community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Don't trust anyone over 30
by Chris Holm
Monday, Dec. 06, 2004 at 2:02 PM
info@cardinalpoints.net (email address validated)
Troubles with 30 year old WYEP and the exortion, payola indie-promotion dilemma.
The current investigation into extortion and bribes in which Michael Bracy of the Future of Music Coalition stated, "it's a little bit of both."
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6590977?pageid=rs.News&pageregion=double1&rnd=1101330144480&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1040
..regarding Michele Clark and AAA radio stations similar to WYEP, may be as previously reported only be an obstacle to aritists getting airplay based on merit instead of kickbacks and extortion.
WDST, the station being investigated's, artists may look familiar to many who listen to WYEP. Here's there best of 2003 list.
http://www.wdst.com/playlist.asp
(so much for WYEP's claims of diversity)
Although Bracy and others at the Future of Music Coalition have been working on this problem, their current statement confirms the last article in so far that other scams may surface to keep the rich richer, and those with vision and creativity off the air unless backed by bullying support.
They state,
"FMC must reiterate that the corporations' decisions to sever these ties does little to protect artists and the public from future forms of payola.
To the contrary, radio companies are now partnering directly with labels to create in house promotional activities.
FMC is also concerned that other in-kind exchanges may replace independent promotion and that radio stations
will continue to select recordings for play lists based not on the merits of the recordings but on what the station "receives" in exchange for playing the song.
These in-kind exchanges are more difficult to track by
include a range of possibilities including artists playing for free or for a reduced rate at concerts promoted by the radio stations, or playing only at venues owned by the radio station's parent company in order to receive a
coveted spot on the play list.
These new partnerships may obscurepay-for-play exchanges and temporarily protect the radio companies from payola allegations, but they do nothing to protect the public or insure artists' access to the public airwaves.
In a related story WYEP has repeated their "featured artist" last week, which may have been due to the significantly lower Michele Clark artists being promoted, or to avvoid the appearance of scandal.
Artists affording thousands of freebie CD's to send out to stations in return for prizes or public radio listener membership incentives may be one of WYEP's tricks up their sleeve. When a better CD is recieved, it is banned from airplay and it's airspace given to the label that can produce the most swag.
As far as concerts go, WYEP is quite connected with local venues, and may also play the artists that do free listener shows over better artists as well. Wyep has also had board members of local cultural arts organizations that do shows as well. The station also has unusual weight with the Three Rivers Arts fest.
Yet the formulaic, sound alike, non-offensive mush they play can not be described as art as much as commerce.
A big problem in turning this tide is Joe. Q. Public who listens to music for it's genre nature that gives them some form of social acceptance to some herd as apposed to actual creative appreciation, which can be summed up simpler as "sell out music" or monkey see monkey do music making.
The damage WYEP has caused is that of constantly pummeling the wannabe sophiticates of Pittsburgh with statements like "we play the best of" this or that, this or that artist "always plays a great show".
WYEP has successfully conned Pittsburghers into thinking that they're not listening to maybe not top 40, but top 40 sounding artists that don't make the top 40 stations playlists due to an already full playlist.
They have decieved Pittsburghers into thinking they're listing to art, and eventhough they claim "life begins after top 40", they still play numerous top 40 acts like U2, Sheryl Crow,, Dave Mathews, Coldplay, John Mayer, and Jason Mraz.
Now that it may come out that the Norah Joneses, Ziggy Marleys, Jesse Malins, Jamie Cullums, Kasey Chambers and 100's of other core artists that WYEP chose over other artists to get the lion's share of promotion, recieved illegal favorable treatment and promotion, and that WYEP and many other public and commercial AAA stations have colored colored contemporary music as bland mediocrity, the only way to undo this scenario is to inform their listener base of what has transpired, regardless of their degree of involvment, and go back over this span of years in the dark and promote the more deserving artists they kicked to the curb and who now may be at the brink of starvation, artisticly speaking.
For those of you without an insider's view of the music industry, I'll let you in on a little secret. Artists recieve close to nothing from CD sales.
"records were seen as a promotional device to help your career, and because it was the only way to get on the radio or have a display presence in shops"
-Richard Thompson
http://www.richardthompsonforcompletists.com/
I've also spoke to artists like Bob Mould who recieved "not a dime" from selling about 1/4 of a million of one album.
Significant airplay that promotes healthy tours is how artists survive as artists.
