which the audience percieves it, rather than how many spins? I remember Alabama Shakes making a little dent in the charts w/ only a modicum of spins, while Kesha had a ton but sort of petered out.

Ke$ha was a marketing campaign in musical clothing. Alabama Shakes connected with a very specific demographic...one that is more inclined to buy music than, say, pop audiences. See also: Zac Brown Band.

I think Adele is truly the exception of the record industry. I don't get how the industry keeps putting their chips on the Katy Perrys of the world while someone like Adele completely dominated with not even half the marketing effort. Why can't a proven moneymaker like Adele wipe out the ridiculous amount of money they must pour in to Miley and Katy when you can try to find another singer w/ Adele-like ability?

Adele walks a line, but by and large her records sell to an older demographic than what the industry is used to. I doubt if they're really prepared to know how to handle that, since half a century of industry experience has said that adolescence is the goldmine. They're still coming out of that phase, I think.

McParadigm wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:That said, how do you think it all translates to popularity? I look at these charts a little, and I look at the pop top 40 and I see songs that get tons of spin and tons of exposure but not proportional popularity. I mean, Miley Cyrus had something like 100 million youtube downloads and just insane exposure and radio spins so over and above what PJ gets and she's not selling that much more. Then you have Lorde who's the opposite, as many spins as she's getting, she's selling proportionally alot of albums.

Some of that comes down to who you're marketing to. And Miley Cyrus is a celebrity to a greater degree than she is a music icon, at this point. Stations play her music and people check it out...but largely for the same reason they read Huffington Post articles on how this time she's gone too far! The level of attention being shown has little to do with musical interest.

How does that all jive? Is it simply the quality of which the audience percieves it, rather than how many spins? I remember Alabama Shakes making a little dent in the charts w/ only a modicum of spins, while Kesha had a ton but sort of petered out.

Ke$ha was a marketing campaign in musical clothing. Alabama Shakes connected with a very specific demographic...one that is more inclined to buy music than, say, pop audiences. See also: Zac Brown Band.

I think Adele is truly the exception of the record industry. I don't get how the industry keeps putting their chips on the Katy Perrys of the world while someone like Adele completely dominated with not even half the marketing effort. Why can't a proven moneymaker like Adele wipe out the ridiculous amount of money they must pour in to Miley and Katy when you can try to find another singer w/ Adele-like ability?

Adele walks a line, but by and large her records sell to an older demographic than what the industry is used to. I doubt if they're really prepared to know how to handle that, since half a century of industry experience has said that adolescence is the goldmine. They're still coming out of that phase, I think.

Thanks, well put. Given what you said, I think the music industry is missing some sort of Moneyball-like stat of something like 'spins exposed to a relevant consumer'. Like you said, some spins reach buyers who don't care about the music at all and some spins reach a listener who will actively consume music. There's still a breed of music consumer who wants music but just needs to be exposed to it. A type of fan who's not hip to everything new in the underground and blogosphere but has pretty good tastes and cares about music. Adele solved that puzzle, as far as I'm concerned. I don't get why she doesn't have a Kurt Cobain-like effect to the pop world.

For my money, in a perfect world, Arctic Monkeys Do you Wanna Know should be a #1 song. That tune a hulking massive sweeping behemoth of a song.

Tuolumne wrote:Given what you said, I think the music industry is missing some sort of Moneyball-like stat of something like 'spins exposed to a relevant consumer'.

I like this idea. Something like "Player Efficiency Rating" for basketball.