After a Rocky Year, Time to Face the Music

Courtesy of latimes.com...

December 29, 2002 E-mail story Print


MEDIA: 2002 AND BEYOND

After a Rocky Year, Time to Face the Music

A look at the record firms, one by one, as the industry's problems mount

By Jeff Leeds, Times Staff Writer


Suddenly, the music industry is hardly worth a song.

Wall Street is slashing record company valuations. Despite efforts to thwart them, digital pirates are still taking songs for free. And label executives, scrambling to lure fans to record stores, have sparked a price war that is putting new albums on sale for less than $7 in many cases.

Overall, global music industry revenue dropped about 8% to roughly $31 billion in 2002, according to analyst estimates, leaving media giants that only recently saw music as the key to their corporate strategies to question whether they belong in the record business at all.

Yet getting out is a problem, too. Any company that hits the auction block now probably would bring only a fraction of its peak price.

The key question of the moment is how to reverse the year's 11% slide in U.S. album sales -- the worst performance for the crucial domestic in more than a decade. The latest results follow a 3% decline last year.

With profits plunging at the largest companies, some analysts predict that a torrent of layoffs is more likely than an industry revival in the months ahead.

This company-by-company assessment of the year's performance is based on regulatory filings, Nielsen SoundScan estimates of U.S. market share through Dec. 22 and interviews with key industry players.

Profit figures are for the nine months ended Sept. 30 or the most recent period for which data are available, measured against year-earlier results. Because companies report in different currencies and under varying methods, these comparisons reflect estimates made in consultation with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. For foreign-owned companies -- that is, all the major distributors except Warner Music Group -- figures are based on average currency rates for the period.

Holiday sales, which typically account for more than one-third of annual revenue, haven't been counted yet. To date, however, data suggest that the record industry needs more than a good Christmas.

It needs a miracle.

Universal Music Group

* U.S. market share: 28.9%

* Worldwide sales through Sept. 30: $3.9 billion, down 5%

* Operating profit through Sept. 30: $172 million, down 51%

* Major labels: Interscope Geffen A&M, Island Def Jam, Universal, MCA

How far has the value of music fallen?

Look no further than the world's biggest record label, which was assembled just four years ago in a deal then worth $10.4 billion. This year, new accounting rules forced French parent Vivendi Universal to take a charge of about $3 billion to reflect the decline in the worth of its music company.

Despite the hit to the bottom line, Chairman Doug Morris again dominated the charts with blockbusters from every genre. Jimmy Iovine's Interscope Geffen A&M complex takes the crown as the nation's top seller of new releases -- including the year's biggest, Eminem's "The Eminem Show," which has sold 7.4 million copies. The string of platinum-sellers also includes the rapper's "8 Mile" soundtrack, plus offerings from Puddle of Mudd, No Doubt, Sheryl Crow and DreamWorks' country phenom Toby Keith.

The Lyor Cohen-led Island Def Jam machine, for its part, delivered one of the year's biggest debuts with Ashanti. Meanwhile, it also cranked out hits from Ludacris, Ja Rule (the "Pain is Love" album, not the new, slower-selling "Last Temptation") Cam'ron and Hoobastank. But onetime icons Bon Jovi and Mariah Carey got off to slow starts.

Universal Records' Mel Lewinter and Monte Lipman once again struck platinum with hip-hop stars Nelly and Big Tymers.

Things were far quieter over at Jay Boberg's MCA Records, though R&B diva Mary J. Blige kept on selling.

Rivals say Universal's big labels continue to overspend on talent and promotions. And there is speculation that pink slips, which already have hit the Motown division, may spread throughout the company as Vivendi Universal prepares its entertainment properties for a likely spinoff or sale.

*

Warner Music Group

* U.S. market share: 17%

* Worldwide sales through Sept. 30: $2.9 billion, up 4%

* Operating profit through Sept. 30: $76 million, up 15%

* Major labels: Warner Bros., Elektra, Atlantic

You've got belt-tightening!

