Soon! The coming Talk Radio tsunami...

[cabradio]

Yes, but consider the reference point. TEA Parties?!?

Now, if you want a more stylish example of "get[ting] people excited and get[ting] them to participate when you make the reason exciting and give them the tools and support", just look at the Obama presidential campaign, "HOPE" posters and all.

Yet, it's TEA Parties you choose to reference.

That's exactly what I mean by an "ugly cultural-jig-is-up wrong side of everything these days".

LOL...I guess it depends on what you consider positive. And since this about RADIO, not POLITICS, I don't care to get into it. I was simply using a RECENT example of people getting excited over something that really isn't (Taxes).

If people can get excited over an unknown like Susan Boyle (Britain's Got Talent), I think there is plenty of room for more talented "unknowns"...Just let the listeners know!

 

[TheBigA]

If people can get excited over an unknown like Susan Boyle (Britain's Got Talent), I think there is plenty of room for more talented "unknowns"...Just let the listeners know!

The value is in controlling the quantity. The mistake the record labels made was lowering the talent bar for getting a contract. Now there are ten times as many recording artists as there once was. Once that happened, recorded music no longer had the value it once did. Same with amateurs. As long as it's just one frumpy virgin from England, it's a story. The minute all her neighbors show up twittering like birds, and they bring their friends, it's no longer a story, and it's just more white noise.

 

[cabradio]

The value is in controlling the quantity. The mistake the record labels made was lowering the talent bar for getting a contract. Now there are ten times as many recording artists as there once was. Once that happened, recorded music no longer had the value it once did. Same with amateurs. As long as it's just one frumpy virgin from England, it's a story. The minute all her neighbors show up twittering like birds, and they bring their friends, it's no longer a story, and it's just more white noise.

I doubt quantity would seriously be an issue. There seems to be an incredible amount of crap on the radio these days that labels push through, meanwhile you can pick up really good music on sites like GarageBand.com or even on MySpace.com.

I've come into contact with many talented folk that labels overlook, maybe because they are wading through even more crap on their end and as time is a limiting factor, they never get around to listening to the good stuff.

This is why I suggest stations use Social Media and their listeners to help find the gems, the true talent. Local radio should have a certain percentage of it's content to be LOCAL to the area, or region anyway. Will you end up with some mediocre stuff? Sure, but I'm sure most of the mediocre stuff would be better than the crap that is in a high repetitive rotation now!

 

[TheBigA]

There seems to be an incredible amount of crap on the radio these days that labels push through, meanwhile you can pick up really good music on sites like GarageBand.com or even on MySpace.com.

People love crap. McDonalds and Wal Mart prove it every day. If quality was the issue, do you really think those rap stars would be so rich? Come on! Quality doesn't matter. Every Christmas, it never fails. I hear "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer" and that dog barking Jingle Bells. It's terrible, and people love it! Same with Barry Manilow, Debbie Boone, and Billy Ray Cyrus.

 

[cabradio]

People love crap. McDonalds and Wal Mart prove it every day. If quality was the issue, do you really think those rap stars would be so rich? Come on! Quality doesn't matter. Every Christmas, it never fails. I hear "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer" and that dog barking Jingle Bells. It's terrible, and people love it! Same with Barry Manilow, Debbie Boone, and Billy Ray Cyrus.

LOL, my kids love cake. It tastes good but isn't good for them so I don't give it to them all the time. On the other hand, they also love vegetables which ARE good for them and they get vegies every day. What I am saying is that while people may love crap, they also like good things. And if you give them good things instead of crap, they will consume it too!

 

[Holland Cooke]

Too late!

If people can get excited over an unknown like Susan Boyle (Britain's Got Talent), I think there is plenty of room for more talented "unknowns"...Just let the listeners know!

Too late!
They already know WITHOUT radio.
Susan Boyle went 'round-the-world on YouTube...THEN, TV picked-up the story.

A senior William Morris Agency executive speaking at last week's NAB convention in Vegas said "EVERY major record label has a deal on the table" for Boyle. And radio had nothing to do with it.

Music radio is mature.

 

[adma]

I've come into contact with many talented folk that labels overlook, maybe because they are wading through even more crap on their end and as time is a limiting factor, they never get around to listening to the good stuff.

