Radio Ain't the Same

All of these "news" reports about the state of radio have failed to note something critically important. Of course, perhaps the pretty talking heads are not to blame surely all that styling gel and mousse have damaged their brains and they truly cannot focus in on one simple sound bite story at a time.

In case nobody has noticed, radio's landscape has changed dramatically for musicians (level of talent or imagination unimportant for this point), programmers, record companies, and oh yeah... those people... the listeners.

Some might argue that for an artist like say someone else that I have picked on in the past -- Sheryl Crow -- if she has to accept a commercial tie-in to expose her music through commercials and 'Net ads then so be it. She's loves writing and performing and having people enjoy what she does. Is there really something so inherently wrong with that?

Take another example, had that horribly pompous sliver of his former music-self, Sting, not accepted the Jaguar deal the song Desert Rose would never seen the light of day and the album would have stopped dead after the first single. Personally, I thought Desert Rose was a great song and I have to wonder if would have been exposed to it were it not for that awful commercial.

Of course we can apply that some logic to the Kings of Leon in recent times. Although when I saw them I was completely blown away by how simply awful they were. Damn, new levels and definition of suck had to be created.

Anyway, others will (and should argue) that radio has always chosen money first. Um, radio and the recording industry has had a few problems: payola anyone? Drugola? Hell, Cassablanca Records imploded because of the drugs and drugs for play problem. Perhaps the question should be what kind of endorsements should artists and musicians take? Would Elvis, John Lennon, or Buddy Holly have embraced the "take the money and promote yourself" mentality that we now see in so many artists hawking their musical wares. Sure, musicians turn down many more sponsorship opportunities than you or anyone else could imagine; although, I can imagine a lot.

In the case of Ms. Crow, she accepted the Dell deal when there were several other more profitable deals on the table. I am sure that her contention will be that it wasn't about the money it was about getting the music "out there." Of course, how about playing more festivals or doing something really amazing like a concert in central park -- I still remember the Simon and Garfunkle concert in Central Park in the 1980s -- or she could do some innovative direct download thang, or how about some innovative pricing to get the music into people's hands. Although I forgot that we don't believe in the direct music store experience anymore (does anyone else miss that?).

Or yet another point is that musicians like Sheryl Crow is just trying to be "cool". The question becomes what is the best way to get the most music to the people and maybe instead of thinking about making money or looking pretty, artists could be well... artists. And radio, MTV, the record labels, and all the other hangers on could just get out of the way and let the music speak for itself -- good, bad, or indifferent.