UNDER THE MAPL(E) TREE Greg Diamond – ByrnesMedia I recently came across one of the most interesting articles I’ve ever read on the Canadian MAPL coding system. What made it so fascinating was that the opinions expressed weren’t those of an exasperated Music Director somewhere north of the 49th, but rather those of a university professor from down south… the deep south… the really deep south… Australia!
In the article entitled “The Canadian Diva Effect”, Professor Martin Richardson of the Australian National University posits that the MAPL system does nothing to encourage, enhance, or preserve what could be described as an intrinsically Canadian ‘sound’. Professor Richardson even takes his position one step further and makes the argument that such frameworks actually motivate artists to create music with a decidedly non-Canadian flavour.
As he puts it, “If you listen to people like Celine Dion, Shania Twain, or Avril Lavigne, they are Canadian, they get played – or, at least, used to get played – preferentially on Canadian radio stations, but they sound generically international. There is nothing distinctively Canadian about them at all, as opposed to some of their predecessors. Why? Once you have a cultural quota in place, you are forcing consumers to listen to more local content. Let’s assume that consumers have a preference for more international-type content. The obvious incentive is for local artists to start producing international music. The whole point of this is to preserve the local content, but actually by putting a restriction in place, you give local providers a very strong incentive to actually change their style and sound much more international.”
Remember now, this is not someone with a vested interest in either side of the longstanding MAPL debate. This is the learned opinion of a person, who by necessity of the office he holds, must look at issues with as much detached objectivity as possible. The full article can be found on our website at ByrnesMedia.com.
So, is he right? In my mind, there’s little doubt he is.
One comment I have heard increasingly is, “there’s better CanCon out there these days.” This, of course, is format and season-specific, but in general there actually is. That said, we then need to really look at why there’s more of what PD’s and MD’s consider to be usable Canadian music… and the “why” is perfectly summed up by the good professor – the songs sound more international than ever before.
The Internet has played a huge role in the influence of not just Canadian musicians, but those of any nationality. People are exposed to a greater amount of everything these days and music is certainly high on that list. We hear that now in the songs being created domestically. Quite simply, they are generally better than they were even a few years ago and the decline in prevalence of the crappy “CanCon chorus” can’t be a bad thing! Professor Richardson is again correct, though, in that whatever it may have been that earmarked a record as being distinctly Canadian is also in decline… if that “whatever” was a poorly-written chorus, then we are all better off because of it!
If we accept the theory that music is moving toward greater homogeneity (I use that word in a manner devoid of its typical negative connotations), then does the relevance of the MAPL code stand up as it once may have? I ask this question at a time when 200 stations in the country have just provided the CRTC with information on Canadian selections to be used in further discussions on adding an “E” (Emerging) to the existing code.
At first glance, the “E” has its merits. It helps the newest Canadian performers overcome one of MAPL’s greatest, and I’m sure initially unforeseen, drawbacks – the successful Canadian artist. We have all heard how radio plays too many proven artists/songs and not enough newer, struggling musicians. As an aside, the first question that always comes to my mind when I hear that is, “Why are they struggling?” I’ve yet to meet a radio decision-maker that was averse to playing a good song whether it came from Brandon or Bangladesh. Regardless, the “E” would make it easier for some of these people to garner airplay on primarily younger-skewing formats. This does, however, beg the question as to whether all we will have done is once again open things up for lesser records to be added since the extra credit awarded could outweigh the less immediately definable penalty – listener satisfaction.
The other worrisome aspect is the increased regulatory component to the initiative. In an atmosphere where the Commission has signalled its desire to take a less hands-on approach towards the media, does it make sense to add yet another rule to the game?
This discussion cannot be had without entering into the realm of culture. After all, it is for cultural reasons that the CanCon quotas, and thus the MAPL code, came into existence in the first place. The offshoot of the cultural goal is, of course, the healthy fiscal state of the Canadian music industry and its members (not limited to just artists). If we again accept Professor Richardson’s hypothesis, then it is clear that this is really no longer a cultural issue, but a purely economic one. Such a statement will no doubt elicit cries of treason and heresy, but the truth is quite evident. With risk of blatantly stating the obvious, you can’t protect something that can’t be protected. Technological “border-blurring” and our geographical place in the world guarantees it. You may prolong the battle, but the war is already lost.
That heavy-handed, yet correct assessment does not mean we should abandon all safeguards to the Canadian music industry via radio regulation. The one aspect of the professor’s argument that is very debatable, and is alluded to above, is the lack of the North American context. Australia and Canada, besides being Commonwealth members in good standing, are very different places with vastly different challenges regarding this topic. Our proximity to an 800-pound cultural gorilla forces us to view things much differently than someone in Sydney or Brisbane. We have no choice but to have in place some type of strategy to combat the daily American media deluge. In a nice bit of irony, it’s that same deluge that plays such a large role in shaping “The Canadian Diva Effect.” Nevertheless, to do away completely with the current system would be a mistake. Like everything else, though, there is a workable happy medium, but I fear adding an “E” to the end of MAPL is not the solution.
Is it time, finally, to shelve the code completely and just boil things down to what Bryan Adams suggested years ago – if you were born in Canada or are a Canadian citizen, then your music is CanCon… plain and simple. To be discussing an addition to the MAPL code in this day and age seems like trying to repair something that has already outlived its purposes. I don’t think I’m any less patriotic in offering an idea that’s been around for as long as the code itself and is more in keeping with the reality of this millennium.
To be sure, there will be those that argue such an approach will not help the up-and-comers. Fair enough, but are we really helping the newer bands and artists by airing their lesser song and then abandoning them ‘X’ months later when they no longer qualify for an increased quota percentage? That doesn’t sound like an advancement of so-called Canadian culture to me. In fact, those people will probably only be left with a sizable label and touring debt to show for their day in the sun.
I imagine another point that will be raised against such a simple outline will revolve around the aforementioned “successful Canadian artists.” Is it really such a horrible thing that an AC station in Somewhere, Saskatchewan could use all of Celine Dion’s songs as CanCon? Ms. Dion certainly doesn’t need that, but why should a system that was designed to foster her initially be used to penalize her later? Again, this has proved to be one of MAPL’s biggest paradoxes and one that needs to just go away.
If 35% CanCon remains the benchmark, then a simple Canadian-Or-Not-Canadian framework will still allow stations to air established stars, but by necessity will still require them to augment their music run with lesser known or “emerging” Canadian acts – it’s simple arithmetic. We don’t want to exclude musicians who create songs with a more “home-grown” feel (again, whatever that really is), but we also have to weigh that against the undeniable reality of the listener’s desires. Let’s take this opportunity to move the ball forward, not lose yardage.
If I may be so brash as to paraphrase the Gipper, “Mr. Finckenstein, tear down this wall.” |