Listening again to ‘Emerald Tears’

I was teaching bass today and brought a few great bass recordings to the class to play for the students. Among them was Dave Holland’s solo bass masterpiece ‘Emerald Tears’. I remember hearing this a year or two after it came out in 1978, and being enthralled by it, though I had very little idea what the hell was going on technically – either in terms of the playing of the bass or the musical concepts underpinning the recording. Coming as I was at that time from a very bebop oriented background, a lot of the music on the recording sounded very free to me, and free music (or what was known in one catch-all phrase by beboppers such as myself as free music) was not something I usually had a positive reaction to. But this was different - although I didn’t understand the structures or musical modus operandi of this recording it struck me forcibly that each piece had a tremendous sense of forward motion. And despite my lack of understanding of it, for reasons I couldn’t explain, listening to it made always me want to go and practice – it still has that effect on me!

Much later I had the chance to study with Dave Holland – by this time I was much more au fait with more open styles of playing and much more into it as an improvising concept too. So to have the chance to study with Dave was both exciting in the anticipation, and revelatory in the detail. Dave was a great teacher and what really impressed me was the way he organised his materials, both as a teacher and as a player. I knew he was a great straight ahead player and I guessed that he would have a lot of concrete suggestions to make concerning playing within changes and form – and indeed he did. What I wasn’t expecting however was how he took exactly the same approach to more open playing. I was expecting him to be more vague about this, maybe to do the ‘it’s just a feeling’ kind of thing you sometimes hear from ‘free’ players. But not a bit of it – he had a slew of suggestions to make, lots of devices and strategies for developing motifs and ideas in the more open waters of music that he swam in so comfortably. By this point I was very familiar with Dave’s playing and recordings, but even so this revelation of being able to apply such methodical ideas to apparently open form music was a serious eye-opener for me. Armed with this knowledge, the forward motion sensation I had felt instinctively when I first listened to Emerald Tears made intellectual sense – I could now hear the application to the music of the kinds of things Dave talked about in his classes. So I could appreciate it all the more now and get into it in a way that had not been possible before.

But despite my evolving appreciation of this recording, it was a while longer before yet another aspect to Emerald Tears became apparent to me – its place in the history of the evolution of jazz bass. I guess this ‘long view’ is something that becomes more apparent as you yourself spend a longer time with the music. It’s now almost thirty years since I first heard Dave’s masterpiece and the hindsight that spending this kind of time with the music can bring has allowed me to see the importance of this recording and its place in the history of the bass.

This is a revolutionary recording – it revealed a new way to play the bass, a way that was both in the tradition yet innovative in all kinds of ways. First of all the idea of a solo bass recording was in itself incredibly forward thinking. If you’re going to make a solo bass recording, and you’re not going to use any studio/multi-tracking/electronic techniques, then you’d better have a lot of creative and technical weaponry to bring with you! Because you’re armed with just four strings, your technique and your imagination. And Dave more than rises to that challenge – Emerald Tears is a tour de force of both technique and imagination. But even leaving aside this fantastic musical achievement, another thing that’s really interesting about Emerald Tears from a bassists point of view, is that Dave charted an individual course between the two major streams of modern bass playing - one which was independent of, yet referential to both.

In the early 1960s the tradition of bass playing in jazz split into two major streams – one following in a direct line from Jimmy Blanton and including players such as Ray Brown, Paul Chambers and Ron Carter. The other stream was instigated in the late 50s and early 60s by Scott La Faro who showed a generation of bassists a whole new way of playing the instrument and interacting with the other musicians. After La Faro’s premature death this tradition was continued by such players as Gary Peacock, Chuck Israels and Eddie Gomez. Bassists who appeared in the mid-60s and afterwards would usually identify with one or the other school of bass playing, and the influence of that school could usually be clearly heard. But what Dave Holland did was show another way – one that used the rhythmic power and resonance of the traditional school, while exploiting the innovations of the later one.

But not only did he draw on these two traditions, he also brought a bunch of original things of his own to the bass playing table – extended arco techniques, extensive use of motifs, and an incredibly developed rhythmic sense. In this latter regard, the use of rhythm on Emerald Tears is extraordinary - at times, in a kind of extended recognition of one of its major functions in jazz, the bass is almost used like a percussion instrument. I’ve never heard a more powerful exposition of the rhythmic possibilities of the bass in creative music than on Emerald Tears. Small motifs are developed, extended and mutated through the use of rhythm, and the rhythmic possibilities of an instrument with such a large body and long string length are exploited to the full.

And this is one of the things I enjoy most about Emerald Tears – it is a BASS recording! So often bassists try and emulate other instruments in terms of soloing – the bebop masters who translated Charlie Parker’s language for the bass, the modern electric players who are as fleet as any guitarist or saxophonist. But this recording could only have been made by a bassist – huge amounts of it are untranslate-able to any other instrument. On Emerald Tears Dave Holland not only puts together a great programme of music that holds the attention of the listener for all of its 40+ minutes, but he also makes a recording that celebrates the bass as a unique instrument with qualities and characteristics that can only be found on the bass. For that alone all jazz bassists should be grateful.

If you haven’t heard/got it already, check it out -

http://www.jazzloft.com/p-49018-emerald-tears.aspx

Consolidators Again Betray Radio

Clear Channel has just issued an edict to at least five of their stations that they must carry a 30 minute infomercial every morning at 5 am for the next 13 weeks.

The hell with consulting the stations' program directors or for that matter -- local management. Clear Channel is the mother of all consolidators and it manages from headquarters -- not where the individual radio licenses were issued.

The infomercial will be for "gold" -- I guess the value of buying gold in a bad economy. Hell, Mark Mays ought to go on and provide a testimonial of how valuable gold is compared to the stock of public radio companies.

But then again Mays and Clear Channel no longer worry about the public market.

One of the saddest things about the latest John Slogan Hogan edict is that WGST's excellent news and talk station in Atlanta -- the market he used to manage -- will also have to prostitute itself for the same old 30 minute infomercial for three months. Another news/talker KNST, Tucson has also been warned among others.

That's at the start of morning drive -- 5 am.

Guess no one is worried that the same sorry show over and over about the same commercial subject matter won't build an audience for the rest of morning drive.

No problem.

Clear Channel just notifies The Wall Street Journal that it will no longer need the first half hour of The Journal's radio show that has been running in that time slot. And The Journal just sucks it up because, after all, you don't want to get Clear Channel pissed off.

Hogan has a long history of turning on "them that got him there" as local lore will remind you. Some rumors say the failed sales rep Hogan bested a rival GM to get control over WPCH and WGST and then there are some who think Hogan screwed his mentor Randy Michaels at the time the Mays' were having penis envy issues with Randy. Remarkably, guess who wound up replacing Michaels?

You guessed it -- John Slogan Hogan.

Look, don't confuse what I am saying about infomercials. They've always been around as has other forms of paid programming. Venerable stations like WOR in New York took money from Herbert W. Armstrong and then his son Garner Ted Armstrong for decades to carry their religious show weekday evenings -- one of many examples.

It's not that there isn't a place for paid programming, but that's not what's up here.

You're seeing another glimpse of radio's sorry future.

Clear Channel will sell its soul for paid programming. Religious broadcasters do it all the time. And that great radio pioneer Farid "Fagreed" Suleman has pimped out his ABC news and talk stations mercilessly for a little extra infomercial coin.

Radio has a long history of making bad decisions when it comes to their loyal audience. And in recent days when formats were dropped from terrestrial radio, they were made available to angry listeners on the Siberia they called the Internet. (In other words, they thought the Internet was the punishment for a format they dropped).

When years ago, WJFK in Washington had lulled its listeners into a sense of security around Howard Stern and compatible male programming, these same listeners get jolted by Bill O'Reilly's syndicated talk show. Bet no program director in his or her right mind made that pimped decision.

Wonder why NPR has so much audience?

How about because you can't find news on most commercial radio stations and when you do, well -- it isn't that good. Local NPR stations like KCRW have managed to hold on to young radio listeners even while they pioneer new things in the Internet space. Music diversity, local news.

Did you see how broadcasters are complaining because The People Meter is picking up Christian station dominance among teens?

Damn it -- radio CEOs want Arbitron to get to the bottom of this "mistake". But what if it is not a mistake (and I don't believe it is)? Then too much of the same old same old teen music programming may have set the stage for emerging markets. Time will tell once the latest numbers are investigated.

The new iPod announces song information for listeners -- that's more than most radio stations do. So if radio wants to go head to head with the iPod maybe their listeners are saying -- talk about the music and the artists or else -- an iPod is better. No commercials. My music. No Ryan Seacrest.

