Mourning the Death of American Radio

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: Kim C
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 07:09 PM

Alas, poor Radio... I knew him well, Horatio.

Back in the 80s, there was this format they used to call AOR - Album Oriented Rock - where they played almost everything BUT the official "singles." There was a rock station in Nashville that would play entire albums on the overnight shift. Loved it when I was a teenager. Those type stations are very few and far between now.

One of the reasons radio is so pitiful, is that so much of the "popular" music is so pitiful. Now, I don't think it's all bad, but the problem is that the good artists get all covered up by the crap. So if you want to hear a good song on the radio, you have to listen to at least 10 crappy ones.

Most of the time I listen to talk radio, or CDs, in the car. Here at work I listen to Internet radio - usually German news radio, because I'm learning German and I want to listen to people talk. (no I can't understand it that well yet - I can pick up bits and pieces of this and that)

I would get satellite radio if I could afford another monthly expense.

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 06:09 PM

This is very topical these days!

Rarely do I ever listen to commercial, and when I do listen to the Radio it is always NPR.

I have noticed over the last few years how this station has become harder and harder to tune in. Lately if I set my dial to listen and move the Radio a few feet it retunes to some junk station playing endless shclizzyspew with vast sections of Advertising.

Talk about killing the golden goose!

Still some AM stations try by doing shows such as Art Bell - I know he is retired but they are trying to be different - and the like.

When it comes to Satellite I am not buying it. I think the older formats would still work fine; some media which have not changed are still selling so it should not be a problem.

One -public- station I recently found made me cringe with a show dedicated soley to the Beatles - sheesh reminds me of an old guy I once knew in London UK who endlessly played his Classical records so that every one in the Apartments could hear them ... over and over and over...

Now that kind of thing is stupid, but an intelligent selection of local talent would get a lot more support than DJs and managers are willing to admit...

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 04:42 PM

TV HAS gone the way of radio. Recently, the powers that be came to fair licensing agreements at very reduced rates for non-profit internet radio broadcasters -- perhaps we will see a renaissance as almost anyone can afford the fees now.

Sirius has finally come out with the home version of their satellite radio. Non-subscribers can listen to their online content free for 20 minutes; internet streaming is included in the subscription. 60 commercial-free, original content channels, including ones devoted to Folk, Blues, World Music and Bluegrass. (As well as channel for unsigned and indie artists.) As far as I can tell, the DJs play whatever they want and rarely repeat tunes -- except when they are playing their own stuff!

XM Radio also has a home version, but fewer commercial free channels and less original programing, which is why I picked Sirius. (But a couple of bucks cheaper each month.)

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: M.Ted
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 03:10 PM

Just pray, Little Hawk--that the media conglomerates that produce your CD's don't decide to put advertising on them, the way they have put it on videotapes---

As per your comments, MG, the only way free people have managed to hold on to the right to express themselves is by fighting for it, the visions of doom and gloom are very real possibilities if TV goes the way that radio has--

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: fsharpdim7
Date: 10 Jun 03 - 04:57 PM

No use lamenting the past -----
Internet radio is great - I can listen to WDVX Knoxville in the am, and at night KPFK LA and then over to Maui!
I am going to install one of those transmitters so I can hear the music from the pc on the stereo upstairs - hope it works.
Chris

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: outfidel
Date: 10 Jun 03 - 12:46 PM

Not trying to depress anyone...nor do I "keep on the sunny side, always on the sunny side"...just calling 'em as I see (and hear) 'em.

Yes, this is a free country, and yes we are a free people...but no, the airwaves are not free...and it is problematic to me that more of those airwaves are owned by fewer large profit-driven corporations.

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: mg
Date: 10 Jun 03 - 02:18 AM

doom and gloom...doom and gloom. This is a free country and a free people will find ways to express themselves....radio is not dead. People get way too much sensual pleasure trying to depress other people. mg

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: PoppaGator
Date: 09 Jun 03 - 10:30 PM

Commercial radio in the US is S-O-O-O-O bad, and -- worse yet -- so much of it is all the SAME!

Here in New Orleans, we are blessed to have not only a decent NPR station playing classical music and little jazz in addition to the great news and other features, but also our own community station, WWOZ, playing all New Orleans music all the time.

