A Solid Call 2.0

: The Elusive Success of Idlewild 'The Next' Is Ready for 'Here and Now' is a New York Times article about the band Idlewild. (Free registration is required to read the article.) The piece describes the English band's relentless touring in an effort to sell at least 100,000 records in the USA without the support of their major record label trying to buy them airplay. I disagree with the author's assertion that the band could have the same success as Coldplay if given the same treatment from the record label. I really like Idlewild. They play densely interesting and intelligent music. Yet, the article spends a good deal of time comparing them to fellow Brits Coldplay and strongly implying that Capitol arbitrarily decided not to spend money promoting Idlewild to radio - thus short-circuiting the band's hopes - a familiar tale of a talented group screwed over by label politics. The author even passes along a joke suggesting that Idlewild's frontman needs to date an actress to get the same attention that Coldplay does. Except, that argument is way off-base. Idlewild have wonderfully complex and rich songs, but Coldplay have wonderfully complex and rich songs that regular people like to sing along to while they go about their daily lives. Coldplay's songs, while sophisticated, are hits not because a record label said they were or paid for play or anything like that. They are more accessible to the casual person on the street, the mom in the Volvo, the teen at the prom. The article talks about the praise that critics have given Idlewild, while commenting that only hardcore music fans know and appreciate the band, and even go so far as to point out that such a constituency is in the minority -- but then fails to reason the next logical step to recognize that that group of listeners ins in the minority because they are fundamentally different, taste-wise from the majority of record-buying consumers. If Capitol decided not to spend money trying to get the band radio play, it is because someone at the label recognized -- and rightly so -- that the band does not have a song that will sound good to your average person motoring home from work on a Thursday 6pm drive. Idlewild make great songs for repeated listening to in headphones wghen you have time to make sense of what they're trying to say. Most people don't have -- or are not willing to -- devote that time. That's just the way it is. In fairness, the Times article touches on the lack of a radio hit, but seems to dismiss this as a major concern, perhaps because of the widespread myth that radio airplay can be bought and paid for no matter what the source material sounds like. It's notoriously hard to define what makes a hit, but after listening to Coldplay and Idlewild objectvely, I'd submit that Coldplay have them and Idlewild don't. This is not an indictment of Idlewild's talent by any stretch. Some observers can argue that having hits necessarily means that a song has a degree of shallow digestability. that's not Idlewild's fault -- but neither is it their record label's fault either. If there is anyone to blame, it's a public with a short attention span seeking entertanment that they can instantly digest with 10% of their brains -- and even that is difficult to accuse. Idlewild should try hard to get their music in front of as many music junkies and critics as possible -- and they're doing that the right way, by touring. At the end of the day, there may be 75,000 such people out there with $15 bucks to buy the CD. The challenge is finding a way for Idlewild and their manager and producer and label and distributor to make a living from that combined $1.25 million. Is that possible? I would hope so, because that is how Idlewild will succeed, not by blaming record labels for not throwing money at radio. When a debate -- such as this one over why bands get popular and some don't -- has gone on this long, it often means that we're not framing the question correctly.