But the real killer is what is happening in Fargo.

The flood brought out the best in local radio with stations like KFGO fighting the rising tides to stay on the air and serve the public interest.

Serving the public interest is exactly what local radio stations are supposed to be doing 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 375 days a year.

That's who we are -- that's what we do best.

Not just at times of crisis but everyday -- even when it has to do with a small town Easter parade.

Localism and immediacy.

But localism is being replaced by Repeater Radio on phantom radio stations with the number one consolidator, Clear Channel, blazing the way.

Forget localism -- listen to the same pitch about "gold" every day for 13 weeks at the start of morning drive because the client is paying for the time.

The only reason you don't see radio infomercials more in prime time is because it's not cost effective -- for the infomercial company.

But ad rates are coming down and the day could come when these mighty CEOs will find another way to sell their audiences down the river.

So, this is not about whether radio stations can take some paid programming -- preferably programming that isn't the same every day -- to fill some off-hour slots.

But consolidators are signaling all who will listen that they are no longer in the local radio business. You remember the piece I wrote last week about the Clear Channel stations getting ready to go all national programming all the time?

There will be a switcher who can channel these various national programs down the line to individual stations. Clear Channel, as I pointed out in the piece, has already ordered each studio to have a warm body in it in case of a Fargo or Katrina or in case public outrage forces Congress to take a look at why you need to grant licenses to companies that have no interest in fulfilling their obligations.

Will Congress know the difference between a warm body and news coverage?

Not unless you tell them.

The technology is in place to go all-national, all-the-time.

The John Slogan Hogan's of the world are mandating a warm body in each studio but is that radio or is that covering your ass?

Whatever local commercials can be sold will be recorded nationally. That's certainly not new.

Sales will be done by one local team and after that, I couldn't even guarantee you that some markets will have local sales forces. I see national local sales coming -- and it will be awful.

No need for program directors when all the creative decisions are left to suits.

No need for diversity -- what a lawsuit that could be -- when all white men are showing up across the country on radio stations because it's cheaper.

No need for news -- unless you think that warm body is going to anchor coverage of the next flood, blizzard, toxic waste spill or hurricane. I think not.

If you want to know why listeners have been and continue to abandon radio in large numbers (unless you're RAB CEO Jeff Haley who has his own numbers), maybe it's because radio has abandoned them.

To be fair, it didn't all happen during consolidation, but consolidation has done nothing to help the radio business.

In the late 80's radio was imitating itself --- chopping genres into sub-genres. Progressive rock became album oriented rock which became classic rock and many variations thereof. And on and on. We failed to take chances. Failed to innovate.

In the 90's duopoly was all the rage and programming began to be seen as not just one station but a platform that presumably could be marketed as such. Three young male stations, a 25-54 women's station. As if a 25 year old would listen to the same thing a 54 year old would listen to.

After deregulation in 1996, the flood gates opened and owning as many stations as possible (no matter what interest rate it took to finance their acquisition) became the next thing.

Economies of scale came next. One GM for three or four or more stations. Same with PDs. Then market managers and revamping management charts endlessly.

All of this had nothing to do with our listeners.

The Internet, iPods, mobile phones and texting, social networking and the sociological changes brought by a new generation -- it came upon broadcasters without much notice.

Then the recession.

Now, even Thomas Lee Partners CEO (Clear Channel's co-owner) said the other day that he thinks radio is a great business and will come back after the recession ends.

No thanks to them.

It may turn out to be ironic that John Hogan just hired Nice-Pak CFO Mitchell Goldstein, a maker of wet wipes products, to join Clear Channel Radio as CFO. I'm not going to comment other than to say -- finally, a good hire. A guy who knows all about cleaning up a mess.

Unless radio is all about localism and immediacy -- it is over.

Unless it looks to the digital future where 80 million Millennials have migrated, there can be no future when older radio listeners go.

Oddly enough, all radio's problems are not about the economy or amassing debt service they cannot manage or for that matter, iPods or online media. That, too.

Listeners wouldn't abandon radio unless radio abandoned them.

We have betrayed our listeners.

And until local managers, programmers, sales people and talent are put into place to make the decisions on the ground -- there is no chance for reconciliation.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: First you must check your mail or spam filter to verify your subscription immediately after signing up before daily service can begin.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

This Is Radio Nowhere

Springsteen has it right.

This is Radio Nowhere.

"Is there anybody alive out there?"

The current movement by consolidators to fire their local live talent and move to a nationally syndicated Repeater Radio platform of phantom stations appears to be the final blow to a troubled industry.

We get that consolidators have really had it their way since the enabling legislation was passed in 1996 to deregulate radio ownership.

It's been a virtual monopoly ever since.

Consolidators had carte blanche for almost 13 years.

They merged with concert companies, bought up outdoor businesses, snapped up all the supporting industries that radio stations relied on. At first they hired consulting talent only to release them later. They have had no oversight. Pulled off a fraud on shareholders. Ran their debt way past their ability to pay. Ruined lives. Ruined assets and ruined an industry.

We know all that.

But when The Boss asks "is there anybody alive out there?" it takes on another meaning beyond the vanilla, Repeater Radio that America's radio consolidators are cramming into the ears of innocent listeners.

Is there any independent group alive out there?

Look, I say this with all due respect. I know operating as an independent has its challenges in this day. And they must live in the wake of the turbulence that is caused by consolidation mismanagement.

Yet, where are they?

In radio as in life we must accept the things we cannot change and the courage to change the things we can.

I hear all the time from independent operators who understand what we're espousing in this space. Yet they continue to roll up losses from operating radio stations that are becoming more like the consolidators who "done them in" than the stations they could be.

Some are buying the same research that almost everyone already knows.

There's not a hair's difference between some independent operators and most consolidators. There are a few, but not enough to turn the tide.

We have a People Meter in some markets -- with more to come -- and yet few substantive changes have taken place to transform radio beyond the hype and foolishness that has finally taken its toll on the industry.

I can tell you -- as an industry -- we know very little about those 80 million Millennials who make up the next generation that is fast coming of age. And why we cannot change how they will get their entertainment and information from the Internet, mobile devices and social networks, we are failing when it comes to getting the courage to enter their space with our talent.

There is no future for us without them.

Is there anybody alive in a market where Clear Channel, Citadel, Cumulus and the others are retreating from local programming?

If so, are you hiring?

Are you running 100% local and live programming?

Cutting spot loads?

Running one-commercial stop sets?

Expanding playlists?

Embracing music discovery?

Doing local news?

Getting more involved in civic pursuits -- the kind that the next generation champions?

Are you taking advantage of the competitive gift radio consolidators are giving you to leave them in the dust?

Your competitors -- these very consolidators -- are so used to dictating the terms of engagement in radio that when they retreat, you seem to retreat with them without a whimper, without a protest, without a counter-offensive.

While there are many broadcasters who still have some semblance of listener focus left to them, consolidators are handing you their audiences on a silver platter.

So, you can keep losing money or take advantage of their many strategic mistakes.

Continue to play nice with the big boys or you could stick it to them on behalf of your radio listeners.

Running live, local radio is not an expense.

It's an investment.

And you can't reinvent on-air when you're unwilling to re-invent radio sales.

Selling spots is a fickle game. But selling relationships that deliver effective and well-defined goals -- well, that is superior marketing.

Is there anybody alive in the Internet and mobile space?

The notion that streaming radio online in and of itself is an Internet strategy is just false. Internet streaming represents less than 3% of all terrestrial streaming audiences and most times, because of restrictions, this 3% doesn't even count in their Arbitron ratings.

Three-percent!

That's not good enough.

The Internet will not be an alternative transmitter for terrestrial broadcasters. It is the transmitter of the future.

Radio operators show little interest in investing in separate (and different) Internet streams using the expertise and talent they can access. They just want to rubber stamp their terrestrial streams online and call it an Internet strategy.

Try to find a major radio group with any money invested in their digital future and no -- HD radio doesn't count.

While they may think they have bigger fish to fry right now, every school year many more Millennials come of age and leave radio further back in the Stone Age.

Independent operators are the ones who can develop the new frontier because they are not likely to do what a consolidator would do -- assuming they even budget for this -- create local streams.

Is there anybody alive in social networking?

Stations keep embarrassing themselves by asking listeners to text in to win drivel. Confirming how uncool they are by directing radio listeners to their websites when the young generation never needs to be told to find what they like online. They're not dumb. They do it all the time.

Radio people are the most qualified talent to turn around a dying on-air business, build the most creative Internet streams and connect people through desirable and addictive social networks unlike any that have ever been done.

After all, Facebook is just a start -- not an end. Even young folks will tell you that.

Tomorrow, another consolidator will probably do something stupid that deserves a comment and some attention. They never disappoint when it comes to that.

But today, I'm calling on the independent radio operators who are the only -- and I mean only -- hope for saving what is left of a great service to lead the industry to the Promised Land of digital media -- a space consumers have embraced.

Time to step up.

Time to stop with the excuses.

Take advantage of the strategic gifts clueless consolidators are seemingly giving you every day and run with them.

There's risk -- financial and otherwise -- no doubt.

But there is also great reward.

Consolidators aren't going to do it.

Outsiders don't want to do it.

Only independent operators can save the radio industry from Radio Nowhere.

Is there anybody alive out there?

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: First you must check your mail or spam filter to verify your subscription immediately after signing up before daily service can begin.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

Wayne Shorter - again!

Just saw this great quote from Wayne, regarding creativity:

'What I'm doing is pounding at the door of creativity. That takes curiosity and courage to turn the handle and go through it. I want to let people know the door is there.'

A Question of Status II - Miles quote

(See the 'A Question of Status' post for the context of this one)

Accidentally stumbled across this quote (in a blog by somebody else), from Miles Davis, from his autobiography. He's talking about the difficulty he and Gil Evans had with the 'Sketches of Spain' sessions. His dismissal of classical musicians goes much further than I would, but it was interesting to read his thoughts on something that I'd been thinking and writing about only recently -and of course it's put in the kind of colourful way that he was always such a master of.

...Legit drummers can't solo because they have no musical imagination to improvise. Like most other classical players, they play only what you put in front of them. That's what classical music is; the musicians only play what's there and nothing else. They can remember, and have the ability of robots. In classical music, if one musician isn't like the other, isn't all the way a robot, like all the rest, then the other robots make fun of him or her, especially if they're black. That's all that is, that's all the classical music is in terms of the musicians who play it - robot shit. And people celebrate them like they're great. Now there's some great classical music by great classical composers - and there's some great players up in there, but they have to become soloists - but it's still robot playing and most of them know it deep down, though they wouldn't admit it in public.

What is Jazz?

This is actually an older essay - I did it several years ago, but I think it's still a relevant question - at least for me!



What is Jazz?

This question has not only been asked ever since the J word was associated with an emerging musical form, but is also almost certainly guaranteed to raise a groan from the reader of any essay which uses 'What is Jazz?' as a title ‚ myself included. However, in these days of the post modern/eclecticism/all inclusive philosophy on the one hand, and die hard conservatism/neo classical/preservation of the 'pure' tradition, on the other, - the question of what is jazz, is a valid one for everyone who loves this music, plays it, or teaches it.

Why? Well identity for a start ‚ if we're to develop and sustain a life in creative music, in the music we call 'jazz', I believe it becomes ever more important to identify what exactly are the musical and philosophical values that make us what we are ‚ jazz musicians. And more than ever, we need to understand our motivation, because jazz is quite marginalised in society today. Unlike the mainstream American jazz of the early to mid-20th Century, which grew directly from the community and society that surrounded it, jazz today is not the music of the society that surrounds it ‚ in some ways. In many ways I believe jazz today does not directly reflect the society in which it finds itself.

This itself was a problematic conclusion for me to come to. In the conservative‚ v -innovative debate, I'm firmly on the side of the innovative argument. I believe that to try and recreate the music of the past is a false aesthetic for a creative musician to follow, since a truly improvising musician must reflect their direct influences, most of which must come from the society that surrounds them and the music of that society.

So, if I believe that, how can I also hold the seemingly opposed view that jazz is not a direct outgrowth of the society it finds itself in? Well I extricate myself from that particular contradiction by the following reasoning ‚ jazz today is in some ways a product of the society it find itself in, and in other ways far outside it. Let me explain.

First of all ‚ how is jazz today reflective of society?

Jazz today, or what is called jazz, shows a bewildering array of influences ‚ rock music, contemporary classical, world music, electronic dance music, hip-hop etc. etc. ‚ and, of course, the American swing idiom, which is the original rhythmic source of the music. Different groups and musicians reflect different influences, sometimes mixing more than one element in their musical outlook. This eclectic myriad of styles and influences is very much a reflection of our society. We live in the information age ‚ never has so much information been available to everybody, via mass-media and the internet. Music is no different - go into any decent mainstream music store and one is met by a baffling array of artists and styles, and literally anything, even the most obscure music forms, are available through the internet.

We are bombarded with musical information, and it is hardly surprising that jazz musicians, as they have always done, use this information to inform their own music, taking inspiration where they find it. In this way the music is absolutely reflective of the society in which it lives. Globalism is bulldozing local traditions in all sorts of ways, and in jazz the same could be argued. 50 years ago a young musician living in a small Spanish or Irish, or Indian town would probably be exposed, for the most part, to Spanish, Irish, or Indian music respectively. His or her counterpart today would have been exposed to a much wider range of musics ‚ and this is reflected in the music we hear from jazz musicians now. In this way, jazz is very reflective of its environment.

So how is jazz today not reflective of society?

One of the things that I find most attractive about jazz is the democratic and social nature of the music. The music is about process rather than result ‚ jazz being best experienced live, where one can experience the creation of a piece of music, brought about by the efforts of a group of people working together, and communicating with each other. Yet within the tradition of this sociable music, the idea of individualism is not only encouraged, but highly prized. So, here we have a music which is completely dependent on co-operation between the participants, yet which at the same time encourages each to make as personal and individual a statement as possible. What a wonderful ethos!

And what an alien ethos in today's society! We live in an era of conformity ‚ despite what we are told by advertisers, trying to convince us that buying their products will somehow make us different or special. The name of the game today is sell, sell, sell. And never has it been easier for advertisers to reach its customers. Through the same mass media and technology which allows us access to so much music, comes a relentless barrage of advertising, product placement, corporate identity information, and a general haranguing of the population to buy this or that.

In order to maximise the sales of their products, huge global corporations have been formed which can send their message to every corner of the earth. One of the results of this is the gradual bulldozing of national identity ‚ people in Japan, the US, China, France, Brazil etc. often wear the same terrible clothes, eat the same terrible food, listen to the same terrible music. People are happy to be walking advertising boards for global clothing companies, proudly sporting their logos on their shirts or footwear. Never has the world undergone such a tidal wave of sameness under the name of choice. The result is a conformity that threatens to engulf every aspect of our lives.

In this milieu, jazz is very much out of step with the society. It stands out as a beacon of individuality in a sea of sameness, commercialism and mediocrity ‚ and thank goodness for that! Its prizing of individuality is a wonderful thing, allowing a rare opportunity for people to express themselves in a way that is not governed by an advertising executive or an accountant. This is not to say that jazz hasn't been touched by the same market forces as all other musics, but I think it's fair to say that it is less prevalent in jazz.

This is where I think the question of 'what is jazz' becomes important and interesting. If we agree that jazz is an oasis of creativity in a commercial desert, then surely it becomes important for us to be able to not only identify the aesthetic values of jazz, but also the musical values ‚ the musical aesthetic that separates it from other forms of music and allows us to identify with a tradition, and a list of great musical antecedents. In this way we can clearly identify what is important to us, both musically and aesthetically, and clearly make a musical statement every time we play.

Of course now we come to the thorny issue of what exactly 'jazz' is in musical terms. Can it even be explained? Can it be reduced to a few principles, or is that impossible? Is every effort to explain it either too all-inclusive ‚ where almost everything could be called jazz of some sort or another ‚ or too exclusive ‚ where a very narrow definition excludes almost everything? These are hard questions to answer, and all I can do is offer the solution that I've come up with myself, and with which I form my own opinions about music I play, and music I hear.

Wynton Marsalis, when asked what jazz was, baldly stated, "Blues and Swing". To him this is the simple answer ‚ the music evolved within a certain tradition ‚ blues and swing ‚ and once other influences became apparent in the music ‚ i.e. rock music ‚ it ceased to be jazz anymore. While I have a certain sympathy with where that argument is coming from ‚ the desire to preserve what he sees as a tradition under threat ‚ at the same time I think this is far too simplistic an idea and is insupportable from both a creative and historic point of view.

If you hold onto an idea of a 'pure' form of jazz you are entering very dangerous waters. Since jazz is a music that originated from an accretion of musical information coming from several different musical cultures, at what point does one cut off the inclusion of any new pieces of information? Who decides that this piece of harmonic information was acceptable, but that is not? Who decides that the influence of Latin rhythms are acceptable in jazz, but that funk rhythms are not? Jazz has evolved and taken in influences constantly. This happened from jazz's earliest days right into the 1960s ‚ which seems to be the cut-off point for Marsalis as far as his notion of the legitimate development of the tradition is concerned. But why were the influences that entered jazz up to this point ‚ Latin rhythms, chord substitution, and modal harmony for example ‚ acceptable, and the later ones ‚ funk rhythms, free playing and classical compositional practices for example ‚ not?

