Radio Blank

We were driving with a friend's ten-year-old recently on some errands, and to make the 40-minute trip more pleasant, tuned the satellite receiver to Radio Disney.

Now I've been in radio a long time, and it was revelatory to listen to the station. Our children have moved past the Disney stage, and so I knew none of the artist they talked about, nor the songs that they played. Listening to the high-energy patter without any emotional attachment or even knowledge of the artists was revelatory.

"This is [blank]. Coming up next on Radio Disney we'll have an exclusive talk with [blank]. And she'll be playing her hit song [blank] live in the studio! And remember, [blank] is part of the [blank]tour hitting your town soon! And now here's [blank] the second single from the new album by [blank]."

My ignorance made the details irrelevant, letting me focus on the larger structure of the patter. They were patterns I recognized quite well, and I have to say they were very well-done.

It would not surprise me to learn that Radio Disney's breaks are tightly scripted. Not that they sounded stiff, but there was never a moment of questionable content, and never was anyone at a loss for words. Even the fourteen and fifteen-year-old artists interviewed seemed remarkably articulate.

I enjoyed the experience for another reason -- it brought home to me how much content is colored by our likes and dislikes. Fill those blanks with artists and songs I like, and I have an enjoyable and engaging listening experience. Replace them with ones I don't like, and the same patter becomes mindless and irritating drivel.

Content may be king, but context may be the prime minster.

Radio stations reap the wind

Robert Conrad of WCLV is leading the charge to get the government to not enact the “Performance Rights Act” H.R 848, which would require terrestrial broadcasters to pay additional money for the music they air. Here’s his plea:

WCLV needs your help. And we need it now.
I’m Robert Conrad, president of WCLV. The House Judiciary Committee recently held hearings on the newly reintroduced “Performance Rights Act” (H.R. 848), otherwise known as the “Performance Tax”. If enacted, the bill would require WCLV and other broadcasters to pay a royalty for all the recorded music we play on the radio. This money would go the record companies, most of whom are foreign owned. This would be in addition to the royalty payments we already pay to composers and publishers and to record companies for the right to broadcast our music on the Internet. The financial impact of this performance tax could be financially devastating at a time when the advertising that supports WCLV and its classical music programming is at an all time low due to the recession.
We ask you to write your representative in support of an opposing resolution, the “Local Radio Freedom Act” (HCR 49), was introduced recently. You’ll find a sample letter on our website. Click on the banner on the home page or on the links on every page at wclv.com. Help WCLV and other broadcasters. Express your support of the Local Radio Freedom Act. And please - do it today. Thank you.

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Conrad. He’s accurately called many trends in the broadcasting and has made WCLV the strong station it is today. In this case, though, he’s having to pay for the incompetence of others, and I’m not sure it’s a battle he can win.

A little background. When the idea of charging radio stations for the music they used first came about, there was (naturally) resistance from the broadcasters. Most stations had their own house orchestras, or featured a lot of live music (this was the 1920's), and so the primary rights issues were with the composers. ASCAP (the American Society of Composers and Publishers) was formed to collectively negotiate fees and collect royalties from various performing venues. They determined that radio stations constituted a public performance and demanded their fees.

When ASCAP double their fees in the 1940's broadcasters responded by allowing their orchestras to only play public domain works (that’s why we have Glen Miller’s big band arrangement of “Little Brown Jug”). They then created their own composer’s organization, BMI (Broadcast Music, Incorporated) to offer much more favorable rates to the stations.

In time, everyone came to terms, and things were fine. When broadcasters started using recordings rather than live musicians in the 1950's, though, the question of paying the record labels for the use of the material came up. Eventually, it was agreed that the publicity radio play – and resulting record sales – far outweighed any fee the labels might collect, and so artist fees never got off the ground.

In the 21^st Century, things got ugly. When satellite radio started negotiating fees, in 2004, the record labels weighed in again. It was a new media and the old rules didn’t apply, they argued. They wanted XM and SIRIUS to pay artist fees along with the ASCAP/BMI royalties. And terrestrial radio stations sat on the sidelines and egged the labels on.

Broadcasters were terrified of satellite radio and were hoping that these additional fees would help kill the fledgling industry. There were some NAB members – like NPR – that tried to get their colleagues to see that this was a dangerous precedent to set, but no dice.

