• 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

DJs as Artists -- Hate to Rain on the Parade, But....

doublecashkgb said:
I prefer women, actually. Not that there is anything wrong with your preferences. You're
a wimp, with nothing to lose no new jobs in this busioness, big deal. So you couldn't make
it in radio, TV or the agency busines-what's next? CLown.
Click to expand...

You've just revealed why I got out of the business. There are too many people like you in it.

But I also notice that you haven't said anything about where you've worked. I suspect it's because you really don't have anything near the track record you claim you have. It may be because you're too embarrassed to mention where you've worked or that you are too scared that if you lied about something people would come out of the woodwork and say, "Hey, he wasn't there because I worked there at the time."

I, on the other hand, have no problem admitting that I've been fairly small-time. At least I have a truthful record that can be verified, and my sense of manhood does not rely on boasting about Top 40 radio gigs real or imagined.
 
My opinion on this topic are....DJ's are not artist. They maybe considered artist within their station or certain format, but artist overall to match the meaning of a dictionary...I wouldn't agree. It's like a person who takes a frame and cardboard and throws elephant dung on it and let's it dry ......wow their an artist. Or some person takes their imagination by taking a snapshot of a toaster , right next to a vase of flowers, that's photography. Are they artist?
As far as rappers...as much as I hate that genre...I'll give them the credit.....there not musicians....there producers.....if you can't sing a note, play or write music, their not musicians. They are artists of that particular single or album that happens to be on the chart...but not as musicians. I would rather classify that as a novelty entry. More Like a Dickie Goodman record you heard in the 70's.
 
DK -

You know next to nothing about me and yet you make assumptions that let you feel superior. I've nothing to prove to you...

However, you obviously have plenty to prove...
 
To David Kay,

I think you may have contrdicted yourself. You mention that being an "artist" and being "commercially successful" are "opposites" in a previous post. Then you mention Michael Savage as being an artist. Michael Savage is also commercially successful.

What you probably meant to say was that being an artist and being commercially successful are nonsequital disjoinants, y'all.
 
And Awaayy We Go!! said:
To David Kay,
Click to expand...
It's not difficult to spell my name correctly, is it? If you don't read carefully then perhaps you're not understanding what I write, either. I don't mean to sound snarky about this, but it happens often that people fail to see the entirety of what I write, choosing only to take those bits and pieces they disagree with and paint everything with a broad brush. The last name is Kaye. I like to honor my dad, so I prefer the name to be spelled correctly.

I think you may have contrdicted yourself. You mention that being an "artist" and being "commercially successful" are "opposites" in a previous post. Then you mention Michael Savage as being an artist. Michael Savage is also commercially successful.
Click to expand...

I'm said that artists seldom have a mass audience. I also said that there are accidents of time and circumstance that can cause artists to become popular. I think I pointed out the Beatles. Had it not been for the Baby Boom generation getting into their prime record-buying years and their teenage rebellion taking hold and the assassination of JFK casting a pall over America, the Beatles might not have become popular at all.

Michael Savage was the most radical thing to come to KGO/KSFO in ages, probably forever. I remember when he began. His stuff totally blew me away. He appealed to the Howard Beale in us, the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" sentiment. But in the past past dozen years, the audience has come around and has embraced the Michael Savage style.

There has been a remarkable shift in American sensibilities in this past dozen years. People are no longer lauded for their civil discourse; it's now considered proper to blow up at anyone and everyone. People don't talk about road rage anymore; they simply accept it. People don't get outraged at witnessing a shooting (like the kid who was killed in front of hundreds of people at the Metreon in SF the other day). They just accept that you don't dis someone in line, or you'll suffer the consequences. Michael Savage's style plays right into that road rage mentality, but I don't think his style would have worked 20 years ago, when America was a more civilized place. Accidents of time and circumstance.
 
There has been a remarkable shift in American sensibilities in this past dozen years. People are no longer lauded for their civil discourse; it's now considered proper to blow up at anyone and everyone. People don't talk about road rage anymore; they simply accept it. People don't get outraged at witnessing a shooting (like the kid who was killed in front of hundreds of people at the Metreon in SF the other day). They just accept that you don't dis someone in line, or you'll suffer the consequences. Michael Savage's style plays right into that road rage mentality, but I don't think his style would have worked 20 years ago, when America was a more civilized place. Accidents of time and circumstance.



[/quote]

Unfortunately, I think you have to go much farther back than 20 years.
 
"At the time Benner worked there he was an impatient 22-year old; he was a loose canon, chomping at the bit, ready to go big-time but not really having the experience or self-discipline quite yet. He did do some good interviews for the Concord Summer Jazz Festival, and he did mornings for awhile.

But, all in all, KWUN made money with a 500 watt signal that blanketed Walnut Creek but couldn't be heard in parts of Concord or at all in Antioch. (Yet, Adler still managed to sell time to County East Mall out there!)

Now, I can't comment on the Coleman/Buery days -- that's a whole other kettle..."


You're right about Tom Benner. He didn't like the ownership there. I could comment on the last owners, but suffice it to say they had an outhouse....
 
Tom_KYA1260 said:
You're right about Tom Benner. He didn't like the ownership there. I could comment on the last owners, but suffice it to say they had an outhouse....
Click to expand...

In ye olden days talent got uppity about management, thinking that they knew all there was to know about broadcasting: you turn on a mic and said clever things and people listened and the station was therefore supposed to be a success, and how stupid management is when they let talent go. Today, of course, there's less of that given that there are fewer jobs out there and people (not only talent, but the man/woman on the street) understand demographics. Some even understand that market trends and other business factors that can lead to "strange" management decisions.

I admired Bill Adler of KWUN because he took an absolutely loser facility and managed to make a profit with the place. He was the only owner I'm aware of who ever made a dime on the place. Heck, at one point the station had 12 employees -- when it was still a daytimer!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom