smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Jocelyn Geboy <smussyolay@yahoo.com> |
| Subject | the shape of things |
| Date | Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:56:15 -0700 (PDT) |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (2.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
costs money only the majors have.
>
> >If record companies were promoting a much larger
> stable of smaller artists,
> >the budget available for legalized payola for each
> artist would be very
> >small. Radio corporations would be forced to
> develop smaller promotional
> >packages. They would then be forced to play a
> wider variety of music,
> >helping to develop a more sophisticated buying
> public, bringing americans
> >back to music as a form of mass entertainment.
>
> You're assuming that the radio stations WANT this to
> happen. They do not.
> They want to programme little, if no, discernable
> content with the most
> amount of advertisers at the least amount of
> overhead to them. That's why
> most mass radio has become pre-programmed
> crapola...and will remain so until
> they collapse.
>
> ~~~~~i don't know about this. clear channel doesn't
want to do this. because they think it won't be
profitable. which is all they're concerned about. the
bottom line. i'd be willing to go out on a limb and
say that program directors and jocks would LOVE to do
this...the ones who haven't been replaced by ass
kissing clear channel zombies, that is.
and, i'd even say that if labels decided to start
pushing more bands on the stations, they'd start
playing those, too. i just want to throw up at the
thought of ANY kind of payola, but i know it exists
(even not playing to my natural conspiracy theory
tendencies), due to having several friends in the
industry and all y'all's regular commentary on the
subject. so, with that in mind, if the labels did
payola tactics on 10 new bands a month, instead of 1
or 2, then i'd think:
1. it'd be a much more interesting radio world
2. more people would come back to radio
3. as frank (?) mentioned, they'd have less to lose if
a band tanked because they'd be spending less on more
bands... also maybe insuring that they'd have to
payola less on each one (god, if at all?!? my dream?),
cause it wouldn't matter as much. they wouldn't be
putting all their eggs in one timberlake lined basket.
if i understand what you're saying, you think the
radio stations don't want something that i believe the
labels and the conglomerates who OWN the stations
don't want...
jocelyn
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.