In 2007 when Internet radio stations had to negotiate their fees with the SoundExchange (founded by the RIAA), they too had to pay artist as well as publishing royalties. Again, NPR and a few others tried to get the NAB to weigh in, but to no avail. Terrestrial radio stations, for the most part, didn’t stream and wanted these upstart Internet radio stations to be driven out of business by these fees that they didn’t have to pay.

In the end, artist royalties were levied with very little effort. And the primary reason was because satellite radio was already paying these fees. The precedent had been set.

And now the spotlight’s turned to terrestrial broadcasters. If every other broadcaster has to pay artist fees, why not them? And it’s now being argued that over-the-air radio is no longer the place where new music’s discovered – the Internet’s taken that role over. So if the publicity value isn’t there anymore, why should terrestrial radio be the exception?

Why, indeed? This isn’t something that’s come out of the blue. Digital broadcasters have been fighting this battle for the past five years, with terrestrial radio rooting for the other side. And now it's their turn. It's unfortunate that stations like WCLV are getting caught in the crossfire, but I think we’re just seeing an industry reaping what it’s sown.

- Ralph

My Experience with Satellite Radio

When I received a rental car recently (car vs. deer) I had a chance to try out SIRIUS satellite radio. I've ridden with other people who had satellite radio in their cars, but this was the first time I actually got to live with the radio and try it out first-hand.

The first few days were great. There is decidedly more variety to satellite radio than terrestrial radio. I really enjoyed listening to the bluegrass channel, and the other musical genres that terrestrial radio avoids altogether.

But after a while, I felt boredom kick in. Yes, they have the oldies nicely broken down by decade, so I could just listen to music from the 60's, or 70's or 80's -- but it was always the same old chart-topping hits that got played. Basically, I was hearing the songs that commercial radio had burnt me out on through overplaying years ago. I never had an aha! moment when I heard something unfamiliar, or a song I hadn't heard in quite a while.

And there were commercials -- at least during drive time. Within a couple of days, I was doing the same thing I used to do with terrestrial radio. Whenever an ad came on, I punched the preset to the next station. And did the same when that channel ran a spot, and so on and so on.

Some have complained about the sound quality, but that didn't bother me too much -- after all, it's radio. What bothered me more was the repetition. Once when I was tuned to the Blue Collar comedy channel, I heard the same routine driving home that I listened to driving in. And it wasn't that funny the first time around.

I also didn't like the display. I'm not sure if it's the function of the head unit in the car (a KIA Sportster) or the way SIRIUS fed the metadata, but I seldom saw artist names. For the comedy channels, it was frustrating as I seldom knew who was talking. Not amusing.

But the worst offenders were the classical channels. I tuned in to listen to a work only identified as "String Quartet No. 2 in B flat." That was perhaps the most unhelpful ID ever. Thousands of string quartets have been composed since Haydn developed the form in the late 1700s. Telling me the number and key didn’t narrow the field down that much. I needed to know the composer (or at least opus number).

So how composers wrote their second string quartets in the key of B-flat major? Here’s a partial listing: Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf; Charles Liu; Gerald Manning; Giovanni Battista Viotti; Antonin Dvorak; Bernard Romberg; Franz Xaver Richter' Maddalena Laura Lombardini-Sirmen; Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach; Felix Mendelssohn; Ottorino Respighi; Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart; Wilhelm Altmann.

By midweek I was drifting back to some iPod listening. I had some podcasts to catch up on, and the content was fresher. From that point on, it was all downhill. Within a few days, I was back to my old habit of listening to podcasts as I drove. Lots of new information, minimal commercials (if any), and a programming mix uniquely suited to my tastes.

Now to be fair, my wife loved SIRIUS. She really enjoyed hearing her favorite songs one right after the other. So my negative was her plus.

For the most part, though, it was a somewhat disappointing experience. And while I did return to my iPod’s content, there’s something else worth mentioning. At no time did I ever consider just turning on the AM/FM radio to listen to what was being broadcast over-the-air.

- Ralph

Sam(e) FM

So I tried once again to listen to our local mix format station, 105.5 SAM FM Louisa, Virginia (I'd link to their website, but they, like WJMA, are part of the Piedmont Communications radio empire and don't have one). Like similar-styled "eclectic" stations (like Jack/Dave/Tom/etc.), the idea is to keep things fresh by playing a wide variety of music both from yesterday and today.

OK, I did. I gave it a good long listen, too. Here's what I thought of the experience.

The slogan overpromises.
"You'll never know what we'll play next." Perhaps -- but I know what you won't play. SAM plays the hits from several different charts. But they only play the hits. I heard "Brandy" by the Looking Glass, but I know I'll never hear "Jimmy Loves Mary-Anne" by that same group (which also charted), or any other song they recorded.

Radio support of artists is a sham.
All the new media -- satellite radio, Internet radio, and so on -- have to pay artist royalties in addition to publisher royalties for every song they use. Broadcast radio, on the other hand, currently doesn't have to pay artist royalties. Why? Because they made the case back when the rates were developed, that radio play promotes the artist, and that valuable exposure more than made up for any royalty payment.

True enough in the 60's, but not on SAM FM. Not one song or artist was ever identified. If I did hear a song I was interested in, I'd have to remember the lyrics, and hope that the chorus bore some relation to the title of the song, which would help me when I went online to find out the artist and what album it might be on. That's already three steps too many. I wouldn't bother.

Now RDS (Radio Data System) has been in place for years, which allow regular AM and FM stations to send text info. Most stations never go beyond using it to show their call letters. So SAM FM forgoes an opportunity to use technology already installed to identify the songs they play. No wonder artists are questioning that royalty waiver.

I get better programming on my iPod
And I'm not talking about just the choice of music, either (although being able to skip past a song I'm not in the mood for is a definite plus). The music flow on SAM was interrupted by commercials and canned station ID/bumpers.

Anything perceived as an interruption to the programming is annoying. There weren't many commercials, but between every single song there was a snarky little station ID that said absolutely nothing (not even dial position, save the top of the hour).

In the end, it wasn't the song selections that made me bail -- it was those vacuous station IDs, delivered once every four or five minutes that finally did me in. At least my iPod just shuts up and plays the music.

So I'll give up a chance to hear Billy Idol's "White Wedding," Elton John's "Crocodile Rock," and Natashia Bedingfield's "Unwritten" for the umpteenth time and get that new Los Campesinos EP that I just bought transferred over to my iPod. I may not know what SAM FM will play next, but I know it won't be "You! Me! Dancing!"

- Ralph


Day 117 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Non-NPR Public Radio

Yes, there is such a thing. Around the time I began attending public radio conferences regularly, National Public Radio began their push to solidify their brand. "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" were already the "tent poles" of most public radio station listening (that is, the two places where audience -- and pledging -- peaked).

NPR started by pushing stations to have their announcers emulate the NPR style of delivery, providing a seamless transition from the national feed to the local news segments and back again. Stations were glad to ride the NPR bandwagon. NPR programs brought in the big pledge dollars, and it was easier to schedule a syndicated program with high production values rather than trying to put together something on their own.

Affiliate stations always assumed that NPR's goals were identical with theirs. But different organizations, like individuals, by definition have different goals. In time the blending of local station with national network became complete. Many people today use the terms "NPR" and "public radio" interchangeably -- NPR's branding mission is now complete.

Folks will talk about NPR's "A Prairie Home Companion" -- a program produced and distributed by American Public Media (not NPR), or talk about a classical music selection Seth Williamson played on NPR (Seth's the local host of mid-day classics at WVTF, and his program is not distributed by NPR).

The first hint of trouble with this close association came when NPR fired popular "Morning Edition" host Bob Edwards. Listeners responded with howls of protests -- ire aimed squarely at the local affiliates. For most of the public, the local station was NPR, and many canceled their pledges in protest. That lost revenue hurt the local stations, which meant they had less money to meet their budget (a good chunk of which were NPR carriage fees -- according to Time Magazine, as much as $1.3 million). As for NPR, no station dropped "Morning Edition," and they collected the same rates from the affiliates they always did while the controversy raged on. In the end, Bob Edwards went to XM, some listeners went away, and NPR continued business as usual.

NPR has been moving more and more content onto satellite radio, into podcasts, and finally onto their own audio server. For this organization that derives revenue from the programs it produces, the moves make sense -- this is where the audience is going, and that's where they need to be.

For the radio stations, though, it's a disaster. If you contribute to your local station to support "Fresh Air," why would you continue to do so once you realize you can get it free as a podcast? Stations with strong local content have very good reasons for their listeners to support them. Those who rely almost exclusively on NPR are in for a tough time.

The recent firing of Ken Stern can be seen as an attempt to put the brakes on NPR's abandonment of its affiliates. But it's a temporary slowing, at best. Listening patterns are changing, and eventually NPR and public radio stations may come to a serious parting of the ways.

Here in Charlottesville, Virginia we have four non-commercial radio stations. Two are NPR affiliates, which means you can often hear the same programs on two different stations. Two run local programming almost exclusively.

Coincidentally, both of these stations (WNRN and WTJU) are currently in the midst of their spring fund drives. While WVTF and WMRA run "Morning Edition," WNRN gives its listeners "Acoustic Sunrise," which airs acoustic folk and Americana music. WTJU has classical programming in the morning, locally (and sometimes eccentrically) hosted. WNRN plays a healthy dose of local music throughout the day, while WTJU airs genres (serious classical and jazz, folk, world, non-Top 40 rock) other stations never touch.

All non-commercial radio station depend on some measure of direct public support. In two cases, a bulk of that support will be turned over to NPR to pay for programming, In the other two, the money stays "in house."

Which station is worthy of your support? Whichever one you listen to on a regular basis. Just remember that when you make your pledge, you're supporting the station, not NPR (at least not directly).

- Ralph

"Radio Nowhere" by John Amos

I was trying to find my way home,
But all I heard was a drone,
Bouncing off a satellite,
Crushing the last lone American night.
This is Radio Nowhere.
Is there anybody alive out there?

--Bruce Springsteen

Well, is there? Will somebody please answer the man’s question: Is anybody alive out there? I’ve been listening, but it seems pretty dead to me. Commercial radio, once such a potent means of communication, has become an utter wasteland.

I spend two hours a day in my truck, which doesn’t have a working CD player. So I listen to a lot of radio. I’ve got ten preset buttons, but only a couple are worth pushing.

Most stations today play pre-programmed “hits.” Few have live deejays. Of the ones that do, advertisements and silly talk predominate. Crude humor abounds. Once we had Wolfman Jack; now we have Imus, Stern, and a host of other shock-jock wannabes.

Stations try to grab listeners with fizzy promises (“more music, less talk”) and catchy slogans (“Generation Radio,” an inane euphemism for the oldies format). What’s missing, of course, is any sort of community connection. I realize the bottom-line drives a station’s programming decisions, but the fact remains: pre-packaged shows, produced in nameless places, are no substitute for the real, live thing.

Most stations today are owned by huge corporations. That’s why they all sound alike. Can’t take a chance on something original, so we’ll just play another worn out old standby, tell another smutty joke. The result: homogenized play-lists and tasteless talk.

It was not always so.

In fact, not that long ago radio was a vibrant part of this community. Orange’s tiny station had talent that much larger markets must have envied. Arch Harrison, Ross Hunter, and Bill Little were classy broadcasters with made-for-radio voices. The station also developed young talent, hiring high school students as broadcast interns, who learned the ropes quickly and soon became radio personalities in their own right. These folks took their work seriously, and they put out a product that people wanted, maybe even needed, to hear.

My grandmother listened religiously to The Swap Shop, a sort of on-air yard sale. She loved hearing people call in to trade clothes, cars, books, and other odd-and-ends. I once heard an old farmer on The Swap Shop attempt to trade a bushel of sweet potatoes for a 1968 Ford Galaxy transmission. I kid you not.

People tuned in on Friday nights to hear Hornet football games. They listened on election night to local politicos discuss the vote tallies. Teenagers called, requesting songs and offering dedications. People set their alarms to hear their neighbors’ birthdays announced. Churches took turns airing Sunday morning services.

None of it was particularly exciting, but it was genuine. Real people, real entertainment, and real information. Of course, it’s no longer cost-effective; but surely something has been lost.
A few oases still exist in today’s radio wasteland. National Public Radio provides a wonderful medley of music, interviews, and in-depth reporting. A Prairie Home Companion is the closest thing we have to the classic shows of the 30’s and 40’s.

