Clear Channel

What is the scoop on the Clear Channel radio network?

Here in the Dallas Fort Worth area people are upset at Clear Channel for ruining the live music scene. They claim that since Clear Channel moved into the market 8 years ago, the live music scene, especially for bands playing original material, has tanked to almost non-existant. Bar owners and club owners ONLY want covers played because nobody is looking and searching out new and original material. The radio stations don't sponsor it, and since most of the stations are owned by Clear Channel, there is little chance of local artists getting airplay - even in an hour long "local artists" show. In D/FW those shows don't exist.

To be honest I don't know enough about it yet to have an opinion one way or another.

Has anyone else in the U.S. heard this or felt this towards Clear Channel?

I have heard stuff like that about Clear Channel but I'm not sure it is a Clear Channel problem. If the public didn't like Clear Channel programming, then they wouldn't listen and Clear Channel would have to rethink things. I think they probably research their playlists extremely well and only play stuff that evokes positive reactions. Anything new probably doesn't fit into that mold unless it is a vanilla pop type act. In reality the downturn in live music in DFW is probably caused by a public that doesn't appreciate live music.

Average said:

Anything new probably doesn't fit into that mold unless it is a vanilla pop type act. In reality the downturn in live music in DFW is probably caused by a public that doesn't appreciate live music.

Click to expand...

Radio corpoartions and playlists and programming aside, there are plenty of people who reject formula radio, certainly enough to fill the clubs and small venues that such bands would be playing. So CC isn't really the problem, they're doing nothing different than most radio stations have been doing for decades (well, they did become major concert promoters, but that's at another level anyway.)

Perhaps the economy has caused people and clubs to be more careful with their dollars lately? I don't know about the DFW metro area specifically, but it's not like there's a shortage of people or places or bands to fill those needs.

Clear Channel (or, Cheap Channel as some of their employees call them) is not out to get the small venues or bands, and commercial radio has rarely gone out of its way to cater to local and indie music. It may be an issue, but it's not a Clear Channel issue.

Bermuda

In reality the downturn in live music in DFW is probably caused by a public that doesn't appreciate live music.

Thanks Average. I've also heard that.

Our band recently ran into something along those lines. We tried to play a yearly arts festival held on Main Street in Fort Worth. It's a pretty big Festival featuring artists, culinary arts, live music, food, select vendors, etc.

When I contacted the music director I was told we HAVE to join the local musicians union. I even offered to send him our demo CD to listen to and decide. No way. He ONLY selects musicians from that member list. If you are not a member, you don't play his festival. After researching the dues, I was ticked to learn it's $220 per year for the first year, then $110 per year after. For bands, they give a discount of $110 per member per year. We are a 4 piece band and that would be $440 per year! And if we joined there would be no guarantee we even play that festival, or any venue. No guarantees even with a demo CD. I can't repeat here what the rest of our band members said when they heard that. For $440 per year, still no guarantee we'd play. For that amount of money a cost / benefit analysis is a pretty good idea. Right now given this economy and where we are as a band, that money either needs to go in our individual pockets or used to buy equipment.

I felt like writing back and telling them they are NOT helping the local music scene one bit by enforcing that. How many local musicians do you know who belong to a union? The tight kick-a$$ band in the local pub you heard last weekend? There are plenty of great musicians out there who don't belong to a union. I'll let my playing stand on its own accord. Then judge me, without union representation.

The joys of living in Dallas Fort Worth....

Thanks for letting me vent.

To be the devil's advocate, if they didn't have a union with membership fees, than they'd get flooded by hundreds, if not thousands, of wannabe musicians who sound mediocre at best. In that pile, there may be a few diamonds, such as your band, but if there are manpower and time constraints, what's to say they ever even get a chance to listen to your request. Then you'd have about the same shot as before.

Your chances actually go up when you join a union because A) it's in their best interests to get you hired, so you pay union dues every year and B) it thins out the crowd to those who're dedicated, good or just have money to throw around, thus increasing your chance of being noticed.