AOL Time Warner's music division didn't land a single album in the year's overall top 10. But it still managed to raise its profit level heading into the holidays after Chairman Roger Ames clamped down on promotional costs, including trade magazine advertising, and overhauled back-office operations.

Warner Bros. once again finished the year as the AOL empire's most profitable label, but it still fell short of its glory days as a haven for innovative newcomers such as Jimi Hendrix and Joni Mitchell. In fact, the unit cut its release schedule about 20%.

Still, its savvy marketing machine scored with acts inherited from now-shuttered affiliates in last year's Warner Music Group restructuring, including Josh Groban and Disturbed. The label's new management team of Tom Whalley and Jeff Ayeroff also counted on the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Linkin Park and Enya to keep the engine humming, along with Michelle Branch from Madonna's affiliated Maverick label.

One Warner Bros. weakness is that it's barely in the lucrative rap-music game, and insiders still are waiting for Whalley's fabled ears -- which picked up on new acts such as Tupac Shakur and the Wallflowers during his tenure at Interscope Records -- to find a home-grown chart-burner. Sluggish domestic sales also stung Maverick's Alanis Morissette and Warner stalwarts the Goo Goo Dolls.

Over at Elektra Entertainment, it's been a difficult year, though label chief Sylvia Rhone came through with a hit from Missy Elliott and broke new artist Tweet. The label's weak streak could be reversed if Rhone can extract new albums next year from rock bands Metallica and Staind.

Things were also tough at the Atlantic Group, where long-awaited albums from Brandy and Uncle Kracker bombed. But the label's prayers for continued sales from Christian rockers P.O.D. came through, and there still may be a chance to salvage Kid Rock's most recent album. Under Chairman Val Azzoli and new co-presidents Ron Shapiro and Craig Kallman, the label also has built a potent black-music roster, with the Nappy Roots and Fat Joe breaking through this year.

*

Sony Music Entertainment

* U.S. market share: 16.5%

* Worldwide sales through Sept. 30: $3.5 billion, down 1%

* Operating loss through Sept. 30: $142 million, contrasted with a $61-million profit a year earlier

* Major labels: Columbia, Epic

Sony Music Chairman Thomas D. Mottola weathered a year in which his wife's sisters were kidnapped and one of his biggest acts, Michael Jackson, depicted him as the devil.

The sisters are free, and Jackson has quieted down. But Mottola has to rescue the Sony Corp. music operation, whose bottom line was hurt by charges from an international restructuring, even though a number of albums scored on the charts.

One effort: more advertising-based promotions, such as a much-touted deal with PepsiCo Inc. Sony also hopes to woo ex-Interscope marketing whiz Steve Stoute to its executive suite, if talks pan out.

On the label front, Sony settled the Dixie Chicks' royalty-accounting dispute in time for Columbia to make the country act a cross-over pop sensation and the company's biggest seller at 3.4 million copies. Other major successes: John Mayer, Bruce Springsteen, System of a Down and Nas. Those, plus Columbia's storied catalog, helped make Don Ienner's label the nation's overall market-share champ for a fifth year in a row.

Even in a down year for the industry, Epic Records, led by executives Dave Glew and Polly Anthony, still is regarded as a hit factory. This year, it delivered big sellers from stars Celine Dion, Jennifer Lopez and Shakira, while breaking through with new acts B2K and Good Charlotte. One soft spot: Korn's long-awaited album topped out at 1.2 million copies, which was respectable but far below projections.

*

Bertelsmann Music Group

* U.S. market share: 14.8%

* Worldwide sales for the six months through June 30: $1.1 billion

* Operating loss through June 30: $41 million

(Closely held Bertelsmann doesn't publicly report results and declined to provide data for yearly comparisons.)

* Major labels: Arista, J, RCA

BMG rediscovered its catalog, turning out an Elvis Presley compilation that sold 2.3 million copies. But it's going to take more than repackaging "Jailhouse Rock" to make up for the ill-advised arrangement with Zomba Music's Clive Calder.

