Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group

The Messages in President Obama’s Spotify Playlist

By Benjamin S. Schoening and Eric T. Kasper 

Now that 2012 is upon us, so is another presidential election. Barack Obama is seeking a second term as the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president, and four candidates are currently vying for the Republican Party nomination. There are many strategic decisions which these politicians make to promote their candidacies, including crafting inspiring speeches, offering eloquent answers to interview questions, and creating patriotic backdrops at campaign events. For as long as there have been American presidential elections, one of the candidates’ quadrennial considerations has also been selection of the right music.

President Obama made news on February 9th when he announced his campaign’s Spotify playlist. For those not familiar with Spotify, it is an online music service that streams songs to members of the website. President Obama released his playlist in 2012 in much the same way that he announced his iPod playlist during his 2008 candidacy. Playlists such as this can send powerful messages to the electorate, as they can transmit political ideas or associate a candidate with a notable musical celebrity. With this in mind, let’s have a look at a few of the 28 songs on President Obama’s Spotify playlist.

One of the more notable selections is Al Green’s “Let’s Stay Together.” President Obama previously sang the first few bars of this song at an appearance in the Apollo Theater in New York City on January 19th. Although originally written as a romantic song when first released by Green in the early 1970s, the song’s title and hook offer a powerful message from an incumbent president to the voters: vote for me, so that we can mutually continue along the path we are on now.

A second song choice by President Obama that musically asks for another opportunity to serve the country is U2’s “Even Better than the Real Thing.” In multiple places the overarching message is that the listener will be satisfied by giving the singer one more chance. The song goes on to refer to its audience as the real thing and even better than that. This can be interpreted as a way to “pump up” supporters of the President. Again, like “Let’s Stay Together,” the lyrics of “Even Better than the Real Thing” were clearly originally written with romantic intent, but the key catchy parts of the song can be co-opted to express relevant political messages.

REO Speedwagon’s “Roll with the Changes” exemplifies another important political theme for President Obama. The title of this tune harkens back to one of the President’s major campaign slogans from 2008: Change we can believe in. The lyrics go on to tell the listener that the singer is available when the listener is ready to move along with the changes that lay ahead. The lyrics also tell the listener that the tables have turned, and they imply that the darkest hour has passed. Certainly, one could see this as a message from President Obama that the economy is on the mend and things are getting better because of the changes he has implemented.

The songs a campaign chooses can also be used to thwart the message of the political opposition. One song on President Obama’s playlist that does this is “No Nostalgia” by Ages and Ages. Recently, Republican candidates have expressed a message that the country is on the wrong path, and only they can restore America to its past greatness. The hook of “No Nostalgia” takes aim at this notion, claiming that instead of looking to the past we should concentrate on the promise of what our country is now and can become in the future.

Of course, one must be careful not to read too much into these lyrics and song choices. Still, there is no doubt that President Obama and those working on his reelection campaign thought long and hard about which songs to release. Ultimately, song choice is an important consideration for presidential campaigns. The right song can become a memorable way to express important political messages. On the other hand, the wrong songs can muddle a campaign message, and key song omissions can lead to hurt feelings among those who were musically snubbed.

____________________

About the authors: Benjamin S. Schoening and Eric T. Kasper are the authors of Don't Stop Thinking about the Music: The Politics of Songs and Musicians in Presidential Campaigns.  Benjamin Schoening is Assistant Professor of Music at the University of Wisconsin-Barron County and music director of the Red Cedar Choir in Rice Lake.  Eric T. Kasper is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Barron County and the municipal judge in Rice Lake.

Tobias Matthay: Injuries of a Forgotten Master Teacher

By Stephen Siek

In the mid-1850s, Sigismund Lebert and his colleague Ludwig Stark issued a popular series of piano method books, formidably entitled Theoretical and Practical Piano School for Systematic Instruction in all Branches of Piano-Playing from the First Elements to the Highest Perfection. True to their Germanic heritage, their approach was systematic and thorough, though their advice was confined to the mere insistence that all pieces be practiced loudly and repetitively—to obtain “a firm style of playing.”