These decisions seem far too arbitrary to me and are far too subjective, being based on the likes and dislikes of the arbiter ‚ in this case Marsalis. It also neglects to take account of that other great jazz tradition ‚ innovation and change, which is the engine that has driven the evolution of the music. And it excludes far too much music that is clearly based on a jazz music ethos, and that uses jazz techniques almost exclusively.

I guess it has come to the point where I have to state my own opinion on what is and isn't jazz ‚ I can't sit on the fence any longer! I believe that jazz has become an incredibly broad music, and that it is a global music now ‚ one which is played and developed by musicians all over the world, not just America. A music where innovators come from many countries and cultures and who bring their unique perspective into the music to enrich it and help keep it vibrant. So in this vast musical landscape, how can we identify any more what is or isn't jazz? Well, for me, this is what I see as being jazz:

Jazz is a largely improvised music, in which all members of the group improvise, and which is informed by the Afro-American rhythmic tradition.

I think this definition is broad enough to include all of the innovations which are taking place in the music today, and the influences that are coming from so many sources, while at the same time setting limits as to what can be called jazz ‚ preserving some sort of ethos with which we can identify with, and be a part of, rather than being part of a church that is so broad it encompasses everybody from Megadeth to Ligeti.

So maybe I could give a few examples of this explanation of jazz in action ‚ or how I would apply my definition to different artists. Indian music, though fulfilling the criteria of being largely improvised throughout the ensemble, has no influence from the Afro-American tradition, so isn't jazz. Steve Coleman's music, though rarely, if ever engaging with swing, involves many aspects of the Afro-American rhythmic tradition, and the group improvises both collectively and individually and therefore, by my definition is jazz.

My definition is broad enough to allow currently active musicians as disparate as Wynton Marsalis, Jan Garbarek, John Zorn, and John McLaughlin to be seen as part, albeit very different parts, of the same great tradition. At the same time it allows me to exclude Kenny G! In Kenny G's group he improvises after a fashion for sure, but his group is constrained to play the same backing time after time, therefore breaching the stipulation that the music must be improvised by the group ‚ not just the individual. For the same reason, I have grave reservations about the current vogue in Europe of mixing jazz gestures with electronic dance music. This has the same problems for me, in a jazz sense, as what Kenny G does, in that the soloist is improvising over a set background that cannot, and will not change. In this way the music skirts the social element that true group improvising - that I mentioned as being such a wonderful part of the jazz ethos ‚ entails.

So, with this simple formula, I find it relatively easy to negotiate the plethora of differing styles that can currently be heard in what I would consider to be contemporary jazz. At the same time it allows me to also clearly identify core values that can be clearly understood, and acted upon.

Jazz is a great gift to humanity, and now, maybe more than ever before, I believe it has much to offer the world. I think it's important for us to be proud of being jazz musicians, and to believe in the importance of what we do. And in order to believe in that importance it's necessary to understand exactly what it is we do. Hence the necessity for all aspiring jazz musicians, teachers and lovers to ask themselves ‚ 'what is jazz'? If you can answer that satisfactorily for yourself, everything within the music takes on more meaning - and this has to be a good thing.

Competing Against "Simon Says" Radio

My friend, the great radio programmer, George Johns once wrote to remind me that now is an excellent time to be competing against operators who are cutting back and taking their focus off their listeners.

Indeed, George is right.

Unfortunately, it seems a day doesn't go by that a radio CEO makes another stupid move that hurts their shareholders, staff and listeners.

So imagine -- while Clear Channel is moving toward nationally-produced local programming (or as I call it Repeater Radio on phantom stations), their non-consolidated competitors could be kicking their asses.

Could be.

Because many of them have fallen into a malaise that promotes "Simon Says" radio. You know the kind.

"Simon" (Clear Channel) says use voice tracking to save money. Everyone does it to stay in the game.

Cut sales commissions (after all, we have a recession) -- competitors mindlessly follow.

Clear Channel says less is more -- then, damn it -- less must be more. Even Clear Channel doesn't believe this tripe any more.

But in the kids game of "Simon Says" which requires players to act on a command, say -- touch your toes -- children can remain in the game only as long as they use the command "Simon Says".

In radio, success is being out -- away from this terrible chain of mismanagement and desperate accounting that is making a mockery of a once proud and profitable business.

As Wikipedia points out, "It is Simon's task to try to get everyone out as quickly as possible, and it is every one else's job to stay "in" for as long as possible. The last of Simon's followers to stay in wins (although the game is not always played all the way through)".

Clear Channel, et al. would like to get everyone out of their way so that they can unilaterally run the radio industry as their banker/owners choose. And as we're finding out, it is no reward to be the last one in. It may be an advantage in child's play but not in the real world.

Ironically, in radio -- doing the opposite of "Simon Says" is more beneficial.

No doubt by Monday, one of the CEOs running a radio group will come up with another assault on good radio. But for now -- and in this space -- let's take a look at how Clear Channel, Citadel, Cumulus and the rest of the clueless consolidators have actually made it easier for their competitors to clean their clocks.

Now, you or your owners may not like everything I'm going to suggest, but I promise you your listeners and advertisers will eat it up.

Let's start with sales --

So, if it were my station(s) to run:

1. Increase the sales commission to 30%. (See, I knew you wouldn't like it -- here comes all the recession excuses). From now on, 30% on all new business. No gimmicks. No fine print. And, 30% of old business that exceeds its previous contract levels. No stealing accounts. No give backs if clients pay late. No needless paperwork. Treat them like adults -- turn them loose -- and we get to keep 70% of their hard work. No lectures. No pep talks. 30% - now.

2. Hire as many Clear Channel, Citadel, Cumulus, Entercom and other consolidators' salespeople -- you know, the ones they fired (excuse me for not being politically correct -- I mean "laid off"). Hell, go ahead -- hire the ones they are still employing. They're probably coming up with a scheme to fire them, too. Same deal. 30%.

3. Cut the spot load to 10 in morning drive and eight max in other dayparts. This guarantees that your salespeople will get rich with you. Instead of following "Simon" and doing ad blowouts on the cheap, offer fair rates based on ratings, unusual programming and/or other demand factors.

4. Schedule the spots to run alone -- and then beat your consolidator competitor to death at the ad agencies and client offices. On our station, your spots run alone -- better chance to get them heard and your message won't get lost. Make it policy. Practice. Shout it from the roof tops. (Listeners don't hate more frequent commercial breaks as much as you think. We live in an attention deficit world and this approach cooperates with it).

5. Sell results not spots. On our station, we guarantee (you heard me) -- guarantee results based on agreed upon goals or we'll make it right. Go ahead, Fagreed -- top that one. We'll test the spot on the Internet (included in the price), get the best talent -- maybe we won't even put a spot on the radio. Could be Internet -- cell phone, podcast, off-air event. But, we'll guarantee results.

Now, let's move on to programming --

1. Local in every daypart every day. Stick the foolish consolidators with the label "Repeater Radio" and "Phantom stations" -- I'd plaster it around town but not on-air. After all, Lee & Bain are quite proud of their new idea, but they won't be when we turn it into what it is which is a fraud perpetrated on the city of license and the station's advertisers.

2. No promos. Hey, you can't fire me -- I don't even work for you. I'm just sayin'. No promos. Young people can teach us a lot about how radio has gone wrong. In olden days, radio could promo things and listeners actually believed they would come to pass. Today, people in general don't believe what they hear. On our station, we do it first and then shut up about it. They're not dummies. They know when something just got better. You don't have to say, "The New 102" -- My God, even you don't believe that!

3. No one gets on the air unless they are having fun. Another advantage for non-consolidated operators. You can't have fun when you fear for your job. But at our station, we're going to make a commitment to keep our people employed. And they are going to promise to make listening to our station fun again. Young people do not think radio is fun and in fact, I don't think older listeners do either.

4. Bring local news back. News doesn't have to be newscasts. It could be updates so that if you don't listen to our station you feel disconnected -- like you'll miss something. Now in radio, you know that listeners rarely worry about missing anything these days.

5. We're going to make Clear Channel miserable in our market because we're going to do giant promotions and contests. But learn from the emerging next generation. Make it relevant to their lives, the station's format and our society. Make it civic. I know I lost some of you, but the ones I want working with me on this understand what I just said. Clean up the park. Help Habitat for Humanity. Help make your schools green. Environmental projects. And fun ideas -- pay a listener's mortgage payments for a year. Or pay for something that helps during tough times. Don't promo it to death. Do it. They get it.

