If you dig a little, most of the music you like is "corporate rock." Unless you buy it directly from the artist, there's a corporation involved.
You want to escape corporations? Make the music yourself. It's not that hard.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Audacy selling Boston assets
- Thread starter mets18
- Start date
If you dig a little, most of the music you like is "corporate rock." Unless you buy it directly from the artist, there's a corporation involved.
You want to escape corporations? Make the music yourself. It's not that hard.
you seem to be completely missing the mark, unintentionally or not, on what is "technically" corporate vs "sounding corporate" -- and for that, I'll kindly exit the argument.
You like what you like. I get it. Keep on liking it and talking yourself into thinking it's not corporate because you like it.
Tom Petty was a big critic of corporations. When he died, we all found out that he was one himself.
Answer: EMF.
For once, this one isn't on me! 😆
Honestly, the thread's whole purpose was based on misinformation. Audacy is selling assets, but not stations.
Getting to the "off topic" discussion. I am a big fan of rock music, and grew up on Boston rock radio (mainly WBCN, WAAF, and WFNX). I was highly "heated" on here when the station license for 107.3 was sold to EMF. Also, I still take a listener's perspective on having disdain towards the business. That's because I'm not in the business. That's one thing to remember. However, going back to a three and a half year dead argument, I still feel that listeners have the right to call the station and voice disdain towards a format flip. After all, we are the product that the companies tries to sell to advertisers. So, if EMF buys the license (which is in their right), I still feel it's in the listeners' right to call EMF and say that they prefer the format that used to be on the station, be it WAAF, WLUP, WPLJ, or another other station that EMF acquired.
I'm the same way when a company flips formats. I remember reading posts by listeners on wbcn.com after The Sports Hub launched. Eventually, certain posts that were critical of the flip and the direction of rock station playlists (compaling about what songs WBCN played in the few years before the flip) were scrubbed. Simultaneously, the person hired to run the website is making posts criticizing the criticisms. If the goal is to gain listeners, the company missed the mark.
Where that's my take on the buisness side, us listeners are a bit "whiny" as well (myself included, at times). Radio is a business, and we need to accept that. It's like a store we like going out of business, then whining about the new store that moves in. "What do you mean they now sell clothes and makeup?!? There's where I went to buy DVDs and CDs!" Whether any station stays with a format I prefer or not doesn't impact my wallet, but it does impact the company's bank account. That's where we need to let go.
Regarding companies and "local" flavor, I always hated that argument. Some of the best broadcasts are national or global. This whole argument "it needs to be local" is lost to me. Growing up, my favoriate broadcasts were the likes of Howard Stern and Casey Kasem. Two broadcasters who were completely different at the time.
Of course I like bands like Boston, Aerosmith, and Godsmack. But that doesn't mean that I'm against a band because they aren't local! That would be asinine to think that way. Complaints about a corprate playlist is ridiculous. I personally prefer to have the DJs select what they want to play. But I know that's what I get from FM, internet station playlists, and and even on Satellite!
Try putting on Octane, and not want to gag everytime Jesse Lee makes a reference to Nickelback fans being "real," and Nickelback haters being "fake." Are there Nickelback fans? Absolutely. But to say the "hate" is just being on a bangwagon is completely misguided. Perhaps both exist? And that's equally SiriusXM as a company trying to push a narrative, so they can justify the number of times they play Nickelback.
With that, what is offered on SiriusXM versus what would ever be commercially viable on FM in any market won't ever match. FM is a great place if you're a listener the music that's popular (classic rock, modern rock, pop, country, Hip Hop, etc). We don't go to commercial FM for deep cuts or B-sides. Those are widely available on SiriusXM's numerous channels, or through countless internet streams. But if I'm wanting to hear Welcome to the Jungle, Stupify, Dude Looks Like a Lady, Back in Black, Seven Nation Army, Bulls on Parade, and so on; then I can easily find it on FM. That's because of the buisness model. Terrestrial radio is looking to get the most ears at a tike. Although one of my favorite modern rock songs is Interstate 80 by Tom Morello (featuring Slash), it's not a huge hit. I don't expect to find it on FM. SiriusXM is a subscription based model. They offer a wide assortment to people like me, who want a deeper offering. Even then, they don't go as deep as I would like at times.
If you want true free form, the only answer is to search it out on your own.
Honestly, the thread's whole purpose was based on misinformation. Audacy is selling assets, but not stations.
Getting to the "off topic" discussion. I am a big fan of rock music, and grew up on Boston rock radio (mainly WBCN, WAAF, and WFNX). I was highly "heated" on here when the station license for 107.3 was sold to EMF. Also, I still take a listener's perspective on having disdain towards the business. That's because I'm not in the business. That's one thing to remember. However, going back to a three and a half year dead argument, I still feel that listeners have the right to call the station and voice disdain towards a format flip. After all, we are the product that the companies tries to sell to advertisers. So, if EMF buys the license (which is in their right), I still feel it's in the listeners' right to call EMF and say that they prefer the format that used to be on the station, be it WAAF, WLUP, WPLJ, or another other station that EMF acquired.
I'm the same way when a company flips formats. I remember reading posts by listeners on wbcn.com after The Sports Hub launched. Eventually, certain posts that were critical of the flip and the direction of rock station playlists (compaling about what songs WBCN played in the few years before the flip) were scrubbed. Simultaneously, the person hired to run the website is making posts criticizing the criticisms. If the goal is to gain listeners, the company missed the mark.