For you cynics who think, "why should I care about dirty artists and if they get money to live off of or not", ask yourself this. How much time a year do you spend in the doctor's office vs. how much time you spend listening to music? Remember also that almost every great artist (like the Beatles) was once in such a predicament.
A cheap, quality CD can cost over $10,000, a descent band can have 50,000 dollars worth of equipment onstage just belonging to a guitarist, bassist and drummer. It may not be a $100,000 education, but there's no financial aid or grants either.
Many artists don't care about the millions of dollars, but just want to be able to make a living like anyone else, yet in an outrageously wealthy industry, there is little middle class for musicians and a disproportionately low rate of those with even health insurance.
But if this style of business ethic grows and isn't exposed, soon students with educations may find themselves losing out when applying to jobs to others less qualified with more money to bride those doing the hiring at any company, and it may also become standard practice that only the rich or those backed by the rich have a shot at success in our country.
Many current artists wishing to branch out into more artistic offerings may be compromising their true sound to sound like whatever current industry flavored strong hold is in place as well.
But for now WYEP has lured and trained Pittsburgh's ears to accept style over substance fluff.
Now that they've suckered in these dependant thinkers, it appears they're not going to do what's ethical, rather keep playing other sound alike schlock in hopes of keeping their spoon fed listeners that think that cliche'sounds equal something worth supporting altruistically.
With a near 3 million dollar new invetment waiting in the wings, do you think they'll say, "Sorry that stuff we've said was so good for over the past 3 years is really second rate mediocrity?"
It looks like they're choosing to gamble this story won't make it to the ears of most of Pittsburgh, and with media like the Post Gazzette and City Paper and their ties to the station, it probably may not.
"Humanity needs practical men, who get the most out of their work, and, without forgetting the general good, safeguard their own interests. But humanity also needs dreamers, for whom the disinterested development of an enterprise is so captivating that it becomes impossible for them to devote their care to their own material profit.
Without doubt, these dreamers do not deserve wealth, because they do not desire it. Even so, a well-organized society should assure to such workers the efficient means of accomplishing their task, in a life freed from material care and freely consecrated to research." -- Marie Curie
This is a follow up to the following articles.
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/6612.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/8827.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/9049.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/16339.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/16659.php
On Chris Holm's Bewildering Diatribe about WYEP
by Mike Sauter
Monday, Dec. 13, 2004 at 2:22 PM
mike@wyep.org
The above "article" is certainly an odd packaging of legitimate news and wildly untrue innuendo.
First of all, let's get something straight. There has NEVER been any money paid to WYEP to play any music. No money, nor gifts, nor goods, nor services--nothing. We select music based solely on artistic criteria and feedback from our audience as to what they want to hear.
CDs are submitted for airplay consideration, we listen to them, and then we select the best music to add to our music library. This is the process for music whether from major labels, indie labels, or unsigned artists--and no one outside of WYEP's programming staff, our DJs, and our listeners have any say in it.
Good and honest people can and will disagree about music. Perhaps Mr. Holm doesn't like the music played by WYEP. If so, that's a fair opinion for him to express. But to suggest that we are participating in unethical and possibly illegal practices is so far off the mark, it's hard to know where to begin in responding.
Holm decries WYEP for playing mainstream artists like Sheryl Crow and U2. But our listeners tell us they are fans of these artists. Last fall, for example, "The First Cut Is the Deepest" by Sheryl Crow was among our most requested songs.
Some artists begin with WYEP as one of the few radio stations playing them, and then later the "Top 40"-type radio stations start playing them. Look at "Heaven" from Los Lonely Boys. We first played that song in June of 2003, and lately, pop music stations have latched onto it as well. This has happened with Coldplay and Norah Jones and David Gray and many other artists.
Well, sorry, we don't allow the radio industry to dictate what music we SHOULDN'T play, just as we don't allow the radio or music industry to tell us what we SHOULD play.
We don't merely ignore an artist simply because they get popular or another radio station decides to play them as well. If an album has quality music before others jump on the bandwagon, it's still quality music afterwards. Even Mr. Holm agrees above that The Beatles are a great band, and they've had one of the largest bandwagons in music history.
I think many will agree that the music industry treats many musicians horribly. The same is true of corporate radio's devotion to artists. But to lay this obviously outrageous situation at WYEP's doorstep is ridiculous. We work hard, both on our airwaves and within the music industry, to be a model of integrity in our music selection process and a champion of artists who would otherwise be ignored.
To attack WYEP with a series of vague connections, mere coincidences, and unfounded implications is misplaced at best.