Calder's deal of a lifetime -- he exercised an option that forced BMG's parent company to buy his slipping label for $2.7 billion -- all but assures that the German firm will find music a red-ink zone for years to come.

At the same time, BMG gave observers whiplash, bringing music icon Clive Davis back as chief of a combined J Records-RCA operation, less than three years after driving him from his seat of power at its Arista label. Even Davis won't find it easy to revive RCA. He may start by trying to keep the Dave Matthews Band from jumping ship. The band is shopping a new deal, though sources say it owes the label two more albums.

As for Arista, the only real question may be: Does anyone still think Antonio "L.A." Reid can't run a pop label?

If so, they clearly weren't paying attention to Reid's results at the unit, which he took over in 2000 amid doubts by some critics about whether his R&B roots would translate. Arista delivered two of the six biggest albums of the year with Avril Lavigne and Pink, while posting solid sales from Usher, new act Clipse, and a decent start for the Carlos Santana album. Reid's decision to bid adieu to Sean "P. Diddy" Combs and his expensive Bad Boy label probably will save him a bundle, but rivals claim he continues to waste money on joint ventures with producers Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis, She'kspere and TrackMasters.

*

EMI Group

* U.S. market share: 9.3%

* Worldwide sales for the six months ended Sept. 30: $1.5 billion, down 10%

* Operating profit for the six months ended Sept. 30: $86 million, up 253% (EMI doesn't report quarterly results.)

* Major labels: Capitol, Virgin

With nowhere to go but up, EMI posted solid worldwide results thanks in part to a cost-cutting drive that eliminated 1,900 employees and tightened the cap on executive salaries.

Now, top executives Alain Levy and David Munns have vowed that by spring EMI will break even in North America, where its record division has long been a money-loser.

Indeed, EMI is hitting a crossroads, and it's at the intersection of Hollywood and Vine: The verdict is still out as to whether new label chief Andy Slater has the vision to revive Capitol, although he eked out modest hits this year with such acts as Kylie Minogue, Coldplay, the Vines and Dirty Vegas. Morale is rising at Capitol headquarters -- known simply as the Tower -- and spirits may perk up further if EMI can close a new record deal with Radiohead.

At the relatively small Blue Note division, executive Bruce Lundvall deserves a reward for signing singer Norah Jones, the company's biggest seller with 2.4 million copies sold -- although rivals joke that it shouldn't come in the form of stock. EMI shares, like those of rivals, have plunged.

Virgin Records continued to be a financial sinkhole, delivering only a Rolling Stones compilation (while handling radio promotion for Blue Note's Norah Jones). After the label's move from Beverly Hills to New York and a reorganization in which about 80% of the staff quit or were fired, industry watchers are waiting for new co-chiefs Matt Serletic and Roy Lott to put their imprint on the company. Things could turn up next year with new albums from Janet Jackson and buzz bands the Exies and Black Rebel Motorcycle Club.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-labels29dec29,0,6036161.story?coll=la-headlines-business

 

I've got the scheme for Capitol to turn a profit in the US next year: Release the original Beatles American albums. They should be released as mono/stereo, CD/SACD (mono and 2 stereo) hybrids. Only the albums that were different in the US from their UK counterparts.

This effort would generate lots of income with very little (relative) expense.

Of course, Apple would not allow it to happen. But if Capitol cried that they were going under, just maybe.....

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm o the only one....

 

I wish I could type. My last message should have ended with..

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one........

 

I've got an idea.After reading the classical music thread you can't help but think that this music among others deserves more exposure.The people who steer the popular culture (record and media companies)could help.Looks like they don't have much to lose at this point.Most pop music now seems to be kind of dumbed down.Maybe if VH1 could trade an hour of Behind The Music with Meat Loaf for an hour of either Beethoven, Frank Sinatra,Nat King Cole or Big Band music.This is a big well to draw on.It didn't seem to hurt The Beatles that George Martin liked classical music.

 

I liked the James Bond music on Help.

 

Oops.

 

I'm your huckleberry...