6. Every one of our live morning shows will help our listeners fix something or get help in their lives. We're going to have a team of off-air part-time (at home) workers help listeners who got screwed by a bank, stuck with a car, forced to overpay for something. We're going to put them on the air -- help make it right -- and we're not going to act like asses running stupid promos all day saying how great we are.

7. All weekends will be no repeat days. Young people, the changemakers who have led the rest of us into the digital future, hate radio music repetition. So I'm going to promise no repeats (even of currents) which will force us to have to go out and find music worthy of airplay. How exciting. And none of those non-believable promos that say "N0 repetition all weekend long on WLIE".

8. Sunday night at 9 or 10 (can't decide yet) -- a local show with a local host knowledgeable in our station's music genre doing all new and all local artists. I can't wait to meet with my salespeople to show them how they can sell the hell out of this one.

9. Create a "Truth Squad" of station people to help prevent us from sounding like a radio station. No pukers. No sweepers. No promises. Just good programming. And this "Truth Squad" will help keep it real.

10. I'm locking my morning talent into a three-year contract. I don't believe in messing around with the moneymakers.

11. I'm creating 30 podcasts in the first six months -- not by on-air talent, but others. We own the podcasts. Will spread the word about them virally. We'll monetize it with ancillary forms of sponsorships. Wait until you see the free money this generates. First, a two-day brainstorming session with my staff and you know who.

12. We'll stop saying go to our website. How uncool is that? They'll go when there is a reason to go.

13. Give our listeners a reason to go to our website. Hint: something they can't get elsewhere. Not a stream of our terrestrial station which usually accounts for under 3% of all listening anyway.

14. Launch the biggest unique online social network in our local market that is so desirable that it could be a business all by itself.

15. Don't take calls from management -- gotcha! Kidding.

There's more ideas where these came from, but for those of you who are not able to have me work with your people directly to further develop these ideas and theirs, I hope this has been helpful. At least something to think about.

We could always just sit around and wait for these dummies killing radio stations to come up with another accretive idea Monday morning.

Or, we can do as George Johns suggests and compete against their own mistakes.

"Simon Says" get lost.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: First you must check your mail or spam filter to verify your subscription immediately after signing up before daily service can begin.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

A Question of Status

OK, this is going to get controversial. I was watching a wonderful classical pianist named Valentina Litsisa on Youtube the other day. She was playing Chopin’s Étude No. 10 – a ferociously difficult piece that she played with amazing aplomb, making light of the technical difficulties and giving the piece a serious lash.

here it is

An amazing performance by a great musician. I was so knocked out by it I watched it twice over, but about half-way through the second time through I suddenly thought ‘It’s amazing but……………. not one note of it is hers” And this set me thinking again about something which I’ve been thinking about for a while. At the highest level – can you compare great classical performers with great jazz peformers? And if you can, who, if anyone, takes the spoils?

I am a huge fan of classical music and musicians - I’ve read biographies of Yehudi Menuhin (one of my heroes), Glenn Gould, Artur Rubenstein, have read and re-read a book of interviews with concert pianists etc. When you read about musicians such as Rostropovich and Menuhin and their close relationship with great composers such as Shostakovitch and Bartok who wrote music especially for them, and you get into the lives they lead and their status in society, you realise you’re dealing with giants of music, by any standard. When you listen to them playing – their technical skill, their extraordinary feats of memory, the subtlety of interpretation, the understanding of the music of the composer etc. this confirms their greatness. All of that is unquestionable as far as I’m concerned - these are great great musicians. But…………

Again that ‘but’ – because, you can’t get away from the fact that these musicians didn’t produce anything of their own. Alfred Brendel is considered a God of German repertoire, and is treated like a god yet we’ve never heard a note of Alfred Brendel’s own work – his whole career has been based on music provided for him by others. Ditto Rostropovich, Oistrakh, Ashkenazy, Stern, etc. etc. It could be that some of these have done some composing, but I don’t think so, and if they did it was a very minor and neglected part of their activity, and not one they chose to feature in their performances.

Now I don’t mean to infer that any player of original music is by definition greater than any musician who is only an interpreter. A hack jazz musician playing a tired and cliché-ridden blues does not inhabit the same universe as a Richter or a Barenboim. But at the very top of the jazz profession, if you take the real giants of jazz, and you compare them to their counterparts in classical music, no matter how great they may be, I think the jazz guys have the edge on them.

Take such musicians as John Coltrane, Wayne Shorter, Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett, Charlie Parker, and Louis Armstrong - here you have a list of musicians who were (or are) not just great virtuosos on their instruments but extraordinarily creative as well. They combine the virtues that in classical music are usually embodied by two people – the composer and the performer/interpreter. In the case of Armstrong, Parker, Davis and Coltrane, they were not only great players on their instruments, but they changed music itself and their influence was felt far beyond the confines of their respective instruments. Richter was one of the greatest pianists of all time, but how many violinists did he influence? How much difference did Menuhin make to the world of pianism? But Charlie Parker, who was an alto saxophonist, influenced the playing of every jazz performer who came after him, regardless of instrument.

So, the bottom line – I believe that Wayne Shorter is a a greater and more important figure in music than Alfred Brendel, that Ashkenazy does not match up to to John Coltrane – the creator of ‘A Love Supreme, and great as someone like Rostropovich might have been, Miles Davis was even greater. These giant figures in jazz combine instrumental performance at the highest level, with a level of creativity and originality of thought and conception that their counterparts in classical music cannot match.

This opinion is one I’ve only come to recognize recently – I was almost afraid to come to this conclusion – so great is the status of these famous classical performers, and indeed so great was my own admiration for them. It’s almost like heresy to consider someone like Itzhak Perlman to be a lesser musician than someone else – but I have to admit, I DO believe that musicians such as Charlie Parker are greater musicians and more important figures in music than someone like Itzhak Perlman, great violinist and musician though he undoubtedly is.

In the end, does it matter? Probably not – we need the Oistrakhs and Kissins of this world to play all this great music that’s been written for them and their antecedents, just as we need the Parkers and Coltranes for the other stuff. But it does bother me that in general the jazz musicians do not get the status they and their achievements deserve. The great classical virtuosi are treated almost as if they were the creators of the music they play – Brendel being a particular case in point – he is so deified in his world that you’d almost think he WAS Beethoven! These musicians live in a world of privilege and status that even the greatest jazz musicians can only dream about. And it’s this disparity in recognition that bothers me more and more – these classical musicians may be great, but they don’t produce a note of their own music, yet they’re lauded as being the greatest musicians in the world. But the people I believe to be truly the greatest musicians in the world still struggle to achieve anything like the status and rewards they deserve for their achievements.

OK, I’ve stuck my head above the parapet and said it – now discuss!

PS Don’t get me started on how overrated conductors are!

Beware of ISPs -- Internet Snooping Providers

The RIAA is still trying to stop music piracy.

Even after it swore that the days of filing lawsuits against consumers was over, they have managed to enlist the support of two more Internet Service Providers (ISP) in waging their continued war on copyright terror.

AT&T and Comcast have now joined Cox to become pen pals with customers the RIAA might accuse of uploading music to unauthorized P2P networks.

Don't worry. Nothing bad is going to happen.

AT&T and Comcast would then send the targeted users a notice informing them their account could be deactivated unless they stop.

See, nothing to worry about. Just a warning.

If the RIAA had to finally give up its hugely unsuccessful lawsuit campaign against music downloaders not long ago because it didn't work, how bad could this little slap on the wrist be?

First of all, nothing can stop music piracy.

The next generation was born and raised on it. They never had a problem with DRM (Digital Rights Management) because they circumnavigated it by stealing the songs they wanted online. Then, they shared them. And only bought what they wanted -- which they quickly discovered was not much.

Gen Y undid the much celebrated record album -- you know, the thing that more often than not had more stiffs on it than hits -- and moved to buying or stealing songs one at a time. Ironically, perhaps, the only big albums that could sell would turn out to be compilation hit albums.

Napster may have been taken from them, but it was just their first volley.

Bit torrent sites made easy exchange of music -- well, easier.

Radio stopped having as big an influence on the next generation's musical tastes -- as their friends and social networks became more important in spreading the word.

The iPod came along just in time -- and in the end, DRM was removed.

See? You can't stop music piracy.

But now it appears that the RIAA in conjunction with your friendly neighborhood ISP is up to something.

