Jazz Composition 2 - The Soloist Conundrum

I was listening recently to a recording of pieces for jazz orchestra by Jim McNeely ‘Up From the Skies’, played by the great Vanguard band. Jim is of course one of the greatest writers in this idiom, his music is imaginative, original, brilliantly orchestrated and it’s music that demands great musicianship from the orchestra. Jim has been a member of the VJO for many years and knows the playing of all the members intimately. So when writing a programme of music for the band he can – in the tradition of Duke Ellington and many other jazz composers – decide who to assign the solos to most effectively. In other words he has control over the whole piece by astutely assigning the solos – he knows that player A and player B might be most effective soloing on this piece, while player C would be more effective on another piece etc.

However, I was also recently listening to a live recording of basically the same programme this time played by the Stockholm Jazz Orchestra, with Jim at the helm. Now I should say at the outset that the SJO are also a great band, with fine soloists, and they did the music no disservice, but played it very well and with great panache and no little skill. But – on listening to these versions of the same pieces I was struck by the feeling that rather than the pieces being written for a specific soloist, we were instead listening to a ‘tenor solo’ or an ‘alto solo’ - however well played they may have been – and I got a feeling of the solos (apart from Jim’s own) being mandatory rather than being necessary for the success of the pieces. In fact some of the pieces were so complexly and sophisticatedly orchestrated, and so brilliantly structured compositionally, that the solos actually seemed like an unwelcome intrusion and a distraction from the real business of the music – Jim’s writing and compositions.

None of this the fault of Jim or the band – it is symptomatic of the problem that faces the jazz composer of more involved forms – what to do with the soloists. In another post - Jazz Composition 1 – Composition or Ditty? I wrote about the issue of short form composition and whether much of what is knows as ‘composition’ in jazz amounts to anything more than an excuse for solos. The issue on which I’m writing now is different – it relates to how, as compositional techniques expand, the jazz composer can not only include solos in his or her compositions, but how they can justify them on musical grounds.

Since improvisation is the raison d’etre of jazz, most jazz compositions’ main function is to provide a vehicle for the soloing. As a result most jazz compositions tend to be short and to the point. But of course there is also another tradition of jazz composition which can be traced back to Ellington – and arguably Jellyroll Morton before that – of more extended form compositions that function as more than just solo vehicles, and this latter tradition has become more prevalent in the past 20 years. And where before the idea of using an extended form piece was largely confined to the big band world (with a few exceptions such as Charles Mingus’ groups etc.), more recently the interest in writing more involved compositions for smaller groups has grown considerably, and the act of composition is I think taken more seriously by more people in jazz than at any previous time.

But of course the more you start to add flesh to the bones of a composition, the more shape it takes, the more structurally complex it becomes and the more specific it becomes in terms of notation and instruction to the players, the more the role of the soloist is called into question. If one writes a piece that takes 15 or twenty minutes to play without solos, then the idea of just giving the soloist a set of changes to play over a form with an indeterminate set of repeats becomes highly questionable. If the composition is sophisticated enough to stand on its own, at what point do the solos become superfluous? Or maybe more to the point how can the jazz composer of more developed pieces find a way to include solos in such a way that they are NOT superfluous?

The problem becomes more acute the more sophisticated the compositions themselves become. If the composition is good enough to stand on its own as a composition, then does it need a soloist? Or to put it another way, is it the case that the more sophisticated the composition itself becomes, the more superfluous the soloist becomes? This then begs the question, does the improviser’s art really need good compositions in themselves, or, conversely, do improvisers ultimately get in the way of the true composer’s art?

I’ve begun to hear recordings of Jazz Orchestra material (especially ones where there’s a real composer at work, like McNeely or Brookmeyer) as being akin to a collection of concerti for the best players in the respective bands. And I wonder in this situation, does it become frustrating for these composers, whose familiarity with formal compositional techniques and structures is incredibly wide-ranging, to be confined to the concerto form? Do they wish to be able to write pieces that don’t demand soloists?

Of course if one goes down the latter route as a composer then you’re into the realms of the classical composition tradition and out of the jazz field. So is it possible to write music that values true compositional techniques, admits the soloist as a vital part of the composition, but avoids the ‘concerto’ model? And if so, how can that be brought about?

I think one of the best answers to this question was demonstrated on a recording made over fifty three years ago by the great George Russell – it’s called ’Jazz Workshop’ by the George Russell Smalltet, and is in my opinion a masterpiece of writing, playing and improvising.

What Russell does is to compose a series of pieces which involve solos arising out of the ensemble writing and then becoming subsumed again by the ensemble. As you listen to the pieces it’s often very hard to figure out whether various players are improvising or playing written material. It should be noted that there are fourteen different pieces on this recording the longest of which is just over four minutes long – but all the pieces are packed with incident.

Russell’s ability to find different ways of incorporating the solos into the formal structures of these little gems is extraordinary. One particularly noteworthy feature of the pieces is the extensive use of counterpoint, (a very underused and underrated technique in jazz composition) which is very effective in creating the kind of musical milieu out of which a solo can emerge, make its presence felt and merge back with the ensemble. In general on this recording the archetypical bop soloing procedure, whereby the melody is played and then the decks are cleared for the soloist to do his stuff, is generally either avoided or circumvented.

I find this recording to be incredibly satisfying on so many levels – compositional, improvisational, creativity, originality – I’m always baffled as to how it’s not better known and recognised as the masterpiece it so undoubtedly is. As a performing musician too I can listen to it with great admiration for the sheer proficiency that is displayed by all the players (including a very young and completely burning Bill Evans – check out ‘Concerto for Billy the Kid’!) in executing these very difficult charts – this is music that was way ahead of its time and is an object lesson on some ways to solve the compositional/soloist dichotomy.

You can see a video of some of the music of Russell from this period here

And there’s a fascinating programme about this music from ‘The Subject is Jazz’ a wonderfully made US TV programme from 1958 which includes an interview with Russell and a version of ‘Concerto for Billy the Kid’ (at 6.08) - you can see that here


And finally there’s a very nice radio programme about the altoist Hal McCusick – who played on the Russell album and made a fine ‘Jazz Workshop’ recording of his own – which features some tracks from the ‘Smalltet’ recording – well worth a listen, you can hear it here

There’s much more to be said on this compositional/soloing problem, and I will return to it in a future post soon, but for now, if you haven’t already, check out ‘Jazz Workshop’ for a masterclass on how to seamlessly integrate improvised solos into complex compositions without sacrificing the quality of either element.

At Cumulus, Big Dickey Is Watching

In case you've heard it all when it comes to stupid consolidation tricks, here's one I'll bet you missed.

Cumulus is installing cameras at some -- possibly all -- of their local stations so Big Brother can watch the daily sales meetings from Atlanta.

One indentured Cumulus slave wrote:

"The 'official' reason is to allow the executives to 'participate' in sales training - even the Execs who have never sold a commercial in their lives. The real reason is that some of the managers were preempting or rescheduling sales training sessions to allow their sellers more time on the streets, or changing department head meetings to a time that was more convenient for those involved".

It's hard to know for sure what Atlanta is thinking but Cumulus employees sure don't appreciate what's been happening at their stations lately.

This is the direct result of CSOS -- the installation of the Cumulus Sales Operating System that was first introduced in January.

Here is what it is and some of the expected consequences:

1. Starting on the first of the year, weekly sales meetings became daily sales meetings.

2. Now Cumulus sales meetings can be monitored via a computer screen usually in a conference room via Skype where available.

3. The modifying of corporately mandated meeting times is not allowed so now all meetings are subject to monitoring without any notification. Obviously this will put a damper on any exchange of ideas or discussion that might be considered a criticism of Atlanta. One employee put it like this, "Yes, Big Dickey IS watching .. and listening".

4. While corporate in Atlanta may feel that spying on meetings can reassure them that all their salespeople are present, engaged and active, I have heard that some resent being treated like kids.

5. These new age sales meetings can run anywhere from a half hour to an hour and the local sales manager, GM and/or other managers run them.

6. The main thrust seems to be to introduce a different sales topic every day. For example, one day it might be "pets and vets" where salespeople would then be required to leave the meeting, get appointments and go on calls. Only one problem. Some veteran salespeople have upwards of 50-100 actual clients on the air every month so this "exercise" is taking time away from actually taking care of business.