 

I love the Help! American soundtrack...luckily it's available on Boot. So nostalgic! I actually enjoyed the Instrumental Music when I was a kid.

 

From an out of work Radio Announcer's standpoint...

I feel somewhat sad that due to the top story in this thread that MANY of my Record Company friends have or about to lose their jobs due to the "NUMBERS"! Let's face it, MOST (read that as 97%) of what labels release anymore is garbage! I have told my friend that works for Universal Records that since Doug Morris only feels strongly enough to give you one Nelly versus 10 no-name and no-talent artists to push, it's NO wonder that your company fails! I've mentioned to my friend that Universal should dig into their "back catalog", only to have him laugh at me because he says that there isn't any money to be made in back catalog! I, for one, was really enjoying the recent "Universal Deluxe Editions" that they were issueing. I guess with some of the "upcoming" titles yanked like "The Who- Who's Next" and "Joe Jackson's- Night & Day" cancelled, he MUST be right! I presume that one day the Record Labels will only need ONE person on each coast to handle ALL radio promotion since these days you can talk with ONE person at Clear Channel and cover 50 or more stations!
While were at it...How about only ONE Radio Announcer on ALL radio stations in the country, that would ease up all those money woes on Clear Channel.
Damn...Maybe I should become a consultant, with an idea like that!!!

 

I was thinking about Radio as well.....

Ever since radio went "corporate" across the USA, the impression is that the released music is garbage. I don't believe that, but I do believe that radio is programmed by the numbers - with a little help from various forms of encouragement (read: payola) by the record companies. I remember when DJ's had a little more freedom, the "sonic landscape" seemed much more varied. DJ's used to name the title and artist of every song they played - which was good for the record companies. There really doesn't seem to be a "place" to hear good new music anymore. Now - if you are in your teens and twenties and still have a peer group that can spread the "word of mouth", that is fine. Sadly, by the time you hit your thirties, the time spent with friends begins to dwindle as the responsibility of family, home and career occupy more time.

It serves the record companies interest to push an act like Brittany Spears. After all, if she is popular she is easily cloned. If you were to take an album like The Breeders "Title TK" and get it airplay and have a huge hit - where does that leave the corporation? Sure they would have the profit from THAT CD, but you have a band that only records once every 5 or 6 years - and they ARE NOT easily cloned. So the corporations would have to give responsibility for good music to the artists, as opposed to whatever comes out of their "laboratories".

Get radio back into the hands of DJ's to build an audience's interest and I believe the record companies will see sales rise.

But they WILL loose control.

 

Well, keep dreaming! Everyone knows that VH1 is going after Generation-X, is concentrating on 80s music more, and is looking for more non-music programs.

I don't believe pop music is dumbed down. When was it ever smart?

 

Let's face it, the companies just got too damn big in the prosperous 90s. Everyone just got greedier. The companies need to break off, or change their business model. The industry worked better back in the days when it was just an assortment of small labels trying to break a hit song, and when the majors didn't matter so much in the scheme of things.

 

What about the $2.7 Billion payoff?!

Mariah Carey only got a measley 28 million. I'm not too good at math, but I think $2.7 Billion is almost 100 times that amount!!

I'll say it again: $2.7 BILLION!

 

I blame a lack of quality music in addition to the mega-burning going on now as a reason for sales slipping. I know that as a major music fan (and customer), when I look at all the new releases and don't have an interest in purchasing any of them, something is wrong.
I also don't think that always going for a teenybop market is going to work either. In the pre-beatle era, the biggest selling albums were of 'adult' music (read: broadway, adult-oriented pop) and adults bought most of the albums, the kiddies bought the singles. Now, there are very few singles (and most of those are expensive) and the albums have the track you want, plus a load of filler.
I think a very big change is coming in the industry, and because of the net and increased communications, you may see new acts come up out of nowhere and have hits that are self-produced and distributed. It's the labels worst nitemare

 

The Internet is literally killing them, and turning Music Companies into dinosaurs. Music artists, at any point in their careers, don't really need a traditional music company to distribute product, anymore.

