There is No Radio
"Do not try and change radio. That's impossible. Instead…only try to realize the truth."
The News Blog has an interesting overview of how radio is following in the path down which television has already gone: we pay for television because we want what we want. Just like some folks pay for Tivo (and other such services) because we want what we want when we want it.
I forget how long ago I read this in Wired, but the line (or at least a reasonable facsimile) stuck with me. The article was about satellite radio, and said we'd pay for radio because of the same principle that made us pay for cable TV: a free service can suck so bad you'll be willing to pay for it.
Setting aside the fact that a paid service can work around the FCC and their idiocy (only for now–the decency loons are going to go after all that next, no doubt), I'm wondering how many people listen to radio like I listen to radio: I roll my own. For example, I took an Airtran flight recently on one of their planes that comes with XM Radio in every seat. I unplugged my headphones from my iPod, plugged them into XM, went through all hundred channels, thought "Well, that's nice," and went back to my iPod. As is in evidence by this site, if nothing else, I'm a control freak. I don't want somebody else telling me what to listen to.
I also wonder about these studies showing that people only have a hundred songs they listen to. Can this be accurate? I have 4500+ songs on my iPod at any given time (out of the 8000+ I have ripped thus far), and sure, if I'm not in the mood for B. B. King or System of a Down at a particular moment, I'll hit skip. There are certain songs I listen to more than others. I sometimes get a hankering (yes, I said hankering) for a particular artist or genre. But for the most part, I'm content to sit back and let my own personal radio station, WIDG, do its thing. If somebody only has a hundred songs in their listening queue, that's sad. But if you've got a wide array of listening options, Shuffle Songs is a wonderful thing.
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
No offense, but you're not the best standard when it comes to music. Your tastes are wide and eclectic. Most people's musical experience has been limited by Clear Channel and MTV, so they rarely stray from the corporate path. May pay radio can fix that since it's not so tightly bound to the lowest common denominator.
Why in the world would be offended by being told I have a wide variety of tastes? And how in the world would somebody with no taste wind up at this site? Well, the Star Wars fans show up to give me shit, but BESIDES that reason, I mean.
I meant about saying you're not a good standard. But I think the 100 songs is close to the mark.
Okay, fine. I'd like anybody who only likes 100 songs to come and comment and tell me why.
I might not have more than 100 songs on my computer at the moment. I have limited disk space and many programs that take up gobs of it. Yes, most of my listening happens at the office. I keep enough around so that when Doc and I get a hankering we have a decent selection to choose from.
I don't pay for services either though. I listen to RadioParadise. They have a selection that is wide and eclectic and they constantly mix things up. They are also a great way for me to discover new artists that I otherwise would never have heard. Morcheeba comes to mind right off the top of the noggin.
So, in a sense, I let them dictate what I listen to. But that's because they're taste runs so close to mine that there really isn't too much to complain about and sooo much to like. Sure they occasionally toss in a Steely Dan track that sends me running for My Music but nothing is perfect.
There's my nickel.
Morph: Thanks for the comment. I guess I should have been more specific. My incredulity isn't with somebody who only has 100 songs because they have limited disk space or because they're getting their music fix through other means…I'm more concerned with who in the hell only listens to 100 songs…period. The way I'm interpreting the stories I've read is that for a lot of people, for example, 60GB of iPod space is total overkill, at least as far as music goes. Reason being is that there's only about 100 songs maximum that most people want to listen to. THAT's the thing that both boggles and yahtzees my mind–that somebody could have that limited a musical horizon.