7. Sales employees who now must also enter their own orders into a computer (remember, the traffic people were fired), also have to write copy in many cases and make sure the spots get on the air. Not easy when Cumulus has forced furloughs on its employees until the end of June when vacations are under way. Air talent is also distracted from production by having to voice track many shows.

8. I have found that the resource sales material that Cumulus gets from the RAB seems to be appreciated by some local salespeople. The meddling and spying -- not.

9. While many salespeople have no other option but to let Big Brother watch and take up their selling time with burdensome televised daily meetings, others wait patiently for the economy to get better because the indentured servants want to move on.

I used to teach the Dale Carnegie Course. Dale Carnegie training is excellent in human relations and in sales and management.

One sales idea they had was to hold brief meetings where all attendees are standing up. Everyone on their feet. Keep it short and sweet. Of course, that was before Big Brother was watching.

Look, I've got nothing against Lew Dickey. He's always been nice to me but then again I never worked for him.

This isn't about him personally. It's about his misguided management of a public company.

I'll bet if you were in charge of hiring a CEO for your company you would look to see how much experience they had actually working in your industry or a related one.

It appears radio consolidators have forgotten what it is like to be a line employee on a daily basis -- if they ever knew.

That's how ridiculous strategies to control everything from one location gets its legs. Keep in mind Clear Channel runs its Repeater Radio from Cent Com and a few news hubs. Citadel plays syndicator.

Anyone who ever worked on the line knows that more interference from corporate is a recipe for failure.

Warren Buffett -- you know that pauper from Omaha -- must agree. When he buys a company he actually buys the management of that company and keeps them working for him. Buffett is said to meet with the CEOs of the companies Berkshire Hathaway owns only one day a year -- and he takes them to lunch at his favorite steak house.

Hell, a lot of Cumulus employees would probably be happy to buy Lew lunch if he only met with them once a year.

Buffett, unlike Dickey (did I mention these two guys in the same sentence?), spends almost all of his time doing his job -- finding companies to buy so he can increase the stock price for Berkshire Hathaway shareholders.

And Dickey is not the only control freak in radio.

What do you call Clear Channel's John Slogan Hogan and Citadel's Fagreed Suleman? At least Clear Channel has some good equipment and some systems in place.

One Cumulus employee dubbed his company Clear Channel Lite.

The "eyes in the skies" concept being embraced by yet another over the top radio consolidator speaks to why even the end of the recession will not save the radio industry from its leaders.

Loyalty is a two way street.

Consolidators have gotten away with budget cutbacks, mass firings, increased corporate interference and overworking its staff up until now because radio people are professionals who love what they do and care about their audiences.

These same Cumulus sales people who now have to endure Big Brother sales meetings are often working nine or ten hours a day. Some say they even work weekends.

Yet, these radio professionals take pride in their communities.

I know and you can confirm that they then use their own time to give back to the clients and communities that support them.

Isn't that the game plan that works best for radio?

Cumulus is the Dickey Company and the family can do with it what they want.

By all benchmarks, consolidation has failed:

By stock price.

By revenue.

By uprooting local radio for Repeater Radio.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, also a general in World War II said:

"Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it".

It appears that thought doesn't burden the minds of consolidation CEOs who have concluded that not only does local radio not work for them but local management and sales can no longer be trusted to do what it excelled at for decades --

That is, before a "private" became the "general".

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Service doesn't start until you verify an email from "Feedburner" immediately after you sign up (may have to check your filtered mail).

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

Addictive Media

Guess how many text messages the average American teenager sends and receives each month?

No, I'm not going to make you go to the end of this piece and turn your screen upside down to see the answer.

How does 2,272 sound?

Probably a little low if you are a parent or teacher as the next generation's addiction to text messaging is beginning to have consequences -- like declining grades, poor health and sleep problems, sore fingers and joints, anti-social behavior -- to mention a few.

Maybe you saw this coming but most people thought text messaging was just a diversion that came with a cell phone.

AT&T and Verizon have helped turn texting into an addiction by offering unlimited usage plans. It's hard to find a youth who doesn't opt for it -- often with a parent paying for their digital dependency.

That's 80 messages a day according to Nielsen.

More than double the previous year.

They text while they are in school, at dinner, in school and in bed (the phone not far from the pillow).

My readers are more familiar than most with observing generational and sociological media habits and this one is a whopper.

Perhaps you remember when there was an outbreak of "sexting" going on where high school students were getting into trouble taking naked pictures of the opposite sex and sending them to God knows who via texting. I even saw an opinion recently where some psychologists dismissed sexting as no more dangerous than any other youthful activity.

Well, you don't need Nielsen (with all due respect) and psychiatrists telling you about the next generation -- just look for yourself.

Addicted to the cell phone.

Consumed with texting -- a means of communication that has rendered email their father and mother's way of communicating.

Smartly fostered by cell phone carriers who fell into this one quite accidentally.

Yet, unlike record labels, these cellular carriers were shrewd enough to know how to feed an addiction.

As they say at Promises in Malibu, you've got to get a taste for drugs to be hooked on them.

And digital dependencies such as text messaging started by cell phone carriers offering a taste of the habit -- use more and you pay more -- until the carriers rode in on a white horse and said for $20 extra a month, unlimited texting for all.

Contrast this to how record labels tried to sell $20 plans for all the music you could legally consume before they got their consumers hooked on their crack -- paying for music they can steal easier.

Teachers can't control texting.

Parents?

Forget about it. Most just won't.

But even as texting is the disease of choice for the traditional media world, there are other addictions that the next generation has that are also potent.

Music filesharing.

iPods and smart phones like Blackberry Storms and iPhones.

The Internet in every way possible.

Life is intolerable for most young people without their addiction to this technology.

Sadly, the radio and record industries do not understand digital addiction. They are doing the best they can to make the Internet and mobile devices an add-on to a radio or a CD.

They are not.

This new generation is the program director (watch how they use their iPods).

They are the record promo guy (using social networking and filesharing to promote new music).

They are taking on-demand to new levels. Keep an eye on how much of the video game business will migrate over to Apple apps. Electronic Arts is watching -- closely as they respond as well.

Young people don't call in their requests to a music radio station anymore. They click and play their own songs.

They don't look at the radio dj as the purveyor of information about bands, acts and musical genres as baby boomers did in their day. To Gen Y, their friends are more influential than a radio dj (or more accurately, a voice tracked radio station).

They get their news by reaching out on the web and finding it in various places.

When an earthquake or tornado happens, they can text a friend who may have experienced it themselves for an eyewitness account. Or share a photo.

This is all perplexing to traditional media as they wrestle with how to go forward and backward at the same time.

Example?

The Ad-ology survey quoted in yesterday's Inside Radio that confirms once and for all that one-third of all-Americans sit through commercials.

They'd have you believe that new technology makes it easier "to block out commercials" and touts the old fashioned way -- radio.

This industry continues deep in denial when it cites that only four in ten people change stations to avoid commercials and only 13% report listening to satellite radio or "recorded music to sidestep radio spots". Their argument: "That’s much lower than the number of people who use pop-up blockers (30%) and record TV shows to scan past commercials (28%)".

Again, open your eyes and look around.

Do you believe this based on what you observe and what you know? Hell, one-third may sit through radio commercials but -- do they listen to them? That's the issue -- especially if you're fighting for advertising dollars.

You just know that radio is done with a fork right in the middle of it when Microsoft, the uncoolest company on this earth, announces it is adding HD radio to its colossal MP3 failure Zune this Fall.

The Zune and HD radio -- perfect together and definitely not addictive.

Radio is not addictive media to the next generation but you don't need me to tell you that.

What is surprising is that radio is fast becoming less compelling for available older listeners who are being "treated to" repeater radio, loss of their favorite personalities, long commercial stop sets that they do not sit through and a disconnect from local radio, news and public service.

Older available listeners are fast adopting Facebook -- and statistics show that most Facebook users spend a half hour a day on it every day and you know what they are not doing when older listeners are spending time on Facebook.

Talk radio used to be an addiction a few decades ago. Today it is a mere shadow of its former self. Only a few voices in spite of all the talent that is out there. It skews old -- very old and cannot be called an addiction for anyone under 60. Talk radio is more like a babysitter for old people who want to hear the same old same old.

There is a significance here that should not be missed.

Texting is technology. The content is provided by the user.

Radio is old technology and the content is provided by -- Central Command.