The issue of online "piracy" is an illusion to disguise the REAL problem, music companies face, from Wall Street. It's a mirage, that we ALL have gotten sucked into it. The desperation that the Industry clings to it, is an indicator of how specious the issue is.

Instead of going with the flow of the technological trends of the New Millenium, and exploiting the possibilities of the Internet...and I don't mean JUST selling online music...to market their strong, and long time artists rosters, for example, to bring the music directly to the fan/consumer base, the Music Companies are "fighting" the new technologies by squeezing out retailers. As you see, in some instances, they are getting rid of the very artists that built their various companies.

Online music sales, and the buying of music online, vs. with one's real life retailer, still has a long way to go, in terms of being the way people buy music. It will come into it's own eventually, but ONLY if there is something to buy, and that consumers have to overcome the urge to go to the music store and actually pick their own music in their hands...

On the surface my statements are predictable, but think a moment...the difference is HUGE in a consumers mind. Consumers have to feel they are NOT picking from what the Music Companies want them to buy, but what they think is available...and that is EVERYTHING on the day of release.

To me, there must be created a wholely virtual and political, technological gimmick, so that the consumer REALLY feels the choices are their own...not what is doled out to them on the webpages. When you walk into the record store, most of the time, you are going there to buy specific purchases...the money is made by stores in what you DON'T expect to purchase...the impulse purchases.

Industry leaders have to take the initiative now, to face certain realities, before the slide really gets underway, and there is no turning back the inevitable.

 

Oh boy.... here we go.

Blame Radio for bad record sales. Has someone got a peace pipe filled with some incredibly potent sayo-pollo north slope trip weed? (The kind the guys on Amtrack smoke)

Burning is hurting.. a lot. Lack of talent is hurting more.

Record companies want stations to spin their records as many times as they can get it spun. Plain and simple. It helps sales. You can see a direct correlation between the number of times a record is spun and the number of units sold in SoundScan. It has been proven.

"See that proves my point. If radio played more records as opposed to the tight playlists it would help the record sales... then we'd be exposed to better music."

This line of thinking is ill-logical. Radio, corporate like Clear Channel or Locally owned like mine, is a business. Clear Channel is looking for 30% broadcast cashflow to show to their stock holders and mine is looking for 25% to show Mr. Foster our owner. Putting the station in the hands of DJ's that are ignorant to what an individual markets taste is would be ratings suicide. Spot rates would fall. and the both the broadcast company and the record company would be losing money.

I hate to say it, but economics does in-fact trickle down. If my sales department doesn't;t sell, I don't get to spend. If record companies don;t get better artists instead of flooding them with no name one hit wonder acts... AND solve the piracy issues. We'll see it get even worse.

On-line retailing is alright so long as they stop burning your own cd's. music has to evolve into something more. A new product that you can't just download and here. There needs to be a reason to go buy it. (that and get copy protection going)

I agree with lennonfan. Self produced artists are a possibility. The key is who is going to distribute them? Without distribution, you are dead in the water.

Is there really any wonder why music as a business and an art form is in trouble? A good many studio musicians (as talented players as they are) can't read music. They're looking at fingering charts and playing by ear. If I asked have of them to play major and minor circle of fifths, they'd look at me funny. Drummers actually know rudiments? ooooo a double stroke roll... now try a radimicue, double radimicue, and then a triple paradiddle. Singers actually know how to care for their voice and support. Know the difference betwwen chest, head, and falsetto voice and whistle tone? Many don't. Natural vibrato? Oh yeah, that's that wigle your jaw thing right? (said in jest) Most don't have a clue.

Good music is good music. It takes good musicians, not players or singers, good musicians to make good music.

JMHO.

Sorry, I got off on a rant here.

 

Rant respected - but.........

Corporate radio IS a problem. It restricts variety, and adhere's to a target audience. There was a time that corporations didn't own stations - there was a time - NOT SO LONG AGO - when corporations were RESTRICTED in the number of broadcast licenses (both radio and TV) they were ALLOWED to own in a single market.

