(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

See, you could make that into a fun tour, talking about the history of the
station and what used to be in this room and what used to be in that room,
and how technology has changed things both for the better and the worse.
--scott

Would if it were. The history of KDYA 1190 is Lou Ripa's KNBA in Vallejo with
a totally different format and nothing remarkable in its history (unless you
consider Lou's morning restaurant interviews of 40 years ago).

KDIA 1640 is an extended band drop-in with no history. The KDIA callsign used
to belong to a totally unrelated station (KMKY 1310).

The offices are in a generic office building in Richmond, which could have
been a law firm or any other generic office.

There's no there there.

And this isn't unlike other stations. Today's radio stations are computers
like people have at home, mixing boards like one might see in a DJ booth at a
nightclub, though not as sophisticated, transmitters are in distant locations
that nobody but the chief engineers visit. There's really not much to see.

John T wrote:

When I was a student at the Ron Bailie School of Broadcast in the old
420 Taylor KBHK building we trained in some of the original 1930s NBC
control rooms.

And did working with record cutting lathes and the NBC chimes help you in your
broadcasting career? Fun though it may have been if I'd paid a bundle to go
to a private broadcasting school I'd have wanted to be trained on equipment
that I would typically deal with.

The only station I found that had old ET equipment from the 30s was KCHJ in
Delano, largely because after Charles H. Johnes died in 1968 the family wanted
to run the place like a museum. KCHJ wasn't a typical radio station.

I was rather upset when I was at CSM that we had to deal with antiquated black
and white equipment and just one camera with a zoom lens at KCSM-TV.

While we learned about equipment that was fairly state of the art on the radio
side (KCSM-FM), we learned zilch about programming because Dan Odum was so
fond of his block programming. Such training prepared us for...uh...KFAX,
KEST, and other also-rans, but didn't prepare us for KFRC or any other station
that was going anywhere in the market.

Of course, the concept of broadcasting schools is moot today, given that there
is simply no need for them anymore, but the equivalent might be going to a
computer school and learning how to program on punch cards.

In article ,
David Kaye wrote:

I was rather upset when I was at CSM that we had to deal with antiquated black
and white equipment and just one camera with a zoom lens at KCSM-TV.

While we learned about equipment that was fairly state of the art on the radio
side (KCSM-FM)

It was just the opposite at SF State. Other than being B&W, the TV
studio was one of the best in the state. (And I don't mean just at
educational institutions.) But the radio station wasn't real like
KCSM; it only went to the dorms. So that equipment was much more
modest.


Patty

In article ,
(David Kaye) wrote:

And this isn't unlike other stations. Today's radio stations are computers
like people have at home, mixing boards like one might see in a DJ booth at a
nightclub, though not as sophisticated, transmitters are in distant locations
that nobody but the chief engineers visit. There's really not much to see.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Sure, turntables are gone, as well as
tape recorders, but the stations still do the same things and the people
who work there are still human beings who work in production, on the
air, and deal with remote equipment. I have always been willing to take
people to the transmitter sites, some of which offer the most impressive
views of the Bay Area.

Sure radio has changed in the way it is technically produced, and those
who have resisted those changes have fallen by the wayside. But at those
stations that still offer local programming designed to serve listening
audiences, what goes on inside the studios would be of interest to
anyone still fascinated by radio.

Hell, I'm a seasoned veteran of over forty years and I had the time of
my life at the Cure-A-Thon. And that's not to take anything away from
the stations I work for, which are constantly coming up with new ways to
do programming, in the studio and out in the field at remotes.

As with anything else, broadcasting is what one makes of it.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

In article ,
(David Kaye) wrote:

Of course, the concept of broadcasting schools is moot today, given that
there
is simply no need for them anymore, but the equivalent might be going to a
computer school and learning how to program on punch cards.

I'm sorry to say it is that thinking that is pretty much what is wrong
with radio today. We have different tools (for the better, mostly) but
what is now lacking is the spark of creativity in local stations. It
isn't the equipment that is responsible for the lack of new music on
radio. It isn't the lack of tape recorders or turntables that have
"forced" stations to use syndication rather than do things of interest
on their own.

Is there some reason a broadcast school can't teach things like
community involvement, or music programming, or even specialized sales
tactics that involve clients in improving their own businesses? Now THAT
would be a broadcast school. However, as with many others involved with
local broadcasting, the schools refused to move on with the times,
seeing as their sole responsibility the training of people to cue
records and splice tape. Broadcasting schools should have all failed;
they were run by people who lacked any kind of vision whatsoever.