This is why I suggest stations use Social Media and their listeners to help find the gems, the true talent. Local radio should have a certain percentage of it's content to be LOCAL to the area, or region anyway. Will you end up with some mediocre stuff? Sure, but I'm sure most of the mediocre stuff would be better than the crap that is in a high repetitive rotation now!

But, as that previous post said: "Too late! They already know WITHOUT radio." In practice, you're offering a superfluous middleman whose only real raison d'etre is that it used to be the central outlet.

And again, if you're going to use TEA Parties as a cultural benchmark for motivating people, I'm not sure if I'd trust your judgment on "talented folk" or "gems". (Remember: politics aside, part of the Obama campaign magic was that it was stylish. And as Bill Paley at CBS would've told you, stylish corporate branding is everything, even when you're hawking the Beverly Hillbillies.)

 

[cabradio]

Too late!
They already know WITHOUT radio.
Susan Boyle went 'round-the-world on YouTube...THEN, TV picked-up the story.

A senior William Morris Agency executive speaking at last week's NAB convention in Vegas said "EVERY major record label has a deal on the table" for Boyle. And radio had nothing to do with it.

Music radio is mature.

I've said that already: The labels need to understand people don't NEED radio to get music (new or old) anymore. So gee, I wonder WHY Susan Boyle "went round-the-world" without Radio....Um, that would be because radio doesn't take risks anymore! That is the whole point here. When (yes, I said WHEN) Radio comes back around and starts playing more "unsigned" artists, instead of "represented" artists, people will hear more of the "Susan Boyles" via the Radio. All Radio has to do is take control back from the RIAA, labels. et al. Imagine how Metallica and U2 would feel when they get a memo that their entire catalogs have been dropped and will no longer be aired? How fast would their attorneys be on the phone ready to sign "royalty waivers". Look what happened with the Dixie Chicks when Clear Channel stopped playing them.

But, as that previous post said: "Too late! They already know WITHOUT radio." In practice, you're offering a superfluous middleman whose only real raison d'etre is that it used to be the central outlet.

Radio is only a middleman when people like yourself sell it that way. Radio can still be a major player in the Social Media world. It is a matter of adapting. Radio cannot continue to behave like it is 1950, 1970, 1990 or even 2000! The rules of engagement have changed. Radio is about CONTENT. It is not the means of delivery. Once people get over the "transmitter to receiver" as the ONLY definition for what Radio is or can be, there will be a nice paradigm shift and people will once again embrace Radio.

And again, if you're going to use TEA Parties as a cultural benchmark for motivating people, I'm not sure if I'd trust your judgment on "talented folk" or "gems". (Remember: politics aside, part of the Obama campaign magic was that it was stylish. And as Bill Paley at CBS would've told you, stylish corporate branding is everything, even when you're hawking the Beverly Hillbillies.)

No one is asking "you" to trust my judgment. I have nothing to prove to you. You are one of these people that stuck on specifics. Obama only fooled 52% of the people. You make it sound like he won the popular vote by a larger margin. Don't use the electorate as the basis for public opinion. He also spent nearly twice as much as McCain did to "sway" that 3% that gave him the advantage in the popular vote. So, Obama's "brand" really wasn't THAT impressive.

"Style" is also a matter of opinion. Susan Boyle didn't have "style" and still managed to woo people with actual talent, substance. Something Obama lacks. And, you do know what "magic" is right? It is slight of hand. So, following YOUR aspect of the analogy ALL the way through...when reality sets in, when people see the "magic" for what it is, they will not be happy with Obama, because they will realize he is a phony. However the Tea Parties will have been the momentum starter to bring things back into equilibrium. Real people, real solutions, real change, real progress. It took Obama 1 & 1/2 years to gain a sizable "following", where as the Tea Party campaign took weeks. Which campaign would I rather use as an example? Mine.

It is up to Radio Folks to educate the public on the royalty fee issue. Radio stations should give a seminar to their employees to arm them with accurate facts and information that they can then take to the airwaves and talk about. Websites should have information about the issue prominently displayed with widgets, polls, and other sharing tools to garner public interest. It needs to be a fun and positive message though. Don't bash the RIAA or record labels on the air...just give the listening audience some perspective of what is going on.