Where that's my take on the buisness side, us listeners are a bit "whiny" as well (myself included, at times). Radio is a business, and we need to accept that. It's like a store we like going out of business, then whining about the new store that moves in. "What do you mean they now sell clothes and makeup?!? There's where I went to buy DVDs and CDs!" Whether any station stays with a format I prefer or not doesn't impact my wallet, but it does impact the company's bank account. That's where we need to let go.
Regarding companies and "local" flavor, I always hated that argument. Some of the best broadcasts are national or global. This whole argument "it needs to be local" is lost to me. Growing up, my favoriate broadcasts were the likes of Howard Stern and Casey Kasem. Two broadcasters who were completely different at the time.
Of course I like bands like Boston, Aerosmith, and Godsmack. But that doesn't mean that I'm against a band because they aren't local! That would be asinine to think that way. Complaints about a corprate playlist is ridiculous. I personally prefer to have the DJs select what they want to play. But I know that's what I get from FM, internet station playlists, and and even on Satellite!
Try putting on Octane, and not want to gag everytime Jesse Lee makes a reference to Nickelback fans being "real," and Nickelback haters being "fake." Are there Nickelback fans? Absolutely. But to say the "hate" is just being on a bangwagon is completely misguided. Perhaps both exist? And that's equally SiriusXM as a company trying to push a narrative, so they can justify the number of times they play Nickelback.
With that, what is offered on SiriusXM versus what would ever be commercially viable on FM in any market won't ever match. FM is a great place if you're a listener the music that's popular (classic rock, modern rock, pop, country, Hip Hop, etc). We don't go to commercial FM for deep cuts or B-sides. Those are widely available on SiriusXM's numerous channels, or through countless internet streams. But if I'm wanting to hear Welcome to the Jungle, Stupify, Dude Looks Like a Lady, Back in Black, Seven Nation Army, Bulls on Parade, and so on; then I can easily find it on FM. That's because of the buisness model. Terrestrial radio is looking to get the most ears at a tike. Although one of my favorite modern rock songs is Interstate 80 by Tom Morello (featuring Slash), it's not a huge hit. I don't expect to find it on FM. SiriusXM is a subscription based model. They offer a wide assortment to people like me, who want a deeper offering. Even then, they don't go as deep as I would like at times.
If you want true free form, the only answer is to search it out on your own.
My view is that when people complain about radio, what they're REALLY complaining about is music, and radio isn't in the music business. A lot of the complaints about rock music are better directed to the oligarchs who run the worldwide record labels. If the music was better, then the radio would be better.
It's still a misnomer. While the term is used by a variety of "pure rock" (whatever that means) fans, the fact remains that all record labels are a business and thus corporate. All venues and clubs are businesses and thus corporate.
So in a discussion of radio, using the term "corporate" has a very different meaning.
Hesitatingly, I recall that the term "corporate rock" was actually rather common in the 1980s, generally referring to formulaic, pump-out-the-album-hits guitar-based album rock...or at least what seemed so at the time. Sometimes use of the term was an effort to demonstrate coolness. This was especially frequent in music reviews. Ultimately, use of the term was more of a personal positioning statement than providing much descriptive value.
I learned that the more music I want to hear, the more I find it through online searches. I use SiriusXM as my entry point, as their playlist is deeper. But it's far from perfect. If SiriusXM's model was used on terrestrial radio, people would still complain. At the end of the day, deep music awareness will always include music that doesn't get any form of airplay.
Exactly. It's been that way for over 70 years. Radio is the free sample. The rest is up to you.
I'm going to play my old rock 8 tracks, albums and cassette tapes and enjoy commercial free music.
Gonna go national BAYBEE.
And remember, Wbz Radio is "fiercely independent" but owned by corporate iHeart Radio.
BUILD BACK BETTER RADIO
Gonna go national BAYBEE.
And remember, Wbz Radio is "fiercely independent" but owned by corporate iHeart Radio.
BUILD BACK BETTER RADIO
This news report seems to specifically includes radio stations.
Report: Audacy Agrees to Sell Assets in Boston, Phoenix
The specific assets slated for sale have not been disclosed in detail, but they encompassed properties such as land and improvements, buildings, equipment and radio broadcasting licenses.
Which I quickly debunked from the original report.
Rumor Killer: Audacy Is Not Selling Boston & Phoenix Stations (But Those Upcoming Debt Payments Loom)
Despite what you may have read in a misleading headline and poorly phrased column at Inside Radio, Audacy did NOT
radioinsight.com
The report that seem to specifically include stations was from radio-online.....not Inside Radio.....
We'll never know until it happens (or doesn't).
The report of station sales in those two markets has been debunked by Audacy. They are selling "assets" that consist of real estate and property, only.
It won't because the only place this was reported was an online radio news site, not the owner of the stations and not any of the more widely used online sources.
Inside radio said, "But that is not stopping potential deal-making. Audacy says that it is going to make a pair of sales in Boston and Phoenix of long-held assets. The company did not close(sic) what it is selling, but said it includes land, buildings, and equipment. Instead, it simply said it expects the deal to close within a year."
InsideRadio wrongly reported it first. Other publications (which captioned it Report) like Radio-Online and the Philadelphia Business Journal picked it up from them. Radio-Online simply copy/pastes press releases and reports from elsewhere.
As others have mentioned early in this thread including myself first, NOWHERE in the filing referred does it mention selling licenses. I'm the reporter telling you they are NOT selling licenses based on the the info in the filing.
Debunked by Audacy..... for now. Corporate tells you what they want you to hear. It'll change when they want to.
No. Debunked by facts from their actual SEC filing that the false story was based on.
- Status