🚀 go-pugleaf

gbfmif wrote:

> Well, other than the fact that it appears to be just the three of us debating this, I
> must say both of you have confused me to a degree. Steve, read your response and Tom,
> read yours. My initial reaction was that in many ways you seem to be in violent
> agreement, though both express this congruence (from my view) in non congruent forms. I
> will respond below and cut in text from your response at the end Steve.
>
> Tom Hendricks wrote:
>
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> > > gbfmif wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well Steve, actually, I like some (not all) of "French rock", then again, I
> > > > like only some, not all, of current "American rock" (to be honest, not real
> > > > sure what that is anymore however) - though recently, most of what I hear
> > > > identified as rock has odd, to me, similarities in beat, scansion and
> > > > harmonics to songs from the mid to late 60's or very early 70's. (OK - yes I
> > > > am an OLD fart)
> > >
> > > AS am I LOL. back when I was listening to CHOM Montreal, the DJ's, both English
> > > and French Canadian had some very humorous things to say about "French rock", and
> > > they did a lot of apologizing.
>
> Seems to me the point was they played the (dare I use the word - alternative) music for
> whatever reason or compulsion. It may have been bad by and large, however, I found lots
> of songs and artists which I liked (and they may have been bad too), that would not have
> had a prayer of getting airtime, except for the fact that I liked the sound and it was a
> fit with the show I was trying to produce that night. If I were a DJ today, forced to
> play the list, I might also have some humorous and apologetic things to say about what I
> was playing based on my experiences in youth (till they fired me) (Try Pacific Rim rock,
> boy was that an eye opener)
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration comment, I would fully agree with,
> > > > within a somewhat level playing field, which I am not convinced is presently
> > > > the situation (of course, stacking the deck without detection, always wins).
> > > > Never thought a boycott, per se, was viable within today's reality, however,
> > > > have some difficulty with the concept of those with the power own the game
> > > > (Atlas Shrugged comes to mind - though am not sure we have a culture today
> > > > consistent with the ability to enable a John Gault or Hank Reardon view of the
> > > > world and implement those required actions)  Let's be real, you do your trip
> > > > and I am doing mine - I have no interest in saving the world or ending world
> > > > hunger or necessarily boycotting Dallas radio - (though your one liner, "Learn
> > > > to play that game" is cute) "Learn to play that game"  is incredibly
> > > > condescending without basis or substance or substantiation. I just asked a
> > > > simple question, to which you did not answer, so let me ask again, and I
> > > > quote,
> > > >
> > > > would you support a requirement that any
> > > > > > commercial station must play a local artist or a presently "unknown"
> > > > > > artist, whose music falls within their format, at least every 20th
> > > > > > song?
> > >
> > > Not really. I know the airwaves belong "to the people", but market forces
> > > effectively are "the people".
>
> While I work in corporate society (doing quite well thank you - even in this tanked
> market) This caused me to reassess and realize I am (in this context) still basically an
> old anarchist at heart. (fair warning, cynical response on) market forces are what the
> ad agencies and corporate entities create (and the unwashed public allows). As a related
> example, news agencies filter what you see and hear through their market/story/audiance
> potential and ratings potential. (as a worst case example, from a while ago, why do you
> think many "offensives" in Viet Nam were conducted to coincide with reporting on the
> 6:00 US news. - politicks and your government at work) Go watch a news broadcast of a
> "world event"  in - say Japan - then watch the same event reported in the US - then
> watch the same event reported in - lets say Anterwepen - I was hard pressed to correlate