When Lebert and Stark published their books, the piano had undergone dramatic changes from the time of Mozart. It had grown in size and power, so that by the mid-nineteenth century that “firm style” became an obsession to many. When the American pianist Amy Fay arrived in Berlin in 1869, she complained in her correspondence about the draconian methods of her teacher, Louis Ehlert:

You have no idea how hard they make Cramer’s Studies here. Ehlert makes me play them tremendously forte. … My hand gets so tired that it is ready to break, and then I say that I cannot go on. “But you must go on,” he will say.

Yet even as many clung to the old ways, some teachers in Europe began to notice how unsuitable rigorous drills with stiffly held fingers (however effectively they may have served the harpsichordist) were for extracting artistic effects from the modern piano—and could even lead to incapacitating injuries.

But in 1903 a new era dawned when Britain’s Tobias Matthay (1858-1945) published The Act of Touch. This major work emphasized a more enlightened approach to piano performance. Matthay lived at a time when many believed that science could unlock the secrets of artistry, and that even virtuosic playing could—and should—be effortless. He disavowed the age-old credo of mind-numbing drill and calisthenics. Instead he stressed that all real practice demanded analysis of the causes of technical problems—analysis that rested on a study of the piano’s mechanisms and human physiology. Between the Wars, Matthay’s influence flourished on both sides of the Atlantic, spurred on by the successes of such noted pupils and master pianists as Dame Myra Hess, Sir Clifford Curzon, and Dame Moura Lympany.

How ironic today then to observe over 100 years later, in a blog posting from September 2009, a prominent teacher echoing the hortatory advice of Lebert and Stark than the thoughtful Matthay:

First have the student play each run slow, heavy, digging in. Repeat 3 to 5 times with the right hand alone. I play along emphasizing playing loud, slowly … If the hand gets tired during the slow, heavy, digging in practice, have the student practice the left hand chords.

Such advice is not unusual for piano teachers today in light of how Matthay’s ideas have all but vanished from the mainstream. And yet…and yet… not so coincidentally, nearly every piano blog today devotes a generous amount of space to the discussion of the injuries that Matthay’s lessons on piano technique studiously sought to avoid—begging the question of whether a re-discovery of Matthay’s teachings might not well be less expensive than physical therapy sessions or even surgeries some pianists undergo.

Stephen Siek is the author of England's Piano Sage: The Life and Teachings of Tobias Matthay. A pianist and musicologist with an extensive background in Matthay teaching principles, he is a professor of music at Wittenberg University.

The Political Branding of Country Music: 10 Years Post-9/11

By Elizabeth Barfoot Christian

Some argue the sound of country music has become nearly indistinguishable from today’s pop---that it has lost in soul what it has gained in fan base over the last quarter-century. And that may be true when you listen to crossover country artists like Taylor Swift and Lady Antebellum (as well as rockers like Bret Michaels and Bon Jovi’s recent countrified-rock albums). Like many boundaries in postmodern culture, the lines between popular musical genres have been fading for quite some time.

But boundaries are a funny thing. Just when you think we’ve gotten past the need for labels… just when you think it’s OK to be a little bit country and a little bit rock ‘n roll, someone strikes a chord so offensive that lines must be drawn.

That boundary was recast in steel by country music following the world-altering events of Sept. 11, 2001.

As the molten metal of the Twin Towers melted, many hearts in the U.S. hardened. A new, angrier country was born. And from it emerged a new, angrier brand of country music as well.

Perhaps in hindsight “angry” is not a fair term to describe the artists who put to lyrics the pained, raw emotions that millions of Americans were feeling immediately after 9/11. Toby Keith, already branded a country outlaw, reportedly penned his No. 1 hit “Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)” in about 20 minutes as his response to the 9/11 attacks on America. Keith’s father, a U.S. military veteran who taught him the importance of patriotism, had died unexpectedly just six months before the terrorist attack, and Keith took out his anger at both events in song. One for honor, the other, ire.

