2 Comments »

The decline of what we now call “terrestrial” radio in the US started well over a decade ago. The reasons have been fairly well documented: obsession with strict “formats”, risk-averse corporations that killed all the personality DJs, gradual cultural irrelevance due to evolution of other media, etc. radio-show-1

The shocking news from Boston yesterday was the shutting of one of the city’s venerable rock stations, the 40-year old WBCN (in the US all radio stations are named using “callsigns”).

For those not from Boston, WBCN was the so-called “Rock of Boston”. The station was instrumental in introducing US audiences to bands from “across-the-pond” like The Police and U2; and Boston bands like Aerosmith and The Cars got their first national breaks through the station. (WBCN’s annual Rock & Roll Rumble, a 30-year old Battle of the Bands, was also a great vehicle for many young bands to get national exposure).

The truth is, radio lost its relevance to the current generation of listeners a while ago. The constraints of its business model (expensive to operate, more and more difficult to attract advertisers due to lack of audience targeting) make it seem like a business anachronism compared to say, the Internet, with its cost efficiencies, vast audiences, and ability to target to your heart’s content.

More critically, like old-school record shops, radio stopped being a place where you go to discover great new music since at least the turn of the decade. The broadcast model in order to be successful requires a very large but very targeted audience (hence, the format model). And to reach a large audience you need music that appeals to the lowest common denominator (Kelly Clarkson? Nickleback?). With a plethora of music discovery options out there (Internet stations; Pandora; iTunes; LastFM; podcasts; satellite radio; video games; MySpace; Twitter; Facebook; etc.) why resort to that?

I have personally not consciously turned on a radio station since 2007 (no joking, that’s the year that I got satellite radio in my car). I use my iPhone to listen to music (check out all the cool apps that exist) and I discover new artists all kinds of ways that have nothing to do with listening to a morning DJ on the way to work.

So does radio have a future as a cultural medium? Perhaps — if it fights back. Time to put new music discovery on the top of the corporate agenda.

Panos

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]
2 Responses to “Can Radio Regain Its Relevance?”
 

Although I agree, to a degree, with what you are saying, it really is to early to start sounding the death knell of “conventional” sources of music.

Satellite and internet radio, streaming audio and video, all of the new technology that is being developed, all contribute to making it easier for an independent (unsigned) artist to get their stuff heard and seen; however, how many of these Indi’s will ever be as well recognized as Garth Brooks, Celine Dion, Avril Lavigne, U2, etc. These channels of delivery still account for only a small percentage of the media being delivered to the listening and watching public. The numbers are shifting, no doubt, but it’s still main stream media that brings the “Super Stars” into our lives. Eventually some of the artists on SonicBids will be recognized as the power houses that they are and be signed to contracts with major labels, then rocketed to “instant” fame and glory. Unfortunately, that won’t be the case for most Indi’s. We who write, sing and play tend to be in love with what we do, and so naturally we think, and often expect, other people to feel the same way we feel. The true test of how good any of us are, not how talented we are *, is in the tastes of the public that is evaluating our art form.
I’m not advocating “writing for the masses”, but it will be the masses that determine your financial level of success as an artist. Follow your muse where ever it leads you. Present your stuff at every opportunity. Keep hope alive while trying to be realistic about your expectations. If you or I have what it takes then as the saying goes,”When the flower blooms, the bees come unbidden.”

* Einstein was so talented in his art form that less than 1% of the people that were interested in what he was doing, could understand or appreciate it. They couldn’t even postulate on whether he was “good or bad” at the time.
Michelangelo’s talent; on the other hand, reaches from the most sophisticated of tastes down to the most common observer and excites their emotions equally.
Michelangelo is a super star, they’re both unparalleled geniuses

Kurt Lindal wrote on July 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm

 

Hi Kurt:

I have to agree with Panos. Radio is “dying” and the internet is making the “underground” scene lift to a new level of stage where the young public is getting identified with.
I will give you and example of two bands, not conventional, who after few years of creating music, are rising on these very important scene brought up by the Internet Radio: Gogol Bordello and Monotonix.

Gogol Bordello is originally from NYC and they got to were they are as the actual band in about 4 years, thjanks to MySpace promotion, podcasting and so on. The music is crazy; they have a self proclaimed style: Gypsy Punk, and in everty one of their shows, the ones I have been in, it is total mayhem. They concerts are always packed, and their target is incredibly diverse. Monotonix is the same case.

We have tried so hard to get our music on the radio and we just gave up since they proclaim themselve to support local bands and they don’t do that, and instead got to podcast in local Universities and the response have been spectacular.

Times are changing, and the corporate people are old school. If Radio does not change, radio will expire.

M.O.U wrote on August 12th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Leave a Reply

Comments are moderated to prevent spam and keep the conversation constructive.
Please allow some time for the comment to post