> the same story, never mind which was more "correct or accurate" and real, so the concept
> of market forces being the people is (maybe unfortunately true) a manipulated construct,
> in my view, at best.
>
> >
> >
> > But  the problem is they aren't me or anybody else that is outside of their targeted
> > audience,
> > If you are not a person that advertisers want listening, then you will be
> > marginalized.
>
> What is their format? (what a concept) Who do they want listening? Who is the target
> audience? People who will likely listen to their music format (most of the time without
> changing channel) and buy their advertisers product (whatever it is) based on the
> surveys they conduct and the perceived listener profile for that station which matches
> that target set by the "survey" to which the advertisements are focused (and the ad
> prices set for the station based on another sample of quantity of listeners to the
> station).
>
> Just how many people out there have been involved in one of these surveys which ALL of
> this is based on? (while advertisers are becoming way more sophisticated and subtle, no
> matter how good the ad, they would be hard pressed to get me to buy a product designed
> and targeted for a 16 year old at my advanced years - well, maybe when I am more
> senile.) (sorry - forgot to turn cynical mode off)
>
> >
> > And remember radio is NOT just for corporations to make money. Matter of fact it
> > began
> > with all non commercial radio stations (as did TV). Perhaps a historian out there
> > knows more
> > about this than I do.
>
> Would love to hear a synopsis of TV and radio evolution within the context of this
> discussion
>
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps if someone could show an example of a commercial station that follows
> > > something akin to this format that experiences success because of it, I could be
> > > sold.
>
> Good point Steve, however, I think your base position precludes this from ever
> happening.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Who would "administrate" this policy/program. Would they not be come programming
> > > nazis in their own right?
>
> Agree, bureaucracies become autocracies whenever laws supersede juries. Enforcement is
> not really the issue at this point, though it could become so. Just an FCC directive to
> holders of airwaves license that they will play local or "unknown" (read not label
> funded artists, but artists being independently promoted, maybe by folks like you) at
> least every 20th song provided the material fits within the stations basic format.
>
> >
> > >
> > > As I recall from my promo days, there were several attempts (okay maybe just one
> > > or two) to have Texas-only music shows on some of the area stations. As I recall,
> > > I think they were discontinued. Why is that?
>
> Have no idea, however, all of any one thing is probably not a good idea. (back to the
> news example) If you remember there was an attempt to have an only "good" news station -
> failed miserably. As a counter point, Turners CNN when first launched as a TV version
> of  headline news bites was also panned by almost everyone.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I'm not against the concept of local music, and I do believe that given enough
> > > public demand, the stations might play more of it. I suppose a boycott may be one
> > > way to achieve this, but I doubt it. I believe that if enough listeners
> > > "demanded" more local music, they stations would respond, but I think the
> > > majority really doesn't care - they have CD players in their car LOL.
>
> From my view, you and Tom come into basic agreement here (except on the boycott issue).
> The question seems to be how to have the creation of "public" demand for local or
> "unknown/unfamiliar" (i.e. unpromoted in this context) artist air play time. Is it the
> chicken and egg deal? How to have "public" demand without awareness of the existence of
> this potential. I agree, the majority do not really care, however, lame as it seems,
> most of the mid 60's to early 70's music and artists were no where close to mainstream
> music and air play time at that point. How did they get their starts and air play time?