Keith was not alone. Country music saw a huge and almost immediate economic windfall following 9 /11. County Music Television sponsored the first Freedom Concert one month after the attack and raised $5 million for victims. Keith and Alan Jackson, who wrote and recorded “Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning”), both achieved worldwide recognition for their patriotic ballads.

Jackson and Keith, already two of the more traditional country artists, were instrumental in returning country to its more populist, working-class roots. The sound of many of today’s popular country artists may not carry the same twang it did back in the day of Haggard and Jones, but 10 years post-9/11 the message is as political and patriotic as ever—and more Americans than ever are listening.

And while the musical qualities between country and mainstream pop many have merged somewhat, the message couldn’t be more distinguishable in post-9/11 America. If you don’t believe me, just ask Natalie Maines, whose career as darling of country radio took a drastic downhill slide with one poisonous political remark. While the Dixie Chicks—whose name you dare not speak in Lubbock, Texas—will forever be outcasts to true country fans, the group has experienced a rebirth in a more mainstream market with a much more liberal-thinking fan base.

Country has definitely come to town, and people who had never listened to it are listening to and loving it on both crossover and pop radio stations in growing abundance. Country stars have swarmed the Grammys. The last two entertainers of the year have been country singers. Both top finalists in this year’s American Idol were country singers, and the quasi-partnership with Fox News, the most popular cable news channel, which continues to host annual Freedom Concerts nationwide, isn’t hurting things either. Many of Fox News’ commentary programs regularly feature country artists singing and oftentimes offering personal political opinion.

The Hollywood left entered the political arena decades ago. The “Mom and apple pie” patriotic crew is catching up through the medium of country music and conservative cable news.

Elizabeth Barfoot Christian is assistant professor of journalism at Louisiana Tech University and the editor of Rock Brands: Selling Sound in a Media Saturated Culture.

Next blog: Has MTV helped kill the music industry?

Schuman, Persichetti, and Mennin: Modern Musicians Remembered

By Walter Simmons

For many today—including those who consider themselves musical sophisticates—the names of William Schuman, Vincent Persichetti, and Peter Mennin hearken back half a century or more to the days when composers concerned themselves with writing “the Great American Symphony.” These figures –Schuman and Mennin especially--were very much regarded as “musical bureaucrats,” both having held the position of president of the internationally renowned Juilliard School. And while he was never an administrator, Persichetti had led the Juilliard composition faculty for some 35 years, rendering him the quintessential “academic.”

But the careers of all three were launched through their musical compositions, which had made a significant an impact when each was still quite young. Schuman’s musical activity had been limited to the world of Tin Pan Alley until he turned 20; nine years later his Symphony No. 2 was performed by the Boston Symphony Orchestra. Mennin completed the writing of his Symphony No. 3 on his 23rd birthday and performed later that year by the New York Philharmonic. Persichetti’s career developed more gradually, but only by comparison. In his 30s, he discovered the wind ensemble, for which he had a distinctive gift as a composer. Although his large catalog of works includes all genres, he is recognized today as the foremost American composer of music for wind band of his generation, and most of his works for that medium endure as classics.

As for my own relationship with these composers, their music proved a far more personal experience for me. I discovered their works when I was in my early teens—largely through my own high school band experience, thanks to a conductor who set high standards for his ensemble, which he refused to subject to holiday parades and football games. It was a very high-minded time in American culture—the JFK years. But while for most of my peers this exposure would always remain part of their high school experience, I loved this music with an intense passion As my interests developed, I began to reach beyond these composers’ works for band, delving into their compositions for orchestra, chorus, chamber ensembles, and solo instruments—and into the music of other American composers of their generation as well.

Studying their music, however, wasn’t enough for me: I also wanted to know them as people, to search for connections between their personalities and their creative lives. So I sought them out personally and eventually became acquainted with them and their families to differing degrees. All part of the question I sought to answer as to how mind and music resonate with one another, I dare say that the connections between their personalities and their creative work remain largely an enigma to me and may well be what makes theirs works as great as they are.