Radio executives may not like it but in a world where the consumer demands to be in charge of his or her information and entertainment, the radio industry is missing a giant opportunity to provide such addictive content for phones and online.

The reason this discussion is an academic pursuit instead of the basis for a strategic business plan is because radio and records is being run by incompetent CEOs.

Hell, I thought a Supreme Court justice was one of the few people appointed for life.

Not so.

In radio, every one of the consolidation CEOs has been in it from virtually the beginning.

None had to face a confirmation hearing (although I would have paid to see that -- excuse me, Mr. Suleman, can you outline your experience for the job of CEO?).

The Supreme Court terms and radio CEOs is probably a bad analogy.

Banana republic dictators would be a better example.

What hurts about all this is that radio and even the music industry has content that can be addictive if it is recreated to accommodate new technology and changing sociology.

But we know that can't happen because the CEOs on Radio's Supreme Court are in it for life and not one board of directors, group of shareholders or venture capitalist can kick them out.

And the lenders that could force them into bankruptcy don't even want the assets back so the decline of radio continues.

New media companies feed the addiction of their consumers.

Radio and records feeds its addiction to power -- damn the consumer.

As Fagreed Suleman fights for his corporate life, you know you won't be reading a headline that says he was fired or that he resigned. He should, in my opinion, but it isn't going to happen.

Lew Dickey's father controls Cumulus and his sons are safely employed in spite of their failures.

Clear Channel under the Mays family just about did in this industry and the clueless venture firms of Lee Capital Partners and Bain Media are so clueless they employ a not ready for prime time general manager to be the caretaker of their $20 billion investment.

Addicted alright.

To failure.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Service doesn't start until you verify an email from "Feedburner" immediately after you sign up (may have to check your filtered mail).

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

It's Not Nice To Screw the Audience

I have been reading The New York Times since I was 12 years old (15 years ago).

Seriously, I don't think I have ever not had a subscription to the paper and I don't consider it Sunday without pasta and Sunday "gravy" on the stove and The New York Times in the house.

So you can imagine how upset I was -- a loyal, longtime reader -- to see The New York Times pull a Clear Channel on me.

You know the concept -- national radio instead of local.

The Times stuffed a white sheet of paper in the newspaper last week to tell me they were raising my subscription price again.

I'm sorry that The Times is having financial problems. Sorry about buying The Boston Globe and taking on all that debt but don't screw with your loyal subscribers.

In Phoenix and LA, the Sunday paper isn't even the real deal -- only the metro area Sunday Times is the whole package and even metro subscribers are paying an increase.

So, sit down and see how dumb I have been and how dumber The New York Times is being.

How's $796 a year for seven-day service without the real estate section!

That's their new rate.

How about free on the Internet -- that's my new rate.

I'm not too smart because until now I never checked to see what I was paying -- I just automatically renewed. What's worse is I read the entire paper online before I go to bed (thanks to the east-west time difference). What am I doing with a printed newspaper I don't read (except Sundays) without owning a dog?

And The Times is not so smart because they made me think too hard about what I have routinely been paying them. They are making it impossible for their audience to subscribe. Sticking it to loyal subscribers will fail and The New York Times -- hit by new media competition and sinking ad revenues -- will likely fail with it.

This is not an isolated example of how the media business has so desperately lost touch with its market. May I take it closer to home?

Satellite radio -- the one and only Sirius XM -- apparently believes it has a business model at $12.95 a month when its biggest claim to fame is that some channels -- some -- have no commercials. Certainly satellite radio never reinvented terrestrial radio for even one day. There's not a lot special on satellite radio these days.

But they still don't get it.

That's why you will soon be able to buy an Apple app to allow you to pay an additional $12.95 a month to listen to Sirius XM on your iPhone. Forget that they are not adding the app -- or charging a onetime $9.99 app charge -- they are screwing you twice if you are already a subscriber.

That is, unless you are waiting for universal WiFi and mobile access to Internet streams. Then, you'll keep your financial powder dry.

I've said this many times but it is worth repeating here -- you can't have a growth industry in the media business without the next generation. And, if satellite radio execs were ever looking and learning about their audiences, they would know that the next generation would never pay for music -- they don't like radio -- and that deal is dead.

Even closer to home...

The music industry is playing mind games with radio stations over repealing the performance tax exemption without regard whatsoever for the audiences that radio stations still have. If they had any guts at all, the stations would start adding unlicensed music to their playlists and actually do what they used to do -- make the hits. The labels would come begging for airplay.

Not once -- never -- have I seen a story about the performance tax exemption that mentions the impact on the audience.

Radio stations are serial offenders of the don't screw the audience rule.

Next to radio employees who have been fired faster than the stooges on Donald Trump's TV series, radio listeners have been taking it on the chin at the hands of Fagreed, Tricky Dickey, John Slogan Hogan and all their wannabes.

When a smooth jazz format is taken away from an audience as we have seen recently (with the exception of Chicago), the disenfranchised listeners are sent to a cheap Internet stream or worse an HD subchannel that is sitting around empty.

Most don't have an HD radio anyway (and don't want one) and they can't hear that gratuitous Internet stream on their car radio.

When radio listeners are robbed of their favorite local morning show personalities because the consolidator decides to cut costs to pay down debt, no one in our business spends much time thinking about the audience.

Hell, when consolidation occurred, radio totally took for granted that teens would always be the next radio listeners.

Look what happened.

Teens grew up without radio. They had other options (Internet, messaging, email, texting, mobile devices, iPods, social networks, etc) and paid radio back for not considering them.

Yesterday, Clear Channel's Chief Execution Officer, President John Slogan Hogan, went out and spent some money creating two new useless executive positions.

Darren Davis as Senior VP for Premium Choice which as I have said before is really Premium Chuck. I guess his job will be to beat managers into submission to get them to carry the repeater radio content they are in business to develop so local stations can fire talent.

Then there's Clay Hunnicutt who was named -- are you sitting? -- Community Engagement Director.

No, I wish it meant he'd be helping people plan their weddings. That would at least be responsive to an audience need.

Slogan Hogan who must have sat around for a long time coming up with the title "Community Engagement Director" has earned the "slogan" nickname. According to Hogan, Hunnicutt will "oversee “stations’ community engagement efforts and ensure our commitments come to life in a robust, consistent and sustainable way.”

That's a lot of horse shit in one sentence.

See, the audience doesn't need a Community Engagement Director. Radio did just fine on engaging its audience before consolidators butted in.

The best liaison with the community always was and still is the air talent - duh!

Of course when you take the air talent away and force Premium Ground Round down their throats and begin to worry that the FCC and Congress may one day figure out that national is not local, you come up with this sham.

Clear Channel is not alone.

The major consolidators are tap dancing faster than Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire these days.

It amazes me that companies will make major decisions affecting its future and future revenue streams without taking into account -- their audience.

Apple does.

They built that company by giving its young changemakers core products and concepts they want and think are cool. Usually, Apple does not disappoint.

Does Steve Jobs have a Community Engagement Director?

I'm waiting!

Would Steve Jobs raise a price to cover his debt (which is nil, by the way)? Of course not, when Jobs mispriced the initial iPhone he turned it into a PR victory by promptly lowering the price and rebating $100 to those who paid the original higher price? Take note New York Times.

The music industry died in 2000.

Napster wasn't the issue (although it was to a bunch of arrogant label executives who were having their faces rubbed in it by a bunch of kids).

Filesharing was something the labels could have owned.

Consumers don't want CDs -- they want digital music -- but the labels continue to hawk what the marketplace clearly doesn't want.

As long as Evian can get people to buy water they could otherwise filter out of their own taps -- at a premium price -- then you know consumers will be the ones to decide what they want in their lives and what they will pay for.

No young person I have ever met that has a cell phone skips the expense of the additional text messaging package. That's what they want. That's what phone companies can sell.

Record labels have killed themselves to push their favorite $19.95 monthly all you can eat package of everything that was ever recorded, but consumers clearly have rejected it.

There are big lessons here for all of us.

1. Ask and you shall receive a ton of input about what your audience wants, needs and values.

2. Decide without consulting them and you're going to pay the price in the end.

3. Take your audience for granted (raise subscription prices too high, substitute national radio for local, offer little in content for the next generation) and you eventually lose the market.