I've been in agreement so far. Here I'll add something. It's really not a 'public' issue to

get local radio on mainstream radio. I wish it was. The entire industry radio/indy
promotor,
Big 5, are in a 'legal' payola system that will not ever allow local music to get
fairplay/airplay
(just a little dead-air time on Sunday nites at best). Until  Fed regulators or public
outrage,
or the Big 5 get fed up paying all this money, nothing will change.

I really, sincerely, think the system is so rotten that it'll take a lot of pressure to
make it change.
Once a fair system of radio airplay was set up (even one based on popularity - instead of
the
bought airplay system we have now - even that will revolutionize radio. That's why 50's and
60's
musi/radio/recording co's were so dynamic.  There weren't just 5 record companies and a
handfull
of national chain radio stations. There were 1,000's of record companies trying to get
airplay from
1,000's of indie radio stations (though in fairness there was still the payola issue)
A variety of voices and stress on quality over payments is the key in my opinion.

Keep the comments comming,
Tom Hendricks

>
>
> >
> >
> > Not to belabor the point but, don't forget the CD's you paid for were priced
> > artificially high
> > through a marketing campaign by the Big 5 ( the same companies who are the only
> > companies
> > to get their music played on mainstream radio) that the Justice Dept. investigated,
> > told them to
> > quit or they'd take them to trial, then they pleaded no contest (if that's the right
> > legalese) and
> > changed their tune.  CD's in your car, played on the radio, its all the same
> > monopoly.
> > You really can't escape them. I think it's time to draw a line in the sand and say
> > enough is enough.
> >
> > And note how they are now carving up music on the net with no indies even being
> > allowed to
> > license their music (Napster was the main focus - but even companies that are
> > totally willing to
> > obey every rule and law, are having a hard time getting to play music from these 5
> > (Warners and
> > the 4 foreigners).
>
> Think I will not comment here
>
> >
> > SNIP IN from Steve's initial Reply
>
> Per Tom's follow on comments, I must admit I am  ignorant of the "business
> > aspects" of today's commercial stations. I was just an old, late 60's and
> > early 70's late night underground DJ who totally ignored required station
> play
> > lists and required commercial interruptions and played (I hope) a show
> which
> > mixed then current "popular" artists songs with totally unknown artists
> songs,
> > (and to be honest, unknown, obscure, artist songs that just sounded good to
> > me) into a radio "show" and for whatever reason, got away with it.
> >
> > Payola, legal or otherwise, is a business reality which I think anyone
> today
> > has awareness of, however, I believe, (notice, I believe) that the
> airwaves,
> > which are licensed by the FCC to their "owners", for public broadcast
> > utilization, (commercial or otherwise) should have some public
> responsibility
> > inherently associated for the holders of those public licenses.
> >
> > In relation to this, I do not think it unreasonable that these licensed FCC
> > public airwaves owners (commercial  or private entities) should be
> sanctioned
> > or allowed by the FCC issuing body to only consider their stockholders and
> > corporate bottom line, after all, they hold an FCC license which is
> > essentially issued for "public" utilization of the airwaves. The airwaves
> are
> > licensed by the FCC for public utilization (yes, we can get into a long
> debate
> > on this subject as I also have difficulty with the basic concept that the
> FCC
> > should have this ability in the first place, but this is the way it is)
> > however, it seems to me, there should be a balance struck between corporate
> > and public responsibility as it pertains to utilization and execution of
> these
> > licenses.
> >
> > Steve, your simplistic, and from my view, cute response, irritated me.
>
> Sorry it did, but consider it perhaps a pearl embryo.
>
> Simple as my view is, it comes from experience, not theory. I may disagree
> with
> the way things are, it made it difficult to promote. But, my job was to
> promote
> my artist, not change the structure of radio. And, BTW, my guy's title song
> from
> his new CD was getting a lot of airplay on Bill Mack's WBAP show, and will
> get
> the same when BM goes satellite. His previous CD got very little airplay -
> partly
> because of the difficulties that are inherent in the system, but mostly
> because
> the CD wasn't all that good - the production qualities were "not ready for
> prime
> time"
>
> Am glad your guys song is taking off. Just a question, aren't you and Tom in basic
> agreement about enabling the ability for a "new" artist to make it? It seems you
> are/were promoting a new talent (maybe whose initial effort was not ready for "prime
> time" but had/has potential) I get from Tom's statements that this is/was an expensive
> buy in proposition to you. Is this correct? Again I may be reading more into this than
> is there but to state  "His previous CD got very little airplay - partly because of the
> difficulties that are inherent in the system" seems to support Tom's view of a
> controlled non open system.
>
> But-I will say this. Nashville had better watch out. They drive the boat now,
> but
> in my opinion, the best music comes out of Texas, and I believe you'll see
> the
> growth of the Texas mafia over the coming years. Texas music is not just
> rehashed
> 60's-70's country-ized rock, which is what we get out of N'ville these days.
> They
> are figuring it out tho, with the decline in popularity following country
> music's
> popularity spike. There is a movement on to return more to "real" country.

In this respect there is a net site that plays all Texas music at
http://www.riograndemud.com (though I don't know who owns them, etc.)

>
>
> Steve, again, I perceive you and Tom to be in agreement in principal, though not in
> execution or methodology. What am I missing?
> >
> >
> > Tom, (even though I think you basically supported my view) I think you also
> > hold an unrealistic position.
> >
> > Pardon my naivet�, these are just my views
> >
> > End of rant
> >
> Well, this whole response is a follow up to the response to the rant, so I will end on a
> maybe humorous note as in a Wrightisim:
>
> If a man says something in the woods and there are no women there, is he still wrong?
>
> >
> > Now the boycott info
> >    * * *
> > It is time to stand up for local musicians and end the real boycott
> > the radio boycott of local music.
> >
> > Do it because you support local music
> > Do it because you hate local radio
> > Do it because you don't wear wingtips
> > Do it because it'll be fun to stir things up for the first time in 20 years
> > Do this or anything you think would help or work better.
> >
> > Thanks for adding your thoughts and keeping the thread moving,
> >
> > to others reading this:
> > Please, for the sake of local musicians, don't drop out - instead
> > Support local musicians, and oppose the media/art monopolies by refusing
> >
> > to by  products
> > advertised on local radio until local radio plays local music . Give
> > your comments and keep
> > this thread/boycott going, thanks
> >
> > Tom Hendricks, editor of the zine Musea and Hunkasaurus of Hunkasaurus and
> > His
> >
> > Pet Dog Guitar
> > http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >