Re: [Harp-L] Pop is for the weak.

[scott <checker758@xxxxxxxxx>]

There are a lot of factors involved making a hit record - politics, money, etc.  But if you guys really believe it's as cut and dried as you say below, you're both wrong.  I've worked in the radio business for over 25 years.  Radio airplay cannot make someone buy a record they don't like.  Money and politics can open the door of opportunity, but radio will NOT continue to play a record that people express a dis-like for.  There are federal laws against pay-for-play, and there is WAY too much money to be made in radio advertising for anyone to jeopardize their license for the sake of one record or one label or one payoff.  Radio stations cannot and do not accept "pay for airtime", and I can tell you from experience that THAT'S a fact.  What they *can* do that may be beyond the means of a small label or individual is buy a commercial that promotes their product, the same way any other company does.  These commercials don't get reported as "airplay" to any of the publications that track
 airplay and create the hit charts.  Does Clear Channel give favorable treatment to artists that are playing CC venues?  Probably.  But radio is about ratings, and rating are about advertising revenue.  No one in radio who wants to keep his job is going to jeopardize ratings by continually jamming some piece of crap record down listener's throats.  
 
A part of the equation that most conspiracy theorists who believe the scenarios presented below seem to ignore, or are unaware of, is that many millions - possibly billions - of dollars are spent by radio researching exactly what listeners do and don't want to hear.  It's directly detrimental to the bottom line for a radio station to play a record that people have said they don't like.  The flip side is that it can be beneficial to the bottom line to play a record that a majority of people have said they want to hear.  Which route do you think is most common?
 
Not arguing that there isn't an abundance of mediocrity out there - only that it's out there because the vast majority of music "fans" / consumers ask for it, and prefer it.  It's one of the sad facts life for a musician that most of the people you want to play for aren't as engaged in the music as you are, and don't really want to be challenged.  They want stuff that's easy to like, not stuff you have to work at in order to appreciate.  There's an expression I've heard people involved in research say many times: "The masses are asses."  That may be true, but it's the masses that decide whether a record is a hit.
 
One more thing that needs to be clarified, about deregulation (which by the way I agree is the worst thing ever to happen to radio, but that's a whole other post): No one company can own every station in a market.  There are still ownership limits that are calculated by some sort of formula that changes the number of stations from market to market.  But companies with deep pockets CAN own multiple radio stations in a market, and effectively monopolize the media, definitely a bad thing on many levels.  Here in Chicago, CC is at their limit, at 8 or 9 stations - they can't own any more.  Prior to deregulation, the limit was one AM, one FM, one TV, and one newspaper owned by one company in any given market.
 
Scott
 
--- In harp-l-archives@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "" <harpgawd@xxxx> wrote:
> "Chris Michalek" <Chris@xxxx> wrote: 
> > Believe what you want about advertising and the music industry.
> > Labels pay for the airtime. That's a fact.  Do your research. They
> > decide who the HITs will be, the masses has a less of a say then you
> > think.  If somebody in power decided Jazz is the next "IT" music then
> > it would be.  Unfortunately they are all following each other and
> > thus the circle of mediocrity continues. There are exceptions of
> > course. IMOWFL
> 
> Chris is absolutely right about this except it's not exactly the labels.
> It's all politics involving labels, radio, lawyers and most importantly,
> money. I'm involved in the music business - which is an oxymoron - and
> the powers-that-be decide who will be the next number one, not the
> masses. Tim McGraw's latest single will be number one for the next two
> weeks followed by Faith Hill's for a week followed by the Dixie Chicks.
> It's the same in ALL genres.
> 
> It didn't used to be so bad but since the "deregulation" of radio in
> 1996 one company can own hundreds of stations. Check out Clear Channel.
> They own 1800+ stations including every station in a market. The
> country, pop, classic rock, hip-hop, etc. stations. There's no
> competition for advertising. They also own most venues these days. And
> if an artist refuses to play their venues and use Ticketmaster, their
> songs don't get played on Clear Channel's stations. Prior to the
> deregulation, one company could only own four stations and only one in
> any given market.
> 
> I have a buddy that co-wrote a Hank Jr. single 1 1/2 years ago. But
> since Hank Jr. pissed off radio long ago it only reached 38 on the
> charts even though the masses liked the song a lot.
> 
> Like the government and freedom, it ain't what they tell you in school.
> 
> Bobby
> _______________________________________________
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> Harp-L@xxxx
> http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.