A
AlanShore
Guest
Re: The case for intervening in the 102.5 situation
Outstanding!!!
I only wish I could have said it as well.
Your reply is sort of the Gettysburg Address for Classical Music on Radio.
Thank you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> You're exactly right. Loosing WCRB is completely, utterly
> asinine. What a huge blow for Boston. Can you imagine
> Symphony Hall being torn down for a fast food outlet? This
> is the same thing here.
>
> You know, being an architect, I find it interesting that we
> can, as a society, place legally-binding historical
> designations upon culturally-valuable buildings to prevent
> them from being irradicated by short term greed. If
> architecture is frozen music, and that can be preserved, why
> shouldn't we preserve our conduit for outstanding "liquid"
> music, fine arts radio? If we can prevent a building from
> being torn down, why can't we hold on to culturally-valuable
> radio?
>
> Some may have the urge to reply to this post that radio is
> "of the moment" and that "there are larger audience
> unserved" etc. Here's why that doesn't hold up for this
> case: firstly, almost all other stations are playing "of
> the moment" music. WCRB is playing music that has withstood
> as much as three hundred years of time. This isn't a case
> of classic music having gone out of style--it's never out of
> style. And, of course, the ratings are there.
>
> The argument about 102.5 format being "private property" is
> inherently false. These are public airwaves. If we can
> regulate the aesthetic content of buildings in Back Bay,
> their beauty transmitted to our eyes thru the public air by
> waves of light, then the Boston public should have control
> over the waves of sound that bring them the aesthetics of
> their culturally sustainable radio station.
>
> The argument about 102.5 "not making as much money as it
> could" is unsound as well, when you consider how much one
> could make by lining the Charles River with high-rise
> condos...yet we don't allow it, for the common aesthetic
> good. We, as well as future generations, should all have an
> opportunity to enjoy Boston's beauty, and WCRB is as much an
> integral part of that as is the Esplanade on a Fourth of
> July night.
>
Outstanding!!!
I only wish I could have said it as well.
Your reply is sort of the Gettysburg Address for Classical Music on Radio.
Thank you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> You're exactly right. Loosing WCRB is completely, utterly
> asinine. What a huge blow for Boston. Can you imagine
> Symphony Hall being torn down for a fast food outlet? This
> is the same thing here.
>
> You know, being an architect, I find it interesting that we
> can, as a society, place legally-binding historical
> designations upon culturally-valuable buildings to prevent
> them from being irradicated by short term greed. If
> architecture is frozen music, and that can be preserved, why
> shouldn't we preserve our conduit for outstanding "liquid"
> music, fine arts radio? If we can prevent a building from
> being torn down, why can't we hold on to culturally-valuable
> radio?
>
> Some may have the urge to reply to this post that radio is
> "of the moment" and that "there are larger audience
> unserved" etc. Here's why that doesn't hold up for this
> case: firstly, almost all other stations are playing "of
> the moment" music. WCRB is playing music that has withstood
> as much as three hundred years of time. This isn't a case
> of classic music having gone out of style--it's never out of
> style. And, of course, the ratings are there.
>
> The argument about 102.5 format being "private property" is
> inherently false. These are public airwaves. If we can
> regulate the aesthetic content of buildings in Back Bay,
> their beauty transmitted to our eyes thru the public air by
> waves of light, then the Boston public should have control
> over the waves of sound that bring them the aesthetics of
> their culturally sustainable radio station.
>
> The argument about 102.5 "not making as much money as it
> could" is unsound as well, when you consider how much one
> could make by lining the Charles River with high-rise
> condos...yet we don't allow it, for the common aesthetic
> good. We, as well as future generations, should all have an
> opportunity to enjoy Boston's beauty, and WCRB is as much an
> integral part of that as is the Esplanade on a Fourth of
> July night.
>