Closer to home, several Charlottesville stations are bucking the trend. WNRN advertises itself as “community radio” and plays a wonderful grab-bag of music. 106.1 “The Corner” lives up to its slogan, “Different is Good.” And you never know what gem you’ll hear next on WTJU. These stations mix passionate volunteers with seasoned, professional deejays to create something worth listening to.

And in Orange, Phil Goodwin continues to report daily on local news. He’s a humane and intelligent voice, crying in the wilderness.

The internet is also trying hard to revive the medium. XM and Sirius offer stations devoted to blues, jazz, sports-talk, and just about anything else you could want. Services like Pandora and slacker.com actually allow listeners to build their own stations. Though I like the concept, internet radio seems a bit sterile to me. Good radio should deliver a sense of place, and who can say where the internet originates?

Radio, far more than television, relies on an audience’s imagination. Without pictures, it has only words, voice, and human warmth to reach listeners. This requires a person at the other end of the microphone, not a recording.

Like the newspaper industry, radio is struggling to remain relevant in the modern age. It will only survive by cultivating the human connection. Abandon that, and all you’ve got left is waves, bouncing off a satellite.

- John Amos

©2008 by John Amos
Reprinted by permission

Pseudo Disobedience - Part 2

Last post we laid out the reasons (both purported and real) commercial radio broadcasters are trying to block the proposed merger of XM and SIRIUS satellite radio. Now let's get down to cases.

First up, an informational site -- xmsiriusmonopoly.org. If you just stumbled on the site, and didn't look to closely, you might get the impression that this is a grassroots protest site, but its not. The National Association of Broadcasters run it, and their logo's at the bottom of the page for all to see.

As you might expect, the news articles all have a particular slant. Some you can check, some you can't. The New York Times pieces, for example, are available by subscription only. As with any of these sites (even the pro-merger ones), it's always best not to take things at face value.

For example, one of the articles you can click through to is a USA Today op-ed piece by Jimmy Schaeffler, a recognized telecommunications expert. His bio says he's associated with the Carmel Group, whose principal clients are satellite TV providers. So does that matter?

Well, as it turns out, DirecTV offers XM programming as part of their service, and the DISH Network streams SIRIUS. So if the merger goes through, instead of these two satellite TV services playing XM and SIRIUS against each other for privilege of carrying their programming, they'll have to deal with a single provider. So the real concern isn't about a monopoly to the consumer, its about a monopoly to satellite TV providers.

Still, the site doesn't disguise its relationship to the NAB, so it's to be expected that the contents push their agenda.

But how about the Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio? Everything on the site suggests that it's a grassroots movement by satellite radio subscribers upset about the merger. when I looked over the sign up page, though, I saw something out of place. It was a menu listing for HD Radio. With the exception of broadcasters who continually tout HD Radio, I have yet to run across anyone not professionally involved with broadcasting who's more than marginally aware of it, let alone considers it an important source for content. (And its not just me - here's how it stacks up in consumer awareness.)

The Corporate Crime Reporter did some serious digging, and published an interview with the founder of the movement, Chris Reale. In their report, they note

Reale works full time at Williams Mullen Strategies - the lobbying arm of the Williams Mullen law firm - whose communications practice is headed by Julian Shepard - a former assistant general counsel at NAB."

Reale won't say who is funding his "consumer group," but he says the NAB "supports" the group.

He refuses to identify the nature of NAB's support.

The purpose of this post isn't to vilify the NAB, but just to make a simple point. There are citizens pushing for change, and vested interests posing as citizens pushing for change. The beauty of the Internet is that it doesn't take a lot of effort to discover which is which.

- Ralph

Pseudo Disobedience - Part 1

We've had some good examples of grass roots movements using the Internet to heighten awareness and more effectively bring about change. But there are plenty of astroturf movements that are using the same strategy to further their cause.

Sometimes they're easy to spot, and sometimes not -- until you do a little digging. This post I'll give you some foundation, and next time use that to spot Internet initiatives that seem to come from the public, but are actually businesses furthering their own agenda in disguise.

We'll take the proposed XM/SIRIUS satellite radio merger. The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) is throwing all their money and influence at their congresscritters to sink this merger.