We need broadcasting schools today more than ever, but I'm willing to
admit that there may be a serious lack of people who are up to the task
of running them.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

In article ,
John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
(David Kaye) wrote:

Meanwhile, there have been stations (even back in the glory days of radio)
when they wouldn't let you come in. I got this rude shock when I tried to
visit the then KBRG (now KITS). The DJ welcomed me but the op mgr was there
and she booted me out the door. "We are a business. We're not an amusement
park" (or words to that effect). I was devastated. It took me a long time
to
work up the nerve to visit another station.

I cannot imagine anyone being that odious. When I was in high school and
still headed for the world of academe (as least as far as my parents
were concerned), I used to visit radio stations for the simple reason
that I was fascinated by broadcasting. After explaining my passion for
the industry, no ever denied me admission to examine any part of the
radio station I wished to see. I was welcome with open arms at every
station from San Jose to San Francisco. For instance, I visited KIOI
when it was owned by Jim Gabbert (which is when I met him) during most
of the time the station was at the Whitcomb Hotel and at 1001 California
St.

I never found radio stations to be unfriendly places. But my
real introduction to them came from the inside. We had a neighbor who
had a job as morning man at a station 30 miles away, who lost his
driver's license for a while, and I ended up taking him to work, and
back home afterward for a while. Which meant that I was on the
station premises from sign-on, and in the studio, with a pretty
seasoned old-timer, for several hours each morning before driving back
to go to school. In short, a warm body who asked so many questions
that he got put to work.

After a few months of this, the general manager, who had a couple of
other stations and a TV station, called me in and told me that enough
was enough of doubling for the morning man---if I could get an RT
license, he could use what I'd learned at his other stations. So I
did, and he did.

This is going back sixty years, when keeping a transmitter modulated
meant either spinning platters (all 78's) or talking into a
microphone. The world was full of 250, 500, and 1KW daytimers who
needed someone who could walk into an empty building, flip the
switches on the transmitter, take the readings, and start modulating
the carrier. Of course, they expected you to do a half-decent job of
keeping things alive, following "the book" with spot ads, and the
like. But nobody really cared if you looked like a geeky kid, or
could get around physically. I knew a couple of pros who were in
wheelchairs.

Probably aren't many opportunities like this any more, between the
large ownership groups, satellite feeds, carts and other automation,
etc. etc. But I had any number of friends over the years who "did
radio" at one point or another for a while, but who never really tried
to make careers as radio personalities. But I think there was some
good learning in all of that, that carried forward to being able to
get up at a podium elsewhere, and do something a bit more cogent than
mumble "uh, err, well, like, I mean, you know....".

Hank

John Higdon wrote:

I'm sorry to say it is that thinking that is pretty much what is wrong
with radio today.

But you yourself have dissed the idea of getting an education many times.


We have different tools (for the better, mostly) but
what is now lacking is the spark of creativity in local stations. It
isn't the equipment that is responsible for the lack of new music on
radio. It isn't the lack of tape recorders or turntables that have
"forced" stations to use syndication rather than do things of interest
on their own.

Radio broadcasting is a mature industry. There aren't that many different
ways to do things. There are some interesting used of soundscapes, however.
I suggest you listen to "Radio Lab" on KQED Radio. It's a documentary series
that mixes some very clever sound collaging with the meat of the topic. It
comes from WNYC.


Is there some reason a broadcast school can't teach things like
community involvement, or music programming, or even specialized sales
tactics that involve clients in improving their own businesses? Now THAT
would be a broadcast school.

Jason Jennings spent a decade training people how to run radio stations. As
you may recall, he was once the youngest group owner, and was a hotshot sales
guy. But he knew management through and through. Today he's totally out of
broadcasting, instead spending his time giving what might be called Q-A
seminars to select businesses. http://www.jason-jennings.com/
I'm mentioning him because his content has always been top-notch, and he
charges a bundle for it, out of the reach of most people and corporations. I
haven't asked him about why he stopped doing radio management seminars, but I
suspect it's because people in radio are cheapskates.

Be sure to check out his videos on his site and on YouTube. Even the freebies
he gives away are thought-provoking. He's the author of many fascinating
books, including, "It's Not The Big That Eat the Small, It's The Fast That Eat
the Slow", definitely a must for anybody who manages a business.


However, as with many others involved with
local broadcasting, the schools refused to move on with the times,
seeing as their sole responsibility the training of people to cue
records and splice tape. Broadcasting schools should have all failed;
they were run by people who lacked any kind of vision whatsoever.

I'm told that the commercial broadcasting schools were to varying degrees
shuck and jive. Sure, they might prepare one for a ticket, back when those
mattered, but that was about it.


We need broadcasting schools today more than ever, but I'm willing to
admit that there may be a serious lack of people who are up to the task
of running them.