"This minute of silence is brought to you by this station, because it is cheaper than paying the RIAA a royalty fee to play a song. If we do this once per hour we will save $x per year!" or "This unsigned local band is brought to you for free by this station because if we play Lady Ga Ga we'd have to pay the RIAA x cents. And quite frankly we don't want to pass that cost on to our advertisers, which will in turn pass that cost on to you, in essence making you pay to listen to us! Absurd."

There are fun ways of doing this...

 

[gr8oldies]

Problem is with Susan Boyle, even if radio had suddenly got on board with her, she's not going to stay an unsigned artist longer than five more minutes. If somehow there is a top 40 created with all unsigned artists, they'll be signed before their songs ever reach recurrent stage. Again, what about oldies, classic hits and other formats that depend on catalog product. Can you really turn an oldies station into an "all unfamiliar, all the time" format and not go to less than a one share overnight? I agree radio needs to fight the royalty issue, but there are going to be a lot of radio stations stuck between a rock and a hard place if the royalties happen.

 

[pocket-radio]

"It is up to Radio Folks to educate the public on the royalty fee issue"

You actually think listeners care?

Radio is still free so why would anyone care? And if listeners don't like the song playing, it's easy enough just to hit scan. surf the web, play music from your ipod, listen to satellite radio..

Actually free music is everyplace today, playing music isn't a rare commodity anymore..

Hello national talk repeaters...

 

[TheBigA]

Um, that would be because radio doesn't take risks anymore! That is the whole point here.

"Anymore?" Radio NEVER took any risks. They wouldn't have played the Beatles had it not been for Ed Sullivan.

I think the labels already understand that. That's why they love the internet. Except when people use it to steal music.

As I said, the charm of Susan Boyle is that she's the only one right now. She's the flavor of the month. You try to duplicate that, and have a bunch of copycat frumpy virgins, and it'll get tired very quickly. Just as people got tired of the Backstreet Boys.

Look what happened with the Dixie Chicks when Clear Channel stopped playing them.

FYI, Clear Channel never stopped playing the Dixie Chicks. In fact some CC stations (like the one in Minneapolis) still play them. The idea that there was some corporate directive from CC is a myth. It never happened.

 

[cabradio]

"Anymore?" Radio NEVER took any risks. They wouldn't have played the Beatles had it not been for Ed Sullivan.

HUH? Get your facts right...Radio WAS playing the Beatles BEFORE their appearance on Ed Sullivan: FACT CHECK 1 :: FACT CHECK 2. How else would he have had all those screaming girls in studio anticipating them? Newspaper or magazines can't create that kind of excitement. Radio was, and still is in many cases, the source for new music, not TV. So, of course Radio has taken risks. To say it hasn't is very ignorant. Every time radio plays a song, there is a risk involved. You will lose some listeners and you will gain some.

I think the labels already understand that. That's why they love the internet. Except when people use it to steal music.

They love the Internet because so many "stations" are independent without a budget for lawyers.

As I said, the charm of Susan Boyle is that she's the only one right now. She's the flavor of the month. You try to duplicate that, and have a bunch of copycat frumpy virgins, and it'll get tired very quickly. Just as people got tired of the Backstreet Boys.

Every year there is a new Susan Boyle. Last year was the Opera singer, etc, etc. People don't get tired of it and the TV popularity proves it. Get out of the box!

Look what happened with the Dixie Chicks when Clear Channel stopped playing them.

FYI, Clear Channel never stopped playing the Dixie Chicks. In fact some CC stations (like the one in Minneapolis) still play them. The idea that there was some corporate directive from CC is a myth. It never happened.

Again: FACT CHECK 1 :: FACT CHECK 2 :: FACT CHECK 3 :: FACT CHECK 4

If the directive was a myth, you wouldn't have reputable organizations reporting it as fact, with no retraction. Of course the ban may not have been a "corporate directive", and maybe not ALL CC stations participated, but a good many did and it caused people to realize the power of radio, the power of one company. The ban has since been lifted, of course. No one would be foolish to believe otherwise and the ban wasn't long...but the point is that if Radio is unified, it can make change happen. It won't happen with a dozen stations. It has to be most if not ALL stations.

 

[cabradio]

"It is up to Radio Folks to educate the public on the royalty fee issue"

You actually think listeners care?

