• 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

SMOOTH JAZZ IN BLACK AND WHITE

C

cklw800

Guest
On several posts there have been references as to whom the Smooth Jazz format was trying to reach. There's no doubt they wanted the upper class money demo (mostly white). But any genre of music that uses the word "Jazz" will draw a black audience as well because of the historically black association with jazz music. To temper that and attract the money demo, the idea was to use the "mood" music (mostly devoid of ethnicity) and non-ethnic hosts for the most part. For vocals they drew in only the highest charted/testing crossover R&B vocals to give the format some hipness. Some posts said that advertisers were surprised at the number of black audience members and/or the number that show up to some of the venues, especially places like restaurant remotes of Smooth Jazz radio sponsored events. Again, the use of the "J" word and any form of hip music will attract a diverse audience. The format may have been better off as a urban deriviative or better yet stayed with its old new age orientation. As a urban offshoot, listener expectations would not have been so violated. Black and white listeners alike would have appreciated hearing Herbie Hancock's 70s-era music, Roy Ayers and other jazz artists associated with urban music more frequently if at all. In addition some Smooth Jazz stations attempted to get an AC audience by grabbing mostly vocals by Linda Ronstadt, Carly Simon, James Taylor, Phil Collins, Eric Clapton, Bruce Hornsby and the Range and George Michael. But the jazz moniker still brought in listeners who were hoping to hear some wisp of what they were after, and usually got it just enough to stick with the stations for awhile since there were no other choices. Now with Internet and satellite those choices are there. And so many of these posts have directed us to some great jazz radio (not necessarily smooth) sites with the very music we expected from this format. It's made me and apparently many others kind of move away from expecting anything great from radio with this format, helping us to move on. My only problem is access to the sites in my car other than satellite, but an iPod and future technology may resolve that. Folks, we have to embrace new technology like so many other music lovers have. It's painstaking for some who'd rather have the convenience of just turning on the radio, but those days are over. I hope new technology will eventually get us to the point where there's not much labor to getting to enjoy this music while we're mobile and even on the beach (in literal terms, with the sand and water!) :)
 
I just wish RIAA and SoundExchange would leave the people alone who are not making a profit - internet radio hobbyists and podcast producers. The way to get the music heard is to make it available via new outlets. People can't buy it if they don't know it's out there and the way to get it out there is to get it heard. But if you are working for free then you can't pay thousands of dollars to soundexchange and if you charge for your product then you are back in the same realm as the "haven't heard it, not gonna pay for it" wall that artists with new CDs and breaking artists hit every day. If you are profiting then yes, you should be sharing that income but if you are not selling ads or charging listeners then you are doing a service that is helping the artists get their music out there. Even in the context of a downloadable podcast you are whetting their appetite to own more than one track from an artist they discover, and they are going to want to own the tracks without you talking between them so for them to have the track in a podcast doesn't hurt sales or concert attendance, it helps.

Only 1 in 10,000 artists get any radio play and in our genre nobody gets radio play unless they hire a singer or do an oldie. These executives want their golden parachutes when someone catches on and blows them out so they are trying to milk as much money as they can. Songwriters and artists rarely see it, it's going to the label execs who are trying to turn back the clock and need to be put out to pasture if they can't understand the need to embrace rather than fighting the new technology.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom