del.icio.us
E-mail this
FacebookThanks to Gapers Block for pointing to this: yesterday the Washington Post ran an article about a new report from the National Endowment for the Arts that’s critical of National Public Radio’s trend of eliminating music programming in favor of news. The posture is a bit surprising: the NEA has hardly been a progressive force in the years since it caught flak for supporting Mapplethorpe, Serrano, Finley, and other artists who poisoned our society. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)
The story quotes the report: “'There appears to be a tendency for public stations to discourage music programming in favor of news/talk broadcasts as a way to draw larger audiences,’ the NEA study says. But because it receives tax dollars, ‘public radio has an obligation beyond maximizing audiences.’ The NEA concludes that public radio ‘should balance its drive for audiences and revenues with a commitment to cultural programming and services that are not necessarily profitable.’”
The report was made in response to declining opportunities to hear classical music -- something Chicago’s WBEZ has never had to bother with, thanks to WFMT. But the basic points about music certainly apply to our own local NPR station. NPR chief exec Ken Stern offers some bullshit explanations for the shift that resemble the kind of babble that BEZ boss Torey Malatia has been spouting for the last few years. The good ol' Internet is to blame -- thanks to the Interweb, Stern says, access to jazz, international, and other non-commercial music is a piece of cake.
Ahem. Anyone interested in these marginal art forms must now work to hear the stuff, and while you can hear a lot of great stuff online, if you’re not savvy you’ll probably never find it. If you can’t afford a computer or Internet access -- oh, well, you're not part of the "public" in National Public Radio, I guess. The people who fork over cash to NPR are most certainly not among the computer-impaired. Stern also talks about the a bogus-sounding “community” that can be built around NPR’s digital download offerings, which seems just as silly as WBEZ turning to the community to program its art coverage.
I’ve written about this several times, but response has been limited to nonexistent. I don’t think there’s any debate about the continued need for music qua music on public radio, but am I alone in being aghast at NPR’s assumptions about who they’re serving and what resources those listeners have?
The Washington Post article seems to suggest (or perhaps its the NEA's position) that classical music is the accepted form of "cultural programming".
But I think it's more a matter of education than access. Me and most of my well-educated 20something friends, the theoretical future of NPR, are computer-savvy but ignorant of non-pop, in part because of the debased state of music education, and I personally find the online communities somewhat inaccessible because they consist of people who are already extremely knowledgable. NPR could fill that gap, but they don't want to. I'm not put off by technical knowledge, but artistic, and I suspect I'm not alone.
Meanwhile, I can get lots of very accessible political information online that's smart, to the point, and not as frankly boring as WBEZ's talk shows, talk being an awful format for dealing with news and politics. If killing off music leads to having like five different versions of Odyssey, I'm going to pull an Elvis on my radio.
Regarding Malatea's "secret radio project" (ooh) I think there's a chance that there could be interesting music programming, if members of the local scenes step up to provide it and the hosts are gutsy enough to give it a chance. Since I suspect they'll be hurting for content, there might be a chance.
To leave Chicago without a single source of blues music on the radio is an unforgivable dereliction of duty by WBEZ. To deprive Chicagoans of jazz programming is equally insulting. As for the "Global Overnight" program that is replacing the music on weeknights ... what do you think most people want to hear at the end of the day? Relaxing jazz or Polish and Australian news reports?
I and several of my friends have stopped contributing to WBEZ, and we encourage everyone who is disapointed in the station to donate their public radio money to worthier organizations. Incidentally, we are all in our early thirties, and not a single one of us ever made donations to public radio when we were in our twenties. I'm looking forward to seeing what level of donation WBEZ can extract from the "younger" demographic they plan on desperately courting.
Finally, as Whetstone says, when breaking news occurs, none of us think, "Oh, I need to turn on my radio!". We turn to our computers for news instead. I really think WBEZ has it backwards; they should focus on updating their online news resources, not moving music online!
In fairness to Polish and Australian news reports, shortwave reception *is* pretty bad in the city....
Oh, I think they meant DEADLY Dragon, huh?
Huh, that was off-topic. Okay, how's this? It's not exactly hard-to-find music, but I'll miss Dick Buckley's three-hour Sunday afternoon block. The fact they're trying to cram him into a one-hour slot, that they want to be primarily a "discussion" of jazz, is ludicrous.
So I suppose that must be sort of the way you feel about your world music getting marginalized, huh Peter?
But the reality is that overall, WBEZ has devoted relatively little time to jazz programming, and a lot of what they have put on the air SUCKS.
It's not like this was a 24-hour a day jazz station (God/Allah/Elvis forbid such a thing in Chicago!) and the programming was progressive, far-sighted and just plain interesting. On the whole, you got a few precious hours a day (night) with a few decent tunes and on the weekends Buckley and McPartland. Whoopee.
