Bruce: "Magic" Refused Radio Play
from Fox News:

"Bruce Springsteen should be very happy. He has the No. 1 album, a possible Grammy for Best Album of the Year, for "Magic," an album full of singles, and a sold-out concert tour.

Alas, there's a hitch: Radio will not play "Magic." In fact, sources tell me that Clear Channel has sent an edict to its classic rock stations not to play tracks from "Magic." But it's OK to play old Springsteen tracks such as "Dancing in the Dark," "Born to Run" and "Born in the USA."

Just no new songs by Springsteen, even though it's likely many radio listeners already own the album and would like to hear it mixed in with the junk offered on radio...

...Just no new songs by Springsteen, even though it’s likely many radio listeners already own the album and would like to hear it mixed in with the junk offered on radio.

Why? One theory, says a longtime rock insider, "is that the audience knows those songs. Of course, they’ll never know these songs if no one plays them."

"Magic," by the way, has sold more than 500,000 copies since its release on Oct. 2 and likely will hit the million mark. That’s not a small achievement these days, and one that should be embraced by Clear Channel.

But what a situation: The No. 1 album is not being played on any radio stations, according to Radio & Records, which monitors such things. Nothing. The rock songs aren’t on rock radio, and the two standout "mellow" tracks — "Magic" and "Devil’s Arcade" — aren’t even on "lite" stations.

The singles-kinda hits, "Radio Nowhere" and "Living in the Future" — which would have been hits no questions asked in the '70s, '80s and maybe even the '90s, also are absent from Top 40.

What to do? Columbia Records is said to be readying a remixed version of "The Girls in their Summer Clothes," a poppy Beach Boys-type track that has such a catchy hook fans were singing along to it at live shows before they had the album. Bruce insiders are hopeful that with a push from Sony, "Girls" will triumph.

I’m not so sure.

Clear Channel seems to have sent a clear message to other radio outlets that at age 58, Springsteen simply is too old to be played on rock stations. This completely absurd notion is one of many ways Clear Channel has done more to destroy the music business than downloading over the last 10 years. It’s certainly what’s helped create satellite radio, where Springsteen is a staple and even has his own channel on Sirius.

It’s not just Springsteen. There is no sign at major radio stations of new albums by John Fogerty or Annie Lennox, either. The same stations that should be playing Santana’s new singles with Chad Kroeger or Tina Turner are avoiding them, too.

Like Springsteen, these "older" artists have been relegated to something called Triple A format stations — i.e. either college radio or small artsy stations such as WFUV in the Bronx, N.Y., which are immune from the Clear Channel virus of pre-programming and where the number of plays per song is a fraction of what it is on commercial radio."

Roger Friedman, Fox News



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-31 05:32 by Beelyboy.

Don't they have some link to ticketbastard , one owns the other or something ,no idea which way round it goes but I'm sure there is a common bond between them.
If there is, will this influence live work as well?.

CC still hasn´t understood who´s got the money...

It's been obvious for some time now that Clear Channel is into unadmitted censorship... I thought the airwaves were suppose to be free of that kinda thing (except for George Carlin's 8 nasty words or whatever), would be nice if the FCC would take a look at this but it ain't gonna happen....What was good for Adolf in 1939 is good enough for the CC boys. Now I think I will be buying Mr. Springsteen's new CD after all - was gonna skip it.....Good post Beely....

adotulipson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't they have some link to ticketbastard , one
> owns the other or something ,no idea which way
> round it goes but I'm sure there is a common bond
> between them.
> If there is, will this influence live work as
> well?.

from wikipedia...(interesting about "liveNation" no?)
___________________________________________

"...In 1998 it made its first move outside of the United States when it acquired the leading UK outdoor advertising company More Group plc which was led by Roger Parry; Clear Channel went on to buy many other outdoor advertising, radio broadcasting, and live events companies around the world, which were then re-branded Clear Channel International. These included a 51% stake in Clear Media Ltd. in China [2].