As a listener since the station's founding back in 1980, and as a volunteer for the past 2-3 years, I take every opportunity to let folks know they can listen in from anywhere on the globe, via:

www.wwoz.org

We're not trying to boost ratings or anything like that -- I'm not even sure there *is* such a thing as Internet ratings, and anyway it's a non-commerical station. I just want to make people aware of something they might *greatly* enjoy.

Those of you who like the blues will find plenty. Jazz, of course, makes up the bulk of programming. But there are also regularly scheduled progams of old-timey/bluegrass, Celtic, gospel, Cajun music; also, Latin, Afro-Cuban, Brazilian, Jamaican, etc., etc. Check out the website, which provides a comprehensive program guide for the weekly schedule.

I'm sure other members out there around the world have other favorites -- or, at least, favorite programs on internet-accessible stations. Let's share this information because, God knows, that broadcast radio is truly awful!

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 03 - 06:26 PM

Thank god for internet radio. The sharks do not own it yet in spite of their grabbingest efforts. As I write I am listening to sweet acoustic music from Grassy Hill Radio, a pure internet channel. I would never find gems like this on the public airwaves.

A

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 03 - 06:20 PM

I gave up on commercial radio over 30 years ago. As far as I'm concerned, it's a wasteland. I listen to tapes and CD's which I choose, and which do NOT have either commercials or DJ's on them, getting in the way of the music.

I gave up on TV for similar reasons. 600+ channels, and nothing on. It's a garbage-in/garbage-out culture, and I simply ignore it.

- LH

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: NicoleC
Date: 09 Jun 03 - 06:13 PM

Long live internet radio. Long live Sirius and XM satellite radio. Even the music stations on satallite and digital cable are far better than the schlock on AM and FM...

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: outfidel
Date: 09 Jun 03 - 05:32 PM

FCC Ruling Puts Rivals on the Same Wavelength

Public opinion, political self-interest prompt lawmakers to unite to fight new media rules.

By Jube Shiver Jr., Richard Simon and Edmund Sanders
LA Times Staff Writers

June 9, 2003

WASHINGTON -- Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi rarely find themselves on the same side of the aisle.

But when the Federal Communications Commission voted 3 to 2 to ease media ownership restrictions last week, a bipartisan jolt rattled Capitol Hill, tossing together the liberal Boxer, the conservative Lott and scores of other lawmakers positioned somewhere in between.

"In all the years I've been here," Boxer said, "I've not seen such deeply held feelings across ideologies."

The outbreak of unity in a Congress usually beset by partisan bickering illustrates the immense power of the broadcast industry in the political process. Already, the Senate is poised to possibly overturn some of the new rules, which expand the number of TV stations and newspapers that media companies can buy. A more contentious battle is shaping up in the House but not one based on party loyalties.

"For once, we have an issue that has surprisingly little to do with the usual ideological alignments in Congress," said political scientist Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia.

"This is about the lifebloodof successful political candidacies.... Every member of Congress thinks immediately of his or her state's or district's media organizations. And they ask one big question, silently: Will this change have a desirable or undesirable effect on my next candidacy?"

Lawmakers are well aware that television is crucial to maintaining their image and getting reelected. Many worry that permitting media companies to expand their national presence would give them greater power over everything from public opinion to the rates candidates must pay for campaign commercials.

"I'm not one that has believed always that big is necessarily always bad," Lott said recently. "But when you allow this type of concentration, where you could have a market where one company could own and dominate the print media, could theoretically own one of the dish networks, could own the local cable, could own the local television station or two stations, where's the limit?"

For some, opposition is rooted in personal experience.

Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), for example, says that in one of his first election campaigns many years ago, the local newspapers joined to endorse his opponent. So he turned to then-emerging television to get his message out. The experience cemented his belief that local newspapers and TV stations should not be co-owned.

"If they are consolidated, they could black you out," Hollings said in an interview earlier this year.

The congressional debate also speaks to the muscle oflocal broadcasters. The National Assn. of Broadcasters has given about $1 million to lawmakers during each of the last two elections, with about 60% going to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Although the NAB lost its bid to keep the FCC from raising ownership limits, the trade group, which represents mostly TV broadcasting affiliates, now is expected to unleash its lobbying clout in Congress, where it enjoys more influence. Still, the organization will face strong opposition from the big TV networks, including CBS parent Viacom Inc. and Fox parent News Corp., which fought to raise the cap.

