Radio
Silence
“Who or What Destroyed Radio?”
Written by: Derrick Warren
dwarren@excapethematrix.com
So, the question has always been posed: “Who or What destroyed Radio?” What can be said is that there have always been two parties on the discussion of content on the radio. (I’ll leave the FCC alone on this one.) Either you thought what was on the radio was great (which is the obvious majority) or that it was horrible. (Well...you know.) No matter the generation, radio has always been judged the same way. So maybe when I ask, “Who or what destroyed the radio?” I just may not mean the new hit pop track by a silicone goddess.
Sure radio’s gone through its changes from downright not offering artists payment for their songs being played, to white people singing the songs of black people because we just couldn’t have black people on the radio. But one recent change we all can relate to - yes, even those who love the radio – is advertisements. You really can’t get to that song you love without boring through ad after ad after ad.
This brings me to Clear Channel
Communications. Yes, Clear Channel. Started in 1972 in San Antonio, TX
by used car dealers, Clear Channel had a wonderful revelation. The cost
of 60 seconds of radio time for ads costs just about the same as a car.
I have to admit that in a capitalist country, such a business venture
is brilliant. They went on to buy their first radio stations.
“With Clear Channel having venues under their
thumbs, they can (and have) threatened artists with, “If you don’t
support us, you won’t get radio time and you won’t play in our venues.”
So how did this company come to own 1,100 radio stations in the United States? With the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This act deregulated media ownership, which allowed Clear Channel to go on a “shopping spree” of sorts. Now imagine you have all these radio stations, which means control over what you play and when you play it, of course abiding by the FCC regulations. That’s a lot of ad time that can be used. Clear Channel not only owns radio stations. They also own TV stations, event venues and if you’ve ever noticed while driving, billboards.
To make space for the actual money maker of the company, the more popular radio stations must allow for more ad space, which means less versatile music content. This is, of course, where popular music comes in. When given the play list, the DJ plays the same popular songs that draw listeners to the stations. More listeners tuning in to the station means more companies bidding for ad space at peak times.
“You really can’t get to that song you love without boring though ad after ad after ad.”
Artists have been speaking out against this practice, arguing that music radio is for musicians to be heard. With Clear Channel having venues under their thumbs, they can (and have) threatened artists with, “If you don’t support us, you won’t get radio time and you won’t play in our venues.” For die hard music artists/activists, this threat means nothing. But in turn, we have to consider the sheer audacity of such a threat. Many artists have caved under the pressure of Clear Channel’s contractual agreements with their respective labels.
It is quite clear that Clear Channel Communications isn’t in the entertainment business. I myself decided to lay off the labels (just a bit) on this one and understand that the labels themselves have their hands tied (just a bit). To its core, Clear Channel has used bully tactics as well as worming their way around the law to achieve the success they enjoy today. Educate yourself on the issue before placing the blame on artists on the labels. Check out http://www.beforethemusicdies.com as well as http://www.clearchannelsucks.com (yes I know, sounds kinda bias huh?), then reevaluate that question, “Who or What Destroyed Radio?”