That being said, do your research on this union and see if it's legit. Make sure they actually get people booked. And if it is, then it's very much like a booking agency for modeling, temp jobs, etc.

rogue_drummer said:

In reality the downturn in live music in DFW is probably caused by a public that doesn't appreciate live music.

Thanks Average. I've also heard that.

Our band recently ran into something along those lines. We tried to play a yearly arts festival held on Main Street in Fort Worth. It's a pretty big Festival featuring artists, culinary arts, live music, food, select vendors, etc.

When I contacted the music director I was told we HAVE to join the local musicians union. I even offered to send him our demo CD to listen to and decide. No way. He ONLY selects musicians from that member list. If you are not a member, you don't play his festival. After researching the dues, I was ticked to learn it's $220 per year for the first year, then $110 per year after. For bands, they give a discount of $110 per member per year. We are a 4 piece band and that would be $440 per year! And if we joined there would be no guarantee we even play that festival, or any venue. No guarantees even with a demo CD. I can't repeat here what the rest of our band members said when they heard that. For $440 per year, still no guarantee we'd play. For that amount of money a cost / benefit analysis is a pretty good idea. Right now given this economy and where we are as a band, that money either needs to go in our individual pockets or used to buy equipment.

I felt like writing back and telling them they are NOT helping the local music scene one bit by enforcing that. How many local musicians do you know who belong to a union? The tight kick-a$$ band in the local pub you heard last weekend? There are plenty of great musicians out there who don't belong to a union. I'll let my playing stand on its own accord. Then judge me, without union representation.

The joys of living in Dallas Fort Worth....

Thanks for letting me vent.

Click to expand...

I didn't think musician's unions even really existed any more, at least in the places I've played (Chicago, KC, Louisville, Iowa). That sounds like something more from the 50's and 60's. My dad talks about having to join one back in the day. What I would do is watch and see how many places actually require you to be a member of the union before you pay the dues. If it locks you out of bigger shows often then I would think about it. One way to command more money from the bar gigs is to have some bigger shows on your resume.

Like any chain, Clear Channel attempts to have as much uniformity across their locations as possible.

In music, this means their stations that are of on genre are going to have similar play lists and programming across the country.

What this does is eliminate regional differences.

It's hard to grasp these days, but in the 70's, and maybe even into the early 80s, some bands were more popular in some regions of the country than others. Rush was always bigger in Ohio, Triumph was more popular in Texas, etc before that broke nation wide. The Good Rats were popular on the East Coast, and unknown on the West Coast. Vanilla Fudge, Black Oak Arkansas and other bands were top selling bands in some regions of the country, while non-existent in other parts.

Thus most music played on these stations is going to be material that has broad appeal to the lowest common denominator. Thus a lot of what ever is the most trendy is offered more than anything else. The concept of local DJ's playing local bands or whatever they personally fancy is out the window.

As far as "If the public didn't like Clear Channel programming, then they wouldn't listen and Clear Channel " there is some truth to that, but at the same time, CC owns so many stations in so many different genre's of music, turning off one CC station is often turning on another CC station, maybe without knowing. They own 8 radio stations in Los Angeles alone, as well as several just outside the Los Angeles area.

Of course, internet radio, pod casts, and such offer plenty of alternatives, but one has to be willing to seek them out rather than just turn on the radio in the car and flip through stations.

Although I doubt this really affects anyone's local club scene as much as other factors.

rogue_drummer said:

In reality the downturn in live music in DFW is probably caused by a public that doesn't appreciate live music.

Thanks Average. I've also heard that.

Our band recently ran into something along those lines. We tried to play a yearly arts festival held on Main Street in Fort Worth. It's a pretty big Festival featuring artists, culinary arts, live music, food, select vendors, etc.

When I contacted the music director I was told we HAVE to join the local musicians union. I even offered to send him our demo CD to listen to and decide. No way. He ONLY selects musicians from that member list. If you are not a member, you don't play his festival. After researching the dues, I was ticked to learn it's $220 per year for the first year, then $110 per year after. For bands, they give a discount of $110 per member per year. We are a 4 piece band and that would be $440 per year! And if we joined there would be no guarantee we even play that festival, or any venue. No guarantees even with a demo CD. I can't repeat here what the rest of our band members said when they heard that. For $440 per year, still no guarantee we'd play. For that amount of money a cost / benefit analysis is a pretty good idea. Right now given this economy and where we are as a band, that money either needs to go in our individual pockets or used to buy equipment.