4. Innovate or die. All of us want the next great thing and that applies to the media business. One reason I can guarantee you radio is over is because there hasn't been a lick of innovation during the past 13 years of consolidation. Forget debt the consolidators can't pay. Forget the incompetent CEOs running most groups. Radio hasn't innovated anything significant since the late 1980s. That's a death wish.

5. Companies that employ happy people innovate (ever hear of an uprising of unhappy people at Apple?)

6. Companies that don't have more debt than they can pay have money to invest in people, projects and connecting with the needs and passions of their marketplaces. Again, Apple is full of cash.

7. The best way to get the pulse of your audience is to take it to the street. When radio pulls out of local radio leaving just a few employees standing in each market, how in touch do you think they will be with their audience even with a so-called Community Engagement Director?

Those of us in the radio, record, TV and newspaper business suffer from consoladitis -- that infectious disease that kills off human contact with its audience.

And those of us embracing new media must be sensitive to the fact that the Internet and mobile phone are simply the delivery systems -- not the content.

It's not hard to predict the future based on this standard of staying in touch with the audience:

Apple -- continued success and financial gain.

The New York Times -- disaster that may end or neuter a great paper.

Radio -- way out of touch with Main Street and way out of luck with Wall Street.

Satellite radio -- not a necessity outside a Lexus.

TV -- lost in the thought that the computer is the message. It's content, baby -- and where it is played presents new opportunities not just challenges.

Record labels -- as outdated as the CD because what its audience is all about is music discovery not lawsuits, monthly downloading plans or variable pricing on music that is stolen anyway. The labels would know -- if they asked -- that music is worth five to ten cents a song today. If that's not a business for them, then it's time to get into another.

Mobile phones -- carriers not content providers. As long as you need a mobile carrier to text, talk or surf, it is a business. There is very little innovative about phone companies when it comes content.

Internet streaming -- something the Internet does along with reading, seeing and connecting. It is the enabler not the innovator.

Social networks -- if Facebook doesn't morph into thousands of niche groups of like-minded people, it will have been a colossal failure when all is said and done. If it does, social networking is the story of the century (at least so far).

One more thing.

We in radio and records tend to look at the world as a different place separate and apart from our world. Talk to any radio person and see what their concept of radio is compared to what the audience's concept is.

It is becoming more important to look at the macro view.

Our recession is worse than a depression even though it is not a depression.

Prices will be revalued.

Products will be reconsidered by the public.

New models are on the horizon that several years in the future -- in my opinion -- will use the Internet as a driver of revenue by offering paid content that the audience values and desires.

Some of you may have attended a management conference I put on a number of years ago at the Phoenician in Phoenix where the brilliant management seer and soothsayer, Peter Drucker, addressed media issues.

Foolishly, some -- but not all -- attendees scoffed when Drucker told interviewer John Parikhal that the Internet will be a major force.

In 30 years!

He's a fool. He's got to be wrong, right?

As it turns out it looks like the late Drucker hit the nail on the head once again.

Drucker said if the Internet had a Dewey Decimal System instead of what amounts to primative search engines it would be a more potent force.

It's helpful to understand and elevate our thinking to have more of a customer focus -- the only true important blueprint for a successful company and industry.

And as of today, with all due respect Hogan is not Drucker. Suleman is not Jobs. And Dickey is not Tim Westergren (Pandora's guiding light).

Bottom line.

It's not nice to screw the audience because the audience always wins in the end.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Service doesn't start until you verify an email from "Feedburner" immediately after you sign up (may have to check your filtered mail).

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

Radio's Extra-Terrestrials

Radio is losing touch with its audience at an alarming pace.

I'm not just talking about the youth audience that radio all but ignored during the past 13 years of consolidation.

Even older folks -- yes, baby boomers who are trying new media and liking it.

Facebook, once the bastion of Millennials, is experiencing its greatest growth from over 30's.

Baby boomers are using Facebook to find old flames, high school and college buddies, friends lost while life was happening.

Twitter is engaging radio users -- not to learn what the next song is that radio stations are playing, but as a way to have immediate contact with people all day 140 characters at a time.

I call these people -- the members of Gen X, Gen Y and baby boomers -- radio's Extra-Terrestrials because they are going beyond radio to add communication, entertainment, information and social connection.

They are using Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, email, the Blackberry, iPods, the Internet, mobile devices and more to engage themselves in media other than terrestrial radio.

Southwest Airlines is now twittering to let customers know -- in their own wild and wacky way -- what is going on system wide minute by minute.

Tony Hsieh, CEO of the wildly successful online Zappos shoe store has a huge cult following of 650,000 people on Twitter.

Do you know where your radio CEO is or what he thinks?

For that matter, do they know what they think or do they just wait for the investment guys to tell them to hire a bunch of yield managers and everything will get better?

Precisely!

Methodist University Hospital in Memphis did a video webcast of a patient's brain surgery as a marketing tool.

Doctors tweet from the operating room.

The hottest new position in a company today is social media specialist.

You may like it or may not but this is the world we live in.

Except for radio.

True, on-air personalities and others have used Twitter and Facebook to communicate with audiences -- that's always a good thing.

The problem is that their employers, the companies they work for, are living in a world of their own -- pre-2000 where radio lives in seclusion from new technology and changing sociology. Garrison Keillor might call radio "the little town that time forgot and the decades cannot improve ... " not necessarily in a positive way.

Radio's Extra-Terrestrials are moving on, but it's radio consolidators who are looking at new media like it is alien.

There are some hard and cold reasons why this is so -- the best of which is that consolidating radio groups have run up debt they cannot handle and are on the brink of bankruptcy. The only thing saving these companies is that the lenders don't want them back.

So, you're seeing the debt get converted to ownership.

Jeff Smulyan of Emmis has coughed up a lot of his company to satisfy the banking institutions he cannot pay. Same is true of the other consolidators.

You'll likely see Citadel go down this road.

Cumulus as well.

Clear Channel will probably also have to convert debt to equity.

The problem is -- what these clueless banks will eventually own and control is a business with no tomorrow.

No longer a growth industry.

And not because radio people can't produce good programming but specifically for the reason that their CEOs won't let them. They've fired a lot of their talent and will continue to cut costs where necessary as the recession and their own mismanagement take its toll.

Our audience is becoming Extra-Terrestrial.

They look beyond terrestrial radio and it is happening at an increasing pace.

This could be a bump in the road but I suspect it is more because except for minor examples, radio does not live in the real world of 2009.

Radio groups don't have interactive divisions with real budgets. Where they exist -- and they are few and far between -- new media divisions represent a minute percentage of operating budgets.

Radio having lost 13 years through hubris, bad decisions, faulty financial management and taking on too much debt, is betting it can return to profitability by being something that has no chance of working.

A national repeater of cheap network and syndicated programming.

These CEOs apparently will accomplish this without people (or as few as possible), without understanding generational media and why it matters and without funding any meaningful Internet, mobile or new media initiatives.

I might be able to understand a radio consolidator not seeing the digital future in the headlights but it is pretty hard to imagine how they still can't see it in their rearview mirror.

Radio has no other option but to get into the digital future. But it may already be too late.

Owning radio in an era when so many other media choices are coming of age will spell disaster to the owners and the medium.

So, here are a few ideas:

1. Replace the radio CEOs. (Okay that isn't going to happen but replacing these proven losers would be the fastest lifeline to the future).

2. Budget 15% of your operating expenses to new media this year (that's 2009) through a special assessment and 20-25% in 2010. (Okay, that isn't going to happen, either. But without an initiative, the Internet, mobile, social networking and other digital projects cannot be sustained).

3. Have the CEO of each radio group run a Twitter site as if they actually cared to tell employees and listeners (not to mention advertisers) what their vision is to save the radio industry they destroyed. Hell, they only have to come up with 140 characters in each Tweet. (Stop laughing!)

4. Unload some of your stations for bargain basement prices -- hold the paper on the financing -- and use that money to ... oh, never mind.

5. Go bankrupt and let the judge oversee the sale of your assets.

Actually, number 5 is the only viable option because there is no way out of the mess these radio CEOs have gotten themselves into.

Station sale prices are not going up any time soon.

Even if the recession ends, few people actually believe it will be back to business as usual. One of the things that got us into this economic crisis is the greed that drove prices out of sight (i.e., inflated prices for radio stations). All numbers must be reset. The value of everything in our economy redefined.

You can't spend 13 years and counting letting listeners get away.