In 2005 Clear Channel Communications split into three separate companies. Clear Channel Communications was a radio broadcaster; Clear Channel Outdoor was out-of-home advertising; and Live Nation was live events. The Mays family remained in effective control of all three, and held key executive roles in each (with Mark Mays as CEO of both radio and outdoor and Randall Mays as Chairman of Live Nation)..."
_________________________________________

[en.wikipedia.org]

there's the link; too much dirt there for me to try to describe...
but the mays family, founder and offspring, ARE liveNation; isn't that cohl's new deal with madonna or something?

it's such a dirty business to conciously and purposely keep a hit from surfacing and impacting the culture. it dares to define, or rather CHANGE the definition and perception of cultural reality. it's heavy stuff...
we're skin jobs living in bobo land eating whatever medoicre crap they spray on out there...it's a wonder some good stuff does...
not stuff that is in the vaguest way 'says' anything about anything, other than familiar themes of friends and lovers and related stories...
nothing that would make a kid think about anything; or could affect the culture or effect conciousness development or diversity. these people are carefully targetetted for censorship methinks; i don't even think it's personal. it's a control thing and it's a business thing and we are a really lost culture.

and maybe with a title like 'radio nowhere' and a refrain like "is there anybody out there?" well, we musn't think of such things...and the children have to get prepared for the real world after all and not be distracted with such trifle or introspection or analysis.

just nip that right before it's a bud, especially within the rebellious joy of youth, and the philosophical reaching out and preciousness of coming to conciousness and awareness, and the radio is part of it...if you're a kid, it's a big part of it...and for a lot of adults too...which i guess is why cable radio is viable and happening...but what a shame to lose the PUBLIC airwaves and have the public fooled into thinking that great hits don't exist, and spoon fed crap IS reality. in any case, they'll be defining 'reality' and everything is in control.

i repeat. everything is in control.

then again, they can't stop the sales. the record is doing big biz...tho it would have gone many more times huge in the past; britney numbers worldwide maybe. (i like brit; this is not a brit slam...i don't have her music but i love the little biyutch and they should climb offa her case)

scary thing is...even with mega big consistent number one stars and award winners like chicks and bruce; or the great tradition of creedence (a political number or two there if i recall correctly; i ain't no senator's son...i ain't no fortunate one...this is the proletariat rabble rousing and we don't need that kind of distraction in today's troubled world...who'll stop the rain???

you know, they won't hestitate to kill the brightest and best if they could...in an exposure sense i mean...and these people are important people in the culture...more steady than politicians, less weird criminal behavior, longer lasting in their cultural impact as people of importance...

people need to boycott clear channel and their fake cyber jocks and their impersonal takeover of 'reality' like invasion of the body snatchers.
dumbing down rock; dumbing downt he culture.

this isn't really a political post. it's a post that wonders why political and business interests merge to suppress my culture's most important voices at personal whim. are they playing the new Springsteen thing in the UK or Europe?
Is it charting? just curious.
(ty much for gracious mention skelter; that was mostly just a fox report i quoted tho...)
wow, even murdoch's people are exposing this...must be a competitor...
gawd...i am definetly gonna buy the album tomorrow as a result of hearing about this.

i think of the stones, the doors, the airplane, the rascals, dylan, the beatles, the who...so many they would have nipped in the bud; just plain prevented from breaking thru, had 'clear channel' concioiusness been in control in the sixties...
well they're in control now.

i think a lot of this happened right after President Bush took office and appointed Colin Powell's kid, Michael as head of the FCC; first thing he did was repeal equal coverage clauses and allow huge mergers that allow this kind of thing...time warner/aol mergers and the like...(the Powells' were HEAVILY personally invested btw) going against previous FCC history and integrous delegation and protection of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES...
bill moyer had a recent documentary about news coverages behind the scenes recently...interesting. we don't often get great documentaries like the BBC airs...
those u.s. airwaves are PUBLIC AIRWAVES licensed to these companies...and a bunch of racketeers and killers are making the rules. two or three companies control the whole deal. like a money racket. they're sort of like the 'contractors' who's numbers are equal to the troops but have no rules or controls other than protect the racketeers. it's just business, and they are just following orders, ok?
imo.

whoa, sorry to go on and on...it's just that when i was a kid, rock meant freedom to me; and now that i'm in my fifties...good rock and good music still frees my soul, and gets me to dancing, thinking, even goosebumps, sometimes tears...breakout. music used to be like this tough thing; now it's jello.

PLUS, it INTENTIONALLY seperates people; generations...demographies everyting until nothing means anything. IT Keeps people apart!! It makes revisionist history possible, even actually creates it.
It keeps generations apart on music they would all get off on together.
It changes the nature of reality itself culturally and socially and it's evil.

i'm not all rabid about this; i can listen to what i like and there's plenty of great stuff out there of all kinds...it's just kind of weird that a big hit record like that can't get on the radio...
but that same radio station will carry endless news about yet another pervert closeted hypocrit trying to have sex in a public bathroom...wow, that story went away faster than the george michael story...and this guy is a US SENATOR on record against gay rights...crazy world...

i'm going back to ft. worth '78 right now and cool out. that loose as a goose version of 'let it rock' kills me.
i'd turn on the radio but it's like radio nowhere, ya know?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-31 12:43 by Beelyboy.

