King of Hits.co.uk - Tipsheet Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

Tipsheet

Tipsheet Messageboard

Post a new message in "Tipsheet Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: In defence of payola
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Jaded and Bored	Oh yes I agree but I meant payola where you paid the DJs directly and not the mess we have since payola was legitimised oops banned. JK you were around then, what was it like ?
blue Boy	JK, I'd really be interested in your view on this. Did you ever turn down a Concorde ticket because you didn't like what was being promoted? When you take your first incentive how does one differentiate between genuine and bought enthusiasm?
DJones	"Blatant payola was fairer because it meant that you just had to front up the cash and you were guaranteed airplay" But who has the money to buy payola? Small, "independent" labels or corporate labels? Payola was one factor for the success of the artists/labels you mentioned, but there were many others. At least since the late 60s payola was a corporate game, dominated by the major labels.
Jaded and Bored	Without Payola there would be no Elvis, Motown, Aretha or Hendrix. In racist America, the almighty dollar spoke and as a result we got to hear some great music. Fast forward to today and DJs have lost their balls, corporate labels rule and Radio One DJs play their own recordings. I tell you which I prefer. Blatant payola was fairer because it meant that you just had to front up the cash and you were guaranteed airplay. Today you have to spend more on shmoozing the producers and other meejah types.