> > Why do you have to be so mean to each other?
> >
> > There's some really mean people here and on Lisa Wood's
> > blog, (which you know I am a fan of) and I'm sure that
> > "Wooddespiser" is from this board also.
> >
> > I have actually learned A LOT about radio from the stuff
> > here, it just seems like it's more BS than news and it's a
>
> > pain to wade through all of the insults (does anyone else
> > feel this way?).
> >
> > I also wonder why it's ok here to bash on certain people,
> > but others and the entire post gets deleted? That should
> be
> > an across the board rule.
> >
> > I enjoy reading the radio related things here, I just
> wonder
> > why it has to be so hard for everyone to get along?
>
Speaking as a listener, Larry's got the right idea about the current state of radio.
> I think it has a lot to do with certain assumed
> "professionals" in this biz. The real professionals can see
> the validity in Lisa's blog, even if they don't agree with
> everything she says whereas the assumed ones are so insecure
> with themselves and their careers that they depend on
> technology and worn out formulas that have changed little
> since the 1980s. Many of them have lost whatever creative
> spark they may have had and see radio strictly as a numbers
> game. Meanwhile, the radio has turned into aural wallpaper.
> And in the age of Wi-Fi, iPods and fast MP3 downloads,
> that's not good. Or smart.
>
> There are those of us who think local radio deserves and in
> fact, needs to evolve a little bit more rapidly than this.
> The JACK concept of a huge playlist was a bold step in the
> right direction, but the snotty voice over is annoying as
> ever and it won't serve the JACKs forever.
>
> HD Radio won't do a damn thing to reverse the decline of
> terrestrial radio until some serious use is made of those
> sub-channels as well as the main one. I firmly believe the
> salvation of local radio depends on local personalities and
> for all the $$$ in sheer profit the radio industry raked in
> yearly during the late '90s, there should be far more radio
> jobs. Again, we run into the cronies on top who are more
> concerned with lining their wallets than creating innovative
> local radio. They wanted more and more stations, to hell
> with changing technology and a rise in the sophistication of
> radio listeners to seriously want to make use of this new
> stuff. Let's face it, if people were so content with radio
> as-it-is, XM, Sirius, DMX, web radio and other radio
> alternatives wouldn't be anywhere near as mainstream as they
> are now. And that's the cold hard truth.
>
> Radio can be saved and still be a relevant force 10 years
> from now. But in order to do that, it needs a hell of a lot
> more local leaders than national followers. And a lot more
> than just a back alley facelift on the conventional pop/rock
> formats. I believe there are people who can do that, but it
> seems like they are always stymied by our assumed
> "professionals". I guess, like I said, they really are
> scared for their jobs and really have no better ideas. So
> they go to the next to last refuge for scoundrels-numbers.
>
> And finally, there's the FCC (a service of Clear Channel
> Entertainment.) The FCC and it's appointed power that be of
> the Bush administration needs to keep their mitts off the
> programming end of radio. Explicit talk/lyrics have been
> broadcast for decades on European, Australian and Canadian
> radio stations. Their kids pretty much turned out OK. Radio
> needs to have an edge in an increasingly edgier society. The
> broadcast TV industry has had to learn that from cable. The
> radio industry needs to learn from it's alternative
> competition and overseas stations finding popularity via the
> internet. When Wi-Fi really takes off and hi-fi internet
> radio becomes truly portable, rendering the Podcast to the
> same heap as the cassette single, terrestrial radio will
> have no other choice if it wants to stay a major player.
>
> KEXP (yes, this is a praise) does this remarkably well for
> it's format and uses it's available technology to it's
> fullest potential, being able to serve both a local and
> international audience. I think the same concept can be
> applied to any radio format. KEXP has a very strong local
> listenership for a non-com. And a large international
> audience. They remain consistant with tailoring a local
> identity to their format that appeals to their local
> audience, which doesn't sound like anything their internet
> listener's stations locally sound. It's an aural vacation to
> the Emerald City.
>
> And it's hard not to notice the difference. Many of their
> internet listeners have excellent alternative college/public
> stations where they live, some with almost similar formats.
> But KEXP brings something different to the table. I thought
> about this the other night and wondered. I've done a lot of
> listening to stations around the USA and the world and
> noticed a lot of the major commercial rock/pop stations
> sound the same everywhere. The same playlists, the same big
> booming male voice-overs, the same "Mix", "Star", "The
> (Insert Favorite Animal Here)", etc. Just add FM frequency
> and a zany morning zoo. Yawn.
>
> Radio can do better than this.
>
> KEXP is locally programmed and locally influenced. Anyone
> anywhere can hear the same monotonous mix of hits over and
> over again on a Star, Mix or a JACK/BOB wherever they live.
> What would really stand out is if there can be a commercial
> station in Seattle that doesn't sound like the one in
> Portland or San Fransisco, a local flavor to the station's
> sound and music of it's own that hasn't been ripped off by
> everybody and recycled into the ground. That's going to be
> radio's biggest challenge. To end the cookie cutter crap and
> start having a strongly ORIGINAL local identity to their
> formats.
>
>
>
>
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"Always on the move." Obi-Wan Kenobi in Revenge Of the Sith</P>
