Post by Flash on May 21, 2008 12:13:58 GMT -5
Relationship between Australian radio, music and journalism
The majority of music journalism is focused on mainstream artists and genres - this is an undisputed fact, and has been given credence by the other posts on this site. I think that radio plays a crucial role in the determining of ‘mainstream’ music, the popularity and evolution of various genres and performers, and thus the topics explored by music journalists.
In her article “Overview of the Australian Music Industry”, Gillian Ramsay lists quotas that must be met by radio broadcasters, as specified by the Australian Music Code:
*
Pop/Rock, Album Oriented Rock and Contemporary Hits formats - 25 per cent;
*
Adult Contemporary, Gold, Classic Hits, Hits and Memories, MOR (middle of the road), News/Talk formats - 15 per cent;
*
Easy Listening or Country formats - ten percent;
*
Niche formats, e.g. Jazz or Big Band - five percent
She also notes that there is a “20% quota for Australian performances on radio”. (Ramsay 25). The first question I ask is, where do the genres that have been identified by my fellow posters fit in this scheme? There is not mention of any of the metal strands, dance, etc. Do they fit into “Album Oriented Rock”? Or “Niche formats” - which is an incredibly ambiguous category, and the listing of Jazz and Big Band as examples suggests that there is an unspoken assumption that the “niche” formats will be conservative in nature.
If any genre outside of Pop/Rock, Classic, Easy Listening, etc. fits into Niche formats, and there is a requirement for stations to play a minimum of 5%, then all of the genres outside of these must compete for airtime. There are stations that would exceed this quota - Triple J is an obvious example - but there is no requirement for stations to play any more than 5%. It is disappointing to see that Easy Listening/Country achieves 10%, but there is no specified quota for non-mainstream genres.
Marcus Breen asks the question:
Why does there remain no guarantee that Australian music would be played on Australian radio without the installation of a quota system? (Breen:1993:73)
He gives a partial answer to this question when he suggests that “…multinational record companies work and act globally, marketing their products wherever consumers will buy, with little or no concern for national identity” (73).
This, however, is only part of the problem. The Australian Music Performance Committee (AMPCOM) needs to address the lack of diversity in music being played on Australian radio. Although music is fast being advanced and popularised in the digital realm, radio is still one of, if not the main source(s) by which we access and discover music and musicians. While it can be argued that if members of the Australian public wish to hear new/different music they should actively seek it out themselves, radio should act as an aide, a medium through which we are given the opportunity to encounter new sounds and genres.
Radio station playlists appear dull in comparison to the huge variety of music available online, perhaps because they restrict themselves (generally speaking) to seemingly cloned mainstream artists and bands, and a multitude of ‘hits’ from the past, instead of showcasing new and different sounds. A number of academics reference radio when discussing music histories and music journalism. Jody Berland says that “responding to a competitive, media-saturated and increasingly deregulated environment, radio programmers are more likely to turn to computer programmes for music selection to cut programming costs, than to flex the boundaries of musical taste”. (235-6). This apparent miserliness occurs at the expense of musical diversity in radio programs, and affects the subject matter and topic focuses of music journalists. It seems to be a vicious cycle- radio broadcasters play mainstream music with a lack of variety, which becomes or already is popular, music journalists write about these mainstream artists, increasing the artists’ exposure, and encouraging broadcasters to play more of these artists, and so on.
Let us not forget, however, that music journalists retain freedom to print what they choose, on subjects of their choice. It is the responsibility of music journalists to (between them) represent and cover all genres of music, not just those favoured by mainstream audiences. But it is also vital that radio stations begin to embrace a greater diversity of sounds in the music industry, and act upon initiative and a desire to represent varied genres rather than to appease the key music labels who pay for airtime.
References:
Berland, J “Radio Space and Industrial Time: The Case of Music Formats”
Breen, M (1993) “Making Music Local” (pp.66-81), Rock and popular Music: politics, policies, institutions, ed. Tony Bennett et al, London; New York: Routledge
Ramsay, G (1998 ) “Overview of the Australian Music Industry” (pp.21-32), Youth and Music in Australia, Sydney: The Authority, The Council, The Association
The majority of music journalism is focused on mainstream artists and genres - this is an undisputed fact, and has been given credence by the other posts on this site. I think that radio plays a crucial role in the determining of ‘mainstream’ music, the popularity and evolution of various genres and performers, and thus the topics explored by music journalists.