It's a great CD and should be played everywhere. Radio sux these days.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>are they playing the new
> Springsteen thing in the UK or Europe?
> Is it charting? just curious.


It topped the charts in several European countries including the UK and Ireland. How much airplay it gets probably varies from station to station and country to country as in general radio on this side of the Atlantic isnt as 'niche driven' or formatted as it appears to be in the US - I personally dont listen to the radio much but in my local radio station which is on in the background at work I havent heard a note played from it even though it plays chart music (although they would play older stuff of Bruce's).. then again, I think this channel was recently taken over by Clear Channel in a controversial move which has led to the station (which is the most listened to 'independent' (ie not BBC) pop station in N.Ireland)'s previous policy of playing music by LOCAL bands eradicated entirely.

Personal music taste aside, I agree with the article in that Clear Channel have basically become the musical antichrist and are gradually destroying what culture is left in the music business



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-31 14:48 by Gazza.

boring album

Point being?

it's boring, that's the point. same old stuff. understand?

Well its not a boring! Open your mind up a nd listen to the words, i guess you think Twisted Sister is more interesting.

Let's not dismiss the possibility/likelihood that Clear Channel is speaking with forked tongue. The "too old" argument may be nothing more than a cover story. It's no secret that the owner of Clear Channel is a Republican party activist and contributes large amounts of money to the Repubs, including both of Bush's presidential campaigns. It's also no secret that "Magic" has a political, anti-Bush message. It's not at all a stretch to believe that Clear Channel does not want this album to be heard.

There is no eeeeeevil BushCo rightwing conspiracy to censor Bruce Springsteen.

The simple fact is that terrestrial radio has seen a nearly 20% drop in listenership in the past decade. Much of that drop has been from the cream of the audience converting to subscriber satellite radio. THAT'S where your ardent music fan is listening now. What the traditionally based broadcasters are left with is the dregs of the audience at best, who in the case of classic rock, only want to hear old 'Floyd and 'Skynrd and only invest in music on a bar jukebox.

Traditional broadcasters CANNOT AFFORD to alienate what's left of their audience and hence you'll hear very little new music thereon. It was no different when A Bigger Bang came out.

For goddsakes it's the free market, NOT the FCC, making these decisions.

Right, it's Bush's fault. Unreal.

By the way, check out moveon.org - real nice agenda.

get over it

and the album is boring

aslecs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unreal.
>


Unreal. Exactly. That's the message of "Magic". America has become a place that many of us don't recognize anymore. Sorry to go political, but facts are facts.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personal music taste aside, I agree with the
> article in that Clear Channel have basically
> become the musical antichrist and are gradually
> destroying what culture is left in the music
> business

Ditto.

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Personal music taste aside, I agree with the
> > article in that Clear Channel have basically
> > become the musical antichrist and are gradually
> > destroying what culture is left in the music
> > business
>
> Ditto.

See my post above. There's no nefarious plot to undermine culture. It's a BUSINESS.

It would be cool hear some of those songs on the radio but the days of hearing a song that will make you pull over the car are gone. Too much water under the bridge. Go see the Boss in person. It is one the last great traveling shows around.

aslecs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's boring, that's the point. same old stuff.
> understand?


perfectly valid argument re: the records contents (even if I dont agree) but not the point of the thread.

understand?

Same old stuff from yourself. No opinion on Clear Channel's 'Big brother' style policy on what you're allowed to listen to I suppose?

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gazza Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Personal music taste aside, I agree with the
> > > article in that Clear Channel have basically
> > > become the musical antichrist and are
> gradually
> > > destroying what culture is left in the music
> > > business
> >
> > Ditto.
>
> See my post above. There's no nefarious plot to
> undermine culture.


I'll leave that to others as to whether theres a political agenda - thats not my point, but if you cant see how @#$%& up your radio system is when artists get blacklisted for age reasons even when their product is selling well then I guess you'll continue to get the bland, soulless and idiotic entertainment industry you deserve


>It's a BUSINESS

strange 'business' decision to drop the best selling artists in the country and instead play lesser selling ones, just because theyre younger.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-31 18:08 by Gazza.

adotulipson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't they have some link to ticketbastard , one
> owns the other or something ,no idea which way
> round it goes but I'm sure there is a common bond
> between them.
> If there is, will this influence live work as
> well?.


