quote:

With little likelihood of the FCC undoing the changes of 1996, the prognosis for this changing on the radio any time soon is not good, I fear

Thats what I'm afraid of too. I have thought for the last couple years that radio ebbs and flows, but i'm still waiting for it to ebb... or flow, I'm not really sure which it would do to get back to decent. Oh well, I still got my good music to listen to, it would just be nice if the radio was on board too.

Unfortunately, T., the sort of ebb and flow you're describing is more a factor of changing fashion than a changing marketplace and the radio marketplace is wrapping up a decade of unprecedented change that will only be superceded by the changes to come in the next decade.

In the U.S., radio stations are in the business of building audience and selling that audience's ears to advertisers. Technology in the form of automation has driven the cost of operating a radio station down, which means a station with a sizeable audience has become a license to print money and with relaxed ownership rules, those licenses are being snatched up by a relatively small number of owners.

Now Playing: "Samson" Regina Spektor Begin to Hope

quote:

Originally posted by Bryan_K:

quote:

It's probably payola that influences the shit they put on the airwaves. I mean, anytime you have to pay companies to play a certain song, logic would dictate that the song wouldn't merit airplay by itself, at least in most cases.

The interesting thing about payola is that it can work for indie labels wanting to introduce something edgy just as well as it can work to sustain the status quo. Historically, in fact, it was the newer, independent R&B labels that used the payola system to push their less established sound onto the air (and the larger companies pushing mostly pallid shit that lobbied Congress to ban the practice--weird, huh?). Without such a system stations may not have been willing to take a chance on newer sounds that offended people's sensibilities for various reasons. I understand your suspicion of labels buying airtime for their "products," musicfanatic; I just think it's actually a bit more complex than you're allowing.

Yeah, you may be right. But I don't know when the last time I heard something on the radio that I would classify as "edgy" (Rap seems to have a few original acts that get on the radio; what I'm referring to is rock music). It all sounds the same to me, from what I've heard at least.

And I'm sure you're right that the independent record labels of the 50s and 60s used payola as a means to get original/creative works on the radio, but with the merging of all seemingly mainstream radio stations - not to mention record labels - into what's now a small handful of large conglomerates (ClearChannel comes to mind), how can today's indies afford to pay to compete for airtime? When's the last time you heard a song that was released from more mid-level labels, such as Merge, 4AD, Matador, ect.?

I never worked for a radio station before, and I would agree with you that its more complex than my three sentence analysis, but I do feel payola is at least mostly responsible for the vast majority of crap the radio plays.

I agree that corporate mergers have decreased the variety of rock music you hear on the radio today, but I think you all are missing other effects of this consolidation.

First, fewer people listen to "mainstream" radio today than they did before. Second, the lack of variety on top 40 stations provokes many listeners to turn to the internet to find music. Third, thanks to this surge of internet music, so many people are listening to "indie" music now that it can hardly be called indie anymore. Fourth, because of technological innovations, more people are turning to satellite radio with no commercials.

It is too soon to say "Those evil media companies have done it again." What we will see in popular music over the next ten years is more and more segmentation so that eventually there will be no truly mainstream music. There will only be soft rock hits, indie rock hits, rap hits, soul hits, jazz hits, etc.

I stopped listening to the radio about ten years ago, while in high school. Up through 1994-95 we had a pretty good local radio show that aired each night from 9:00 pm to midnight. In addition to playing newer "alternative" stuff they would play a lot of good 80's indie stuff. They would also play album tracks, not just singles. I got into a lot of good bands through this show, (Pixies, Pavement, Meat Puppets, Dinosaur Jr., Weezer, Tragically Hip, etc.).
Around 1996 or so, there was a notable shift in the quality of the show. The music became more homogenous, and pretty much only singles were played. I stopped listening, and the show's DJ also, (I'm sure not coincidentally) left the station at that time. The show soon became a showcase for a bunch of second-third-fourth generation "grunge" bands, (basically the same crap they played throughout the day, without older stuff mixed in).
I got by for awhile buying CDs by the bands I was already into and based on tips from friends, (especially older ones who had graduated and moved onto college).
It wasn't until I was in college, and had internet access, that I was really able to discover good new music again. Yes, we've lost radio, but the internet, satellite radio, etc. are more than capable replacements.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
What we will see in popular music over the next ten years is more and more segmentation so that eventually there will be no truly mainstream music. There will only be soft rock hits, indie rock hits, rap hits, soul hits, jazz hits, etc.

Less the next ten years than the past twenty. You've summed up where we are today and how we've gotten here nicely.

When you describe "mainstream" radio, what are you referring to? Conventional terrestrial radio in general? Commercial radio? Traditional CHR and AOR formats?

Listening in the first group has seen drops of as high as 5% annually in recent years with much of the blame pointed at online activities (not only listening, which represents a small fraction of the average individual's time online). By demographic groups, the erosion is happening twice as quickly in younger demographics as older demographics, which would seem to support that supposition.

As for commercial versus non-commercial radio, the latter has seen a halt in growth in weekly listening, but little decrease. Given that non-commercial as a whole skews 35+, it's harder to know today if there will be an impact as the typcial non-commercial listener who is more active online today, ages into the tradition non-commercial listening years. It's worth noting, however, that NPR has experienced explosive growth in its podcasting over the past year. Whether this represents a promotional opportunity or a threat to traditional delivery, we don't know. On a personal level, answering some of those questions is paying an increaingly large percentage of my mortgage.

So, online activities are having an impact on radio on a variety of levels. You are, however, wildly overestimating the current and future role on indie music. All of the indie labels combined represents only a fraction of the sales of the big three. They still control the vast majority of ears out there and fill the vast majority of iPod drive space. They've grown to the size they are today with a firm grip on the means of promotion including radio. They're not going to cede emerging media without a fight and they have deep, deep pockets with which to enter that battle.

As for satellite. I'll be surprised if there's not an XM/Sirius merger, especially with both companies hemmorhaging capital. Both, incidentally, have introduced commericals and a notable portion of their most popular programming comes from traditional media outlets they either share or have signed outright (like Howard). They offer convenience and variety, but lack the local content that continues to be a strong self-identifier in most audience members' listening choices.

Now Playing: "Find a Way" Smoosh Free to Stay

quote:

Originally posted by LinnTate:
You are, however, wildly overestimating the current and future role on indie music. All of the indie labels combined represents only a fraction of the sales of the big three. They still control the vast majority of ears out there and fill the vast majority of iPod drive space. They've grown to the size they are today with a firm grip on the means of promotion including radio. They're not going to cede emerging media without a fight and they have deep, deep pockets with which to enter that battle.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying...big companies will always dominate the music world, but they will do it differently than they do today (through Clear Channel radio stations, MTV). That's what corporations do: adapt to changing technologies in order to provide what the consumer wants at a competitive price. Present-day indie rock is a good example: while independent record labels may not ascend to the level of Viacom or Universal, the music they are producing is selling in bigger and bigger numbers (thanks to exposure on the internet). That gives the bands/labels more pull with the big record companies and will lead to more exposure for those bands down the line. As the record companies market these different types of music to different markets, the concept of a top 40 audience will become obsolete.

I agree with you to some extent, that the music listening populace has become more segmented.

But there will always be one genre that has more listeners than any other genre. Currently it's electronic dance-pop with voice modifiers and rap.

I would also argue that there's a sort of 'critical mass' for popularity of a genre where the genre is popular enough for casual listeners to start conforming to it. Especially when it's a genre targetted at teenagers. And when that happens, that genre won't go away until it's fans get completely tired of it. As long as one or two genres are big enough to have self-sustaining popularity, those genres will be 'top 40'.