Radio is still free so why would anyone care? And if listeners don't like the song playing, it's easy enough just to hit scan. surf the web, play music from your ipod, listen to satellite radio..

Actually free music is everyplace today, playing music isn't a rare commodity anymore..

Hello national talk repeaters...

Umm...how can they care when people like you are making such a broad assumption that they wouldn't or don't?

Instead of spending so much time on celebrity gossip, and dissing this celebrity for what they wear, or that star for who they are dating, get some balls and talk about the fate of the station! It only takes a few minutes a day...otherwise you'll ALL be out of jobs. It's a matter of common sense, your own survival! But hey, if YOU don't care....what ev! Stop complaining about the state of the industry, when you aren't willing to do something about it!

 

[gr8oldies]

I believe it was Cumulus who had the corporate directive. Individual CC (as well as Cox and probably others) dropped the Chicks.

Stations that depend on catalog product darn well should talk about the royalty issue; however with the current climate (business is evil, government is good) it may just be seen as a greedy corporation trying not to pay artists their just due (would Dee Dee Sharp finally make some money from Mashed Potato Time?)

 

[TheBigA]

HUH? Get your facts right...Radio WAS playing the Beatles BEFORE their appearance on Ed Sullivan:

OK...one week before Ed Sullivan, they started playing their records. Until then, no.

Please Please Me was released in 2/63 and didn't chart. From Me To You was released in May 63 and peaked at #116. She Loves You was released in September 1963 and was literally going nowhere until it was mysteriously re-released one week before the Sullivan debut, and it went to #1. Hmmm. Was radio taking chances? Or was the fix in? Depends on who you read.

The article you quote (twice, but it's the same article by the same writer) is not very specific when the airplay began. But the facts don't lie. Rick Sklar of WABC admits as much in his book "Rocking America." "First reports of the hysteria generated in England by a group called The Beatles were greeted with skepticism by an American radio industry numb from years of record company hype." So there you have it. Skeptical radio PDs. Nothing new there. The grunge movement was greeted with the same skepticism 20 years ago.

The Beatles appeared several times on Sullivan in the winter of 1964. Prior to one appearance, they held a press conference in NYC. One reporter asked them, "To what do you owe your success?" And John said clearly, "A good press agent." He was correct.

If the directive was a myth, you wouldn't have reputable organizations reporting it as fact, with no retraction.

Reputable organizations? Come on. Let's take your "fact checks" one by one.

The first article was very specific to two stations in Jacksonville, home to 3 huge Navy bases. No directive from the company. Just a local decision by a local PD. The second article is a blog. No facts there. He cites a documentary which was made by the Chicks. How balanced do you think it was? Your third article was a re-print of the first.

The fourth article says, "Alan Sledge of Clear Channel Radio would like to make it clear that there's no ban at his company, as has been rumored. ''It was very important to let our radio stations know that we as a company did not want to be in a position of censoring,'' he says. ''Therefore we encouraged our stations to continue playing the Dixie Chicks at the time the story broke. We did not want to react emotionally. We wanted to be patriotic but not political. Three or four days after it broke, we felt it was appropriate to allow stations to make their own local decisions.''

So there you have it. I checked the facts, and as I said, the idea that there was a CC corporate directive is a myth.

 

[adma]

And again, if you're going to use TEA Parties as a cultural benchmark for motivating people, I'm not sure if I'd trust your judgment on "talented folk" or "gems". (Remember: politics aside, part of the Obama campaign magic was that it was stylish. And as Bill Paley at CBS would've told you, stylish corporate branding is everything, even when you're hawking the Beverly Hillbillies.)

No one is asking "you" to trust my judgment. I have nothing to prove to you. You are one of these people that stuck on specifics. Obama only fooled 52% of the people. You make it sound like he won the popular vote by a larger margin. Don't use the electorate as the basis for public opinion. He also spent nearly twice as much as McCain did to "sway" that 3% that gave him the advantage in the popular vote. So, Obama's "brand" really wasn't THAT impressive.

"Style" is also a matter of opinion. Susan Boyle didn't have "style" and still managed to woo people with actual talent, substance. Something Obama lacks. And, you do know what "magic" is right? It is slight of hand. So, following YOUR aspect of the analogy ALL the way through...when reality sets in, when people see the "magic" for what it is, they will not be happy with Obama, because they will realize he is a phony. However the Tea Parties will have been the momentum starter to bring things back into equilibrium. Real people, real solutions, real change, real progress. It took Obama 1 & 1/2 years to gain a sizable "following", where as the Tea Party campaign took weeks. Which campaign would I rather use as an example? Mine.

Uh...yeah. Notice that I highlighted the weasel word "people". Yeah, sure. Blubbering malformed silent-majority dregs as an ideal to aspire to. You might as well be cheerleading the art of Thomas Kinkade while you're at it.

You're truly a reason why radio's dug itself into the cultural pit it's in.

 

[Board Editor]

MOVED: TIO: Soon! The coming Talk Radio tsunami...

Some posts in this thread have been moved to Take It Outside.

[iurl=http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=125486.0]http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=125486.0[/iurl]

 

[adma]

...and re those Take It Outside posts, I rest my case. Given these crackpot theories questioning Obama's legitimate claim to the presidency, one might as well be uncritically hailing Father Coughlin as the best of what radio's offered through the decades.

Look: if that Charlie Profit-esque scenario (on top of the Dixie Chicks thing) was the kind of cultural reality radio reflected in the 60s, then, yes, maybe radio might have fortuitously "discovered" the Beatles--but would have dropped them like a hot potato after John Lennon's "bigger than Jesus" comment, and everything from Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields onward would have fallen into the US domestic margins occupied by, say, Syd Barrett-era Pink Floyd. For that matter, what's so necessarily *un*-Obamaesque about Beatlemania? Some might argue that even *its* mythic quality, and that of the "rock era" in general, was a hyped-up artifice camoflauging the fact that for an awful lot of lot of 60s Middle America, the name "Lennon" primarily denoted "Sisters", not "John". Re the actual mass/popular/whatever culture of the era, things aren't as pure as they seem.

And re Beatlemania reflecting radio's music-breaking role at its best--look, that was 45 years ago now. It burst onto US shores at the time Sarah Palin was born! Things have changed since then. Back then, radio *owned* rock-centric youth culture while, notwithstanding "American Bandstand" or the impending world of Shindig and Hullabaloo (or the Midnight Special element in the 70s), TV was generally viewed as the "square" medium where you had to squint through the Topo Gigio and Senor Wences to get to the Beatles and the Stones. That was long before MTV and everything thereafter changed the paradigm.

And sure, one may hail radio's role in spurring Beatlemania--but what I'd like to offer by way of contrast was what was perhaps the AM Top 40 universe's last, most blatant, and most ill-fated attempt at recreating that Beatlemania magic: the Bay City Rollers.

And I'm not exactly making fun of Rollermania--in fact, if you were a true Top 40 acolyte in 1976, may I say that it was genuinely thrilling in that 1964-all-over-again way to hear one's local station ride those Rollermania waves. It was, in its way, "radio at its best"--at least superficially. But upon closer inspection, the desperate obviousness of the Beatlemania recall was macabre; and then there was the problem that it didn't convince anyone other than somewhat dim teen/tween/pretween girls and uncritical Top 40 radio diehards. Otherwise, Rollermania was an overhyped, embarrassing joke that, other than the #1 "Saturday Night", wasn't the Billboard-chart success it pretended to be; and as a consequence, it probably helped accelerate the demise (or at least, retirement into ACdom) of ye olde AM Top 40 cultural universe. In the end, when it came to Bicentennial musical-superstar phenomena, Peter Frampton more genuinely embodied what the Bay City Rollers failed at being; and even if Framptonmania, too, ultimately buckled under its own top-heaviness, it still "made more sense", heralding the youth-musical paradigm shift from AM to FM et al.

As I see it, judging by the overhype from certain elements of the media as well as reported underattendance and murmurs of "Astroturfing", TEA Parties have more in common with Rollermania than Beatlemania.

 

[Holland Cooke]

To those Taken-Outside...

WEAR IT LIKE A PROUD BADGE!
Like getting-sent-to the Principal's office in junior high school.
Take a bow.

 

[cabradio]

hmm...according to this article written in response to this study, listeners like indie music and want more of it despite radio's allegiance to the labels. INTERESTING.