all-encompassingly

Aha!

We may have found something besides hockey to argue about. :)

It seems to me that the "danger" of Clear Channel has more to do if they forced certain political perspectives off the air, and were a true monopoly (hence, really had the power to force certain viewpoints out).

As far as I'm aware, neither seems to be true.

Radio is almost as free (free as in liberty, not as in free stuff) a medium as the internet, but with bandwidth constraints. You can only have so many stations, so the flourishing of really niche markets is a lot harder.

If Clear Channel takes over a station, they want to make money. They are market driven. If nobody but Travis and Doug want to listen to Republican parody songs...guess what? No more parody songs! If there isn't a sustainable market for punk rock, death metal, or elevator music, then they get flushed.

What do we want? NPR style music stations? Possible slogan: "Music not popular enough to make it without government subsidies."

doug, i won't argue with the free market. and i suppose "monopoly" isn't the right term for what clear channel has. but is practically a monopoly, as the facts below will show you, and their playlists suck, as anyone in america can tell by turning on their radio right now. [link].

Clear Channel has been swallowing companies like a starved dog since the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country. With the Act's sweeping relaxation of ownership limits, Clear Channel grew from 40 radio stations to approximately 1,240 radio stations in 300 cities, and now dominates the audience share in 248 of the top 250 radio markets, according to Clear Channel's corporate fact sheet.

The company has been investigated for punishing artists with reduced radio airplay if they chose not to play at a Clear Channel venue. The company was also investigated for its payola practices. They were accused of receiving money from indies, who are promoters from record companies, to play certain songs on their stations. Before the congressional hearing on the payola scandal, Clear Channel attempted to save face by making a company policy against working with indies. (Boehlert) [link]

according to clearchannelsucks.org, clear channel also owns the largest and most powerful concert promoter in the nation, SFX, which is a conflict of interest. they claim that if an artist refuses to play a clear channel controlled venue or provide promotional tickets to a clear channel station, the performer has been blacklisted by that station. this wouldn't be a problem (and, actually, in the case of janet jackson, it would be great--but seriously--) this wouldn't be a problem if clear channel didn't control practically every major radio market in america. in provo, one may choose from 11 clear channel stations (9 fm). in my hometown market, which is perhaps 1/4 the size fo the salt lake market, they own 7 stations (5 fm).

obviously, doug, there's nothing wrong with this...EXCEPT THAT THE CLEAR CHANNEL STATIONS ARE BAD. i know you don't care, because you probably think ashley simpson is the most talented singer alive, but, frankly, i'm sick of hearing "pieces of me" or--whatever it's called--every damn time i turn on the radio. clear channel stations make more money if they promote certain artists, and only certain artists. that's the bottom line, and that's why clear channel doesn't play local music, why they marginalize non-touring and foreign artists, as well as smaller venue artists. for example, at the bottom of my ramones post [link] i named my favorite bands, none of which i discovered listening to clear channel radio. why? because, with clear channel, it is not about the music, it's about who shows the most cleavage.

clear channel radio is a cash cow, in an industry that doesn't need cash cows. we can accept cash cows in hotels, we can accept cash cows in...i dunno, gas stations. but in radio, i'd like to see someone put in some time researching what music is good, and playing that for me. when i hear the disgusting john mayer, dave "eco-terrorist" matthews, sheryl crow, or even the red hot chili peppers (a band i happen to like!) played several times in one day on the same station, i can't help but wonder--aren't there literally thousands of great bands with awesome songs that fit into the genre of this radio station? then how did i just hear the same band sing a song for the half-dozenth time today? it is an injustice and it hurts the overall strength of the music industry. my point is that people would listen to other artists, but they aren't exposed to other artists. i swear that the last few bouncing souls CDs have been better than any blink 182 CD ever released. this is not an issue of "genre" or taste. this is an indisputable fact. you give me counting crows, i give you ben kweller. you give me the donnas, i give you dressy bessy. you're missing out on good music, doug, because of clear channel's perfidy.

death to clear channel.

...according to clearchannelsucks.org...

A non-biased source indeed.

obviously, doug, there's nothing wrong with this...EXCEPT THAT THE CLEAR CHANNEL STATIONS ARE BAD.

"Bad" to who? You? Somebody is obviously listening to this "bad" music, otherwise Clear Channel would be out of business.

i'd like to see someone put in some time researching what music is good, and playing that for me.

Gee...I wonder if the "cash cow" behemoth known as Clear Channel researches what music is going to make them money.

Wait...they do!

Travis, this is the market at work. People get to decide for themselves what music they like. Not you.

Now, on a separate point. It would do you, and all other Clear Channel haters, some good to actually research what kind of music Clear Channel plays. They play all kinds, not just Britney Spears style pop.

Here in Utah, they own 2 AM stations (both talk) and 5 FM stations (Pop, Classic Rock, Oldies, Alternative, and Soft Adult Contemporary).

See Clear Channel holdings in Utah

doug, i was the one who first did the clear channel station search, okay? i know they have country stations. i know they have soft rock stations. i pointed out that some of the stations were even AM stations when i said that out of 11, 9 were FM. i know it might not have been too clear to you, but i did indeed already point this stuff out.

and unless you have been living the middle of a jungle, like in el salvador, you would know that EACH FREAKING GENRE OF MUSIC has its "overplayed" group. for example, over the summer when i worked at a car dealership, the boss had the station locked on the 60s/70s station, 94.1 KODJ. this station plays elton john's "tiny dancer" three times a day. i mean, they only have a selection of 9 songs to choose from, which they play in one continuous loop, so you're bound to get some repeats every few minutes, right? they must have researched that.

every genre of music has great artists who do not get airplay because they don't fit into clear channel's narrow extortionist model.

doug, you can't discount my source because of it's name. i gave you facts. 60% of rock radio worldwide. that's actually from salon.com. i can hear you now, so don't even think about rebutting me with:

salon.com...

an unbiased source, indeed.

you are a skillful john edwards wannabe, doug, ignoring my main point, which is that people would listen to other artists, but they aren't exposed to other artists because the clear channel business model has taken over radio.

instead, you focus on the name of the website that accumulates damning information.

try again.

"you are a skillful john edwards wannabe, doug, ignoring my main point..."

Travis, your "main point" is that you don't like what's on the radio so it obviously should change to fit your musically refined tastes.

You sound like a whiney liberal complaining that Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing ilk have ruined AM radio.

"Oh the horror! Right-wing dominates talk radio! It is un-American! People need to be exposed to different voices. If they would just get an alternative perspective they wouldn't be so narrow-minded."

Rush dominates because people listen.

Why can't the same be said for Clear Channel stations? If people are tuning into them, are they bad because you disagree with song selection?

doug, do you believe that there is liberal bias in the media? i'm talking about the same thing. clear channel filters the music according to their own needs, and most people don't complain because they don't know any other music. CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC filter the news according to their own needs, too, and most americans don't know any better.

do you see what i'm talking about? fortunately for clear channel, LA's KROQ doesn't have a national broadcast range, as does fox news. otherwise, clear channel stations would be biting the dust right now, just like all those liberal news channels are crumpling to fox.

And so we come full circle... This goes back to my original point Travis. Here's what I said in my first comment:

"It seems to me that the "danger" of Clear Channel has more to do if they forced certain political perspectives off the air, and were a true monopoly (hence, really had the power to force certain viewpoints out)."

Clear Channel, or any media "monopoly", is a danger if it is forcing out political viewpoints, not a certain taste in music.

doug, every time you lose an argument, you blame it on aesthetics.

huh?