Can you imagine an "urban station" that would play a Rolling Stones song - just because of a gut feeling that it would appeal to their audience? Can you imagine a classic rock station playing Grandmaster Flash because they felt that the groove would move those kids? Those kinds of things happened as recently as the 80's, prior to the deregulation. I won't even mention the top 40 stations that had DJ's and staff pour over Billboards "bullets", and still took a chance on something that had "no statistical indicators" just because 15 or 20 people in a room thought it had a shot. I remember hearing Sinatra on AOR FM radio in the 70's. The DJ thought it had a groove.

I am sure todays stations make a profit and satisfy the requirements of the board of directors, but they hardly help record companies. Ever since the late 80's/early 90 they often do not even mention the artist and song that just played. Why?? The attitude is not to inform the public how to purchase that song, the attitude is they should tune in and hear it here.

Sadly, your statement deriding DJ's is probably all to true. They are now simply announcers, professional voices there to sell hair gel and announce another 45 minute uninterrupted set. There was a time when they were hired because they cared about the music, and enjoyed playing something just teensy bit left of what their audience expected to hear.

 

There really is this barbarians at the gate stance taken by the majors. I can see that with burning, even if the musical product improves, they are still "stuck".

Corporate radio in collusion with the labels (with some challenging economics) has just about killed new artist development. We have the same tired retread acts with fat contracts who come out with the occasional formulaic sounding release. The new stuff isn't promoted either due to lack of payola or the need of the stations to feel safe in their playlist. Personally, I find myself jumping from station to station trying to find something to listen to until giving up and going back to the CD changer.

One of the few hopes is internet based radio as you really do get some diversity there. Some hope is there if the FCC would loosen up the rules on micro-radio, but that ain't gonna happen with Chairman Powell at the reins. That would just be too much of a "give-away" to the public interest.

Apparently, Stevie Van Zandt's radio show has excellent ratings as he plays a mix of garage oldies that sound as fresh today as when they were first produced. If that kind of model can be replicated across other genres of music, there might be hope.

Big changes are coming around the corner, I'm just afraid that none of us around here are gonna like it!

 

Ditto on the Steve Van Zandt show, chris. He ALWAYS states what he just played, and makes interesting comments on the music. Even if you don't care for his personal taste (not a problem with me), you have to respect the intelligent comments he makes ABOUT the music. He is NOT a professional announcer, he is the essence of what USED to be a DJ.

He is what radio lovers used to love about radio, unlike wondering if they will play the latest J'Lo record AGAIN before the hour is up.

 

What is wrong with targeting an audience? Tampax Tampons shouln't target women? I sure know I'm lining up on the feminine hygiene aisle to buy them... The format is the product that the programming department sells. In two thirds of the stations in America that format is music based. Then it divides based on age, sex, race, and location after that. There is another factor that most refuse for some reason to realize. You government ok'd the de-regulation twice. Once in 1994 and again in 1996. Not only that. But now has companies bid on the signals. It used to be free. you just had to apply and show how you were going to serve the public interest. So now they auctioned off the rest of the FM band... giving more signals. Expanded the AM band and auctioned off those signals. Auction off the PCS band... and will do the same thing with the UHF and VHF band when HDTV is the norm. Oh yeah and used the money to help balance the budget. Look it up... its the truth. Will re-regulation come back? Maybe. What will be the consequences of busting up Clear Channel, Citadel, Infinity? Busting up AT&T didn't do much for us... Some regulation is needed. Too much is bad.