The mantra is that it would create a monopoly, allow the XIRIUS (or whatever it will be called) to raise rates with impunity, and decrease the programming choices for consumers.

OK, imagine a world where McDonald's, KFC and Burger King lobbyed a town council to block the merger of two upscale restaurants because it would create a monopoly, allowing the combined restaurants to gouge the consumer, and the total number of entrees would decrease, limiting dining choice.

Seems odd, doesn't it? Why would fast food chains care what happens to these restaurants anyway? Chez Francois' patrons don't eat Big Macs. If killing the merger meant both restaurants went out of business, though, then it begins to make sense. Because then those patrons would have to eat at the fast food places if they wanted to dine out at all.

And that's what this is all about. XM and SIRIUS need to merge to stay viable. Commercial radio wants to block it so both will die, and they'll return to being the only game in town (well, except for all the other media choices, but they're not focused on those, so we won't either -- yet).

Take a spin around the AM and FM dial sometime. Do you hear even a fraction of the programming variety offered by either satellite radio company? Merging would mean the elimination of duplicate programming, but let's be realistic. The reason why people voluntarily pay for satellite radio when they can get commercial radio for free is the programming. XIRIUS knows that's their primary asset. Don't expect that to significantly change.

Would a combined service charge more? It would be good news for the NAB. If the rates go up, more people will leave -- which is what commercial broadcasters want anyway. And while XIRIUS might be a monopoly in the sense that it will be the only subscription-based satellite radio available, it's hardly an all-or-nothing choice for listeners.

There are many other media choices. In addition to commercial broadcast radio, there's broadcast public radio. There's also Internet radio (for the time being), podcasts, music from MP3 players and cell phones, and more.

I've never subscribed to either XM or SIRUS. If the merger goes through I probably still won't. But I'll still have plenty of listening options.

My house gets its electricty from Dominion Power. If I want electricity, I have one choice and one choice only -- and not having power isn't really an option. Which sounds more like a monopoly to you?

- Ralph

The Digital Dogma Divide Demo

Yesterday I wrote about the primary arguments satellite radio and HD Radio supporters throw at each other. The subtext of premium content vs. no subscriptions isn’t hard to find. Here’s a sampling of quotes from the customer reviews for the Boston Acoustics Recepter Radio HD on the Circuit City website.

Those who gave the radio good reviews included these comments [italics added for emphasis]:

"HD is the future of free radio."

"I like my local talk radio programs so that is why I went with HD radio vs. satellite, and it's free of course."

"I was able to get all these additional channels… without paying a subscription fee."

"Yes, the radio is ugly, but i sure like not paying XM!!!"

And while there were some negative comments about the radio itself, there were statements like these [italics added for emphasis]:

"Save your money and get Satellite Radio… which have hundreds of stations HD Radio just carries local stations."

"It's OK, but my Sirius Satellite Radio is just plain awesome... content is everything and Sirius has it all...."

"200 CH TO CHOOSE FROM ALL DIGTIAL EVERYWHERE YOU GO!!"

No subscription fees vs. premium content. The non-discussion continues.

- Ralph

The Digital Dogma Divide

A lot of virtual ink continues to be spilled about the merger of XM Satellite Radio and SIRIUS Satellite Radio. As the commentary flies fast and furious, I'm taking a step back and looking at the subtext of the discussion -- particularly as it applies to satellite radio vs. HD Radio.

In the comment fields for reviews about satellite radio products, HD Radio tuners, op-ed pieces about radio and so on, the same arguments roll back and forth again and again. Satellite radio supporters talk about the richness of the content, and the (for the most part) lack of commercials. HD Radio supporters talk about how over-the-air broadcasts are free, and the presence of commericals on some satellite radio channels.

It's not really a conversation, as neither side engages the other. Not surprising, as they're talking at cross purposes. For some folks, content is important -- important enough to pay for. For others, content isn't important at all -- nice if its there, not really missed if it isn't.

Some gladly pay extra for HBO and Showtime because they believe the original programs ("Sopranos," "Deadwood," etc.) are worth the cost. Other are quite happy with the basic channels -- what programs they actually watch don't matter as much.

The same is true with music. I'm passionate about classical music, and really relish works that require active listening. Many prefer their classical music to sit politely in the corner and sounds pretty -- like Muzak. Books, movies, plays, art -- there's always a divide between those who consider them important, and those who don't.