When I headed off to college in the mid-1960s, imagine my shock when I learned that these composers, whose music I had come to cherish were “out,” while serialism and other, more experimental approaches were now “in.” A gauntlet had been thrown down, and so I pursued graduate studies in theory and musicology for the specific purpose of uncovering the reasons why these composers, whose music had touched me so deeply, were now the objects of scorn. My researches only reinforced a deep-seated certainty that the disparagement of these composers had little to do with musical quality and much to do with musical politics. It was then I decided to devote my life to bringing greater attention to the music of these masters, arguing for its legitimacy and stature as fine creative art based on the principles of great music that have evolved over the centuries. Besides the hundreds of reviews I have written, weekly radio series I have hosted, and numerous premiere recordings I have produced, my two books are the culminations of this effort to bring these great composers—and others like them—back into the mainstream of musical greatness. I only my hope both books have supplied a sturdy foundation for others similarly excited by this body of music to pursue it in their study as performers and researchers.

Walter Simmons has received the National Educational Film Festival Award and the ASCAP/Deems Taylor Award for music criticism. He has contributed articles to The New Grove Dictionary of American Music, American National Biography, Fanfare, Music Journal, and Musical America. He is the author of Voices in the Wilderness: Six American Neo-Romantic Composers (Scarecrow, 2004) and the recently published The Music of William Schuman, Vincent Persichetti, and Peter Mennin: Voices of Stone and Steel (Scarecrow, 2010).

One Day It Will All Make (Common) Sense: Common, Conscious Rap, and Right-Wing Critiques of Hip Hop

By Reiland Rabaka

Along with Jill Scott, Bill Collins, and Rita Dove, the “conscious” rapper Common (Lonnie Rashid Lynn Jr.) was featured at a poetry evening at the White House on May 11. His invitation drew criticism from big name Republicans and their media outlets. It is curious that folk who have little or no relationship with rap music and hip hop culture always wanna fix their faces to say something every time hip hop is given its props. It is even more dubious that for many of these same folk African Americans – their history, culture, politics, religion, and music – only seem to register in the negative. This is what we in African American Studies call a “pathological approach to black people,” which is to say, one that views people as problems instead of people with problems. All human beings have problems, right? Even Republicans, right? It is rare to hear anyone outside of the Hip Hop Generation acknowledge the power of poetry via rap music. Few folk are willing to concede that after the movements of the 1960s and 1970s, hip hop seems to be one of the most salient vehicles for self transformation and social change available to twenty-first century youth. Obviously hip hop, as with most great art forms, has its controversies and contradictions. But, to make it seem as though hip hop is the only art form with issues revolving around violence, misogyny, and homophobia is outright disingenuousness. Has anyone ever heard the song-cum-slogan “Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll!?” Is rock & roll somehow free from violence, misogyny, and homophobia? I don’t think so (and here I’ll make no mention of Ozzy Osbourne, Dire Straits, Guns N’ Roses, Nirvana, or Korn, etc.). Think for a moment. When is the last time you have heard heavy-hitting Republicans come out against the violence, murder, misogyny, incest, adultery, and profanity in the work of William Shakespeare (just for fun, see The Taming of the Shrew, Hamlet, A Midsummer Nights Dream, King Lear, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet)? The Republicans, if I may state it outright, have the wrong rapper this time. Common, like Talib Kweli and Mos Def, is actually one of the more progressive rappers on the scene today. However, I’d be the first to admit that it took him a moment to find his voice and vision. His first two albums, Can I Borrow a Dollar? (1992) and Resurrection (1994) were interesting but rather generic. It wasn’t until he dropped One Day It Will All Makes Sense (1997) that his audience was provided with his unique brand of hip hop shamanism. It would be helpful if Common’s Republican critics really and truly engaged his work before mindlessly diving head first into foolishness and misinterpretation. African American music, as with African American life in general, is full of deep double entendres, and sometimes rappers raise issues to bring awareness to those issues and offer their own unique solutions to our problems. I am critical of hip hop’s cheerleaders just as much as I am hip hop’s hyper-critics. I am attempting to develop a relationship with rap music and hip hop culture that allows me to highlight its positives and its negatives, to both appreciate it and critique it. In closing I should say, President Obama is not the first president to invite an artist to the White House whose work includes references to controversial or, even more, criminal topics, and he certainly should not be the last. Here’s to American democracy. Here’s to freedom of speech. And, finally, here’s to artistic license, even for working-class and poverty-stricken U.S. citizens. God Bless America.