I have a hard time believing these conspirators are in it to just generate paperwork -- although you might get me to believe they are in it to generate legal fees. Nonetheless, why would ISPs want to be a conveyor of RIAA accusations and say upfront that their customers will just be warned not harmed?

I'm more suspicious when a Comcast spokesman said "This is the same process we've had in place for years-- nothing has changed. While we have always supported copyright holders in their efforts to reduce piracy under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and continue to do so, we have no plans to test a so-called 'three-strikes-and-you're-out' policy."

The three strikes policy is the brainchild of those idle minds at the RIAA.

Cox had previously gone further by threatening temporary service disruptions (something they know pretty well) for Internet users who have been found to share music files.

Wonder what temporary means?

Wonder what ISPs are doing in the detective business?

I always stand in amazement when looking at the record business because they've been wrong for so long:

1. They have managed to let Napster ruin their business when they could have bought the file sharing upstart.

2. The labels made the wrong decision on DRM.

3. Wrong on suing its own customers and threatening universities -- the bastion of students with evil on their minds.

4. Wrong on the Internet.

5. Wrong on the CD.

6. Wrong on 360 deals -- they're kidding, who even wants a record label handling every aspect of an artist or band?

7. Wrong on digital downloading -- they were conned by Apple into letting them do it because Napster scared them and then they tried to dictate to Steve Jobs variable pricing. I'll show you variable pricing -- how about zero.

8. Wrong on the notion that consumers will pay a monthly fee to fill up their MP3 players with millions of songs.

9. Wrong that companies like Spiral Frog can monetize free music through advertising thus generating a replacement revenue stream for declining CD sales.

To paraphrase a political advertising attack ad slogan: "and wrong for America".

If you think that the RIAA and ISPs (two groups that deserve each other) are standing up for the forces fighting copyright infringement, well -- you would be wrong again.

Today's reality is that music has been devalued by the labels themselves, the decline of radio, new and emerging technologies, changing sociology (i.e., social networking and bit torrent sites), as well as the fact that record labels forgot why they are in business.

To make great music -- lots of it. Help artists monetize their efforts as well as the label's own financial needs. They seem not to know how to do this in the 21st century.

The one thing everyone knows -- except maybe the RIAA and some major ISPs -- is that music piracy is here to stay. Like it or not. Illegal or unethical.

That's why the news about ISPs that came out of a panel session at the Leadership Music Digital Summit in Nashville this week is so fitting.

The ISPs are willing to cross the fine line on behalf of the record industry with no obvious gain for either.

On the contrary, it's not the RIAA -- they've already been neutered. It's ISPs seemingly warming up to the task of compromising the free speech and access rights of customers.

They're not fighting for truth, justice and the American way.

These ISPs are up to no good.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: First you must check your mail or spam filter to verify your subscription immediately after signing up before daily service can begin.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

Clear Channel's New Phantom Radio Stations

It has been my belief that the end game for Clear Channel (and eventually the other lesser consolidated radio groups) is to run phantom radio stations.

Lee Capital Partners and Bain Media overpaid for the once mighty radio and outdoor company fully expecting that they could initiate economies of scale and eventually turn the properties around for a nice profit.

Without a Plan B, Lee & Bain are initiating one of the largest and perhaps deadliest cutback plans that promises to reshape the radio industry.

Last week, the other shoe dropped.

While you were being fed happy talk about the gigantic size of the national radio audience and while RAB CEO Jeff Haley was bragging about radio's survival, the brain trust (sorry about that description -- brain and trust in the same sentence with The Evil Empire), Clear Channel was busy implementing its latest "I shrunk the radio industry" strategy.

Here's the inside story.

In company-wide emails by each one of the five corporate executive vice presidents -- some distributed as early as the end of February -- market managers were told in blunt, no-nonsense terms to make arrangements to have a person on duty 24/7, 365 days a year in each studio location.

Now, if you're thinking "this is great, Clear Channel is hiring again and acknowledging that they need to run local stations", don't get too excited.

The directions do not quibble over what qualifications they are seeking for this warm body job description other than to park their butts unceremoniously at the various studios in spite of whether they are capable of running a legal unattended operation.

The market managers were not told why all of a sudden a live body had to be at every studio site. Each EVP communicated the mandate in their own language but the message came through loud and clear as market managers scurried about to comply.

Here's an example of one email said to be widely circulated throughout Clear Channel:

Effective immediately, you are to staff each of your locations 24/7/365. I am reviewing the plans you’ve sent me and will advise how you are to proceed in a cost efficient manner. Meanwhile, take steps to cover immediately. Night/overnight personnel must be able to communicate emergency situations to station management clearly and concisely. Ideally they will do other important work such as production, affidavits, and similar work.

This commitment is being made by us to guarantee provision of services to our communities that they rightfully should have, in case of a civil or weather emergency. To review: take appropriate action and get coverage in place immediately. I will be reviewing your most cost efficient long term solution and will get back to you fast.

So, I know what you're thinking -- Clear Channel just wants to get ready in case another blizzard or toxic spill hits one of their markets.

That, too.

I'm thinking Clear Channel is setting the table for expansion of its Repeater Radio concept that will allow corporate to make the music while their sticks become repeater stations under the guise of serving that local community.

You heard what the man said, didn't you?

"you are to proceed in a cost efficient manner" and " immediately".

That means no new hiring and JFDI -- John Slogan Hogan's motto "Just F#%king Do It". Didn't Clear Channel fire a slew of part-timers last month?

Are they going to make their veteran weekday talent come in on a Saturday or Sunday to do a weekend shift live? Well, a live airshift on the weekend would certainly be a novelty!

Of course, this is only speculation until it happens. And I believe it is going to happen.

Lee & Bain and their knee-jerk Clear Channel radio CEO John Hogan have to whip that operation into a moneymaker. They can't defy the troubled economy or the advertising bust, but they can cut costs.

They have already eliminated thousands of jobs since the start of consolidation in 1996 and many recently.

But, as incredible as it may seem, those cutbacks are still not enough.

You've seen me coin the phrase "Repeater Radio" and you see Clear Channel's move to ram Ryan Seacrest and mini-Ryans down local manager's throats so they can save on salaries and become a virtual radio network.

But there is one small problem.

Congress.

Two, maybe.

The FCC.

But I think Congress is the reason this group of suits has come up with the live-studio afterthought.

After all, Clear Channel could be liable for blatantly not serving their communities. How will they be able to defend against accusations that may someday arise that their LA radio content didn't fulfill their license requirements in Anytown USA?

Oops.

And don't think Clear Channel isn't serious about this one-format-for-all-markets concept.

Just recently, Clear Channel program directors found a new virtual ‘Classic Hits’ station called “CCFL Format Labs 6” in their NexGen system. The songs on the log are now in the library so they are ready for voice tracking a shift or two on a future "Phantom Station".

There’s a log, with voice-track holders, songs, sweepers, empty spot break holders, and a place to insert “local sweeper close.”

And a check around the country has unearthed three of these "Phantom Stations" in the Philadelphia system and two in New York.

New frickin' York -- the nation's (and world's) number one radio city.

You should know that these are not actual automation servers that can go on the air on any one of Clear Channel's local stations -- yet.

But the server is based in the Cincinnati market. And it appears, I am told, that it is mapped so someone can voice track a shift to be used somewhere else.

These latest developments raise a lot of questions.

• Number one -- Clear Channel appears to have been less than forthright about their intentions if I am correct.

• The mass firings are consistent with the march toward Repeater Radio.

• Someone at corporate or legal apparently has had second thoughts about Clear Channel's exposure in all of this. After all, it is unthinkable that the largest radio group could single-handedly take 800 licenses and rip up the local responsibility part for financial gain.

• Radio is sounding as bad as Wall Street but it hasn't stopped the new masters of radio from pissing all over radio listeners -- you know, the 234 million that Jeff Haley brags about. Hope they like voice tracking. Hope they like generic programming. Personally, young people have it right -- iPods, the Internet, NPR and file sharing.

• Will the GM or PD even remember to turn his or her cell phone ringer on for the night while this scam is perpetrated on the public?

• Will they have a way to get on the air on all their stations to get the word out? Will they have a way to find out what the word is?

• How will the minimum wage attendant be made aware of a public emergency in the middle of the night or at any time? Will they have a phone code to dial out? Or even a phone list of five or six management people she or he can call? (Come on, CC corporate, we have questions here!)

• Is the program director or air talent of today capable of sounding cogent for hours on end, talking about an emergency? Or is it all for show -- to justify the screwing that consolidators are about ready to give to Jeff Haley's 234 million best friends.

Look.