I felt like writing back and telling them they are NOT helping the local music scene one bit by enforcing that. How many local musicians do you know who belong to a union? The tight kick-a$$ band in the local pub you heard last weekend? There are plenty of great musicians out there who don't belong to a union. I'll let my playing stand on its own accord. Then judge me, without union representation.

The joys of living in Dallas Fort Worth....

Thanks for letting me vent.

Click to expand...

I lived and played music in Texas and as I recall, Texas is a "Right to Work State" and you don't have to be in a union to get employment. I did join a local for about two years when I was just starting out, but I didn't see any benefit from the expense and dropped my membership. I can't remember any clubs even asking about it.

Interesting thoughts here, about how radio forms people's minds. Clearchannel definitely is an example of what happens when corporate marketing gurus and so called music know-it-alls take over the arts and decide what everyone wants to hear. This whole concept actually began with pop music stations on AM radio in the 1960s. I grew up in Texas, mainly D/FW in the 60 and 70's. I remember all the cookie cutter stations - KLIF, in particular that played nothing but pop music 24/7. If you couldn't get airplay on those stations you were SOL back in those days. That is, until those outlaw radio stations started up on the FM dial in the late 60s. There was an explosion of those in the 1970's in Texas, and elsewhere. They would play entire albums instead of chopped up singles, and they would play artists that were typically banned from popular radio, like Zappa, and some of The Doors material, etc and would play songs longer than what the marketing gurus prefered on the cookie cutter stations. Many of the later mega groups like Zeppelin became popular because of album play on these outlaw stations. Eventually these stations went on to become what was termed "album rock" stations in the late 1970s, like KZEW and Q102. Eventually, these stations were bought out by large corporate interests, like Belo etc, and kind of started going the same way as the cookie cutter pop AM stations of the 1960s. So in a way, radio went in some kind of strange circle, to where we are now, with one giant corporate monopoly owning all the radio stations and deciding what everyone wants to hear, while keeping it in very corporate sponsor friendly 3-4 minute segments, just like the old days on AM radio.

I believe, however, that outlaw radio proved that marketing moguls have no business defining what everyone wants to hear. The problem with radio today, though, seems the same as with the live music scene - they all seem to be dying on the vine. Music has not changed much in the past 20-30 years, and people are just not interested in the same old re-hashed rock and rap music, in all of it's multi-headed variations. Someone needs to come up with a new sound, and then needs to figure a way to market it on their own, as Clearchannel will be the last place on earth to broadcast it.

Great post Strangelove. Terrestrial radio is abysmal near me. Satelite radio is so much better, I don't know how I survived without it ha ha. It's much like cable TV was to terrestrial TV. Clear Channel is the enemy!

Strange - must say, very good summary of the radio industry. That is much what I have heard from multiple friends in the radio business including one who owns 3 radio stations (not clear channel.) I'm not sure what to make of it all, but like I said, it probably isn't clear channel that is to blame for the problems with live music in DFW.

I lived and played music in Texas and as I recall, Texas is a "Right to Work State" and you don't have to be in a union to get employment. I did join a local for about two years when I was just starting out, but I didn't see any benefit from the expense and dropped my membership. I can't remember any clubs even asking about it.


We've played several well-known venues in the area, but we are just starting out as a 4 piece. This group actually formed in 2007 as a two-piece by playing coffee houses and other accoustic venues. Then they added a bass player and then a me on drums and we morphed into what we are now.

What took me by surprise was that we have never been asked for proof of union membership before and other musicians in other bands we network with have never heard of this requirement. We're playing a huge Mayfest festival also in Fort Worth and even got bumped up to a better stage and time slot when the music director heard our demo. She and her husband even came to one of our rehearsals. That festival doesn't ask for union membership, so it was surprising when this April festival did.

That was a good suggetion to monitor the Union-sponsored venues to see if it is actually worthwhile to join.