Reiland Rabaka is an associate professor of Africana Studies in the Department of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the author of Hip Hop’s Inheritance: From the Harlem Renaissance to the Hip Hop Feminist Movement; Against Epistemic Apartheid; and Forms of Fanonism.

The Publicly Profane Odd Future of the Music Industry

By Elizabeth B. Christian

What’s a headstrong, creative musical artist to do now that the music industry is in freefall, and record labels prefer signing easily moldable youth who can be pre-packaged and marketed to a mainstream audience with a ready-made profit margin? Singing talent is optional as long as you look like a star and will do as your label commands. In fact, labels often balk at originality in a marketplace increasingly based on the bottom line rather than the message in the music.

The music industry of the 21st industry reminds me of a 1973 episode of the iconic sitcom The Brady Bunch in which a record producer offers Greg the role of rock star Johnny Bravo because he “fit the suit,” not because of any musical genius.

Perhaps this type mindset is part of the reason for the epic fail of the industry, suggests Christian Clancy, former Interscope Records executive and co-manager of one of raps’ rising stars. Clancy told Billboard in March that the new business model is one in which artists come from a place of authenticity—and you can feel it in their lyrics and see it in their imagery. They may not produce No. 1 hits overnight, but in time this brand of artists will garner lasting and loyal fans.

Enter: Odd Future Wolf Gang Kill Them All (OFWGKTA), a group of 11 alternative hip-hoppers who skate, create and debate what direction they want to take their artistry in next. Led by a 19-year-old known to fans as Tyler, the Creator, OFWGKTA is much more concerned about the group’s authenticity than airplay. Thanks to catching the ears and eyes of superstar Kanye West in the summer of 2010, however, airplay and Internet attention have followed.

Clancy, co-manager OFWGKTA, believes the group’s genre-bending, real-world branding is the wave of the future of music. The group formed in 2009 and released its first self-produced album Bastard on its website, oddfuture.com, near year’s end to little fanfare from hip-hop media. The group gave out free albums and recorded and posted a music video for its song French. People started talking and tweeting and Tumblring.

Kanye and Soulja Boy then publicly endorsed OFWGKTA, leading to an appearance in February on Late Night With Jimmy Fallon and the release of two iTunes singles, Yonkers and Sandwitches, thus far the only two songs available from the group for retail purchase, selling 12,000 and 6,000 units respectively within the first month.

That, however, is about to change with Odd Future’s Tyler, the Creator’s second album due out May 10, distributed by XL. What most definitely is not going to change, Clancy said, is the group members’ commitment to staying true to themselves and not some corporate music magnate.

To say Odd Future is rough around the edges would be an understatement. The group voices profanity as often as many of us take breaths. They rap about committing violent and sexual crimes, use homophobic and misogynistic phrasing, and have no respect for anything or anyone with whom they disagree. Still the message resonates with many in the younger, urban generation. And the creativity of the group--profane words notwithstanding--cannot be denied. No other twentysomething musical artists out there can boast of writing and producing their own music, marketing it, doing their own promotional material, and creating and choreographing their own music videos and shows.

It’s a powerful package—headstrong youth whose motive isn’t profit or political correctness.

Now, if this secondary placement of profit after authenticity catches on in the music industry, it would most certainly be an odd future.