An entire generation -- the Millennials -- grew up without a love and addiction to radio. Yet they have become the media changemakers who now drive new media as they are coming of age.

Now, I'm saying older listeners are getting caught up in new media -- not all, but a surprising number. They were once considered safe radio listeners.

Even if radio CEOs are calling the trends right, they have fired most of their talent. Lots of luck competing with Electronic Arts on an iPhone when you're running voice tracked music on a radio.

And speaking of Apple apps, a lot of radio executives don't see the iPhone as a threat.

Jeff Smulyan says just put an FM chip in a cell phone and radio is back.

Not quite.

Remember the sociology.

Some 80 million Gen Yers are used to choosing their own content -- stopping it when they want, deleting it at will. Many have short attention spans. There is no need to broadcast from your towers to them when they can get all they need on demand.

So, the world continues to turn and apparently radio CEOs have better things to do than worry about being an archaic medium lost in yesterday.

Like saving their skins.

E.T. the Extra Terrestrial is the story of Elliott, a lonely boy who befriends a friendly extra-terrestrial ("E.T."), who is stranded on Earth. Elliott and his siblings help the Extra-Terrestrial return home while attempting to keep it hidden from their mother and the government.

Radio the Extra-Terrestrials is the story of the Mays family (and clones) who befriend venture capitalists who are stranded on Wall Street. The Maysian characters help keep the fact that they are no longer doing local radio hidden from their listeners and the government.

As they say in the movies, "The End".

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Service doesn't start until you verify an email from "Feedburner" immediately after you sign up (may have to check your filtered mail).

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

Where's the One!!??

This is another slightly older essay, but I think the issues raised in it are still very valid.


Where’s the 1!?

I think it's true to say that one of the biggest changes in jazz improvisation over the past 20 years has been the adoption by jazz musicians of what might be called extended rhythmic techniques – odd metre playing, the use of metric modulation, etc. The growth in what's called 'World Music' has undoubtedly had a big influence on this new development, with players taking advantage of the easy access the internet has delivered to the curious musician, allowing them to check out Balkan Music, Indian music, Arabic music etc. and to take on board the wide range of rhythmic styles, grooves, and approaches that these musics provide. The result if this is a plethora of new rhythmic styles and techniques. Jazz musicians, especially younger ones, have enthusiastically adopted this new vocabulary, particularly in the area of original composition, and a huge variety of pieces have been written involving odd metres, metric modulation and the like. In such an environment one would imagine that this new information must surely enrich the music and bring a new element to it. But while I think this is true to some extent, I also believe there is a serious problem with how this new rhythmic information is approached by soloists in particular.

In recent years, as a bassist, I've been in many situations where new music has been brought to the group by composers, involving various rhythmic devices such as those mentioned earlier. In many cases, especially where the music is brought in by horn players, we – the rhythm section – are presented with new and difficult rhythmic problems which we're expected to solve almost immediately, and without any assistance from the composer on possible ways to approach this new information. We can be presented with new difficult rhythmic music and not only do we have to play it correctly, we have to make it groove and come alive as well.

Now you might argue that this is the job of a rhythm section and if you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen. But in a more conventional situation when new music is brought in there is usually a rhythmic precedent for the music – i.e. swing feel, or funk, or Brazilian, or loose straight 8's or something, and all usually in a metre of ¾ or 4/4. These are known quantities, the members of the rhythm section can apply their originality and creativity to something that has rhythmic precedent, and something which they've had a chance to develop over several years. In this new rhythmic landscape, this is not always the case.

As a bassist or drummer these days, you can be presented with a piece in 15/8 and asked to play with a Brazilian feel, or be given something with constantly changing metres and asked to do it with a reggae groove. I once saw an instruction on a piece of music that said – 'think Iranian Surf Music'!! This new rhythmic environment is very challenging for bassists and drummers in particular, and challenge is something that I believe should always be involved in an evolving music such as jazz. And of course as someone whose been heavily involved in the exploration of rhythmic possibilities for over 15 years, I'm very enthusiastic about this new rhythmic language. However the problem here as I see it is that this new rhythmic music being presented to the rhythm section by the non-rhythm section composers is often written by people who can't play it themselves, and who depend entirely on the rhythm section to make the composition musical. This not only puts an unfair stress on the rhythm section and an inordinate amount of responsibility on the bass and drums, but the musical results suffer also, since the soloists often have an inordinate dependence on the rhythm section in order to keep in the right place in the metre and form.

A typical scenario in one of these situations is that a melody instrument player brings in a new piece in an unusual meter, probably with some subdivisions specified within the meter. The horn players have the melody written out, and the rhythm section has little instruction on how to create a groove. Everyone goes to work – the horn players on playing the melody correctly, the rhythm section on trying to play both the metre correctly and finding a way to make the rhythm breathe and live. Once everyone has got the melody statement to a point where it's considered satisfactory, they move on to the solos – and this is where the real problems start in my opinion.

So often the solo form will be over one or two chords, and the soloists will just play their usual 4/4 or 3/4 stuff over the top of the rhythm with no regard for the fact that the piece is not in 4/4 or 3/4, The rhythm section are valiantly labouring to keep the metre and the form, AND make the rhythm sound good for the whole piece, while the soloists responsibility to respect the metre seems to begin and end with the melody.

There are two results arising from this. Firstly you have a situation where the horn players and the rhythm section are not playing together and there's almost no interaction. Since the soloists don't know where the '1' is and are depending on the rhythm section to provide it, they float over the top of the rhythm section playing in a world of their own, incapable of responding to information provided by the rhythm section. And since the soloists are playing almost random rhythms over this new metre, the rhythm section in turn are denied information to feed off from the soloists.

In any normal 4/4 situation in jazz of the last 50 years the interaction between rhythm section and soloist has been crucial to the development of the music as a truly collective art form. Think of any of Miles' rhythms sections, or Coltrane's classic quartet, or Bill Evans's trios – all depended on this interchange between soloist and rhythm section. But with this new situation this kind of interchange is all but eliminated. The rhythm section play together, the soloists floating on top and approximating the metre. Very often, when in this situation, I've felt like I was playing on an Aebersold Playalong recording! There being so little interaction between soloist and rhythm section we might as well have been playing in different rooms. It's almost like a throwback to the bad old fusion days of the 70s, where jazz soloists trotted out lick after lick over a pounding rock rhythm section with neither soloist or rhythm section having the slightest effect on, or interest in, what the others were playing.

The second result of this problem is that the music is BORING!! After a while it all sounds the same. Presumably the idea of playing in 7,11,15, 23 or whatever, is to introduce variety and newness into the music. But due to the constraints placed on the music by the protagonists' lack of competence in these new metres we get the opposite result. You nearly always get the same thing –

1) Complex melody

2) A series of solos over one or two basic chords with soloists floating over the top of the metre and with no interaction between rhythm section and soloists

3) Complex melody

It's dull, dull, dull! In my opinion it's pointless bringing in a piece of music that you essentially can't play. You'd be much better off sticking with 4/4 or 3/4 and playing some creative music with your colleagues than bringing in some token tune in one of these new metres where your ability to respect the measure length is restricted to the playing of the melody. Would any competent horn player, or anyone for that matter, bring in a piece based on changes they found impossible to negotiate? I don't think so. So why do it with rhythm? I would go as far as to say that bringing in a piece of music in which you completely depend on the rhythm section to make you sound competent, let alone creative, is actually dishonest. You're depending on the hard work of others in learning how to deal with this new rhythmic language to absolve you from having to do the same. No good and lasting music is ever produced in such circumstances.

I would suggest that if we're to truly explore the wealth of new musical landscapes made available to us by this new rhythmic information then we have to do the hard work necessary to be comfortable in these metres and rhythmic forms. If you like the idea of doing a tune in 15/8 then you should learn to play in 15/8 – not play your stock 4/4 stuff with ragged corrections every few bars as the rhythm section play the REAL downbeat! You should be able to play phrases that respect this metre, and the real proof of that is to use changes in the music you write in these metres and new rhythms. Get a drum machine, or sequencer, programme the rhythm in question into it, and play along with it over and over until you know where '1' is – every time. Then apply changes to the metre and use the voice leading you've learned over years of practice in that discipline.