Mike Sauter
WYEP Music Director
mike@wyep.org
I WANT TO BUY WYEP
by Gerri Trose
Saturday, Dec. 25, 2004 at 7:55 AM
I woudl like to purchase WYEP. I will put capital into the station and improve its market share and programming. This would be good for WYEP and good for Pittsburgh. Let's continue our negotiations.
ageism (is that a word?)
by greyhead
Sunday, Dec. 26, 2004 at 6:00 AM
I don't know much about WYEP, but I am over thirty and I object to the title "Don't trust anyone over 30". Should that kind of generation-hate be acceptable on indymedia?
Triple-A blandness
by Manny Theiner
Saturday, Jan. 29, 2005 at 12:08 PM
manny@telerama.com
I was just alerted to this thread by Brian Cosgrove.
I don't understand how Sauter can continue to defend his station's status quo.
Every statement he makes, he steps in it deeper.
The point is not even whether there's payola. So what if there isn't.
The point is that Indymedia (and others - I was on this track for years before Pittsburgh Indy Media even existed) have proven that the station is
dominated by the clients of a powerful radio promoter (Michele Clark)
and by the niche-marketing agenda of the major label industry called
Adult Album Alternative (which admits some indie labels, but only certain
ones and still only about 20% indies).
The point is that yes, WYEP's listeners like Sheryl Crow and U2, but they can
already hear those artists on mainstream radio, so why does so-called
'independent', 'public', 'non-commercial' radio need to play them. With his comment about Los Lonely Boys, Sauter basically argues for his station being a farm team for commercial radio. That's not something to be proud of.
That's not what a public non-commercial station is supposed to be. WQED and WDUQ aren't farm teams. You don't see classical or jazz artists suddenly
jumping to commercial radio because they've been played on public stations.
(Or maybe you do - Josh Groban, Norah Jones, but only a couple). So why should WYEP be. The point is, WYEP markets itself falsely about what it is.
It says ' the music matters'. But the music doesn't matter on WYEP. The MONEY matters. The format matters. The schmoozing with the industry
matters, whether payola exists or not. If the music really mattered, WYEP
would be playing a greater diversity of music overall, and would be playing a greater diversity of artists within its already stated genres. The fact that it remains narrow and regimented proves that the music doesn't matter.
It calls itself 'independent, public, non-commercial' radio.
It's not 'independent' any more than Michele Clark is 'independent'. If it was
independent it wouldn't take its lead from Clark and an industry format,
and it wouldn't play mostly major label artists, There are a LOT more good indie releases every year than there are on majors. If WYEP really thought
'independent' it would reflect that and its playlist would be 80/20 indie/major
instead of 80/20 major/indie. Got it? Katherine Lally, an employee of WYEP,
said *right on WYEP's website* that one of her favorite releases of last year
was Catpower, an indie artist who has sold tens of thousands of records.
So why isn't Catpower being played on WYEP? That's just the tip of the iceberg. Brian Cosgrove just started to mention a couple of artists who should
be on WYEP right now (Devendra Banhart, Joanna Newsom) but there are certainly dozens more who have been ignored, not because they don't fit
the genre (they do), but because their labels don't participate in (or buy into) the Adult Album Alternative format system (whether it's payola, or not). Or
maybe even because Mike Sauter himself has made the decision not to add
them, which doesn't make any sense either, given that the popularity of these
artists are equal to the few indies they already play.
WYEP calls itself 'public'. Well what segment of the public does it purport to
represent? The segment of the public that is affluent, white, and listens to
Triple-A artists, i.e. mostly baby boomers. The segment of the Pgh public,
currently unserved by a commercial format, that will give as much money
as possible. This public segment is homogenized, and is the opposite of
diversity. WYEP claims 'diversity', it even puts a 30-something black man
in dreadlocks in one of its frequent display ads, but it doesn't show it.
In the ad with the middle-aged woman who says 'life after Top 40', the implied message is also 'life after 40', i.e. the boomer demographic. A true public station would garner support from as many otherwise ignored segments of the public as possible. For example, by running
ten different ethnic music shows, it could garner support from all of those
ethnic groups. By running many different music specialty shows, it could
garner support from all of those music specialty groups. And so on. But
WYEP's doesn't do that. It doesn't say, how much support can we get from
blacks, Jews, Indians, Hispanics, gays/lesbians, goths, electronic/ambient fans, New Agers, prog-rockers, avant-jazz fans, anyone else whose cultural/musical interests are underserved in the region, etc. Because that would be too difficult. It takes the easy way out, devoting most of its airtime to one big, affluent, homogenized market, and then a handful of specialty shows to long proven niches, also proven affluent, and that's it. That's not the 'public.' Not even close. Look to WMNF, well-supported public station in the Tampa/St Pete region, for what a real public radio station does for the public. I've been
there, it puts WYEP to shame. Yes, real non-slickified public radio does
still exist. WYEP calls itself 'innovative', claims to have 'provocative ideas'.