Yeah, I'm not sure it's clear channel after reading these posts. It may be the economy making bar owners stick with "tried and true" models of only having covers. I'm not sure. One thing is certain, I've notice beer prices have come down a bit to attract more people to the bars and clubs. $1.75 to $2.25 for long necks and draws. Mix-drink specials are good also.

But the smaller venues and bars exist to sell alcohol. One way to sell more is to get a good band on stage that plays what people recognize, like to hear, and consider entertainment. The more people in the bar, the more alcohol the bar sells.

unions are a bigger deal for orchestra/classical players and jazz. most of the union guys I know are always giggin on the side at non-union gigs and hoping they don't get caught.

obviously if it's just this one festival it's not worth it for your band to join. texas isn't a big union state anyways. most of the clubs I play at never even sign their contracts, they hold the money and there are more bands that will play if you won't.

if you are a pro it might be worth it for access to health care, insurance, legal representation, credit unions, contract help etc. but if you have a day job and just play on the side then it might not be worth it for you guys.

rogue_drummer said:

Yeah, I'm not sure it's clear channel after reading these posts. It may be the economy making bar owners stick with "tried and true" models of only having covers. I'm not sure. One thing is certain, I've notice beer prices have come down a bit to attract more people to the bars and clubs. $1.75 to $2.25 for long necks and draws. Mix-drink specials are good also.

But the smaller venues and bars exist to sell alcohol. One way to sell more is to get a good band on stage that plays what people recognize, like to hear, and consider entertainment. The more people in the bar, the more alcohol the bar sells.

Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of music you play, but I suspect Clearchannel has something to do with it, just maybe not the prime reason. DUI's, police watching bars, stepped-up police patrolling on weekends, police roadblocks, etc have more to do with avoidance of bars these days than any other reason. But an example of Clearchannel's effect might be the fact that alot of younger listeners are influenced heavily by them, and Clearchannel will play only the songs their marketing experts insist that we want to hear. If you are a cover band that plays outside of that very limited spectrum, they won't know what you are playing. If you are an original artist, and are not into the genres of music they (over) play, you are SOL, because alot of bar owners may just not want to risk driving patrons away with songs they are unfamiliar with.

Strangelove said:

But an example of Clearchannel's effect might be the fact that alot of younger listeners are influenced heavily by them, and Clearchannel will play only the songs their marketing experts insist that we want to hear.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that Clear Channel is basically a station ownership group, and that music 'programming' has been going on for decades long before they existed. It's not fair to compare the two. Also remember that radio (and television, and magazines, and the internet) are driven by ad-dollars, and if the demo that listens to certain genres of music doesn't spend much money with the advertisers, the dollars - and that music - grind to a halt on radio. There's a ridiculous amount of research done to determine who buys what, and right or wrong or whether it applies to me or you or not, that's simply how things are. As such, there are a lot of formats to cater to a lot of tastes, but not every single person in every age group at every income level in every region and of every gender or persuasion can be addressed if they're not spending money.

As for indie music being played on traditional radio (I can't spell terrestrial) there are still some outlets for that in the larger markets... or at least there used to be. In the past, 'morning drive' playlists weren't reported for some reason, which meant the jocks could play what they wanted - somewhat - outside of the programming. Obviously not all stations did this, but some did.

I imagine that when broadband wi-fi coverage is complete, people in cars - and everywhere - will be listening to more internet radio with as much indie, new, niche, and just plain bad music the public can stand.

Whether that results in live gigs with decent crowds, who knows?

Bermuda

around here in CT seems like the radio stations can't get enough of Scorpions, AC/DC and Aerosmith. They play Purple Haze and Baba O'Reily like it came out yesterday. They throw in crappy Nickleback to maintain a "modern" status. Anyone from around here knows just what station I'm referring to. Does anyone really need to hear "Rock You Like a Hurricane" or "Hell Is For Children" 3 times a day?

JSdrums said:

around here in CT seems like the radio stations can't get enough of Scorpions, AC/DC and Aerosmith. They play Purple Haze and Baba O'Reily like it came out yesterday. They throw in crappy Nickleback to maintain a "modern" status. Anyone from around here knows just what station I'm referring to. Does anyone really need to hear "Rock You Like a Hurricane" or "Hell Is For Children" 3 times a day?