Although both sides couch the debate in terms of preserving free speech and quality television, it's largely about money. Big networks want to buy more TV stations so that they can extricate themselves from long-term contracts to pay affiliated TV stations to air network programming. Affiliates want to preserve those compensation packages and prevent large networks from squeezing them out of large markets.

Also underlying the unusual bipartisan resistance are the powerful special-interest groups that coalesced before the FCC vote and that span the political spectrum, from the National Rifle Assn. to the National Organization for Women. By the time of the FCC's action last Monday, the agency had received more than 500,000 e-mails and letters.

"All the attention this issue has gotten from the public is hostile to what the FCC is doing," said Robert W. McChesney, a professor of communications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "They're not getting anybody flooding them with e-mails saying, 'This is great; we want fewer media owners.' "

No matter the outcome, the conflict over the media rules is certain to play out noisily in the days ahead in Congress and, potentially, in the courts.

Moves are underway in the Senate to roll back the FCC rule allowing companies to increase their nationwide TV presence from 35% of viewers to 45%. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Commerce Committee, has scheduled a June 19 vote on the matter. Most observers are betting that the committee will approve the bill and pass it along to the full Senate.

"I was surprised that I was one of only maybe three members of the Commerce Committee who seemed to be in agreement with the FCC," Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) said.

At least three other bills have been introduced in the House and Senate that would constrain or reverse other FCC media ownership regulations. Opponents also are exploring attaching a measure to the annual FCC appropriations bill that would prohibit the agency from spending to implement the new rules.

That proposal stands a good chance because Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has been a critic of the FCC decision. Stevens said he was disturbed not only by the panel's vote but also by the process. "There was never any consultation," he said.

For her part, California's other senator, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, places the odds for a Senate reversal of the rules at "rather good."

"The public is appalled," she said, "and that's good news. Eventually, the public is going to get what the public wants."

Most of these legislative efforts, however, are expected to meet resistance, especially from one member of Congress who has vowed to fight on behalf of the FCC -- Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), the powerful chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Tauzin contends that much of the criticism is rooted in a misconception of the scope and potential effect of the new rules, which he said would not lead to media monopolies of the nation's airwaves and newspapers.

Tauzin and other backers of media deregulation say the old rules were outdated in an era in which there are hundreds of cable TV channels and a burgeoning Internet that offers a vastly greater diversity of voices.

"As people begin to understand that, their understanding of the issue is going to give them a sense of comfort in what the commission has done," said Tauzin, who is sending a letter to his colleagues today to counter critics and explain his position.

But Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), a leader in the effort to overturn the rules change, said he wasn't deterred by Tauzin's warnings.

"The House is 435 members," Dorgan said. "I've only heard from one who has promised to block it. My hope is that perhaps he'll change his mind, or perhaps the House will decide he's not in charge. Just because someone in the House says they'll block something ought not to tell us to lay down and decide to take a nap here. We need to go at this aggressively and see what we can do."

Resistance by Tauzin or by other select members of the House also may be complicated by what unfolds in the upper chamber, said Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the House telecommunications subcommittee, which oversees the FCC.

"If they are successful in the Senate," Markey said, "then that is going to create real momentum that will put pressure on the House to respond."

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: Mudlark
Date: 09 Jun 03 - 05:09 PM

One NPR station on FM (and NPR is a sad shadow of once rich programming), the rest schlock rock, and endless strident commercials. Nothing but a slew of christian and Spanish stations on AM, with a few right wing ranters thrown in to season the brew...and an even greater number of strident commercials. A sorry state. I now either play my own music full time or listen satellite...the classical/jazz/bluegrass/blues stations aren't bad....and no commericals.

Subject: RE: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: Padre
Date: 08 Jun 03 - 10:50 PM

While big cities have little but the commercial pap to listen to, here in the Alleghany Highlands, we have stations like WVLS, WCHG and WVMR, which are still locally owned and operated, and which play an incredible mix of everthing from classical to real old-time string band music, bluegrass and even old radio westerns like Hopalong Cassidy. Her is a link [I hope I did that right Joe]

http://wvls.cfw.com/
http://wvls.cfw.com/

Subject: Mourning the Death of American Radio
From: outfidel
Date: 08 Jun 03 - 10:20 PM

Driving Down the Highway, Mourning the Death of American Radio
By BRENT STAPLES
The New York Times (editorial)
June 8, 2003


Brooklynites who park their cars on the streets sometimes post signs — "nothing of value" and my favorite, "no radio, no nothing" — pleading with thieves not to break in. The smash and grabs are less frequent than they once were. But those of us who live here are no longer surprised by the pools of shattered glass — known as "sidewalk diamonds" — left by the thieves who make off with air bags, radios and anything else they can carry.