If you consider content important enough to pay for, then settling for poor selection isn't an option. If you're indifferent to the content, then paying extra for it makes little sense.

XM/Sirius vs. HD Radio. The argument rages on, with both sides citing features that are valueless to the other, the underlying premises remaining unarticulated.

- Ralph

A classical education -- via podcasting

Ralph's rant on the state of classical programming on the satellite radio services is a bit off the mark, IMO. The real problem lies not so much in their choice of programming, but in the size of the repertoire they have to choose from.

The scope of Classical music is breath-taking in it's variety
of style periods, composers, ensembles, and compositions. That's one of the most stimulating things about classical music, but it can also be intimidating to the newcomer. It's difficult to know where to start, especially if you're just starting to put together a personal library of classical music recordings.

Podcasts can be a valuable tool in educating yourself about classical music. If you're just beginning to scratch the surface of (or looking to expand your horizons), check out these podcasts. Each has a different feel, but all of them will help you learn more about different composers, ensembles, recordings, and history of classical music.

Naxos Classical Music Spotlight Podcasts — One of the leading classical music labels, Naxos' podcast features musical selections and commentary that highlights recordings from their extensive library. It's well-produced and updated frequently. Great if you have a desire to learn more about classical composers and their music (well known and otherwise).

Classical Connections — Bill Eddins is the music director of the Edmonton Symphony.
His personal podcast is (in his own words) "about Classical Music and the History of the World." Expect an interesting take on classical music, the classical music tradition in the West, and whatever else strikes his fancy. Bill loves film music and film composers, like I do, so this is one of my favorites.

WGBH Classical Podcast — Recordings of live performances and interviews from WGBH's Boston studios. Consistently high-quality music, performance, and commentary.

The Gramaphone Podcast — Self described as "A monthly window into the world's most authoritative classical music magazine, featuring an overview of the best releases, news, exclusive interviews with leading figures from the music world, and lots of great music." In essence, a slickly-produced advertisement for The Gramaphone magazine, but with enough starch to stand on it's own.

DCD Classical 'Cast — DCD Records is a small label specializing in producing recordings of regional artists as well as distribution of variety of other small labels. The podcast offers a well-balanced look at current offerings from their classical catalog. The host (some fellow named Ralph) does a nice job providing background for the excerpts.

A Classic Complaint

I'm hoping Ken, as an XM subscriber, will weigh in on this. This past Sunday the Washington Post's radio reporter Marc Fischer (how 1940's does that sound?) did an in-depth comparison of the programming offered by the two satellite radio operations, XM and SIRIUS.

Despite the considerable overlap in programming, a handful of distinctions are so clear that you can base your decision entirely on them. Baseball fan: XM. Football nut: Sirius. Movie maven: XM. Howard Stern addict: Sirius. Bob Dylan freak: XM. NPR lover: Sirius.

There's more in the article, of course -- it's well worth a read.

One of the reasons I haven't subscribed to either service is the short shrift classical music receives from both services. Granted, the goal is to build subscribers, but something other than the Basics 101 would be nice.

So what would I like in a classical channel? I'll save the detailed rant for another time, but in brief, I'd like a focus on living composers, complete works (no excerpted movements), unusual repertoire, a wider range of composers and style periods, and a better representation of chamber and vocal music. And part of me thinks that the general classical audience would like some of that also – if they only knew there was a choice.

- Ralph

Radio loses, listener wins (IMHO)

A recent article in Podcasting News caught my eye. It ponders the decline of satellite radio as a result of increased podcast listening. As someone who's worked in the field of both commercial and public radio for sometime, I've been following the upheavals in the industry with some interest. I think the audience is settling into new listening habits, and it might be a bit soon to predict with absolute certainty how it's going to end up.

Reading the article did make me rethink my own listening habits. I've never subscribed to satellite radio, but I do subscribe to a fair amount of podcasts -- more than a fair amount. I had been vaguely aware that I was listening to less radio during my 35-minute daily commute as I discovered more podcasts, but it wasn't until I thought about it that I realized I hadn't listened to the radio in the car in about two months.

Worse yet, I didn't miss it. Satellite radio never had me as a listener, but now it seems terrestrial radio doesn't either….
- Ralph