[Dixielandjazz] Fw: "Jazz Radio" gripe

[Robert S. Ringwald]

Forwarded by mr.wonderful at ringwald.com

 ----- Original Message -----
>From Mark Carter Seabreeze" <office at wsbz.com>; "Joe-WUWF Vincenza"
<joe at wuwf.org>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: "Jazz Radio" gripe


> Hey Charlie:  Thanks.  I concur, of course.
>
> I'll send this on to some friends and maybe it will get posted on the jazz
> programmers list.  (I'm a lurker, not a contributor to the list.)  Also,
> I'll send to friends who are on the DJML ( Dixiland Jazz Mailing list) in
> hopes that it can be posted there, if not already. ( I'm not a current
> subscriber to DJML)
>
> Good wishes.
>
> Norman
>
>  F. Norman Vickers
> Volunteer Executive Director
> Jazz Society of Pensacola, Inc.
> PO Box 18337
> Pensacola, FL 32523-8337
> JSOP Phone- 850-433-8382
> JSOP FAX 850-433-7383
> Home Phone 850-432-9743
> Cell 850-324-5022
> nvickers1 at cox.net (That's ONE not L)
> www.jazzpensacola.com
> www.jazzfederation.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Suhor [mailto:csuhor at zebra.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 11:53 AM
>  Subject: "Jazz Radio" gripe
>
>
> 6-23-03
>
> Dear friends of jazz,
>
> I've had some interesting feedback to the short piece below that was in
> JAZZ NOTES (publication of the Jazz Journalists Association) earlier this
> month. I'd welcome your reactions and those of jazz broacasters, if you'll
> send it on. For info about JJA, visit the website at
www.jazzhouse.org.--CS
>
> JAZZ RADIO--BLINDFOLD TESTS, HOSTAGE-HOLDING, AND STATION BREAKS
>
> An Open Letter to Jazz Broadcasters
>
> Charles Suhor
>
> Several decades ago, innumerable pop and easy listening stations decided
it
> was fashionable to play several tracks in a row without announcing the
> names of the songs and artists until the end of the set. The boast was "We
> play more uninterrupted music." That's okay for Top 40 tunes or music to
> chew gum by in an elevator or a supermarket. But unfortunately, it has
> become standard practice on many jazz radio programs.
>
> The effect is not a trivial matter. Jazz fans are deprived of basic
> information. The name recognition of jazz musicians is diminished. The
> viability of record companies is threatened. This is especially true  in
> the case of lesser known artists and small labels.
>
> It's safe to say that many listeners, possibly most, hear jazz radio while
> driving or involved in activities at home that will often cause them to
> miss short announcements between long sets--and the jazz sets I've timed
> run from 12 to 25 minutes, sometimes longer. Surely, listeners often like
a
> track that's played at the beginning or middle of a set and are ripe to
buy
> the CD. But if they need to answer the phone, take a leak, keep an
> appointment, leave their house or car, etc., they miss the title of the
> selection, the name of the leader or group and sidemen/women, the label,
> and other follow-through information.
>
> It's a big world of music and artists out there, so only the most ardent
> fans, critics, and musicians can regularly identify who they're hearing
> without the benefit of timely announcements. Jazz radio should not be a
> Blindfold Test. How much time and effort does it take, really, to make
> announcements after--or even before and after--each track?
>
> With multi-track sets, listeners go away dumber and musicians wind up
> poorer. Let's face it, most jazz musicians need all the exposure they can
> get. It's not excessive to honor them by announcing who is on a track
> rather than stringing tracks together. With advance info, listeners could
> mull appropriately, e.g., "I've never heard that vocalist. I wonder how
> she'll handle Lush Life." The post-track announcements would catch those
> who tuned in after the start of the track and would let everyone hear what
> they need to know to buy the CD. "I didn't know that Columbia re-released
> that great session. I wore out my old LP of it in the 70s."
>
> I'm not suggesting that audiences always want protracted analysis or
> biographical and historical information, although that certainly has a
> place in jazz radio. What listeners and musicians alike need and deserve,
> though, is the common courtesy of simple identification. Holding the most
> basic information hostage for another fifteen or so minutes isn't hip, and
> it certainly isn't helpful if Joe Listener needs to go about other
business
> before then.
>
> So here are the questions for jazz broadcasters: Are there any good
reasons
> for failing to tell us what we're hearing before and after each selection?
> Is the multi-track set mainly a convenience for deejays and engineers?
> Whatever the reasons for tardy identification, do they outweigh the
> informational benefits to the listener and the potential economic benefits
> to musicians that would result from simple disclosure?
>
> Picture a common-sense world of jazz radio. In that world, the accumulated
> effect of better information delivered by hundreds of jazz broadcasters
> would certainly increase the pool of jazz fans' knowledge of the names of
> individual musicians, groups, and record labels. You love the music. As a
> broadcaster, what do you have to do that's better than ensuring that we
> know what we're listening to?
>
> I can't conclude without saluting the jazz broadcasters who do give
concise
> information, track-by-track. Yes, kudos and bouquets and oodles of free
> promotional CDs to you. But I believe that you're in the minority. As one
> who has traveled widely and heard jazz radio throughout the country, I'm
> frustrated by the prevailing practice, apparently unexamined, of treating
> songs and artists like station breaks.
>
>
>
> Charles Suhor, author of Jazz in New Orleans: The Postwar Years (Scarecrow
> Press, 2001), is a former writer for Down Beat and others. He has taught
> jazz history at Auburn University, Montgomery, where he is a freelance
> percussionist and writer. Contact: csuhor at zebra.net
>
>
>