Dec 102007
 


One of the benefits of spending time in the Halls of Rock is the opportunity to air petty grievances. For those of us who love rock ‘n roll, there are moments in a day when a thought comes to mind that no normal person who ever consider nor feel the need to share. Here, we do and we do.

This morning I was searching for something decent for my wife and I to hear on commercial radio. As I flipped to a station playing U2’s “New Year’s Day”, I became quickly and mildly annoyed at the fact that any time I do run across a U2 song on the radio it’s rarely one of the half dozen or so well-known U2 songs I’d rather hear, that I could tolerate for a few minutes. It always seems to be the hit song from whatever album that I don’t get any pleasure from hearing! My wife told me that this is typical of me, claiming I only like any band’s obscure songs over their big hits. The she told me that it’s for this reason she’s always amazed that I consider The Rolling Stones’ “Satisfaction” to be the greatest song in all of rock ‘n roll. I explained to her that it’s just a coincidence that my great taste sometimes coincides with the taste of The Masses, but I digress. Yes, my wife suffers on an almost daily basis with hearing me express some beef along these lines.

Anyhow, following are songs by U2 that commercial radio chooses to play followed by hit songs I’d rather hear from the same album containing the track with radio programmer staying power. I could make a similar list for The Who, a band that I really do love yet for whom commercial radio programmers typically display equally bad taste in songs fit for broadcast. You may have your own examples regarding a band you either like mildly or love.
Continue reading »

Share
Feb 212007
 

From The New York Times:

Even if the deal does not face resistance from the F.C.C., it is likely to encounter opposition elsewhere. The National Association of Broadcasters, a trade association for television and radio stations, is already speaking out against a merger.

“In coming weeks, policymakers will have to weigh whether an industry that makes Howard Stern its poster child should be rewarded with a monopoly platform for offensive programming,” the group said. “We’re hopeful that this anticonsumer proposal will be rejected.”

Where does a music fan who’s befuddled by the would-be phenomenon of satellite radio find a reason to care about the proposed merger of XM and Sirius? Is this merger not inevitable? Does it not reflect all that’s wrong with satellite radio in the first place: the tightly preselected formats and playlists, the final eradication of regional tastes, the take-it-or-leave-it stance of multimedia conglomerates…

And what’s with this article’s ultimate focus on Howard Stern and issues of morality? The New York Times piece begins with the lovely cheesecake shot we’ve copied here and ends with concerns about “a monopoly platform for offensive programming.” Is that the only monopoly the National Association for Broadcasters should be concerned about?

I’ve long had only one opinion about this whole matter: Enable me to have an Internet hookup in my car so that I can tune into the thousands of free college and indie stations that broadcast over the Web. I don’t need Howard Stern or Bob Dylan as my host. I don’t need some safe, segmented programming with an LCD display of the song and artist playing. I want to hear music with personality, including the personality of sometimes stumbling college DJs. Satellite radio can continue to kiss my grits!

Share

Lost Password?

 
twitter facebook youtube