There is strong, viable jazz programming in the Chicago AREA in the guise of COD's station, 90.9 WDCB. For those who can't get a strong signal, it can be streamed on-line. Which, perhaps isn't ideal, but at least it's THERE and they don't program jazz a few hours a day.
In addition to their fine hosts and jazz programming, they offer programs in blues, R&B, Bluegrass, Americana.... you name it, if you like a "niche" music form, they'll likely have something for you.
Best of all, on Saturdays they have hands-down one of the best reggae shows I've ever heard. Check it out.
Bottom line: I think the big issue here isn't necessarily the "reality" of losing the relatively little and hit/miss jazz programming WBEZ has offered. It's the bigger picture, that they freely take tax dollars with out truly giving a fuck about the PUBLIC who funds their lame programming decisions.
What I REALLY miss is WNIB. Not only was their classical programming, in my not-so-humble opinion, vastly superior to that of the tepid WFMT, they also had "Mr. A" overnights with the solid down-home blues and R&B. That was outstanding and just one of the many reasons I miss 'NIB.
The other point is purely subjective, they play a lot of crap in my opinion. And that's all it is - my opinion. I don't see the variety that you see on WDCB.
Clearly, the better choice hands-down IS WDCB: they have jazz programming virtually around the clock M-F, and also support local artists much more than I've heard on WBEZ. They actually have jazz programming on when most people are awake to hear it.
The big drawback, as you cite, of course is signal strength. It's really too bad they don't have more power. But, at least they still have the programming, and can be streamed - just like WBEZ. The big difference?
After January, you'll still have some of the best, most vital jazz programming on WDCB - unlike 'BEZ.
That's what it feels like to non-jazz people like myself who contribute to the station.
It seems like if you substituted any other sort of music the argument breaks down. "Where will we get our Speed Metal now?", "If I don't have a computer I can't hear Grindcore."
Get over it. It's jazz. There's tons of it out there. I'm not saying there's not room in the line up for a couple of shows...
...but stop beating us over the head with it. As Jello Biafra put it "playing ethincy jazz to parade your snazz..."
But why is it WBEZ's responsibility to promote Jazz any more so than any other kind of music?
People who are into Chinese Death Lounge music aren't complaining over the fact that there is a noticible lack of Chinese Death Lounge music in WBEZ's programming. Those people are in the "public" too, right?
Get it?
You're just up in arms because it's something YOU like and YOU feel is so earth-shatteringly important... and you're used to getting it without commercials.
I want my 8 hours Chinese Death Lounge music!!! (and the radio they never sent me after my last contribution)
But...This is the WBEZ mission statement from the website:
(and i quote)
Chicago Public Radio is a community-supported, public service broadcasting institution. We offer programs that speak with many voices to community needs and are a reflection of the distinctive and diverse Chicago area. We help listeners learn about issues and ideas that affect the community, the nation, and the world.
We produce, acquire, and distribute engaging, thoughtful, and entertaining programs of depth, breadth, diversity, and substance that speak powerfully.
We are principally a broadcaster. We also serve our local and national community with supplemental distribution initiatives. We expand our outreach to the community and enhance our production effort through partnerships and educational programs with local and national institutions.
(and i unquote)
Nowhere does it say "We are soley responsible for providing you with the sum total of your musical experience in life."
The way you talk, you'd think Jazz started the first day NPR went on the air. What do you think people did before NPR AND the internet?
I bet there was probably jazz being played somewhere by someone. And I bet people probably went out and bought a jazz record or two and actually supported the artists that created them. They probably went out exploring and discovering the things they like and became far more invested in this music, which is such global and local phenomenon that Chicago can only support like one jazz station.
(I don't even want to get into the whole idea that if the teeming millions in Chicago were really yelling "Sweet Christ! jazz, Jazz, JAZZ! I need it. It's the best, most important thing ever and not repetitive at all!", then there would be more Jazz stations. You're just as much a musical minority as anyone else's taste.)
NPR and the radio-in-general as a music source is general is a crutch. People got hours and hours of the monotonous jazz you love so much and never had to lift a finger. Now you may have to get off your couch and at least move the dial down a few spaces? Hear that sound? It's my heart breaking wide open. Now you may have to actually go out and buy a record? Good Lord NOOOOOOOO!!!
Don't like what you're hearing? Turn the channel. Wanna hear what you want, all the time, at your whim? Go buy the albums you claim to love so much. If the throngs (and we're all 100% sure there are definitely throngs, right?) of jazz-crazed listeners stop giving and listing to WBEZ, I'm sure they non-jazz extremists at BEZ would fold like a cheap card table. Right?
Endless? Let's not get dramatic. Besides, that analogy doesn't even really work. And, books on tape serve a very useful purpose...much like we all beleive jazz, people playing digeridoos (sp?) and eyeliner-wearing emo-goth does so let's not get self-important because we like music.
