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:

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

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.

In article ,
(David Kaye) wrote:

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

For myself. I always included the disclaimer that anyone who chose
formal education as a path for himself had my deepest respect.

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.

With all due respect, that is spoken just like someone who is not in the
business. I am days off the NAB convention floor, and even I was a bit
overwhelmed by some of the new tools for production and transmission
that have come out in just the past year. I can't imagine anyone
currently in the business saying that "there is nothing new under the
sun in broadcasting".

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.

I never went near one of those schools. But I cannot imagine that such
schools did not teach production, broadcast management, script writing,
technical basics, and the various performance techniques. If they didn't
teach all of those things, they not only should have failed when they
did, but they should never have been in the business in the first place.

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.

Even leaving local broadcasting out of the discussion, are you saying
that not a single talented human being is utilized in syndication,
satellite and Internet audio services? That's truly incredible.

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

John Higdon wrote:

With all due respect, that is spoken just like someone who is not in the
business. I am days off the NAB convention floor, and even I was a bit
overwhelmed by some of the new tools for production and transmission
that have come out in just the past year. I can't imagine anyone
currently in the business saying that "there is nothing new under the
sun in broadcasting".

Sure, there'll always be new equipment. But, you weren't talking about
equipment. You were talking about *doing* broadcasting -- the production end
of it and I was responding to that. I also pointed out the sound collages
that "Radio Lab" is doing, which wouldn't have been possible in a pre-digital
age, or as easily possible at any rate. You were talking about the teaching
of skills that would lead to innovations in programming. That's where I said
that broadcasting is a mature industry and that there's only a certain amount
of things you can do with the medium.


I never went near one of those schools. But I cannot imagine that such
schools did not teach production, broadcast management, script writing,
technical basics, and the various performance techniques.

When I did a talkshow at KKEY, we had interns from a commercial broadcasting
school, I think it was Columbia. The bulk of what the interns knew were board
opping and talking into a mic. Broadcast management? Shirley, you jest.


If they didn't
teach all of those things, they not only should have failed when they
did, but they should never have been in the business in the first place.

Remember the ads? They showed some guy in a booth talking into a mic and
moving a fader and clicking a switch. "Hi, this is Joe Schmuck. You can be
on the air just like me..." They never showed anybody looking at Arbitron
printouts, writing checks, or for that matter even looking into the back of a
transmitter. They always showed the DJ. So, this was not false nor
misleading advertising. They taught people who to be DJs in an already
overcrowded field of DJs.


Even leaving local broadcasting out of the discussion, are you saying
that not a single talented human being is utilized in syndication,
satellite and Internet audio services? That's truly incredible.

No, but I believe in what Rich Wood (syndicator of Sally Jessy Raphael,
Wolfman Jack, and a ton of other people, along with op mgr for XETRA, WOR,
etc) has always said: "I can teach people how to do radio, but only if they
have something to say when they open the mic."

But again, you led off the reply with talk about equipment and finished with
talk about production. Equipment is not mature, production is, for the most
part.

In article ,
(David Kaye) wrote:

But again, you led off the reply with talk about equipment and finished with
talk about production. Equipment is not mature, production is, for the most
part.

Well, in my reality, I know that it is a very foolish thing to even
imply that all that can be has been invented when it comes to broadcast
technology. A little voice also tells me that there will always be room
for production and content innovation as well.

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

* 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
--

* 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 T wrote:

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.

Sal Bando?


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.

Exactly.

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.

Again, as I said to JH in another post, the ads were not false or misleading.
They did teach people how to be DJs.