Payola's Dead...

[neo11]

And to be honest, in all these posts, I'm addressing you rhetorically--but in reality, I'm directing myself more at those garden-variety "radio sucks" posters who're so fond of pestering you, because all too often it's like they're offering 1979/89/99-style gripes in 2009...

I'm assuming you're referring to me?

 

[adma]

More generic.

 

[davideduardo]

Well, maybe it's that TV, internet, and print are viewed as "stylish", whereas radio is viewed as the retrograde, malformed domain of ugly rednecks and imbeciles--the Rush Limbaugh medium, you know.

Print, with few exceptions, is not viewed as stylish. There are a few magazines that have an ephemeral moment in the spotlight, and no newspapers and such.

TV may have a few channels, all cable, and a few shows, but is also mostly "traditional media." Video on demand, Blu-ray, etc., are stylish.

AM is not stylish. That is where Rush is... under-40's don't use AM, and under 25's hardly know it exist. FM, depending on taste, can be stylish or not.

The internet is cool because it is customizable. No conventional station is customizable, just selectable.

 

[adma]

Labels are big fat foreign conglomerates who are looking to save money. They see radio as one thing: A means to sell their new music. In the process, labels have forgotten how to do artist development, A&R, and promotion. This isn't a new problem, but began 20 years ago. So now you have a bunch of new artists who don't have any direction, who just walk on to TV shows like Leno or Letterman with no game plan other than to do whatever they want for 3 minutes. No set up and no follow through. And they wonder why no one buys their records any more.

To return to this quote, I've been considering what TheBigA's said about the country realm being an exception in that it still "invests" in radio exposure...and what happened 20 years ago? A quiet revolution in mass musical taste that became clear once Billboard switched to Soundscan: country usurped pop. Garth Brooks became the new Elvis. And rather radically, it did so with no pretension to pop crossover whatsoever. It didn't need "pop radio", CHR et al, to assert its importance for a sizeable mass demographic...yet it proved a more satisfying "contemporary" realm for many of those who *once* might have been faithful pop radio listeners.

Yet the label bigwigs and Future of Music Coalition types never "understood" the country revolution. It wasn't "boutique" enough; and by breaking from the tastemakers' long-held pop/R&B synergy model, it even seemed borderline white supremacist. For a while in the early 90s there was an attempt made, with big-city "New Country" stations et al, to market it as something compatible with hip trendy urbanity; but that effort fell flat on its face because, at heart, the revolution was anti-hip, anti-trendy, and--yes--anti-urban. Which is why country in markets like NYC has been AWOL ever since.

But otherwise, as a realm where mas appeal radio still "made sense" the way it used to, country turned out to be the perfect musical pendant to conservative talk. I remember hearing national country countdowns in the 90s and finding them more "authentic", in a bygone Casey Kasem way, than the macabre Dorian Grey affairs that Kasem/Dees/Shadoe were doleing out by that time--even if, musically speaking, I wanted to identify more with the latter. (Sort of similar, I suppose, to those repeated arguments about why conservative talk "worked" and liberal talk didn't.) And it was a realm where, one assumes, there was far less rumbling about it "sucking" than with rock and pop radio--generally speaking, country listeners were satisfied with their lot.

Even in recent times, compare among Idol winners, Carrie Underwood's serene country-oriented career path to Kelly Clarkson's tumultuous pop-oriented career path, and you'll see what I mean.

So, maybe when it comes to "the masses", the big shots have been barking up the wrong tree all this time--though admittedly, it's what passes for "the masses" in the post-monocultural, multitechnological era. And as for the other, more boutique-y side, hey, if Neko Case can debut at #3 on Billboard, it isn't like it's a nobody-cares wasteland--and I suppose subliminally taking a cue from the country "quiet revolution" 20 years ago, she doesn't need an old-style pop radio "breakthrough" hit to affirm her stature, either. (Indeed, a Katy Perry-esque "pop hit" would probably wind up trivializing her.)

 

[TheBigA]

Yet the label bigwigs and Future of Music Coalition types never "understood" the country revolution.