The most important rule in radio programming is "KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE." A large number of classic rock programmers have told me my station is wimpy because I play the Little River Band or Louisiana's Leroux. Badfinger makes me sound too "classic hits." Benny Mardones "Into The Night" made me sound too much like the Adult Contemporary stations in town. Then revel in the fact that I have feature weekends that I play album cuts from My core artists Led Zeppelin, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Bob Seger, and The Who. They tell me I am all over the road musically, yet I only play 451 songs. I then have one simple question for them. "If I am doing something so wrong, why am I number one... and why have I been for almost 6 years?" I really don't mean that arrogantly. It comes across that way.. but I mean it to ask... what do you know so much about my audience. I spent eighty-five thousand dollars in 2002 on music research, focus groups, and perceptual studies to find out what my audience wants to hear. Plain and simple. If my music test and perceptual told me to play Grandmast Flash, I am playin it...Period. No question about it. Just to let you know, my test is done with 700 people targeted as Priority one listeners to the format.

Radio and the music business are separate yet work together. Every station is individual and has its own audience. Because of de-regulation the audience is divided among more stations. Stations have adapted to keep as much audience as they can.

When did it become radio' obligation to help record companies? Where did the FCC state that you have to tell every artists and title that is played. Last time I checked this was a free market society. Stations already pay large BMI and ASCAP fees for music based formats. BIG DOLLARS! Labels even buy advertisements on stations to push albums. Some even co-op dollars with major record retailers to push titles for a particular label. Let me take this a step further.

If radio is here to help record companies, we better get rid of all formats of music that do not play any new music. I mean after all, that is what sells most. Or better yet, make it mandatory that all music based stations play every request asked of them. But wait, that's not fair cause talk stations would be exempt fromt he rule. Right. Good.. their all right wing republican voice boxes anyway... get rid of them so we can help Sony, Universal, Warner, and EMI. What were we thinking not playing music. With out radio, no one would by an album. Change MTV to TRL-24/7 nothing but requests. No more Real World..sorry guys..

Sorry to illustrate absurdity with absurdity... but come on.

Again, I direct you to Soundscan. Research it if you want to. I beg you. The higher the number of spins a record gets, the more copies a record sells. This is the case 8 out of 10 times.

Professional voices? Are you kidding me? Most of the professional have left radio or are doing talk. Sorry to let the cat out of the bag here, but most radio companies hire as cheaply as possible. Remember. Programming is an expense. Sales is the revenue stream. Lower expenses to maximize cashflow. I am very fortunate. My company is locally owned. My classic rock has a syndicate morning show. (we were the ones who launched their syndication, they got bought by Clear Channel) I do middays lve and been in the market going on 10 years. My afternoon guy is live and been in the market going on 26 years and my might girls is new to the market but been in the business about 6 years and is live. From midnight to 5:30 am we let the computer play the music and voice track. We are guilty of it too.. but not nearly what others in the business are.

We are a good staff that informs, and entertains. We have the support of our owner and get pretty well take care of. We aren't the highest paid people in town, but we are locally owned and don't fear being replaced by voice tracking.

No back tot he original point: Don't blame radio for the lack of sales in the record industry. It doesn't wash. Record labels are putting out crap. Plain and simple. Burning is hurting .. a lot!

 

Tampax is a product. Music is the programming. Even network television doesn't program "The Sound of Music, and other stories just like it" 24 hours a day. Are you telling me that everything we hear on radio is a commercial?? Well, we have no disagreement then. I am in agreement. Radio has gone from selling me music AND product to selling me the product and the station. The programing has become the product. That's probably why I almost exclusively listen to news radio. I am handicapped by being aware of a time when things were different.

There is no reason to get defensive, I am well aware of the marketplace necessities of today. I am only pointing out that it isn't the LACK of new and unique music (and it really isn't), but the lack of any possibility of this music getting mass exposure in today's market. The fact that a major record company would even release a CD like The Breeders tells me they haven't given up 100%.

This doesn't make the job of programing easier, in fact - it makes it much harder work than it used to be.

It also makes the "breakaway" hit an almost impossibility. Despite the undeniable talent of Louis Armstrong, the thought of him having a hit single in '64 was almost unheard of - but "Hello Dolly" got the attention of SOMEBODY, who thought that this might just work for those Beatlemaniacs. Why did "Girl from Ipanema" hit when Bobby Darrin was the rage? Why do thousands of Van Halen fans know "White Lines" by Grandmaster Flash? Sinatra had a hit with "New York, New York" 3 years after Liza Minelli first sang it - it was an "old" song - but SOMEONE said "I gotta play this".