My aging Volvo will be parked safely in a garage after getting the new compact disc player that I hope to install by summer's end. Burglar magnet that it is, the CD player symbolizes my despair that commercial radio in New York — and most other major markets — has become so bad as to be unlistenable and is unlikely to improve anytime soon. I listen religiously to the public radio station WBGO in Newark, the best jazz station in the country. Man does not live by jazz alone. If you want decent pop, rock or country, you pretty much have to spin it yourself.

Commercial stations in New York are too expensive to be anything but bland, repetitive and laden with ads and promotions. A station that could be had for a pittance 30 years ago can go for more than $100 million in a big market like New York. Congress increased the value of the stations in 1996, when it raised the cap on the number of stations that a single company could own; now, three corporate entities control nearly half of the radio listenership in the country.

I grew up glued to radio and was present at the creation of legendary album-format stations like WMMR in Philadelphia and WXRT in Chicago. These stations played rich blends of rock, pop and jazz, and sometimes featured local bands. (This wide-ranging format enriched the collective musical taste and paid dividends by producing ever more varied strains of popular music.) Commercials were typically kept to between 8 and 12 minutes per hour, and 20 minutes or more could pass before the announcer broke in to give the station's call letters.

This format was profitable, but not on the money-raining scale required since Wall Street got wise to the radio game. Faced with pressure from investors and more corporate debt than some nations, the megacompanies that acquire a hundred stations each must squeeze every cent out of every link in the chain. They do this by dismissing the local staff and loading up squalling commercials and promotional spots that can take up as much as 30 minutes per hour during morning "drive time."

The corporate owners then put pressure on their remaining rivals — and often force them to sell out — by promoting national advertising packages that allow commercials to be broadcast on several stations, or all over the country, at once. Disc jockeys are often declared expendable and let go. Where they remain in place, they are figureheads who spin a narrow and mind-numbing list of songs that have been market-tested to death, leaving stations that sound the same from coast to coast.

Critics have focused on the way corporatized radio fails to cover local news and on free-speech issues, like the one that emerged when a country band, the Dixie Chicks, was booted from corporate air for criticizing the president over the war in Iraq. If the stations find the Dixie Chicks too challenging to tolerate, it's easy to imagine them marginalizing genuinely controversial news and programming.

Corporate radio's treatment of the Dixie Chicks argues against those who wish to remove all remaining federal limits on corporate ownership — not just of radio, but of television as well. The dangers posed by concentrated ownership go beyond news and censorship issues, to the heart of popular culture itself. By standardizing music and voices around the country, radio is slowly killing off local musical cultures, along with the diverse bodies of music that enriched the national popular culture.

Independent radio even 25 years ago was as important to a civic landscape as city hall or the local sports star who made good. The disc jockeys (or "on-air personalities," as they came to be called) embodied local radio to the public. You could hear their distinctive influences when you drove into Philadelphia, Chicago, Minneapolis or Wheeling, W.Va.; radio stations could be identified not just by the call letters but from the unique blend of music that was played in each place.

Pre-corporate radio commonly played established, nationally known musicians along with unknown locals and traveling bands. In town for a show, a young, unknown Elvis could swivel-hip down to the local station for airplay and some chat. This sort of thing was still possible in the early 1980's, when an unclassifiable band out of Athens, Ga., called R.E.M. became hugely popular while barnstorming the country in a truck. R.E.M. forced itself onto the air without conceding its weirdness and became one of the most influential bands of the late 20th century.

Radio stations where unknown bands might once have come knocking at the door no longer even have doors. They have become drone stations, where a once multifarious body of music has been pared down and segmented in bland formats, overlaid with commercials. As record companies scramble to replicate the music that gets airplay, pop music is turning in on itself and flattening out.

Those of us who are breaking with radio are saddened to leave the community of listeners to which we have belonged for most of our lives. But we realize as well that the vitality of the medium, like youth, is lost and forever behind us.