It's true that the Gov. and, most definitely, the FCC do not serve the public interest as long as the "culture wars" continue in this country. But this isn't about that.
You still can't get past the fact that you have to use qualifiers like "hardly" when discussing the music programming. Not as much as there is now? Definitely. Is that the first sign of the apocalypse or is this all of a sudden 1984? Probably not.
What is the talk vs. music ratio that best serves the public, Peter? I want pie charts and PowerPoint presentations. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say there were no pie charts or PowerPoint presentations, are there?
Oh man I'm all over the place now...
"Radio and music were made for each other. Journalism can be written down and read, and while music can be notated, it cannot be experience without the ears."
WTF is this nonsense? Radio and music were made for each other? Really? Give me a break. Music can't be experienced without the ears? Tell that to a deaf guy. But I digress.
The point is that the market like nature abhors a vacuum. If there's an audience for something, someone will put it out there. WBEZ can tell immediately what sorts of shows do well because everyone donates during the programs they like. Is that so wrong for them to use that information and create programming around what more people actually WANT to hear?
If it is wrong, where do you draw the line between what is culturally significant enough to be blessed to be on WBEZ and what is not?
It's true that the majority of jazz will now have to be found on commercial, FCC-regulated radio. But is there like some kind of explicit, porno-jazz that the FCC would ban from being on some other all-jazz station, or would Afro-pop worldwide beconsidered too Howard-Stern-y for commercial public consumption?
See what I'm saying? The only thing you're losing by having to find this music elsewhere is that ass-groove on your sofa from not having to turn the channel.
If you don't like what's on NPR stop listening, stop giving and turn the channel. This isn't some kind of cabal against music or the arts, and as much as we hate to believe it, NPR is still subject to having to play to some kind of audience. They can't keep going on govt. grants alone.
I'll argue this a little differently than Peter. Forget about me and forget about you for a second. If you try to look objectively about the cultural/historical importance of jazz (even though BEZ doesn't represent jazz in all its stripes), at this point in history, it far outweighs that grindcore or Chinese death metal. Your argument suffers from a hyper-relativism. Here's just one blunt example: Dean Koontz and Jackie Collins both write novels. J.M. Coetzee and Toni Morrison also write novels. Are these two sets of novelists equal? The answer is NO. Now, if you want to argue aesthetic and cultural merits of Koontz/Collins v. Coetzee/Morrison, I'm willing to do it. More to the thread of this blog, if you're want to argue the cultural/historical merits and musical complexity of jazz v. grindcore, I'm also willing to do it. However, this doesn't mean that Koontz/Collins or grindcore/Chinese death metal are not viable, even financially successful. Yet, the argument is more complicated than you make it. Quite frankly, your last post reads like that of an accountant, not a 'music lover.'
Secondly, do think Peter, who I've never met or even talked to, gets all his jazz exposure from ass-groove(ing) on his sofa listening to BEZ. If you do, I'll bet you're wrong.
Look, this is somewhat bigger than all us, jazz, even relatively poorly delivered jazz, needs to be available as much as possible. And, as I've already stated, if BEZ stops doing this, it is not a cause for celebration.
Big fans of Blues Before Sunrise? show Steve your monetary support, not just via blogs. this guy's been doing this for years -- much on his own dime. the guy ain't gettin' rich doin' it. but, we are -- we are getting culturally rich.
my point: walk away from the WBEZ/NPR argument for now and let's focus elsewhere: WDCB, WNUR, WLUW, WFMT...even WXRT -- isn't this a terrific opportunity for them to take advantage of huge musical gap in Chicago? also... it's not just a few genres of music... but, the opportunity to focus on LOCAL musicians. geez! you could run a 24 hour radio station 7 days a week strictly playing the music from talented folks in our own area. jazz AND Chinese Death Metal.
oh yeah... and that WBEZ mission statement -- completely new and revamped to reflect their changes in programming. I had to laugh. sure it makes sense. but, it's interesting how NFPs like to change their mission statement to reflect the new head honcho's way of thinking.
And on with the show...
When I said "the only thing YOU lose by...blah blah...ass groove," I was going for the collective "you". Peter's musical knowledge is not in dispute. It must take some kind of Magneto-like helmet to keep all that information from exploding all over his Orange Chicken.
You argued differently than Peter. I'll give you that regardless that it was further from the point Peter so valiantly tried to reel us back into. However, as I responded to you before, no one is arguing the fact that jazz is absolutely the most important sound that has ever met an eardrum and said "Hi, how are you?" I know it, you definitely seem to know it, the little green men laughing at this argument from the comfort of their lazy-boys on Mars know it.
However, you're missing the point. But let's recap first.