Treat rhythm with the same respect you treated harmony and melody and make the same demands on yourself in your use of it. Don't write dull tunes with one or two chords as cover for the fact that you can't voice-lead in the new metre – learn how to voice-lead in that metre – but at home and in the practice room – not on the gig using the crutch of the rhythm section and at the expense of the music and audience. Don't bring any tunes to the rehearsal room where you demand of others something you can't do yourself. Don't try and skip the 'hard yards' - do the work, find the '1' and then rather than paying lip service to this new rhythmic vocabulary, perhaps we can hear some good, creative and new music. No more faking please!!

PS. As an example of how beautiful complex rhythms and great chords can sound when played by people who really know what they're doing have a listen to Kenny Werner's trio piece 'In Tune on the great CD 'Press Enter' (Sunnyside).

As another example of changes in odd metres with respect for voice leading you can also listen to some standards played in odd metres here This was recorded as long ago as 1993 by myself, Mike Nielsen on guitar and Conor Guilfoyle on drums. There are three pieces here - 'Night and Day played in an 11/4 swing feel, 'Love for Sale' played in an 11/8 Afro-Cuban feel and 'Summertime' played in 21/14. Notice the absence of one-chord solo forms!

Radio in 5 Years

In the past, radio was the best and only way to get "immediate" or at least timely information about world news. There was no CNN. No email to communicate with loved ones. Radio was a lifeline.

Today, radio is defined by ...

Scaled down workforces.

"Local" programming from out of town -- out of state and across the nation.

"Local" news from regional newsrooms to save money.

"Local" decisions made by corporate officers somewhere else.

No Internet strategy.

No mobile content plan.

No fun. No focus. No future.

That's radio today as consolidators are changing the face of broadcasting to suit their needs -- shrink the business so they can remain in business.

But it is my view that what is expedient for consolidators who currently are in over their heads with debt, is not the best thing for their companies and the industry if radio is to find a place in the digital future.

A week hardly goes by as we hear of another new misguided plan to make it easier and cheaper to run radio.

But today, I'd like to share some thoughts of what radio can morph into -- with the right leadership, commitment and vision. If you're like me, you'll consider the possibility and wish you could oust the rascals who are hunkering down instead of ramping up.

So, here we go:

1. The radio station that I envision is local. Because technology now allows radio to be broadcast from very efficient spaces, the operator of the future will open satellite offices (sorry about that word) in and around the service area. Oh, I have replaced "listening area" with "service area" because in the future a successful radio operator will service their community in many ways beyond the terrestrial signal. We'll look back on the past as being primitive when we limited ourselves to where we stored our broadcasting equipment. Of course, technology also allows broadcasters of the future to work out of a single room in a far away place, but that strategy fails to take into account the need to have direct contact with your audience.

2. A local executive manages several streams of income simultaneously. The existing terrestrial signal, any Internet streams separate and apart from the terrestrial stream, numerous mobile initiatives, an "app" division, digital publishing, music discovery, at least 50 podcast franchises just to whet your appetite.

3. The operations manager (also local) coordinates all the content and scheduling. If there are 50 podcasts a day, five days a week -- he/she coordinates studio and production time. Some content providers will be working from home. Whereas now, everything in a radio station has to do with putting out the terrestrial signal (increasingly imported from elsewhere), the ops manager of the future will balance all content all the time.

4. Account execs will morph into service reps who are trained -- there, I said it, trained -- to sell the differences and benefits of packaging various forms of digital media. They will be very professional and will look to provide ways to support local advertisers as they step into the digital beyond. In my vision, the local manager would never pressure the local "sales" manager to fax out specials to boost income by the end of the week. Instead, they would be encouraged to sell digital solutions as they develop for long-term, in-person relationships.

5. This hub then becomes a social network hybrid. If it is installed at an all-news station, for example, then everything this venture does is brought together in a real, live dialogue with people. When they want news, they go to the new social network. When they want to talk about the news, they access the network. Report news? Yes. Ask questions? Of course. Post video and pictures...now you're getting the idea.

6. Podcasting development is on my front burner. Even before five years comes and goes, I see operators with at least 50 podcasts that are not amateur shows, but moneymaking franchises. (By the way, one of my clients launches in a few weeks with such a franchise). Imagine, if you will, 50 moneymaking morning shows. In order to accomplish this, you can't be doing radio programming on a podcast. It's a different animal. Takes some learning. And you'll be doing it for chump change if you don't learn how to build a franchise through ancillary forms of income. Oh, did I mention -- I'm taking away all recorded commercials no matter how much money is offered to stick them in my podcast listeners' ears. You do the math -- 50 "morning-type" podcasts times lots of money streaming into your coffers.

7. And what of terrestrial radio? You don't need to wait five years to see how few people actually need to have you broadcast to them. In the future, they will be the program director. To temp them into listening, the terrestrial radio station is broken into 30 minutes segments -- different programming that is not -- I emphasize not -- going to be rerun or made available online. Now, a lot of radio people are having heart attacks when I say 30 minute segments but in my world you will want to train listeners to point their addiction at you over the air with content they can't get elsewhere. By these standards, most existing terrestrial stations should just pull the plug. But, if I'm competing against lost consolidators, I'll let them pleasure themselves by broadcasting to a world that needs to tune-in for something unique. Music alone is not unique. That's why we have iPods.

8. Broadcasters think Internet streams are terrestrial radio stations on the cheap. Not in my view. My music discovery stream has no licensed music on it. It is local -- featuring local artists and intelligent people talking about the music, genre and artists. But I also envision a news/talk stream that has programs as short as five minutes and as long as 45 minutes, on various topics by various experts who have earned the right to be speaking. In a day, 100 different "shows". I'd employ my podcasting standard of "not sounding like radio". The stream would be so rich, it would be addictive. On weekends, no reruns. No syndication ever. No radio stuffed into an Internet streaming format. My God, no recorded commercials no matter how much money I have to turn down.

9. My station of the future would also enter digital publishing with music, video and text onboard. Not a newspaper or present day newspaper website operation -- they aren't going to be around in five years. But a part of the social networking hub that will allow specialty publishing to thrive. I'm seeing a subscription model. Two years ago I couldn't imagine anyone paying for content on the Internet. Lately I have come to believe that we must accept that the Internet is a delivery system. That content must be addictive and compelling. And if it is, people will subscribe at a fair price. Advertising will not be banner ads -- they are as ineffective as 30-second radio spots in a six-minute stop set. If you own, Indianapolis Newsbeat -- you'll crave new technologies to expand the franchise.

Presently, we look at the radio format as the ultimate destination.

It is not.

What we will do in the future is aggregate content around brands that we either currently own or seek to own in the future. Terrestrial broadcasting (revised as I have suggested above) is only a part of the "radio station" revenue stream which in essence is no longer "radio" but multi-functioning content powered by social networking.

I could be wrong.

But I don't think the radio we are broadcasting today can be a growth business in the near future. In fact I know it when it comes to Millennials. They have moved on.

Therefore to let them go without engaging them where they live leaves you with the stuff the Museum of Radio & Television is made of -- yesterday's accomplishments not tomorrow's successes.

This all can't happen soon enough for me because I know in my mind and in my heart that talented radio people (managers, sales managers, programmers, talent, sales people, support personnel, tech types and others) are exactly the ones to reinvigorate this vision of "radio".

I have a friend -- a station owner -- who loves the concept but is constantly crying about how much money he is losing so he can't invest in the future. Of course, that means he'll succeed at losing more money.

And it may not be radio owners or top executives who can bring themselves to this very different interpretation of radio's future.

Could be entrepreneurs -- young folks, doing it all without the terrestrial signal. Still, current radio station owners who have station brands have a huge advantage.

But they also have a big disadvantage -- no guts.

Kids have guts. They eat peanut butter. Haven't had their families yet. They've got everything to gain. Less to lose.

One of the reasons I am a firm believer in content providers as opposed to traditional broadcasters is because sociology and technology are now colliding constantly. Fifty years ago they thought radio would be around forever. Now, we're wondering.

This is Memorial Day Weekend.

The White House Commission of Remembrance for this heroes holiday went to every radio station, every consolidator --you name them -- and asked for one minute of time.

"Americans wherever they are at 3 p.m., local time, on Memorial Day to pause in an act of national unity (duration: one minute).The time 3 p.m. was chosen because it is the time when most Americans are enjoying their freedoms on the national holiday. The Moment is an act of national unity in which all Americans, alone or with family and friends, honor those who died for our freedom."