Click to expand...

Remember, there are masterminds at work here that are telling us we need to hear the same songs over and over and over and over.

If I hear Crossroads or I Shot the Sheriff by Eric Clapton one more time, I am goiing to puke. If they want to play some EC, what's wrong with throwing in something like Bell Bottom Blues or Little Wing?

The only modern radio station that even remotely reminds me of some of the better FM stations from the 1970's that didn't get raped by the marketing experts is a Sirius station called The Vault.

Yep. Same here in Dallas. The stations delight in playing the same Led Zepplin, Aerosmith, John Mellencamp, The Who, Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, ZZ Top, Doobie Brothers, and Styx songs over and over and over and over. Turn the channel to get away from the same Led Zepplin song you've heard for the sixth time that week, and land on another station playing the same song!! Not that I'm bashing these bands, but they did record more than the two or three songs continually being played.

And it's just not the bands, it's the individual band members who seem to get all the attention, all the time. If Steven Tyler of Aerosmith even farts, it's reported as "Late Breaking News!" And it's talked about for weeks!!

ZZ Top once reported that back in the late 60's, early 70's radio stations in the states refused to play certain rock bands' songs because they were deemed "too controversial", and not by a major artist. As a result, right across the border in Mexico pirate radio stations sprang up booming 50,000 watts and broadcasting all over the place. The US Feds couldn't touch them because it wasn't in the U.S.

ZZ Top and a lot of other "up and coming" bands of the day got their songs played because these Mexican stations liked what they heard and played them, regardless of "controversy" or not. Hence the title of the famous ZZ Top song , "Heard it on the X".

Or as told in ZZ's biography. Now if this story is true is anyone's guess, but it seems to make sense.

I doubt if I'm the only one getting fed up with normal "corporate" radio. I have Sirus XM and it still seems like the same old stuff is played over and over and over again.

Devil's advocate again:

It also depends on how often and long you listen to the radio. If it's an hour each way to/from work, that adds up to 10 hours a week... I can see an argument if you're hearing the same song four or more times in said timespan (if it isn't new). If it's playing at your work, then add 40 hours a week to that... 50 hours a week of new material? Being very generous at 3 minutes average per song, that's 20 songs an hour, 1000 a work week. In under a month, you'd have run through my entire music library at least once. And then what? You'd have to replay. Then throw in the fact that a lot of the songs I have are rated as 3 stars by me, meaning I like em but only once in a while... which to a radio station means less money they can demand for an ad spot.

And I listen to what I believe is a decently broad variety of rock, from classics like Buddy Holly and the Beatles, to pyschedelic 70s like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, 80s metal like KISS, ACDC, Motley Crue... so on and so on.

These people are there to make money. Nobody goes into business thinking "gee, it'd be great if I didn't earn money". The problem comes around when two things happen:

1) You switch stations in the same region and they are playing more or less the same songs, repetitively. Problem: Lack of options/competition.

2) You compare today's playlist from a radio station to that of exactly a year ago (barring special events, holidays, etc) and the majority of the songs are still there, played roughly the same number of times. Problem: Lack of change/evolution.

It's okay, though. My generation of folks grew up with the internet. For some of us, we heard the telltale AOL signon static noise during our childhood nonstop. Bands are getting better at promoting themselves online, giving their music out for free to internet radio stations... it won't replace big business, but the internet really has done a lot to decentralize power. Big music industry will likely always have the clout to make any group an instant sensation, but the chances for small groups without millions to make a mark are improving every year.

EDIT: Did I mention the inverse relationship between manufacturing quality vs price? It's now possible, on a normal man's salary, to buy all the equipment he needs for a semi-professional studio in his own home. With knowledge to back that equipment up, one can make a recording that rivals big names. And guess what? For $1500ish more, you can send it off to get mastered by the same folks who do the big bands. $1500ish may seem like a lot to many, but to me, that speaks worlds. $1500 is obtainable whereas enough studio time for a full CD plus mastering, plus paying the aqudio engineer, is not.