It has little of that. Its music is the *opposite* of innovative because it never wants to sound edgy for fear of driving its captive audience away, and its approach is the *opposite* of provocative because it always tries to be as
sedate and bland as possible.
Finally, WYEP is not 'non-commercial'. For a majority of its airtime, it runs a
format that was designed by major labels for commercial radio - Adult Album
Alternative. It's a commercial format and has been recognized as commercial
in the trade publications from Gavin and Billboard to even CMJ. There are
commercial stations in the US running this format right now 24 hours a day.
There are also plenty of so-called 'non-commercial' stations running this
format right now, because they know it's an easy, quick, and rich way to
get donations, just like WYEP does. WXPN in Philadelphia adopted this format
in the late 80s right before WYEP did in the early 90s, so it's even possible that WYEP actually took WXPN's lead. That trend is unfortunate, and can be
blamed as much on the cultural shallowness of the boomers it has targeted,
as to the deregulation of radio in the Clinton/Gingrich years.
Sauter's arguments are straw-man - he basically says, why should you criticize WYEP when commercial radio is so much worse. Well, Mr Sauter, that's a copout. We are criticizing WYEP precisely *because* commercial
radio is so much worse. These days there is a lot of different kinds of people looking for an alternative. When people discover WYEP, they think it's the only
possible alternative, the only possible way to go about things is to be slick,
to run things the way a commercial radio station would to keep listeners.
But that isn't the only way. Granted, the old WYEP (which I well remember,
and the new WYEP likes to proudly claim the old WYEP's legacy even as it pushes the old freeform philosophy under the rug, which is more hypocrisy
on WYEP's part) proved to be untenable financially. But there could definitely
be a middle ground. There could be an area where you wouldn't have to rely
so heavily on mostly the AAA fans because your contributor base would be
more diverse and varied. Both the rotation format itself, and the number of
specialty programs, could be changed in the direction of greater diversity
without too much financial harm.
Especially if you keep costs down. Face it, WYEP doesn't need a huge new
facility or an intimate venue for concerts (there are plenty of those already,
throughout the city, many of which WYEP completely ignores the existence of)
to the tune of $2.8 million or more. It doesn't need to run National Public
Radio when two other public stations are doing that. It doesn't have to have
as many paid employees as it does, to run on a budget of over $1 million a year (which I'm estimating, being that Rosemary Welsch herself told the Tribune Review in *1997* that WYEP's budget was 'over $750,000').
Instead, hash out a compromise between slickness and bankruptcy.
WRCT and WPTS run on about $40,000 a year. Why couldn't WYEP run on a
budget about five or six times that (say $250,000) and still be viable? For
one thing, get a donated space (who could help with that? Charlie Humphrey?
The Cultural Trust? Some patron who wants a nice tax write-off?). Rely more on volunteers (you've got a pool of ex-WYEPers and ex-college radio DJs
here to rely on). And so on. Then WYEP could probably be five or six times as
interesting and diverse in its programming and outlook as it is now. Which
would be a vast improvement for the culture of Pittsburgh.
Figure out a way to DO MORE WITH LESS, and the station will be much better for it, musically and culturally.
I realize that I'm probably falling on deaf ears. All the boomers who remember when WYEP was interesting and diverse have mentally adjusted to
the new format. There are no protests left (in fact, there hardly ever were to
begin with - the boomers were led like sheep to the slaughter, but at the same time they sold themselves out - see the book from several years ago about the 'Bobos' - the 'bohemian bourgeois'). All the media
and the foundations in town applaud WYEP ceaselessly like yes-men. No criticism of WYEP ever sees the light of day even in the so-called 'alternative' weekly papers where my ideas of writing about WYEP have been quashed and/or ignored many times. And the ground has already been broken for their huge new rich ostentatious building, construction has begun.