A Democratic senator just yesterday introduced a bill to allow newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks -- of course, they are intending to restrict political coverage by forbidding candidate endorsements. But what do you expect from politicians?

Nonetheless, Congress seems to have an appetite for even bailing out our newspapers that have been dying for decades.

Clear Channel and John "I'm No Peter Drucker" Hogan have just handed you a gold plated, fool-proof, guaranteed way to speak up for radio listeners and loyalists who want their local radio back.

In fact, they've bent over and showed you their -- well, Achilles heel.

Unstaffed Repeater Radio.

That's why they are trying to fix it in private -- at least, until now.

So, if everyone who has ever been screwed by a radio consolidator got ten of their closest and even powerful friends to contact their local U.S. representative or Senator -- my math shows that friends of real radio would have more than enough support to derail the latest bad plan to make a national treasure a national embarrassment.

It's up to you.

There's the phone.

Here's your laptop.

Tweet.

Act.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: First you must check your mail or spam filter to verify your subscription immediately after signing up before daily service can begin.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

The Prince of Target

Here we go again.

The record industry still has no answers about the digital future and is just as clueless as ever.

And you can't only blame the big four labels.

Look at some of the non-starter ideas that major artists are coming up with. One can only conclude that no one wants to give up selling plastic CDs even though consumers got over them years ago.

Take Prince.

His new three-CD "album" called LOtUSFLOW3R (WHAT! You expected better spelling on a Prince album?) is the latest example of how lost artists are without their record labels.

And we already know how lost the record labels are.

Look at Prince's blueprint for a rock star at age 50:

1. Prince is selling his album exclusively in Target. (Guess he never learned from Guns N' Roses in Best Buy, and Springsteen and the Eagles in Wal-Mart).

2. Target heavily promotes the Prince album -- whatever heavily promotes means today.

3. Target agrees not to return unsold copies.

4. Target forgets to mention that it uses the Prince CD (a lot cheaper than most 3-CD sets) as a loss leader.

5. Prince goes on Jay Leno and performs for three consecutive nights-- refusing to play anything that an audience may want to also hear from his "catalog". (Apparently Prince is unmoved by U2's five-day consecutive flop promoting their new album on Letterman -- 484,000 copies in the first week).

6. Prince rejects being interviewed by Leno so Leno is betting his talk show gets better ratings without the iconic Prince actually speaking. Leno is right.

7. Prince kicks off a new website Wednesday to rip off -- I mean, market the album to his fans who are really not interested in buying music -- just looking for a chance to get better seats to his popular concerts. His new site, Lotusflow3r.com will charge an annual fee of $77 for access. Sounds like the salvation of the record industry to me. Lots of luck.

8. Prince fails to acknowledge that he has been working feverishly to drive down the value of music by other ill-conceived promotion strategies. In 2004 he bundled "Musicology" with tickets to his 100 shows artificially boosting his album sales to over 2 million. Last year Prince's "Planet Earth" was stuffed into British newspapers (you know, newspapers -- the thing you wrap fish in) and pimped out 3 million copies thus pissing off Sony who canceled the albums release in the U.K. Is Prince selling CDs or driving down the value of recorded music?

9. And when all else failed, Prince showed up at the Super Bowl -- America's biggest live music venue that doesn't help artists sell CDs after all is said and done.

What's wrong with this strategy?

Haven't we already seen this before?

These iconic music acts die hard, don't they? You have to admire the record labels. They don't even try.

At least Prince is trying to save his career even if he isn't helping his fellow musicians much.

And speaking of the record labels, you may or may not have heard that the much-ballyhooed Spiral Frog was eaten alive by bad planning and finally just gave up and died. Guess the next generation was right when they first heard of Spiral Frog. Offer them free music in return for advertising and guess what -- they'll continue to choose free music obtained online.

They knew it was a stiff -- all the music industry had to do was ask.

The radio industry is killing itself with one unworkable strategy after the other in their all-out attempt to avoid cooperating with the inevitable -- which in the case of radio is -- the digital future.

The record industry -- including artists-turned-record exec like Prince -- hasn't had a major new idea since the CD was foisted upon a public that had no alternative but to go by new players and repurchase their favorite albums.

That's precisely the difference today.

Young consumers don't have to buy anything.

The labels and artists can't control security in the virtual record store called online filesharing. Back at Tower Records or Sam Goody in the day, you could get thrown against the wall or frisked if you tried to steal music. Today, inevitably, the music is out there and it is free whether that is right or wrong.

Basing a business on selling plastic or even cheap digital downloads will get you exactly what it has gotten you so far -- a fizzle.

I don't even like the 99 cent iTunes concept.

Don't get me wrong. I like it for Apple. It sucks for everyone else.

To think that the supposed record buying public will pay for music is insane considering that so few (by comparison) buy music at all.

Shoot me if you want.

But the message is -- get another business plan that doesn't involve selling the music or continue to go down with the declining record industry.

In the meantime, catch Prince on Jay Leno Wednesday and enjoy the record business like it was 1999.

(By the way, Clear Channel is getting ready to implement a secret plan for running the radio station of the future that has industry-wide implications. Even the stout of heart may have trouble with this. More coming soon).

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: First you must check your mail or spam filter to verify your subscription immediately after signing up before daily service can begin.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

Wayne Shorter - addendum

Just thinking about this thing where older musicians take their foot off the creative pedal when entering their sixties, and citing Wayne as an example of the opposite of this. A few more guys who spring to mind who continue to be an example to us all in terms of always stepping up to the plate every time they play -

Jim Hall
Roy Haynes
Lee Konitz
Kenny Wheeler

Stupid Consolidation Tricks

In spite of the fact that radio consolidators think voice tracked programming is just as good as local programming, you still can't fool a listener.

Oh, well -- maybe some listeners don't know or don't care about the local jock. That's unfortunate. It's in radio's interest that they should.

But the future of Repeater Radio is going to be built around the grandiose ideas of underachievers like Clear Channel's John Slogan Hogan and his proposition that local radio is so -- Nineties.

We already know what happened five years ago in Minot, North Dakota when the toxic spill from a railroad car derailment occurred and no one was at any local radio stations because all the local stations were owned by the consolidator Clear Channel.

Thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals were released into the air but the hits just kept on coming. One person died and hundreds were treated for immediate health problems. Clear Channel never aired one warning for local residents.

When consolidators talk about their role in local markets, they always argue that radio is the one source to turn to in an emergency or crisis. Except, when Clear Channel is doing voice tracking.

With Repeater Radio coming to a town and city near you, it is critical to understand the importance of local radio to available radio listeners.

Of course, anyone younger has the advantage of not relying on radio for anything.

Not music.

Not news.

Not staying connected.

Got a crisis? Go to your cell phone and find out what you need to know.

In this way, radio is really working overtime to make itself even more irrelevant to the public. And it doesn't have to just be a train wreck (I'm referring to the toxic spill not Clear Channel now).

Just this winter in Philadelphia, Clear Channel's WISX (My 106.1) was doing a pre-blizzard out-of-market weather forecast that said "cloudy tonight and snow showers tomorrow".

As the comedian Don Knotts once said in a TV skit , "the wind is coming from the window" so all a local operation would have to do is look outside or go outside. In reality, the Philadelphia area was under a National Weather Service Winter Storm Watch. Overnight, that Watch was upgraded to a Winter Storm Warning. The National Weather Service was calling for 8 - 12 inches of snow while Repeater Radio was calling for snow showers.

Nothing?

Not unless weather forecasts are of no use to the audience. But if they are, this foreign forecast was dead wrong. Hell, if Clear Channel wanted to voice track a weather forecast, how about the 70 and sunny we had in Scottsdale. That would at least be fantasy instead an embarrassment.

You know, that great radio pioneer John Slogan Hogan coined the term JFDI (Just F#@king Do It) when he spoke to a managers meeting in San Antonio. Yes, a very classy guy. I guess Hogan's warning applies to cutting costs -- not weather forecasts and train wrecks.

Voice tracking will be the death of local radio.

One of my readers reported that last year, an Entercom station fired a mid-day announcer and replaced him with -- you'd better sit down -- a voice mail box!

They played promos asking listeners to phone in and vote for the songs they wanted to hear. Can you imagine if this had worked?

Radio consolidators don't get that the game is over for them. And those of us who know radio can do better are in denial that this is the end. It's too sad and unnecessary to accept. Nevertheless these sellouts are killing a great industry.

As any of us know who had to do an ascertainment for license renewal, it is a bitch. A paperwork nightmare that took our attention away from programming.

However, lately, I've been thinking how nice it would be to require consolidators to have to ascertain community needs and assess why they deserve to win license renewal.