Elizabeth Barfoot Christian is assistant professor of journalism at Louisiana Tech University and the editor of Rock Brands: Selling Sound in a Media Saturated Culture.

Next blog: The political branding of country music: 10 years post 9/11

What Sells Better than Sex? REVENGE! The Taylor Swift Takeover

By Elizabeth Barfoot Christian

Taylor Swift’s not superstitious.

The gorgeous yet gangly 20-year-old queen of crossover country, continues to show that only those who screw her over need fear her favorite number, 13, which she famously marks on her right hand before each performance.

But do her wrong, and you’ll wish you’d never crossed her path. She will live to sing about it---and make millions off your shame with a sweet smile on her face.

Swift has definitely lived up to her name with the speed at which she has smashed music records, becoming the youngest artist ever to win album of the year at the Academy of Country Music Awards in 2009 for Fearless, her second album. It was the best-selling album of 2008 and 2009 and has become the most-awarded album in country music history.

She repeated the win in 2010 at the Grammys, also becoming the youngest artist ever to win Album of the Year.

Thus far, Swift has won more than 70 awards in a career not yet five years old.

So what’s her formula for success? This former teen angel has proven she’s a music marketing powerhouse. And the grown-up Taylor’s menu includes songs served up with a spoonful of sugar-coated revenge! Her latest album, 2010’s Speak Now, debuted at No. 1 on the U.S. Billboard 100, selling more than 1 million its first week, a feat not done since 2005—and only achieved by three female artists before her.

Here’s a brief run-down of how this nice girl can do nasty—and why her fans love her for it.

Humiliated in front of millions by Kanye West upon her win at the VMAs, she acted like a lady, then later offered her forgiveness in lyrics. Result: hit song “Innocent.”

Wronged by player John Mayer, Swift wrote him a “Dear John” letter neither he nor we shall ever forget.

After losing the love of her life, Joe Jonas, to a looser lady, Taylor memorialized the bad behavior. Result: hit song “Better Than Revenge.”

Writers are always taught to write what they know, and no one tells her tales better than Taylor. The world just rarely gets access to one’s diary so creatively delivered. Swift seems to genuinely want to engage her audience in her life. She spends hours with fans after each show and is involved in every aspect of her image. She values what her fans think of her, and she has the kind of wholesomeness that attracts little girls, teenage boys and moms, alike. Something about her songs resonates with all of us.

Taylor, the victim, knows how to do vicious better than anyone since the angry Alanis Morissette of the ‘90s. Now, we can all sit back and wait for the jilted-by-Jake Gyllenhaal ditty.

Elizabeth Barfoot Christian is assistant professor of journalism at Louisiana Tech University and the editor of Rock Brands: Selling Sound in a Media Saturated Culture.

Next blog: The publicly profane Odd Future of the music industry

Who’s the bad guy now? Can “American Idol” Survive without Simon, and What Does This Mean to Music Sales?

By Elizabeth Barfoot Christian

It won’t last. American Idol is done. Simon IS American Idol. Can we say ‘over’?

These are just a few of the rantings of American Idol fans last year when it was announced that Simon Cowell was calling it quits after Season 9. And I counted myself among the loudest of naysayers. I mean, it would be like Snow White without the wicked queen, right? Bloody boring without the boorish Brit!

Well, we were all wrong! For once, it seems Americans were in need of some ‘nice’ in their Idol nights.

The infusion of the saccharine-sweet Jennifer Lopez and colorful rock god Steven Tyler onto the judge’s panel with mainstay Randy “Dawg” Jackson has been better than anyone predicted.

Thursday night’s announcement of the Top 24 boasted an impressive 21.8 million viewers, a 19 percent jump over last year’s comparable show. And the week before the Hollywood episode saw a season-high Thursday of 22.2 million. Wednesday, Feb. 2 had a viewership just shy of 25 million. Skeptics be damned. Advertisers take note. It seems American Idol's star is still shining bright.