So this is what is going to change: nothing. WYEP will just keep on doing what it's doing, if it doesn't get even more slick than it is now (what happened
to Larry Berger last year could still happen to any one of the few specialty
shows still clinging at the station - in fact, WRCT, which picked up Larry Berger, is becoming more and more the 'station for WYEP refuseniks', look at Linda Bittner, Kevin Amos, Carl Zimring's Fear and Whiskey, Zombo, and Democracy Now, all of whom should currently have airtime on WYEP, as well as some longrunning WRCT DJs who are in their 30s). It will need to find someone to pay for its huge operating costs and will continue to shovel in money from affluent boomers and kowtowing foundations nonstop, as well as try to train the next generations (Gen X and Y) to be loyal, unblinking contributors.
Therefore, it's a lost cause. Even Brian Cosgrove's simple, non-invasive
suggestions of starting the freeform earlier (like at 8 pm, after the boomers
get home from work) or playing a bit more local music, or taking on a few
college radio veterans, are unlikely to come to pass. The ironic thing is that it seems so difficult to get WYEP to change their minds, or even bend a little, that it would be easier to start a whole new public radio station.
Reply to Manny Theiner
by Mike Sauter
Saturday, Feb. 19, 2005 at 10:20 AM
mike@wyep.org
Manny, your dismissal of my statements by declaring that "the point is not even whether there's payola" is a little silly--I was responding to an article which was attempting to make exactly that point.
And claiming that Indymedia and yourself have proven *anything* about WYEP is simply not correct. Opinions and "what-if" assertions are not "proof." And the shaky logic used above by Chris Holm (and built upon by yourself) seeks to present vague statements dressed up as some sort of bold accusation--when, in reality, it has little meaning. (please note: I am not referring to your opinions, to which you are welcome; only your and Holm's sandcastles of "facts")
For example, you claim that WYEP is dominated by "by the niche-marketing agenda of the major label industry called Adult Album Alternative (which admits some indie labels, but only certain ones and still only about 20% indies)." Your percentage of independent label music on WYEP is a little off. In fact, way off.
During the week you wrote your diatribe, the new music played on WYEP was 75% from albums on indie labels versus 25% major label. Granted, this doesn't include music played during special genre shows (like folk & blues) or the freeform overnights (including these times would only shrink the major label percentage). I'd be happy to send you (or any other interested reader) a list of specific artists and their labels from which I got the 75/25% figure: mike@wyep.org
You suggest that "if WYEP really thought 'independent' it would reflect that and its playlist would be 80/20 indie/major," so we're really not very far off the mark even by your reckoning. And that week was not atypical.
Manny, perhaps you don't like the indie label artists which we play. That's your prerogative. But please don't continue to suggest that WYEP is some sort of lap dog for interests of the major labels. That's just blatently incorrect.
Frankly, we don't look at the size of the label or whether they're on a label at all. We listen to the music--and make our decisions about whether to include that artist's music in our library based on that.
As for some of your other comments, they're a little difficult to penetrate and therefore difficult to respond to. For example, you claim I "argue[d] for [my] station being a farm team for commercial radio," when I argued nothing of the sort.
My point (using Los Lonely Boys as an example) was that we at WYEP don't give a hoot what other radio stations play. To not play a band simply because another station has started to play them is simply copying another radio station in reverse. We select artists on musical criteria, and if Los Lonely Boys made a good record, it's still a good record even after hit-oriented radio starts playing it.
Further, you spend some time discussing the merits of WYEP seeking its own building, proclaiming that WYEP should "get a donated space." But when WYEP had used donated space in the past, the donor eventually needed the space back and the station had to move (no small task for a radio station).
And while you proclaim that "WYEP doesn't need a huge new facility or an intimate venue for concerts," you also hold up WMNF, the "non-slickified" station in Tampa, as a "real public radio station" which "puts WYEP to shame." Interesting, since WMNF in the middle of their own capital campaign to raise money for a new multi-million dollar building, complete with its own performance space.
Ultimately, you admit that WYEP's old approach proved to be untenable financially but you wish for a "middle ground." While we never claim to be perfect and are constantly seeking input from our listeners as to how to improve, we view our approach as exactly that: the appropriate "middle ground" to best serve music fans in Pittsburgh.
sounds really important
by durutti
Saturday, Feb. 19, 2005 at 7:16 PM
"the Future of Music Coalition"
Why does my mind see irrelevant and lisping girlie boys who couldn't even get rejected by an inflateble doll whenever something has "coalition" in the name?
Music and Theiner
by Dave Lapretti
Monday, Feb. 21, 2005 at 6:45 AM
lapretti4@aol.com
Manny's article seems to caught up in his own personal angst and hatred for 'anything with a plan' and uses mis-information repetition like Fox News.
