Tweet
Okay. Got it. I should have been clearer: I DO think that DLR sucks on the radio, but I don't like the way the whole terrestrial radio world has been handled since Stern's departure. It seems that no one is being chosen or groomed to keep regular, no-subscription talk radio competitive in the future. Roth and Corrolla were poor choices, but the bigger issue is that they are being set up to fail by the corporations that sponsor them so that we'll all end up listening to music programmed by computers a year from now. I think they (the suits) are banking on the idea that SAT radio will be forever foreign to most people and that everyone will just accept the transition to cheap-to-produce, low-quality radio on "Free FM."
-
it's true of course -
What the hell do you want, radio execs to create a popular radio personality ??Originally posted by il_es_douche
It seems that no one is being chosen or groomed to keep regular, no-subscription talk radio competitive in the future.
That's asinine!
People like Stern and Limbaugh created themselves, and they didn't start overnight, they grew and evolved...
I think Dave has a good start at creating something good, that is, if he want's to be in radio...
He really needs to drop the porn star interviews though...Comment
-
Radio execs probably can't CREATE a good radio personality, but they can pick them and they failed to do so with their choices of Roth and Corrolla. The problem may be that their aren't many to choose from: I think your assertion, Elvis, that Limbaugh did not create himself any more than most did. He, like most, found someone else's formula and ran with that. The only guys who seem to be doing their own thing (Hendrie or even Penn) can only sustain an audience interest for an hour. Hence, I predict that talk radio on FM will be gone altogether before long. Agree or disagree?it's true of courseComment
-
Correction: My last post got cut up in the middle somehow. Here it is again:
Radio execs probably can't CREATE a good radio personality, but they can pick them and they failed to do so with their choices of Roth and Corrolla. The problem may be that their aren't many to choose from: I think your assertion, Elvis, that Limbaugh created himself is untrue. He did not create himself any more than most did. He, like most, found someone else's formula and ran with that. The only guys who seem to be doing their own thing (Hendrie or even Penn) can only sustain an audience interest for an hour. Hence, I predict that talk radio on FM will be gone altogether before long. Agree or disagree?it's true of courseComment
-
I disagree...
Talk radio is more popular than ever...
And if Limbaugh didn't create his own talent, who did he copy ??Comment
-
Further, Rush Limbaugh is an exceptional radio talent and personality...
He's extremely sharp, well read, and has a sense of great comedy...
He's more that just a right wing talk show host...Comment
-
Talk radio is pretty ubiquitous, but talk PERSONALITIES are not as popular/powerful as they once were because the market is saturated. To a greater degree we're seeing specific markets that have loyal, but small audiences. Look at the fact that Stern's audience was sliced up into sections...
Limbaugh and Dr. Laura are the only really good examples of a personalities who've been able to keep syndication deals rolling and who did they copy? You've got to be kidding? They've both managed to run with Stern's game book while maintaining a phony moral higher ground.it's true of courseComment
-
Hahaha...Comment
-
Limbaugh and Dr. Laura are both talented (whatever one thinks of them as people may be a separate issue). Consider that Aerosmith and The Black crows are also talented. I don't think it's reasonable to deny that both bands took the Stones' game plan and ran with it. No Stern, no NATIONAL Limbaugh or Dr. Laura--only two local conservative hosts who would have no idea how to handle controversy in a manner that is engaging over the long-haul.it's true of courseComment
-
I deny that...Originally posted by il_es_douche
I don't think it's reasonable to deny that both bands took the Stones' game plan and ran with it.
First of all, the Black Crows suck...
Second, Aerosmith, at least in the 70's was a hard rock act...
The Stones were never that...
Stones game plan...
How old are you ??Comment
-
I'm not interested in defending The Black Crowes, so fine...but the observation that Aerosmith is a band that parallels the Stones is as old as Aerosmith is. The Toxic Twins concepts of two contentious bandleaders; the heroin-chic personas; the pseudo-blues rock (Monkey Man & Heartbreaker are less "hard rock" than Back in the Saddle and Toys in the Attic"?). It's a MAJOR observation in rock history. It doesn't matter...the point I was trying to make is that using some else's plan doesn't mean that you are worthless; it may well mean that you're not capable of sustaining whatever talent you have after the original disappears and the material/method you riffed off of is no longer there.
I'm 34.it's true of courseComment
-
Well, you made, at least, a little bit of sense...
How many posts did that take you ??Comment
-
You like to bust humps, don't you Elvis? Good discussion.it's true of courseComment
-
Ummm, yes, I do...
:DComment
-
Yeah, but let me clairify...
Sometimes that's what it takes to get a good conversation going...
Alot of people blow smoke, and I'll try to shut 'em down in a second...
I love insightful information and a good discussion, though...
Comment
Comment