Why do we need broadcasting schools now? The industry is 1/10th the size it
was, and is likely to shrink even more. Sure, there will be a need for
broadcasters just as there's a need for blacksmiths, but I suggest that it's
not a wise use of resources to dedicate school curricula to it.

John Higdon wrote:

Sure radio has changed in the way it is technically produced, and those
who have resisted those changes have fallen by the wayside. But at those
stations that still offer local programming designed to serve listening
audiences, what goes on inside the studios would be of interest to
anyone still fascinated by radio.

Yeah, and there are museums worth visiting, too. Your stations are not
typical of broadcasting today. Sure, they've managed to take marginal
Class A stations and make them work. And that's fine. But it's not what most
of radio is about. Back in the day, that was ALL that radio was about.

As with anything else, broadcasting is what one makes of it.


I guess we blame it on Bill Drake -- "More music, more music, more music, more
music." For the most part people don't care about DJs and local content.
That much is in evidence with the ear buds people wear today. They ain't
listening to the radio...

* David Kaye wrote, On 4/17/2010 7:46 AM:

And did working with record cutting lathes and the NBC chimes help you in your
broadcasting career? Fun though it may have been if I'd paid a bundle to go
to a private broadcasting school I'd have wanted to be trained on equipment
that I would typically deal with.

Read again: I said that it was fun _speculating_ about what would have
been there in the NBC days. The actual equipment was not necessarily
the very latest, but it was more than adequate to train us in the arts
and crafts of contemporary radio broadcasting.

We had recently up to date consoles, we learned how to program cart
carousels (which were still in use at many stations, though not for
long), we were voice trained, we were trained in spot scripting and
production, news writing and delivery, sales (hated it!) sports
writing and delivery . . pretty much the full gamut of what we would
encounter in small to medium markets, or for the lucky few, even SF.
Among our "finals" was the production of an hour demo in the format of
our choice.

Among our instructors were Aldy Swanson of KYUU, former KGO-TV
reporter Paul Wynne, and a former PD at KSOL, whose name I don't
recall. Oh, and a guy (whose name I *should* recall but don't) heard
on several stations for his sports reports from the Oakland Coliseum.

We were told from the start that we would gain the skills to move into
an "entry level" job, most likely *way* out of the SF market. There
were no promises that we'd go to KFRC, KCBS or any other station in
the #5 market. We were told to expect to go to Yreka or places like that.

One former student came by during the course and addressed us. At that
time he was the #1 morning man in Phoenix, but had worked his way up
from small stations in SoCal and Arizona. He also told us that our
control rooms were probably average to above average compared to a lot
of small stations, and to learn all we could about workarounds for
technical problems that might occur.

Ironically, out my class and the one just prior to ours, a sizable
handful went to work in one fashion or another in the SF market- most
of the rest did little or nothing in broadcasting-- not for lack of
opportunity, but for lack of willingness to spend a year or two in
Yreka or some similar community-- no love for broadcasting: Fatal.

As it was, I turned down Yreka and Clear Lake because I had a job in
this area that I didn't want to leave.

The problem with Bailie and other courses was that the days of local
personality radio were coming to an end. The conglomeration of the
industry was just beginning, and the school lost relevance within a
couple of years after I was there.

In any case, Bailie was a legit operation at that time, and was a
stepping stone for many into small to medium market radio and/or TV
work-- and for a few it was an entrance directly into the SF market.

JT
--

* John Higdon wrote, On 4/17/2010 11:52 AM:

Is there some reason a broadcast school can't teach things like
community involvement, or music programming, or even specialized sales
tactics that involve clients in improving their own businesses? Now THAT
would be a broadcast school. However, as with many others involved with
local broadcasting, the schools refused to move on with the times,
seeing as their sole responsibility the training of people to cue
records and splice tape. Broadcasting schools should have all failed;
they were run by people who lacked any kind of vision whatsoever.

We need broadcasting schools today more than ever, but I'm willing to
admit that there may be a serious lack of people who are up to the task
of running them.


I think you've nailed it. Ultimately it is up to local broadcasters to
seek out and hire talent- using that word in its dictionary sense. You
are right that the schools failed to advance with the times and
therefore lost relevance-- although many of the skills I got at Bailie
were transferable to a more modern age. Spot scripting, news writing,
sports writing and delivery of the same.

I've made some pocket money doing voice work, but I don't want to run
a business and chase down jobs, which are necessary if you want to
have voicing as your main career. Otherwise, I'm mostly behind the
scenes doing technical management that is often over my head. But
Bailie was the stepping stone, the piece of paper that let me in the
door, even if I'm not doing what I originally set out to do.

I do have to admit that I loved tape splicing, though.

JT
--