The Commission wrote.

Emailed.

And received not one response.

Nothing.

Not one.

Apparently a lot of radio executives running their own show their own way these days need to stand by the white markers at Arlington National Cemetery and rethink why their stations exist.

Memorial Day.

It's more than the "500 Greatest Hits of All Time" or the "History of Rock and Roll".

Once again radio's silence is deafening.

So, I thought I'd throw these ideas in the form of a strategic planning "grenade" to shake the industry awake.

Radio is declining not simply because of new technology and not only because the next generation is wired like no one that preceded it.

But because broadcasters have lost their way.

They saw themselves as station operators, then cluster managers and group consolidators and while they were busy playing monopoly they forgot the audience.

This Memorial Day as I remember my father who fought in Europe during World War II for four years in a row without one visit home to the states, you may be remembering your loved ones as well who fought in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever.

When we lose touch we die.

The same is true of radio.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Service doesn't start until you verify an email from "Feedburner" immediately after you sign up (may have to check your filtered mail).

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

Monster.Hogan

I don't know about you but I wouldn't advise a child to take candy from a stranger.

And I also wouldn't tell radio listeners to find a job from Clear Channel President John Slogan Hogan.

Since yesterday when Clear Channel announced that it is going to help five unemployed in each of 21 of their markets find a job each week, my email, Facebook and text messages have been on fire.

That's one station per market -- not all stations -- and we're talking about hard hit places like Detroit.

And they're not giving away a job, just a chance that some lucky listener might be hired by someone other than Clear Channel.

This guy can't get away from less is more.

Do I smell a publicity stunt here?

That's right -- the dean of mean is offering a candy bar to find jobs for the unemployed.

Here's the headline as it appeared on the official Clear Channel news release -- "Clear Channel Radio Kicks Off Initiative to Assist Unemployed Listeners".

Say what?

Now they're really playing with our heads, right?

The Evil Empire.

The Lean Mean Firing Machine is all of a sudden becoming Monster.com.

This calls for psychoanalysis:

"Clear Channel Radio launched a new initiative this week to help local listeners who are seeking employment to market their skills and unique features on the air to attract the attention of employers with available positions".

So tell us, Mr. Slogan -- why aren't you using your airwaves to help find jobs for all those thousands of people you fired?

Well?

Thought you didn't have an answer for that one. If I remember correctly, you couldn't wait to get them out the door and in some cases your minions even escorted them out of the building -- sometimes without their personal belongings.

Sorry to bring all of this up when you're in the middle of a PR blitz, but, really.

"Twenty-one Clear Channel Radio stations across the nation will encourage listeners seeking employment to visit their websites and submit entries via an online form. Each station will choose five entrants per week to record their own thirty second radio resume where they will provide basic personal information and qualifications, and direct interested employers to the station’s website where the entrants’ full resumes will be posted".

What!

Only five winners per city per week -- my God, you're so generous. I know you've got plenty of airtime available since you're not selling advertising these days but for a San Antonio-based who-ha news release PR effort, isn't this -- well, cheap?

Even "The Last Contest" gave away more prizes.

And by the way ...

Making a contest out of helping the unemployed. It's almost as bad as "the ninth caller wins".
Except in this case they don't really win anything.

Don't puke all over your computer, you're going to be sick ...

“We realize this is a difficult time for many individuals and families and want to support our listeners who are out of work in any way we can,” said John Hogan, President and CEO of Clear Channel Radio. “Radio is all about community and serves as the perfect platform to connect job seekers with employers. We hope that job seeking listeners will take advantage of this special opportunity.”

My God, when did John Hogan become Mister Rogers? Won't you be my neighbor?

Such compassion for human beings that I didn't think the big Slogan guy had in him -- at least, not from the way he has butchered and quartered so many talented radio careers to save money.

But here's the line -- exactly as it appeared in yesterday's news release -- that is the giveaway for why the most insensitive employer of human talent can morph into a candidate for Secretary of Labor ...

"According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in April with another 539,000 jobs lost, and the unemployment rate rose to 8.9 percent. Since the recession began in December 2007, 5.7 million jobs have been lost".

Well, I sure don't need Labor Statistics to know people are unemployed and neither does Hogan. All he has to do is look down the hall.

That curious line is in there to show the right people this Evil Empire now gets it -- to keep abusing the public interest it must act like it cares about people.

The Keystone Cops of Radio have done it again.

They have made it so by saying it is so.

This paltry excuse for mass employment is a circus.

If Slogan Hogan really wanted to help people, all he had to do is read a blog post of mine from about a year ago where I related the story of how I handled unemployment when I was a program director during a recession.

In short, my station actually went out and recruited jobs of all kinds -- then advertised them in on-air promos (really creative promos) inviting listeners to call in inquiring about the jobs for which they qualified (no email then) and apply.

If being a construction worker wasn't your thing, just keep listening and next half hour there would be a nursing job. You get the idea.

Good radio (average quarter hour) and good citizens (helping lots of people to get interviews -- not 5 for window dressing purposes).

It wasn't a contest.

Wasn't a PR show.

It was the desire of Buckley Broadcasting to serve the city of license (Philadelphia) where they operated. Corporate never got involved. It was all local.

After I invited today's more-than-interested program directors to update my constant on-air job promotion, many contacted me frustrated by how cluster mangers and regional execs would not allow them to do it.

I know -- I don't have the clout of John Slogan Hogan.

But now, all of a sudden, this least competent of all consolidation executives comes up with this zany idea to make a mockery out of a sad situation.

Damn -- Hogan wants to be me!

You might be calming down right now -- if you are a Clear Channel victim -- or you might be getting even hotter under the collar, but there is one important question.

Why an employment contest?

I lied -- three important questions.

Why issue a release like it is a mandate for action?

Why now?

The answer...

Clear Channel is scared shitless -- forgive me, but there is no other way to say it.

In my opinion Hogan doesn't care about the unemployed. He cares about the employed. Like himself.

And this is a company that is in serious trouble with the FCC and Congress. Certainly you can sense the shift of sentiment in Washington away from deregulation.

Clear Channel sure can.

Clear Channel is one weather or news emergency away from a scandal in Washington because their nationally-syndicated Repeater Radio is shortcutting local news and emergency information.

The FCC is threatening to force stations back into localism -- a direction that is opposite where Clear Channel is headed.

Clear Channel, of course, is bleeding red ink and is increasingly using its licenses as cheap repeaters of repurposed content.

The only reason Clear Channel isn't in bigger trouble is because fired employees have not professionally lobbied Congress to put the pressure on Clear Channel. If they did, Clear Channel would be all but stuck with 800 or so stations and forced to follow the intent of their FCC licenses.

They're getting away with firing people, calling syndicated radio local, making the public think three news reporters in San Diego can cover an earthquake 24/7.

But now, John Hogan has become his own bad self in Monster dot com -- not the online employment resource but Hogan the ogre.

Let's keep it real for a second.

The fact that this unemployment sham is coming from Clear Channel corporate is significant. Like Hogan and San Antonio have nothing better to do while their stations are falling apart.

This corporate intervention by radio's chief executioner into "helping" the unemployed -- all five of them -- is a strategic move to paint Clear Channel as a fit local operator that responds to local issues.

It's a decoy from issues like how the emergency-alert designated station in San Diego, Clear Channel's KOGO, is down to three reporters while it is delegating hourly news reports to "news hub" station KFI, Los Angeles most of the day, and is unmanned by reporters overnight.

No one at corporate would want to wake Congress up with this accident waiting to happen.

And the phony employment initiative that Clear Channel says it portrays can't hide what Clear Channel actually does -- recruit for jobs it doesn't have (view their KOGO recruitment piece from their website):

"If your organization distributes information about employment opportunities to job seekers or refers job seekers to employers, and would like to receive job vacancy notices for Clear Channel Communications, please provide your name, mailing address, e-mail address (if applicable), telephone number, fax number, and contact person and identify the category or categories of vacancies or which you would like information specified above to the following person at Clear Channel Communications..."

Oh, now you want us to believe that the Evil Empire is hiring!

It's simple.

Clear Channel was created when consolidation was allowed to go wild. No one ever saw a crippled radio industry as a possibility. A handful of consolidators in cahoots with the greedy Wall Street investment banks bought all the big real estate but wound up not being able to pay their mortgages.