If Graham Nash and Neil Young wrote a folk song that curled your toes - - so good that you said "my god, that's a great song, fantastic production, and it should be heard", where would it get heard?? Demographics would show that Graham and Neil have no target audience in the youth market. Instead of a gut feeling, it would have no exposure - no chance.

BTW - even in the old days, if that gut feeling didn't promote a positive audience response in a week or 2, it was dumped. At least it got a shot. It wasn't like the DJ's had carte blanche.

But they did have a say.

 

I think Isupro makes a lot of sense with his observations on radio, but while my opinion that the current crisis in the industry is megaburning and a lack of innovative, fresh music from many artists, I do think radio has a hand in this. As has been pointed out, radio of yesteryear was a far more musically diverse place, where you could hear 'fogies' like Sinatra or Mathis next to the Stones and the Troggs.
The major point of that being, how can you expand the horizons of the average music listener without ghettoizing huge segments of the public into niche groups?
As much as I've loved classic rock over the years, the classic rock 'stations' I've heard just drive me batty with their mind-numbing repetition. Zep did other songs besides Stairway and the Who did other songs besides Baba O'Reiley and Won't Get Fooled Again. I don't want to just pick on Classic Rock, the other formats can be just as obnoxiously braindead such as the 'hits' station that plays the latest J-Lo every 15 minutes.
I do think that stations have the right to program as they please, but isn't there a happy medium SOMEWHERE?

 

I heard him on NPR's Terry Gross. Sounded like a great concept. Is he syndicated only on the East Coast???

Any of you Bay Area folks game to start spinning the California garage classics of yesteryear, live on the air??? I think that would be a killer concept. I think the entire West Coast would light up as we're all a bunch of California exiles anyway

We have a local (probably part of the Clear Channel empire) that spins oldies, but it is mostly 60's bubble gum, which granted was part of the sonic landscape, but come on, there was a whole lot else out there.

 

How about some of those classic Motown arrangements?

 

Forgive me if my tone is defensive. Let me first start by saying that.

Nextly, Music is more than programming. It is the on-air product that station wraps its image around. Tampax is know for Tampons... its product. Eagle 98.1 is know for its classic rock. My station is a brand, no different than Coke, Tampax, Playstation 2, or Digital Compact Classics. Each brand must have an identity. The products you surround yourself with create that. Ford, GM, and Chrysler will attest to that. So I should play the best songs to keep brand loyalty.. just as Chevy has to make the best truck to keep them selling. I have to re-enforece that brand image with targeted marketing aimed at my core audience. I have to super-serve that audience in order to keep them loyal. No different than Chevy. There are two difference. The major one is my product is intangible. And the second is that it is free. When something is free.. an individual is less loyal to it. After all.. parents told us to work for things because we'd appreciate it more right?

So I wanted to be clear about what radio is...

My question still has yet to be answered. Who decreed that radio was saddled with the birth right to sell new music for record companies. What icon carved it in stone that radio had to basically pitch records so that its listeners would go out and buy them? No one did. No one. no one ever has... and no one ever will. Remember, Radio pays to play music. So are you saying that radio should pay to advertise for The Breeders? It just doesn't wash. The mere fact that a station plays a song helps sell it.

Maybe this is what you miss:

a pre Real Don Steel break at 10Q in LA...(Steve's just had a flashback)

Imagine an Alan Freed wanna be behind the mic going:

blah blah bla" and the latest from (insert favorite artist name) now available on Sun records. On top of the stacks of wax for all you Jills and Jacks is a brand new twril from (insert new artist here) its called (insert new song title) on the best station in the nation..(insert station name)

Those days are over. different listeners in different markets want different things from different radio stations. A programmer has to know what his audience wants. Plain and simple. Give them that and you have a winning station.

btw.. who said the Breeders were good?