[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 21/08/01 04:12:36 GMT Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Clear Channel does not care about listeners. They want the broadest
> audience
> possible to deliver to advertisers. So the songs which make it on air are
> the
> ones that are least likely to offend people. I recall sitting in a meeting
> with a
> radio research company where they basically explained that the corporate
> radio
> owners wanted songs that do not illicit strong emotions, either positive or
> negative. What a laugh, right!? >>
>
> This is so deeply depressing, Brenda, that it almost beggars belief. Don't
> these people have souls?? And so the relentless homogenisation of everything
> that can be prostituted to turn a profit continues apace.
The reality of the music industry is indeed fairly dismaying. Imagine being one
of the grown up kids working at a label, with our piercings, tattoos and shit
kicking boots listening to a couple of Ernst & Young looking suits tell us that
research supports bland music. Songs testing with strong positive reaction also
tend to test with strong negative - the old adage, "you'll either love it or hate
it." The rationale for radio is that they don't want people to turn the dial so
anything that some people might love alot could drive the people who hate it to
turn. Therefore it's safer to play music that people won't really love or really
hate - the dull hiss will lull them into complacency.
I feel as Catherine does though - countercultures will emerge. Now although
there could be several reasons for it, midyear music sales (since the shutdown of
Napster) are down about 9%. Yet, independent labels that put out DJ or
"electronic" music are thriving and experiencing market growth.
Brenda
n.p.: KCRW
