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