It sounds to me like Manwah wants everything in the world to be like it was in 1986, and if I recall that time correctly there was a stream of static on the airwaves of WYEP from not enough people listening or contributing to even keep the station on the air. I bet Manny had the perfect game plan for his syle of free form music and radio at that point as well. It was just all ther other 'dumb people' that got in his way.
What sort of radio and budgetary background experience does Mr. Teiner have? I would imagine that it's none, one filled with hostility for a lack of anyone seeing it 'his way'.
There are a few killjoys and critic negative types that would build anything up to tear it down. I suggest that if his heart and mind are truly into something indie or free form that he do promotion for WRCT to build up an audience for their type of radio. That would take an effort though, rather than complaints and anger.
For the record, and against Manny's claims, I heard the Cat Power cd on WYEP and picked it up a week later. I would guess that the rest of Manny's misleading and misinformed stories are just that as well.
the middle ground
by Manny Theiner
Monday, Feb. 28, 2005 at 6:02 PM
manny@telerama.com
Yes I saw that WNMF is getting a new building. I visited its old one.
WMNF's format has not, and I would hope, will not, change as a result of getting its new building. Its format is way more diverse than WYEP's. I visited
it for a whole day in 1997, and it's still doing the exact same thing it was then. To say that something like WMNF (a very good 'middle ground') can't work here in Pittsburgh when it works just fine in Tampa is disingenuous.
The truth is that people at WYEP don't *want* it to work that way. They don't want more variety and diversity because that would confuse listeners and erode their large money base, and they don't think they can operate on less. WMNF's schedule works like a real public station where the music changes about every three hours and people make appointments to tune in for specific
shows. Much of WYEP's schedule isn't like that at all. Overnights don't count, if you force adventurous music to late nights (and most of the overnights
are not that adventurous) you're doing the same thing as The X.
WYEP is not a middle ground. It is currently about as slick as a public station
can be, as formatted as it can be during the day, without actually being commercial. If the major/indie percentage is not as I said it is, fine, but imho looking at the day to day it is hard to discern exactly where the indies are,
because I certainly don't see a lot of them and after looking at days of playlists one time, I didn't come up with a ratio even close to 75/25, and the
indies easily group in a bunch of a very few token ones which the AAA format
allows, such as Rounder or Ryko etc. If indies were rampant on WYEP then I would see a lot more of the indie names more often that everyone recognizes as contributing to the younger roots-oriented stuff, like Sub Pop, Secretly Canadian, Drag City, Bloodshot etc, but i don't. I also looked very closely at WYEP's music library only a couple years or so ago, and found very little that they had that didn't fit into their format very tightly. The CD library is exceedingly tiny compared to how big it should be given the age of the station and how much music they should receive. They obviously sold a ton
of stuff in the past that they didn't think they'd ever need, given their tightly
programmed sound. So where is all this 'room' that they supposedly
need to expand to? Why the need for a dedicated seated venue for live
music when there are several already in Pittsburgh? Some of which WYEP
has regularly used and some which WYEP has ignored as possibilites, even
in its own neighborhood. Budgetary background? I bet if I looked at WYEP's
budget I could poke some holes in it. There are plenty of arts orgs
in Pittsburgh who have had to cut their budgets. I don't see how WYEP can
keep expanding contrary to the arts climate it's in - the only way it can do
so is to keep its appeal as slick as possible, which is what it's doing now.
I'm wondering if cutting the fat has ever been considered - WQED cut its
paid DJ staff and lost contributions but would that happen to WYEP?
Radio? Funny you should mention '1986'. That's the year I graduated high
school. During the first half of the 80s, I listened to both WRCT and WYEP
a lot. Both stations were excellent. It's funny that WYEP likes to claim the lineage of descending from a station that was nothing like it is today.
I was on WYEP in 1988 or 89 (left because overnights were too much during
college) *and* it was back on the air at Chatham *before* Mikel Elcessor came in and turned it AAA. By 1991, the AAA format was in place and I tried to get back on but couldn't. True, I don't know how it was doing financially, but I
do know that it existed and went back on the air. It could still get space
donated, or space cheaper, if they wanted to. other than that, yes I was
on WRCT for 15 years. but WRCT is not the answer. WYEP uses WRCT as its
dumping ground, as an excuse not to be more adventurous. Shall I
list the number of DJs who either were on WYEP or should have been,
but wound up on WRCT? Kevin Amos, Linda Bittner, Zombo, Carl Zimring,
and Larry Berger's Saturday Light Brigade are all great examples, as well
as Democracy Now. What are a bunch of boomers doing on college radio?