Live Nation is owned by Clear Channel

Interesting article here on the company's background and history :

[en.wikipedia.org]

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Gazza Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Personal music taste aside, I agree with
> the
> > > > article in that Clear Channel have
> basically
> > > > become the musical antichrist and are
> > gradually
> > > > destroying what culture is left in the
> music
> > > > business
> > >
> > > Ditto.
> >
> > See my post above. There's no nefarious plot to
> > undermine culture.
>
>
> I'll leave that to others as to whether theres a
> political agenda - thats not my point, but if you
> cant see how @#$%& up your radio system is when
> artists get blacklisted for age reasons even when
> their product is selling well then I guess you'll
> continue to get the bland, soulless and idiotic
> entertainment industry you deserve
>
>
> >It's a BUSINESS
>
> strange 'business' decision to drop the best
> selling artists in the country and instead play
> lesser selling ones, just because theyre younger.

The age "blacklisting" is a supposition on the part of the writer of, and responders to, the initial post. Bruce has barely sold 500,000 copies of "Magic" since its release three weeks ago while he sold 525,000 copies of "The Rising" in the FIRST WEEK in 2002. There are simply not enough people buying the record to drive any interest in it to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR radio listener who rarely buys music because he can hear it on the radio. The job of radio programmers is to keep people listening and new music in a classic rock format causes that listener to tune out.

Sure it sucks but take comfort in the fact that all of us bitching about it proves that we are the exception to the rule BECAUSE we seek out, consume, share and discuss new music. The vast majority of mainstream terrestrial radio listeners simply do not.

R wrote>
The simple fact is that terrestrial radio has seen a nearly 20% drop in listenership in the past decade. Much of that drop has been from the cream of the audience converting to subscriber satellite radio. THAT'S where your ardent music fan is listening now. What the traditionally based broadcasters are left with is the dregs of the audience at best, who in the case of classic rock, only want to hear old 'Floyd and 'Skynrd and only invest in music on a bar jukebox.


Serious question, R. Which came first? The changing of the format which excludes a certain demographic or the audience 'converting' to subscriber satellite radio?

Personally it surprises me that people would pay for radio unless it was the only way in which they could listen to decent music because their tastes had been marginalised. (Over here, paying to listen to the radio is almost unheard of or is a very recent thing and satellite radio is still pretty much in its infancy)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-31 18:49 by Gazza.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R wrote>
> The simple fact is that terrestrial radio has seen
> a nearly 20% drop in listenership in the past
> decade. Much of that drop has been from the cream
> of the audience converting to subscriber satellite
> radio. THAT'S where your ardent music fan is
> listening now. What the traditionally based
> broadcasters are left with is the dregs of the
> audience at best, who in the case of classic rock,
> only want to hear old 'Floyd and 'Skynrd and only
> invest in music on a bar jukebox.
>
>
> Serious question, R. Which came first? The
> changing of the format which excludes a certain
> demographic or the audience 'converting' to
> subscriber satellite radio?
>
> Personally it surprises me that people would pay
> for radio unless it was the only way in which they
> could listen to decent music because their tastes
> had been marginalised. (Over here, paying to
> listen to the radio is almost unheard of or is a
> very recent thing and satellite radio is still
> pretty much in its infancy)

Rock radio in the States starting going to hell in the early '80s as the baby-boomer market started to age and diversify their listening and entertainment habits. Using Springsteen as an example, he achieved his greatest success in '84-'85 with one of his worst albums, Born In The USA. The album was a hit however driven by a huge baby-boom bubble of folks who viewed it as a generational rite of passage AND younger buyers exposed to Bruce via M-TV. As the boomer audience moved on the collective bubble dispersed and Bruce never saw the same success again. Neither did Michael Jackson, another superstar from same era. The audience for rock radio here was no longer homogenus and as such it began SHRINKING. Hence, in an effort to appeal to the broadest common denominator of listener programmers started to play it increasingly safe with their formats, especially classic rock because the listener was getting older and more set in their ways. Not playing new music by older artists is NOT NEW here in the US. It's been going on for the better part of two decades be it to Bruce, the Stones, The Who, McCartney or any of them.

No one is excluding any demographic - that would imply exclusion of a certain age or gender. There IS exclusion of a certain PSYCHOGRAPHIC however which is the minority of radio listeners who actually want to hear new music, be challenged and perhaps step out of their comfort zone. Satellite did not lure these people away to the detriment of traditional radio but rather saw a market and addressed it. Rock radio in the US does not exist as a public service or as an avenue to expose new music. It exists to sell cars and furniture and beer and computors and carpeting and eldercare and so on. The advertisers want the biggest reach for their investment and that means pandering to the lowest common denominator - the folks who want to listen to their radio unchallenged.