Not only that...they instead came up with something called "Alt Country." That's what the FMC is promoting. It is basically anything that country radio doesn't play, from bluegrass to roots rock to guys like Robert Plant & bluegrasser Alison Krauss. THAT was a match made in FMC heaven.

The FMC wants to force this stuff on the public, and get the FCC to require radio stations to play music regardless of popularity. They're going to use the government's "diversity" agenda to force it through.

At the same time, they are supporting the major labels' called for a performance royalty, to tax radio stations a percentage of their revenue (not profit) in order for the right to play their music.

So let's add it up: The labels make music that is diminishing in popularity, as evidenced by sales and download figures. They make music that appeals to narrow audiences instead of mass audiences. And at the same time, they want to get a chunk of radio revenue. So on the one hand, their music is hurting revenues, and they now want a percentage of that declining revenue. If you're running a radio station, and you see you're about to be screwed from two sides at once, what do you do? Discuss among yourselves.

 

[adma]

Yet the label bigwigs and Future of Music Coalition types never "understood" the country revolution.

Not only that...they instead came up with something called "Alt Country." That's what the FMC is promoting. It is basically anything that country radio doesn't play, from bluegrass to roots rock to guys like Robert Plant & bluegrasser Alison Krauss. THAT was a match made in FMC heaven.

Plus, of course, the Neko Case example I mentioned above. Though as I also indicated, we've come to the point where such artists can top the charts on their own *without* conventional radio airplay--and probably, all the better for it.

The FMC wants to force this stuff on the public, and get the FCC to require radio stations to play music regardless of popularity. They're going to use the government's "diversity" agenda to force it through.

So? Diversity is good. Nothing like a bunch of talk-radio redneck bigots to get one reflexively supporting diversity.

But I do sorta agree with you, but in a more passive sense: that is, in an age of downloads and multiple avenues, "why bother"? Take a cue from how the Obama presidential campaign worked around rather than reacted to talk radio, because strategically speaking, conservative talk isn't even worth reacting to. Just bloated buffoons spewing; let'em stew. And commercial country radio is fine as it is, out of sight, out of mind.

At the same time, they are supporting the major labels' called for a performance royalty, to tax radio stations a percentage of their revenue (not profit) in order for the right to play their music.

So let's add it up: The labels make music that is diminishing in popularity, as evidenced by sales and download figures. They make music that appeals to narrow audiences instead of mass audiences.

Actually, this "narrow audience" music is *more* popular than it might have been a decade or two ago--and more so for "not needing" radio. Of course, it isn't Thriller-scale popularity; but maybe we've outgrown that need.

It's not the Neko Cases or Plant/Krausses who are suffering. It's the Kelly Clarkson-type acts who might have succeeded better under the old pop-radio-based model. *That's* what's bringing down revenues: the looming, tattered remains of that particular old model. Pop Radio Potemkin.

And that's what I mean by the FMC not necessarily getting much sympathy from the *other* end, either; basically, they're viewed as the same old wheezy boomers staggering under the dead weight of their own bloated legacy. They're preoccupied with radio because, back in the 60s and 70s and 80s, *everyone* into pop/rock/whatever was preoccupied with radio--as opposed to today's youngsters who don't give a fig about radio, and aren't even so "into pop/rock/whatever" the way their parents might have been--at least on anything but a free-form downloading scale.

And at the same time, they want to get a chunk of radio revenue. So on the one hand, their music is hurting revenues, and they now want a percentage of that declining revenue. If you're running a radio station, and you see you're about to be screwed from two sides at once, what do you do? Discuss among yourselves.

Boy, I really got you going, did I? Well, I guess this is the music-radio version of the tea-partying desperation among conservative talk radio types. Consider, maybe, that to some extent, you brought that "screwed from two sides at once" onto yourself--and also that whole "mass audiences" may consume your fare, they don't hold any more sympathy t/w the person who runs said radio station than they would t/w a convicted spousal abuser. You're boxed in. Tough.

So, if this means bailing from playing music; well, maybe, as our infinite-download age proves, commercial music radio is overrated and obsolete anyway; or at least confined to very specific realms...