We never had boomers on WRCT in the 80s or early 90s, but then refugees
and rejects started piling up the slicker and slicker WYEP got. For the record,
in the many years I was at WRCT I tried to bring it into the community more,
but that's not the way the policy works at WRCT (or WPTS either) - the station
is supposed to be for the students because it's paid for by the students. WYEP
on the other hand is paid for by the *public* and should better reflect the
actual diversity of public tastes instead of a homogenized false-diversity
based on what will appeal to the optimal upscale-boomer contributor. There a lot of different kinds of shows that could be on WYEP which aren't. and
probably never will under this kind of regime. My guess is that WRCT has
a lot less of an audience than it used to, it and WPTS are more marginalized
because nowadays what people actually think is 'edgy' (WYEP) is actually
more mainstream than ever before, and most listeners never venture any
further than that.
WRCT's boomers can't get on WYEP. Neither can the qualified college radio
alumni from WRCT or WPTS (say over the past 20 years or so - for example longtime stalwarts like blues aficionado Steve Auterman or hiphop/tronic master Dan Bidwa) because WYEP's format doesn't allow for any variety. WRCT and WPTS alumni, if their shows are quality, should be able to at least somewhat graduate to the so-called 'independent' public station (talk about keeping your 20/30somethings in town, but do nothing about it!). The DJs follow a computer, for Chrissake, and you're telling me this is a 'middle
ground'? It is nothing of the sort. One of the few strides WYEP has made
was in allowing the electronica and Afro-futurism shows from Kelly Carter,
Kerem and Ashwin, but that's about it- two of those are overnights anyway
and are supposed to be freeform regardless of the music played.
As far as Catpower, that was just an example because Kat Lally mentioned it,
but she has never been in *rotation* on WYEP and you can
take that to the bank. I'm betting she's not in the library either, and that someone brought her CD in the time you heard it. The truth is you're not
going to hear her or tons of indies similar to her because the labels they're
on or the publicists they have are not in the proper AAA clique or don't have the right publicist to get on their radar. Joanna Newsom, Antony & the Johnsons, both hyped artists easily fitting the general format, both just played the Warhol, where are they on WYEP's rotation or on WYEP's concert calendar? Nowhere.
Yes I have some 'personal angst'. I also have some stake in this as well via the concert scene. I have admitted as such, and it is no secret. That doesn't make
my points invalid. Just because there's no one else left with the temerity to
criticize WYEP means that everyone else has either given up trying, or has
left town. I have heard plenty of people talk about how they wish WYEP could be more open-minded but none of them do anything or say anything about it. After 15 years of AAA encroachment, WYEP's critics have either been silenced or cowed, and everyone thinks it's doing a great job because
its glory days are too far in the past for anyone to remember, or maybe some
of the boomers would rather forget and disavow their freeform origins. I haven't forgotten and will continue to vocalize. 'Music and Theiner' is exactly
right.
A reply, I'm shocked
by Chris Holm
Monday, May. 02, 2005 at 8:02 PM
radio@cardinalpoints.net
You'll have to excuse me, after about 5 articles and no replies, I stopped checking, and am moving out of Pittsburgh ASAP, so the goings on her don't really inteerest me anymore, and didn't seem to interest anyone else before reading Manny's Post.
So in reply to Mike, I have several points.
One, if you read the articles, all this could have been avoided by Rosemary accepting an interview for several staff, volunteers and herself. Your side of the story could have been told and your point of view prior to posting this and addressed, as I told Rosemary that it would be. The articles all point to speculation when that's all that was given to go by from your station, and I worded it as such, although they were backed by fact.
Your statement "First of all, let's get something straight. There has NEVER been any money paid to WYEP to play any music. No money, nor gifts, nor goods, nor services--nothing. We select music based solely on artistic criteria and feedback from our audience as to what they want to hear."
Do you consider what your listeners want to hear as that being of the songs you introduce, or are you saying you get requests for artists before you've ever debuted them? In other words, you play something, and they decide what they like out of your selections? How does your audience know if it likes something if it's never heard it? If you really want give your audience a choice why is there not more variety of new releases that either are green lit or axed by your audience. If your audience started requested Britany Spears would you put her in rotation or would you not because it doesnt' fit the format? If so why so obviously pop artists top 40 artists like Jason Mraz get chosen for airplay? Or is it as I was told by a staffer at your station that it was based on arbitron ratings, which don't tell you what your audience wants to hear, rather how many listeners you have. If you think more listeners is better, than by that resoning you should be playing top 40, because I'm sure they get far greater numbers than you. Maybe add a shock jock or 2?