1) There could or should be some sort of musical programming on WBEZ. Is 8-10 hours of sweet, handed-down-by-the-sweet-baby-Jesus-himself jazz fair and balanced? Nuh uh.
2) If enough people actually WANTED to hear this bigger-than-me-bigger-than-us-bigger-than-OPRAH musical form, WBEZ would change its format again and there would be world peace. I'd be fine with this. Or better yet, another WFMT-like channel called WJAZ or something less obvious would spring up like magic. Ever wonder how, when one Oldies station goes down, another pops up to take it's place? It ain't magic.
3) "Even relatively poorly delivered jazz needs to be available as much as possible"? Really? If I'm hyper-relative (and when i was younger, i was the hyper relative), than that comment has hyper-ruined your argument and made you sound like the kind of fanatic that makes me fear for the children...whom I believe are the future. Zing! Now we're even for the "KennyNags" thing.
But seriously, imagine if you substituted "jazz, even poorly delivered jazz," with "Bill O'Reily" or "the sound of Rush Limbaugh struggling to get open that next bottle of pills"? You'd have a lot of people agreeing with you but that wouldn't make it right. I disagree with the attitude that anything should be delivered "as much as possible" unless it's my Little Ceasar's pizza or food, medical and financial aid to the people suffering in Africa. I mean you can think anything you want, but isn't that's what wrong with country now? Too many people telling you what you should like, should believe, should or shouldn't say?
4)Re-read 1 thru 3.
Finally, could an non-music loving accountant infuse his response with a Whitney Houston reference AND an Daniel Johnston reference? Now, if I had just found a way to include Lady Black Smith Mambazo and Feli Kuti, I could have really had something...but that's what Peter's big brain is for.
Well put and I agree 110%. Good point about the mission statement change thing.
He cited WBEZ's own mission statement verbatim, he's simply pointing out that NOWHERE do they even discuss music programming being a part of their overall mission. It's all left very vauge and generalized, which in the context of what they do - makes sense.
They wish to remain open to meet the needs of the community at-large. As I cited earlier, personally I see no net loss here. I will miss Buckley and McPartland but overall was not impressed by either the scope or quality of the programming. The lack of support for local artists was sad, in my opinion.
I already get my jazz fix from a variety of sources, including the oft-cited WDCB, satellite and WNUR - all of which are far more diverse, challenging and just plain interesting than 90% of what I've heard on WBEZ over the years.
To me, if you look at this in the context of what WBEZ is "supposed" to do - according to its own charter - this move makes sense. Because as pointed out, why only focus on Jazz?
I would love to have a station that supports ALL music: jazz, indie rock, decent classical, reggae, blues - and, yes... even the occasional Chinese Death Lounge. Don't knock it - CDL has some killer grooves matched to ninja-esque, soaring melodies. It's good stuff!
Problem: to deliver all that programming, WBEZ would have to program music exclusively, which is defintely counter to its stated mission. So, I understand this move.
The bigger picture is what saddens me: a lame, lazy society that can't even support a historically rich/diverse art form like jazz with a 24-hour station. But, that's hardly WBEZ's fault and never has been. It's just the tragic reality of cultural mediocrity in America, where I bet 3 of 4 people on the street could tell you where Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes got married but couldn't spell "Miles" if you spotted them the first five letters.
No one else has been blunt so I will: Kenny Negs is a dope. He likes his arguments very much, but they, not he perhaps, are still dopey. Jazz and all other music on WBEZ is important. Torey has been hacking away at it for years. There used to be several fine, quirky, interesting programs, hosted by local people. China's death metal, techno from Detroit, gas music from Jupiter should be heard, but Chicago, a home for the creation and futherance of Jazz deserves a station with more radiative power than university radio stations. It's important. and it's fun to listen too.
I'm not saying that Chicago, the town whose birth canal so diligently brings forth so much of this heavenly sound we know and love as 'jazz,' couldn't, shouldn't or doesn't deserve to have an ever-lovin' jazz station. I'm not even saying that there couldn't be a jazz program on WBEZ. The question is why has WBEZ been given the responibilty to bear this cross that jazz has become for you all?
It's not like Chicago was built for the sole purpose of producing jazz and jazz artists. I think it's great that we got that here but we have a lot of other stuff too, gosh darn it. Who are you to decide what sliver of the public "Public" radio caters to?
If enough people care about jazz, WBEZ will notice (or better yet another separate station will pop up). That would be fine. Really don't care.
The big problem is when people, like yourself unfortunately, start prostelytizng about what is "better" for the public based on their own tastes, beliefs and opinions. Don't like it when the prez does it...don't like it when you do it.
"It's important. and it's fun to listent to."? This is the grand finale to your post? You really wanna finish with that? The summation of your taking the time to form this pearl of wisdom? Someone please put THIS person in charge of our public radio station.
And by the way, I more than like my arguments... I love them!!! Logic and common sense kick total a$$!