As long as people who love the radio industry play dead, Clear Channel can continue to get away with selling Repeater Radio as local, foreign newscasts as responsive and responsible, few employees as a fiduciary licensee's obligation instead of a dereliction of duty and now responding to the national unemployment crisis as if it were a contest.

If you don't like it -- and don't like being dicked around by the Dickeys, Hogans and Sulemans of the industry then do one thing -- if you do nothing else.

Have a good laugh.

Then, bombard your local Congressional representative with protests, petitions -- call the local TV news stations and raise the issue publicly.

There is a reason the National Rifle Association almost always prevails on Capitol Hill and no -- you can't count on your NAB to represent local radio operators. NAB is on the side of the bad guys.

Grassroots protests in every consolidated city.

Demand that stations be required to:

1. Air 80% of their programming originated locally by local talent.

2. Meet the public interest, convenience and necessity or else mandate that the FCC should remove license holders who don't.

3. See to it that all aspects of a radio station's operation be local including retention of local management.

By the way, do I have to say -- there is no time to waste.

When the next disaster happens in San Diego or elsewhere -- God forbid -- listeners are way ahead of the FCC and radio consolidators.

They know to pull out their phones, text a friend, go online, hit the Internet for updates.

Who is kidding whom?

Monster.Hogan is really CareerBuilder.Hogan.

His.

Not yours.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Service doesn't start until you verify an email from "Feedburner" immediately after you sign up (may have to check your filtered mail).

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

Trouble Ahead for Car Radio

Radio had already staked its claim to fame on being mobile media long before cell phones and iPods.

Once the family stopped sitting around the radio together and went to watching TV instead, the radio industry reinvented itself to survive the TV challenge.

To accomplish this, the radio industry had to lay claim on the car as its main receiver.

As automobiles proliferated -- two family cars and then cars for the teens -- radio was the one constant.

A built-in, ready-made -- always accessible audience.

Keep in mind that in the 1970's, FM radio could not grow and prosper until automakers decided to make FM receivers standard equipment in automobiles. Once that happened, music stations migrated to the better fidelity on FM and the industry continued to thrive. (There were also fewer commercials, less hype, better variety -- until we screwed FM music formats up, too).

Now, that once-sacred listening place -- the car -- is in serious jeopardy.

And I'm not even talking about the obvious -- which is that fewer cars are selling during the economic downturn. Ask Sirius XM what it feels like to lose over a million subscribers at $12.95 a month and not be able to replace them at their only significant listening post -- the car radio.

No, I'm talking about social engineering here -- enabled by new technology.

Consider the following and you'll get a grasp on how bad decisions being made by radio CEOs today about programming are playing right into the hands of its competition:

1. The car radio is now known as the vehicle's "entertainment center". That says it all.

2. The Ford Sync has been installed in one million vehicles so far. The popular new Sync -- which is still called a "radio" by the way -- is described as "audio traffic updates and directions as you drive (and) will launch May 18 in some vehicles and early June in several others, as Ford converts the popular radio to the traffic/information appliance it announced in January".

3. Starting this month owners of a 2010 Fusion, Mustang, Milan and MKZ will be able to download an upgrade to their Sync radios that will enable conversion to traffic/information appliances via the SyncMyRide website. The original Sync allowed voice activation and control of the next generation's most popular devices such as iPods.

4. New versions of Sync will allow easy access to have what the manufacturer calls voice in--voice out traffic updates and trip navigation and weather, stock reports, news. It's all free at least for the first three years of ownership. The link for the service is the user’s Bluetooth phone and the information is sent over the phone’s voice channel so no data plan is required from the carrier.

But sit down ...I don't want you to hurt yourself because the real killer is coming next ...

5. In nine to 12 months, Ford's Sync will enable Internet capabilities on a smartphone and allow the Internet's most popular radio station - Pandora -- to play throughout the car's sound system. Want Live 365 -- you've got it. Want terrestrial radio -- you can listen to a stream but who wants to do that? Terrestrial radio operators are busy importing cheap Repeater Radio into their markets. What innovators they are! Terrestrial radio is about to be had for lunch -- maybe even dinner.

It gets better -- or worse depending on whether you are Fagreed, Tricky Dickey and Slogan Hogan or an eager consumer...

6. How about reading your email by voice while you're driving. It's on the way in a future version of Sync.

7. Ford reports that "The updated Sync uses INRIX traffic data and Tellme voice technology as well as Airbiquity and TeleNav technology. Best Buy is slated to provide technical support to Sync customers who have trouble pairing their phones with the new Sync. The Sync was developed with Microsoft".

8. It's not just Ford, the other surviving automakers will also be adding the most anticipated consumer audio feature of all time -- Internet streaming. Delphi and Autonet Mobile are calling for companies to create Internet connectivity devices as standard equipment for new cars. That technology is being tested. Mobile high speed Internet access is coming.

My readers know what radio consolidators don't care to know.

Radio is outdated (after all, wasn't their idea of the digital future HD radio?)

But consumers are on the cutting edge.

Technology is now meeting consumer expectations and matching their behavior.

These clowns who run consolidated radio companies are playing with the future of the industry by trying to save their butts through cutbacks and mass firings.

They should be innovating in the mobile space because their lack of foresight has driven radio into a slow lane on the information super highway.

You know that you can't go two blocks without seeing a driver on the cell phone -- even more during rush hour and on freeways.

And increasingly we've all seen driving while texting.

Why not?

Texting is an addiction to the next generation.

Radio has become as mundane as brushing your teeth.

I've mentioned this before but awhile back when I asked a class of college students if they ever drove while texting the roar of laughter was so loud for so long -- well, I got my answer. The reworded question I asked was, "has anyone not texted while driving?" Out of 45 or so students, not one could raise their hand.

While radio geniuses are finding ways to bring the 1960's into 2010, consumers have turned them off. They now hold sacred the cell phone (and the iPhone, Blackberry, etc).

Texting is not simply an option.

To them, it's an entitlement.

It's like crack but there is no Promises at Malibu to break the addiction.

If you're following this line of thought, you can see why Steve Jobs at Apple is cooperating with the inevitable and succeeding while competitors fail.

Radio CEOs are shooting themselves in the foot.

Instead of running a station on 1-3 employees, they should be developing new mobile content and streams -- information pods and unique content that will play in the radio of the future which -- significantly enough replaces the radio in a car dashboard in more ways than one.

Yes, of course -- terrestrial radio will still be available in cars for the short haul -- but the handful of radio CEOs who see the future their way are not likely to gain market share.

Not with Pandora on board.

Or Internet streaming enabled.

Or email and voice access to the services and features they crave.

Unless, Don Imus on oxygen turns you on in 2010.

Or Ryan Seacrest can keep your hands off of switching to Pandora.

Or listening to voice tracking tell you to get out and enjoy the day while you're driving in a tornado watch that terrestrial radio has ignored.

If we know these things, why don't the radio CEOs?

For one, they are in it to thin it -- cut down not build up.

They scoff at advice such as "mind your generational media" because they can't relate to radio any other way than how they experienced it or how they want to keep it going.

If I walked in and tried to sell you the newest, best looking steam locomotive in the world for your railroad, you'd kick me out on my ass.

No one needs the best steam locomotive.

By extension, no one needs the best radio of the 1960's today -- let alone the worst version of it on voice tracking and syndication that is now being offered.

Radio is mired in yesterday.

Happy to live in the past. Consolidation as we are learning has killed off the entrepreneurial spirit that always drove radio.

If a mom and pop operator today owned 4 AM and 7 FM stations, his or her children would grow up in radio and probably pester mom and dad until they could try out this newfangled technology called -- the Internet.

By contrast, consolidated radio would appoint a national Interactive VP and then start dictating decisions from headquarters until ...

...until the budget was cut.

Then eventually eliminated.

Car radio is on the road to a major accident.

And the crash is going to come at the hands of the people in the driver's seat -- terrestrial radio.

Through arrogance, ignorance, malfeasance and mismanagement they have wrecked their strong hold on the car radio.

And for the record, I am predicting here and now that within a short time you'll start seeing some automakers give buyers a chance to leave terrestrial radio out of their entertainment systems -- an economic decision.

This accident was totally avoidable but now that it has happened it appears to be fatal.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Service doesn't start until you verify an email from "Feedburner" immediately after you sign up (may have to check your filtered mail).

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