In the era of consolidation, license renewal is a foregone conclusion.

It shouldn't be.

Making a broadcaster fight to keep their radio license that they hold in the public trust would solve a lot of mismanagement problems and cockamamie ideas to save money.

Stay with me here.

Can you imagine if we had a real FCC and Clear Channel had to justify serving the community needs in Minot during the toxic train spill? How do you make a case for license renewal when you're never home in Minot? How is that serving the community?

Three to five-year renewals.

Let others try and compete (sorry to use a work like compete as it relates to radio, forgive me).

Let the best owner get the license. I know a lot of broadcasters -- present and former -- who could transform some of these embarrassing stations into great radio.

And it doesn't have to be all about news events or weather. How do you serve the public interest when the only interest that matters is Lee & Bain -- because they own the company?

Yes, you could solve stupid consolidation tricks by requiring each owner to prove how they served the public interest, convenience and necessity and what they plan to do if they are granted a renewal.

You'll see a lot more local employees.

You'll see voice tracking held to a minimum.

You'll see local focus instead of national Repeater Radio.

Had the FCC done its job, consolidation might have worked. Just as in the overall economic downturn, radio needed oversight as the financing and banking industry did (and hell, radio relied on the financing and banking industry to grow).

Greed helped drive American businesses down even as oversight was eliminated. Now we hear talk of watchdogs to watch watchdogs when all we need is for someone to justify a company's reason for being -- and monitor the way they do business.

Enforce the current laws.

When I taught at USC my students were amazed that I cared about radio. They don't.

Technology has given some 80 million young consumers many new options for news, entertainment and social connection. And frankly, they are in better shape than most radio listeners.

But consolidators have done more to drive the next generation away because they apparently never read their fiduciary responsibilities as licensees of the public trust.

Serve the local market.

Young people have moved beyond radio.

Available and loyal radio listeners are now being shortchanged by cheap programming tactics.

There's no one left to hurt but the remaining radio employees and the consolidators themselves who continue not to get it.

That's why their stock is worth pennies.

Why ten years of cost cutting has never worked.

And why they will keep taking their excessive compensation and benefits as long as they can get away with it.

If you want to save radio, go to your Congressional representative and ask -- no, beg -- for enforcement of local radio licenses.

This is not re-regulation. It is what should have been done all along when federal regulators decided to get into bed with consolidators instead.


For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: First you must check your mail or spam filter to verify your subscription immediately after signing up before daily service can begin.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

The Devil’s Staircase

Recently been listening a lot again to Gyorgy Ligeti’s Piano Études – wow! I know them for over ten years now but they still evoke the wow response in me every time I hear them. And the funny thing is that I was a latter-day convert to Ligeti. All my contemporary music composer friends used to tell me that he was the man, but I never got it, and I went as far as feeling he was one of those ‘emperor’s new clothes’ figures whose reputation far outstripped his actual achievements. How wrong I was!

And it was the Études that woke me up, I remember hearing them for the first time on the radio while I was driving, and the car nearly left the road……. They’re amazing – so full of invention and if, as I am, you’re interested in all things rhythmic then these are masterclasses in the creative use of advanced rhythmic techniques. Complex polyrhythms infest these pieces yet, unlike a lot of contemporary classical music that uses complex rhythmic material, the pieces are so grounded in pulse you can really perceive the forward motion in the music.

Ligeti achieves extraordinary effects such as using two contrasting rhythms that when played together create the sensation of a third independant rhythm. Listening, you get the feeling that someone has slipped in the studio and started playing a second piano. And the music is sonically beautiful too – a piece like ‘Arc en Ciel’ manages to be both rhythmically complex and beautiful at the same time.

I’d highly recommend you check this music out if you haven’t already. The best exponent of them is Pierre-Laurent Aimard, and his recording of them on Sony Classical takes some beating. He also made a great recording called ‘African Rhythms’ where he juxtaposes Central African Pygmy music (one of the influences on the Études) with the Ligeti pieces – really imaginative.

And speaking of imaginative, have look at this very imaginatively filmed version, and great performance of, ‘L’escalier du Diable’ (the Devil’s Staircase) by Greg Andersen on Youtube –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZTaiDHqs5s

The Music Plague

The English critic and composer Constant Lambert, writing in his book on music ”Music Ho” in 1934, devoted an entire chapter to what he called ‘the appalling availability of music’. He was bemoaning the popularity of the radio and what he saw as its role in cheapening music by allowing it to invade everyday life, thereby degrading it and creating a ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ scenario.

Well if Lambert was alive today he’d turn in his grave, as the mangled saying goes. I was in Grafton Street in Dublin this morning, and accompanying my wife into a clothes shop, (though i’m sure they’d prefer to be called a ‘boutique’), called ‘River Island’ was assaulted by pounding music the minute I stepped over the threshold. No surprise there of course, if you step into a clothes shop you can pretty much budget for this kind of aural abuse, and that’s been true for a long time. Clothes shops seem to feel that unless they have what they consider to be cool music thundering from the speakers, then the customers won’t recognize just how cool the clothes they sell are. Strange but true.

But this kind of thing is much more widespread than being something that merely lurks in clothes shops – it’s pretty much everywhere. It’s spread to such an extent that most people don’t even notice it any more. As I was standing there trying to ignore the racket, I began thinking about how rampant this kind of thing now is, you can find it in almost any kind of shop. As an experiment I decided to enter a few different shops immediately adjacent to River Island and see what was happening on the in-store music front there. The results were as follows:

Burger King: Tinny pop music being played through cheap speakers

Shoe Shop: Bass-heavy techno-crap

Marks and Spencers: Madonna-esque pop

Bus Stop (newsagents): MOR pop music from a radio station interspersed with inane jabber from a DJ speaking a grotesque approximation of an American accent

I should also mention that as I criss-crossed the street between these shops I was assailed each time by the noise from a busker playing heavy metal style guitar noodling, blasting through a battery powered amp. The whole thing, as I moved quickly between shops and across the street, was like a musical nightmare – in a space of about 10 square metres, loud and completely unrelated music blasting at you from every quarter. The one exception to this was in Weir’s jewellers, they obviously not feeling that background music was required, and I have to say that stepping into the silence of Weir’s after the cacophony of the other shops was like having an aural bath.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to see just how bad this curse of inescapable music has become. It’s not only shops that spew out mindless background noise – restaurants too have fallen victim to it, hotel foyers, supermarkets (pioneers in the field in fact), doctor’s waiting rooms, elevators (also pioneers), being put on hold on the phone etc. etc.

There are two awful aspects to this – one is the fact that we have become a society for which silence is some kind of terrifying condition which must be avoided at any cost. We go from home to work to leisure surrounded by a meaningless musical porridge without which we feel exposed – God forbid we should have to hear the sound of our own voices or those of others without the aural anaesthetic provided by cheap music.

And the other awful aspect to this relates to music itself. Music has become cheapened and degraded by its use as aural wallpaper to accompany every aspect of daily life. People have become desensitized to it and can enter a place like River Island, have loud music pumped at them, and not even notice it. If we go back to the early 20th Century, to the period just before the widespread use of music dissemination devices like the radio and record player, we go back to how music used to be. Up to that point in human history the only way to hear music was to have someone play it for you live, or to play it yourself. In such an environment, what a special place music must have had in people’s lives, what an event it must have been to hear music played! And what a contrast to now – where music is everywhere – cheap, ubiquitous, degraded and demoted to the position of a commodity used to enhance the selling of other commodities.

And not much to be done about it either unfortunately – the plague is too widespread and most people are so used to it they’re not even aware of its presence. For myself, even I tune it out most of the time, with occasional eruptions of awareness and exasperation like this morning. I do make a point of asking that music be turned down in restaurants if I feel it’s necessary – usually evoking a polite response from the staff who doubtless privately (or sometimes not so privately), think I’m a crank. One time in Anthony Bourdain’s restaurant in New York I think a waiter actually turned the music UP in response to my request to turn it down – doubtless just to teach me a lesson! A friend of mine, the great French violinist Dominique Pifarely told me that he includes a clause in his contracts that no music is to be played before his concerts, or during the intermission because he believes that when the musicians play it should be an event, and should be the first music heard by the audience – not just the continuation of something that was coming from the speakers as the audience comes in. And he’s right!

A few years ago here there was a little controversy because the Irish Music Rights Organisation insisted that commercial premises that play music must pay for a licence to do so. And the shops resisted it but thankfully IMRO prevailed and made them pay. But not enough in my opinion, they should double, triple or even quadruple the charge to the bastards for the role they’ve played in the spreading of this plague of aural pollution and the cheapening and degrading of the gift of music.