WKRP in Cincy - payola Episode
bassie
11,710 Posts
pay to play remember the WKRP in Cincinnati episode about payola when Mr.Carlson thought blow was foot powder? that was funny!
Comments
"Take Jennifer Lopez's awful record, "Get Right," with its shrill horn and lifted rap. It's now clear that was a "bought" sensation when it was released last winter. So, too, were her previous "hits" "I'm Glad" and "I'm Real," according to the memos. All were obtained by Sony laying out dough and incentives. It's no surprise. There isn't a person alive who could hum any of those "songs" now. Not even J-Lo herself."
Fuck - I liked "Get Right" and didn't even get paid for it!
Me either. Who needs to pay for spins once you've paid for a Rich Harrison beat?
Payola is a menace of the first magnitude of musical dictatorship.
Audioslave = Rage Against The Soundgarden
You are truly missing out on some of the best music that payola can buy.
Or in your case, can't buy.
you`ve definitely heard this shit wafting out of a angst-ridden teenager`s bedroom somewhere you just didn`t know it.
The dude who wrote the fox news article is salty enough to be on solstrut...
h
My foots going numb!!!!!!
Payola is the way of every business. Today I was offered a trip to Greece for a contract. Last week, a dude offered me a "finders fee" if I could get him to do some work for us.
It's crazy, but that's how a lot of shit gets done, in my experience.
By no means, but hey... it keeps the sheep fed.
If I lived in TO, I'd sign up...
There's a Rudy Ray Moore joke in those two phrases just waiting to get out.
it will depend on how far you take it - you could just be fined for CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) violations, but to do it properly, that is, set-up the transmitter in hard-to-get-at-up-in-the-sky locations, it would also involve B&E and some property damage - so...jail time.
I've read some pretty crazy stories of getaways by dudes who did pirate broadcasts around London and stuff... and for most, their pirate ventures back in those days acted as a big catalyst for getting them to the high status DJs they are today.
And a lot of those still keep it as real as they did when they were doing pirate broadcasts.
you put yourself at a huge risk setting up an operation. besides, why would you pay 30k when you could get some ham radio geeks to do it for free?
The Funkmaster Flex of the Ham Radio World
that's why it's gotta be mobile - if you keep moving the transmitter - you're harder to trace.
I want to do it - not hand it over to some ham radio geeks.
I know nothing about ham radio - what's the sound quality like?
and will i end up looking like him?
canadian law states that only certain technology can operate in certain frequency ranges. for example, AM and FM radio each have their own band of frequencies. the same applies for TV broadcast (UHF, VHF), satellites, and even things like your microwave. the reason they do this is so that you don't have interference between your electronic devices (i.e. - turning on your wireless router would make your TV unwatchable). in order to broadcast in AM or FM bands you need a license, and in order to tune into and receive these braodcasts you need a radio. the same goes for ham radio. for each frequency you transmit the signal at, you need a receiver to demodulate that specific frequency (+/- a bit because a tuner enables you to receive signals in a range of frequencies). what i'm saying is that, suppose you got a ham license to broadcast legally - you would still need every listener to have a ham radio receiver. i know ham radio is used mostly for talking, so music would be at least comparable to AM radio. there is a certain band of frequencies that is open for anything - no license required - but you also have everything else electronic operating in that band which leads to a lot of interference and you still have the whole receiver issue. i'm assuming licenses (completely disregarding CRTC fees) are generally cheaper than normal radio, but if you plan on reaching the masses - it will have to be am or fm.
Beyond the issues of aesthetics/taste (which I seriously doubt has anything to do with the origin of anti-payola laws) what exactly is the menace of payola? Who cares whether someone gets paid to play a record. When I've asked people about this issue before they always talk about some mythical right to "free" airwaves. Seems to me that every station has a format which effectively excludes most artists/recordings. What's the difference? Put another way, "who is the victim of the crime of payola"?.
The victim is the regional sounds. part of this is because of the monopolization of the airwaves. But when you have a large company owning stations in numerous markets or even multiple stations in one market, then they are in more of a position to dictate what you listen to rather than a more localized station who is going to tend to be more in tune with the local community it has ties to. Payola is a problem in that when a DJ is payed to play, then he is not really playing for the listener or even making any kind of call as to whether the local audience likes the music. I think it has less effect these days because of the spread of the internet and its numerous outlets for music as well as television. However if you return to days of when radio was king, then that was the one of the only methods an artist could gain or help expand their audience. If you ahve to pay to get your record on and can't afford to pay, then how do you promote? Its a complicated dilemna that was more of an issue I think 25 years ago rather than today, although you rarely if ever hear independent labels/artists on commercial radio stations because they can't afford to pay out, or just don't play that game.
In the Bay, local artists pretty much strongarmed clearchannel into playing local music. I wonder why this has not happened in more places?
too much rivalry? I know in NC its pretty hard to get crews to do almost anything together. Also I think they are so used to payola they have just included it as a cost of doing biz? Dunno it probably has to do with the local environment too, being that SF is a much more liberal town than most of the country? I had a friend that gets paid to get stuff on the air by big and small labels, and I don't see him losing sleep over this judgement
I think it is important to differentiate between the consequences of payola and the victims of payola. No doubt excludes some records to the advantage of others. But so does programming or formatting. Arguing that atations aren't playing what people want or ought to hear is essentially the "free air waves argument" I always hear; that there is some object measure of what should or shouldn't be played. When really all kinds of music gets played that ain't connectiing with anybody. Just turn to your local non-profict radio and listen to the polka hour. In fact, payola only insures that a record gets played. Radio stations are in the business of business and if the music ain't moving people they won't listen anymore and that means lost revenue from adverts. So radio stations usually play music that connects with the masses not the music geeks such as are found here. Does anybody really have a clear understanding of why the government is in the business of regulating payola? To me it seems like another form of product placement or even advertising. Am I missing something?
Dee could you breakdown Spitzer's argument so I don't have to read all 43 pages? Thanks.