I'm not defending it, I'm explaining it. I've got two such stations in my town and sometimes I think they are competing to see who can suck worse. To their credit one had a programmer who DID play ABB tracks last year along with some of the Springsteen Seeger stuff. That stations ratings tanked, the programmer got fired and the little bit of time he devoted to new music has been filled with more Van Halen.

Your stations there are perhaps more "socialized" rather than market (i.e advertiser) driven which is why it's perhaps hard to relate.

If you ask me, Bruce can't buy advertising this good. Nothing makes me want to listen to music more than someone telling me I can't.....and now that I know aslecs thinks it's boring, I want to listen to "Magic" even more.

i hear the click-clack of BV on the stairs....


IORR............but I like it!

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The audience for rock radio here was no longer
> homogenus and as such it began SHRINKING. Hence,
> in an effort to appeal to the broadest common
> denominator of listener programmers started to
> play it increasingly safe with their formats,
> especially classic rock because the listener was
> getting older and more set in their ways. Not
> playing new music by older artists is NOT NEW here
> in the US. It's been going on for the better part
> of two decades be it to Bruce, the Stones, The
> Who, McCartney or any of them.
>
> No one is excluding any demographic - that would
> imply exclusion of a certain age or gender. There
> IS exclusion of a certain PSYCHOGRAPHIC however
> which is the minority of radio listeners who
> actually want to hear new music, be challenged and
> perhaps step out of their comfort zone. Satellite
> did not lure these people away to the detriment of
> traditional radio but rather saw a market and
> addressed it. Rock radio in the US does not exist
> as a public service or as an avenue to expose new
> music. It exists to sell cars and furniture and
> beer and computors and carpeting and eldercare and
> so on. The advertisers want the biggest reach for
> their investment and that means pandering to the
> lowest common denominator - the folks who want to
> listen to their radio unchallenged.
>
>
Thank you R for an excellent but depressing post.

Sadly, the situation is more or less the same in the UK. BBC Radio 2 may be the most listened-to radio station, but a great deal of it's playlist is largely rotational from one month to the next, interspersed only, by the new releases from a very narrow and predictable range of well-known artistes.

Commerical Radio is the same except with adverts.

LOGIE Wrote:
> >
> Thank you R for an excellent but depressing post.

You're welcome. I always find this difficult to explain, even to folks here who live with it everyday. People respond emotionally (music will do that to you) rather than with the cold-hearted logic of radio management. Then they start pointing fingers at the government or blaming Bush and otherwise senselessly p*ssing and moaning.

>
> Sadly, the situation is more or less the same in
> the UK. BBC Radio 2 may be the most listened-to
> radio station, but a great deal of it's playlist
> is largely rotational from one month to the next,
> interspersed only, by the new releases from a very
> narrow and predictable range of well-known
> artistes.
>
> Commerical Radio is the same except with adverts.

I've listened to BBC2 on-line and was amazed how similar it did sound to American radio, though not the Classic Rock Formats that are the bone of contention here. Not as many ads though.

I was in Ireland over the summer (SLANE :-)) and thought their radio was likewise similar though, like their TV, even more American influenced.

Interesting (and yes, depressing) response, R. Thanks for the info.

Through my travels in Europe the Boss's new CD is getting almost no airplay. Same as the U.S.

R has nailed THE REASONS perfectly..

...and as passionate (and absolutely right on) as Beelyboy may be about the tragic state of mainstream public radio in the U.S. (and what he says applies to all the developed economies in the West at the moment) his comments about a nefarious and incestuous 'Right-Wing' conspiracy killing radio is apocryphal and needlessly polarizing...

(a tip to Beely...wanna see a real insidious monopoly/conspiracy in action? observe network (public) television and the 'mainstream media' and see the Liberal/Left wing monopoly on perspective and opinion...it is corrosive...)

You wanna know what killed the Radio Star? It wasn't video...it was Bitch Commerce and her whore sister Short-Term Bottom-Line...

The market has splintered and we're all niches now...what was once a Utopian common pop-Culture where you could hear Sly played next to Joni Mitchell and Aretha and then hear Stevie Wonder followed by Zep followed by Dylan and then the Stones has now broken apart into thousands of little demographic niches...and the mainstream (i.e. LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR) is now nothing but a monolithic, faceless demographic fed detritus and memories...