Along with the return to the three-judge panel, among the best changes in Season 10 has been the second chances afforded those American Idol hopefuls whose nerves simply got the better of them. Before this season, if you forgot the words, you could forget your dreams. It didn’t matter if you were the next Elvis Presley, you were headed for heartbreak hotel at the next cut.

This year’s judges have taken a more realistic approach to untested, raw talent and realize that even stars can have a bad performance and forget the words. Right, Christina Aguilera? Fortunately, for those of us watching American Idol (or the Super Bowl), our slip-ups won’t be broadcast to millions. This type of empathy resonates the American audience.

The show’s creator Simon Fuller said the positive energy this year has emanated through the show’s entire crew, and he told online magazine NOW that he credits Tyler and Lopez with bringing a “new level of understanding . . . to the show.”

As far as the effect “Idol” will have on future music sales of its new found stars, executive producer Nigel Lythgoe told reporters that will be determined by the record-buying public. One thing’s for sure, though, this season’s American Idol has had a huge impact on new judge Steven Tyler’s music sales. Aerosmith has seen a whopping 250 increase in sales since its charismatic front man joined the “Idol” crew, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Tyler is attracting a whole new fan base through American Idol, and folks who were already his fans but weren’t American Idol viewers are now tuning in to watch him belt out a few bars with the contenders. His exuberance is enchanting.

The season’s beautiful, bright spot JLo, (A.K.A. Jennifer Lopez) whose singing career has seen better days, premieres her new music video to “On the Floor” on the March 3 episode of the show. This will no doubt spur sales of her single, too.

Also to debut this season is the first-ever Facebook voting for American Idol faves, another sign that social networking has taken over as our communiqué of choice. It will be an interesting technological trend to see how social networking of a reality TV show affects the world of music marketing. Stay tuned.

Elizabeth Barfoot Christian is assistant professor of journalism at Louisiana Tech University and the editor of Rock Brands: Selling Sound in a Media Saturated Culture.

Next blog: What Sells Better than Sex? REVENGE!: The Taylor Swift Takeover

Everything Old is New Again: The Marketing Magic of TV’s Glee

By Elizabeth Barfoot Christian

FOX’s hit show Glee reminds me of what a music-loving Norman Lear might have developed were he producing television shows today. The edgy, envelope-pushing dramedy is making its mark on the topics of teen sexuality, teenage pregnancy, disabilities and fitting in—in ways never-before-seen on network TV.

What makes Glee different from the likes of Lear’s controversial ‘70s shows like Maude (topics included TV’s first abortion and women’s equality), All in the Family (topics included racism, bigotry, homosexuality, rape, breast cancer), and The Jeffersons (TV's first upper-middle class black couple dealt with topics of racism, suicide, gun control), along with his other shows, is that Glee is having this dialogue set to song and dance routines.

Unlike these in-your-face shows of yesteryear, Glee is using key social issues as an inroad to conquering the world of music marketing. And the results are phenomenal.

Music is often called the universal language, and Glee is proving that power as it tackles 21st century teen issues set to song, then sells you the show’s soundtracks via iTunes.

What’s so crazy about the success of Glee is that musicals and television traditionally don’t mix. Or they didn’t—until now. And now every music producer and songster in town is trying to get his tune remixed by the high schoolers in New Directions, the fictional-turned-real-life touring group from Glee. The group has taken on an eclectic choice of tunes from as far back as the 1920s and made them relevant again to a new audience—one with disposable income to burn. (According to Canadian Business magazine, Glee has the highest audience percentage with incomes more than $100,000).

The average week draws viewership of 12 million, and the first season of the show drew 19 Emmy Award nominations. Already bigger than the Beatles, Glee has had 75 hit singles in just a year and a half—outpacing Britain’s Fab Four, who had 71 from 1964 to 1996.

As of January, Glee has released nine soundtrack albums, selling five million copies. More than 13 million copies of the show’s singles have been digitally downloaded. Artists they have covered, including Madonna, Neil Diamond, Frank Sinatra, and Queen, have also seen some of their old hits rechart on the Billboard Hot 100.