In her article “Overview of the Australian Music Industry”, Gillian Ramsay lists quotas that must be met by radio broadcasters, as specified by the Australian Music Code:
*
Pop/Rock, Album Oriented Rock and Contemporary Hits formats - 25 per cent;
*
Adult Contemporary, Gold, Classic Hits, Hits and Memories, MOR (middle of the road), News/Talk formats - 15 per cent;
*
Easy Listening or Country formats - ten percent;
*
Niche formats, e.g. Jazz or Big Band - five percent
She also notes that there is a “20% quota for Australian performances on radio”. (Ramsay 25). The first question I ask is, where do the genres that have been identified by my fellow posters fit in this scheme? There is not mention of any of the metal strands, dance, etc. Do they fit into “Album Oriented Rock”? Or “Niche formats” - which is an incredibly ambiguous category, and the listing of Jazz and Big Band as examples suggests that there is an unspoken assumption that the “niche” formats will be conservative in nature.
If any genre outside of Pop/Rock, Classic, Easy Listening, etc. fits into Niche formats, and there is a requirement for stations to play a minimum of 5%, then all of the genres outside of these must compete for airtime. There are stations that would exceed this quota - Triple J is an obvious example - but there is no requirement for stations to play any more than 5%. It is disappointing to see that Easy Listening/Country achieves 10%, but there is no specified quota for non-mainstream genres.
Marcus Breen asks the question:
Why does there remain no guarantee that Australian music would be played on Australian radio without the installation of a quota system? (Breen:1993:73)
He gives a partial answer to this question when he suggests that “…multinational record companies work and act globally, marketing their products wherever consumers will buy, with little or no concern for national identity” (73).
This, however, is only part of the problem. The Australian Music Performance Committee (AMPCOM) needs to address the lack of diversity in music being played on Australian radio. Although music is fast being advanced and popularised in the digital realm, radio is still one of, if not the main source(s) by which we access and discover music and musicians. While it can be argued that if members of the Australian public wish to hear new/different music they should actively seek it out themselves, radio should act as an aide, a medium through which we are given the opportunity to encounter new sounds and genres.
Radio station playlists appear dull in comparison to the huge variety of music available online, perhaps because they restrict themselves (generally speaking) to seemingly cloned mainstream artists and bands, and a multitude of ‘hits’ from the past, instead of showcasing new and different sounds. A number of academics reference radio when discussing music histories and music journalism. Jody Berland says that “responding to a competitive, media-saturated and increasingly deregulated environment, radio programmers are more likely to turn to computer programmes for music selection to cut programming costs, than to flex the boundaries of musical taste”. (235-6). This apparent miserliness occurs at the expense of musical diversity in radio programs, and affects the subject matter and topic focuses of music journalists. It seems to be a vicious cycle- radio broadcasters play mainstream music with a lack of variety, which becomes or already is popular, music journalists write about these mainstream artists, increasing the artists’ exposure, and encouraging broadcasters to play more of these artists, and so on.
Let us not forget, however, that music journalists retain freedom to print what they choose, on subjects of their choice. It is the responsibility of music journalists to (between them) represent and cover all genres of music, not just those favoured by mainstream audiences. But it is also vital that radio stations begin to embrace a greater diversity of sounds in the music industry, and act upon initiative and a desire to represent varied genres rather than to appease the key music labels who pay for airtime.
References:
Berland, J “Radio Space and Industrial Time: The Case of Music Formats”
Breen, M (1993) “Making Music Local” (pp.66-81), Rock and popular Music: politics, policies, institutions, ed. Tony Bennett et al, London; New York: Routledge
Ramsay, G (1998 ) “Overview of the Australian Music Industry” (pp.21-32), Youth and Music in Australia, Sydney: The Authority, The Council, The Association