Two, "CDs are submitted for airplay consideration, we listen to them, and then we select the best music to add to our music library. This is the process for music whether from major labels, indie labels, or unsigned artists--and no one outside of WYEP's programming staff, our DJs, and our listeners have any say in it. "
In this I must first say that it's not only majors that have been on Michele Clark's list. Not just a few indy labels have appeared on Michele's page, actually it's more like the majority. Currently only Capitol and EMI are listed on her site, out of 28.
Then it's simply a coincidence that your station's main rotation has been nearly identical to WDST's who is under investigation?
It's simply a coincidence that probably half of your "CD of the week" were also Michele Clark.
If your music is so great, why do you have to do marketing for them, and tell the audience how good they are as opposed to letting them decide?
It's simply a coincidence that Pete Buck of REM stated that the AAA stations are playing artists that can't sing and eveyone knows they can't sing, but you claim you pick them based on "artistic criteria". So for the record, you have chosen the most artistic music you could? Are you really saying that. If you don't reply to anything else, please reply to that. Comming from someone who can only describe a band by how much they sound like another band, I'm probably going to find any answer of yours laughable. Perhaps you could tell me how towing the line commercially is artistic?
"But to suggest that we are participating in unethical and possibly illegal practices is so far off the mark, it's hard to know where to begin in responding."
Actually Justin Hopper of the City Paper stated you were "railroaded into a deal" to control your content from external sources.
If it's so far off the mark, why, now that it has come out that these artists may have been played over more legitimate artists based on kick backs, are you continuing to play not only those aritists' work that was in question, but their releases post controversy? You consider that ethical?
"Holm decries WYEP for playing mainstream artists like Sheryl Crow and U2. But our listeners tell us they are fans of these artists. Last fall, for example, "The First Cut Is the Deepest" by Sheryl Crow was among our most requested songs."
Good logical twist. I agree the listeners that you have now would request that. That's the probblem. Your station has been alienating older members, and swooning a more pop audience. I don't listen to your station, nor would I request anything to be played on it anymore. The people who now gravitate to your station are those who want to hear the same music that's piped over the MUZAK at home Depot.
"Some artists begin with WYEP as one of the few radio stations playing them, and then later the "Top 40"-type radio stations start playing them. Look at "Heaven" from Los Lonely Boys. We first played that song in June of 2003, and lately, pop music stations have latched onto it as well. This has happened with Coldplay and Norah Jones and David Gray and many other artists."
Again, anyone knowing music would listen to those songs and say "that sounds very top 40" before it ended up on top 40. I'm sure you can move much faster than big bureacratic entities like Clear Channel. Also, larger entities waiting to see if it catches on on your station is a legitimate argument for qualtiy? Just out of curiousity, was the David Grey playing before or after it debuted on Dawson's Creek?
"Well, sorry, we don't allow the radio industry to dictate what music we SHOULDN'T play, just as we don't allow the radio or music industry to tell us what we SHOULD play."
Funny, when Spin Art was still saying that Michele Clark is ruining radio, that's Richard Thompson's label by the way, and Michele Clark being the one who you've had nearly two thirds of your rotation devoted to, you wouldn't play Hank Dogs' Half Smile when it came out, for example. About a year later, I started hearing it get airplay. Why didn't you play it back when it came out if it was good enough for airplay later?
"We don't merely ignore an artist simply because they get popular or another radio station decides to play them as well. If an album has quality music before others jump on the bandwagon, it's still quality music afterwards. Even Mr. Holm agrees above that The Beatles are a great band, and they've had one of the largest bandwagons in music history"
The Beatles made it on the radio when DJs still picked songs that got airplay.
"We work hard, both on our airwaves and within the music industry, to be a model of integrity in our music selection process and a champion of artists who would otherwise be ignored."
"We don't merely ignore an artist simply because they get popular or another radio station decides to play them as well."
Which one is it? Would they otherwise get ignored, or are they getting played on the mainstream stations as well?
Bottom line, the post gazzette itself has commented on your need to homogenize. If the music really matters, where was the big campaign to save the music like you're doing for the building? Where was the homogenization campaign?
Was it your listeners that requested a new building?
Chris Holm
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)