Glee went on a four-city tour of 13 live concerts last summer. One Los Angeles show sold out in 30 seconds, surprising even longtime music industry insiders. Expectations for 2011 are even greater, as the audience has only grown. Glee has graced the cover of Rolling Stone and performed for President Obama. Dozens of websites have been created by Gleeks, the show’s loyal followers, and keep a constant update on characters, musicians who should get the Glee treatment, and merchandise offerings from ringtones to tangible products and where to buy them. Macy’s already has a Glee clothing line and plans to launch a home décor line this spring. “Glee” has become a brand unto itself. Entertainment Weekly writer Tim Stack called “Glee” the music industry’s “biggest story of the year.” First aided by its American Idol lead-in, it’s expected to gain further ground when in February FOX airs a special episode immediately following the Super Bowl.

High school, like music, is a universal experience. And that’s key to understanding the Glee marketing phenomenon. This is one bandwagon, it seems, to which we can literally all relate. And many in both the music and television industries are happily taking that to the bank.

Elizabeth Barfoot Christian is assistant professor of journalism at Louisiana Tech University and the editor of Rock Brands: Selling Sound in a Media Saturated Culture.

Next blog: Who’s the bad guy now? Can American Idol survive without Simon and what this could mean to music sales?

“I’ll have a medium popcorn, Junior Mints and a soundtrack please": Music Marketing in the Dark

By Elizabeth Barfoot Christian

As the record industry has gone digital over the last decade, troubles have been brewing in the movie soundtrack business, as well.

Until the turn of the 21st century, a hit film almost guaranteed a blockbuster soundtrack, too. That’s why rockers were all-too-happy to jump on the bandwagon—pun intended—to record a record or two or an entire soundtrack for even a marginally profitable flick.

The late 1970s and 1980s saw a string of chart-topping groups write and record music for movie soundtracks. Saturday Night Fever in 1977 included seven Bee Gees songs and remains the No. 2 best-selling soundtrack. Prince starred in and recorded the soundtrack for Purple Rain (No. 3) in 1984, the same year Kenny Loggins sealed his position as king of the soundtrack song with two hits for the film Footloose (No. 7). Loggins then recorded three hit songs for 1986’s blockbuster Top Gun (No. 8).

Bon Jovi followed in 1990 recording several songs released as his first solo album Blaze of Glory, subtitled Young Guns 2. And Whitney Houston did it like nobody’s business by starring in and singing the soundtrack for The Bodyguard (1992). It remains the No. 1 selling soundtrack of all time.

More recently, Aerosmith (Armageddon, 1998), Eminem (8 Mile, 2002), Miley Cyrus (The Hannah Montana Movie, 2008), AC/DC (Iron Man 2, 2010), and Cher and Christina Aguilera (Burlesque, 2010) have taken turns at staying in the spotlight (or returning to it) by recording motion picture soundtracks and in some cases starring in the picture themselves.

Currently, Grammy winning French duo Daft Punk is racking up sales for holiday movie Tron: Legacy, debuting at No. 10 on the Billboard 200 with sales of 70,000 the first week of the film’s release.

Since the near demise of the music video (the main marketing engine for soundtracks outside of the actual film itself) and the slow death of album-length offerings, record companies must be more creative in marketing soundtracks lest they lose money on the deal. What better way than to have a rock star play a starring role—whether that be in film scenes or in local family-friendly retailer’s shelves?

Twenty-first century media speed requires this kind of branding to make some artists relevant for more than 15 minutes. (High School Musical, anyone?) For others, it is proving to be a good business strategy. If your brand image is everywhere from the soundtrack to the movie screen, to a line of clothing at Walmart or an inspired video game or toy, you probably won’t have to worry about digital downloads and CD sales anymore.

Elizabeth Barfoot Christian is assistant professor of journalism at Louisiana Tech University and the editor of Rock Brands: Selling Sound in a Media Saturated Culture.

Next blog: “Everything Old is New Again: The Marketing Magic of TV’s Glee”