Ok, I’ve had some time to digest all the inane, irrelevant rhetoric that’s come out of the annual CRS seminars, the post-Grammy "million and one excuses" that assorted radio broadcasters organizations and record labels have had in regard to their response, (or should I say lack of), to the mega-success of the "O Brother, Where Art Thou" soundtrack, and various discussions from the annual SouthxSouthwest gathering.

Anyone got Tums? A truckload worth might do it.

First up- the CRS (Country Radio Seminar). Exactly what is the CRS, except an excuse for a few days of escape from the daily routine, for the people in attendance? They hold their "panel discussions"- long winded diatribes on nothing much that seriously addresses the issues, and that at best, might result in a little bickering among themselves. Ah yes, there’s the artist showcases- where extremely rude DJs and other assorted radio executives talk amongst themselves- LOUDLY- and continue to do so, WHILE the artists are TRYING to perform, virtually ignoring them.

Has anything constructive ever come out of this annual multi-million dollar schmoozefest?? Nope!! Just when you think these people can’t get any more ridiculous, they find a way to top themselves.

Case in point, at a seminar for country music broadcasters, a research study was presented. Country Radio Broadcasters, Inc., in conjunction with the CMA, commissioned Edison Media Research to conduct a poll which was carried out by political pollsters, Alan Secrest and Linda DiVall. They polled 1009 current or prospective country listeners or country music buyers during the period Feb. 2-4, 2002. Some of the results? This poll found that 68% of those polled found what was being played on country radio "favorable," 9% found it "unfavorable," while 37% found it "very favorable."

The flaws here are downright obscene- and someone actually had the audacity to seriously present this as a "research study"?! First point of contention, this "study" was commissioned by 2 parties with vested interests- not by an unbiased outside party. Next up- POLITICAL pollsters??!! Yes indeed folks, now there’s a bunch that can manipulate data in their sleep, a very trustworthy group if ever there was one. Then we have that pesky "1009 people polled." I have a very serious problem here. There are over 2,000 country radio stations across the country, so this sampling doesn’t count for even ONE listener per station or even market. And let’s not forget, NYC, one of the largest markets in the country, has been without a country station for nearly 6 years now. And sometime this month, the country station in Jersey, that was able to service parts of the NY metro area, announced it was changing to a Latino format. So that counts for minimally, at least a MILLION untapped Arbitron listeners right there.

Now, onto the second half of that "1009 people" problem. "Current or prospective listeners." What IS a "PROSPECTIVE" listener or buyer, and why would they be included in such a "study"? "Prospective" means "possible" or "maybe", which means they don’t currently listen or buy, so how could they possibly be able to give an opinion on whether or not they find the current country format "favorable" or not? And just how many of those polled were merely "prospective" listeners? Now here’s the BIG question- where’s the representation of FORMER listeners and buyers, that simply walked away, thoroughly disgusted at what radio and the major labels have been churning out over the past several years, to gage just how much of it’s audience was LOST? Of course, radio and the country music industry, will now take these numbers, (those oh so dubious 1009 listeners), and translate that "68% of 1009 people" who found the current formats "favorable," into "68% of the ACTUAL country audience," which in REAL life, numbers in the MILLIONS.

The industry’s reaction to "O Brother"? Oh brother!! I have to admit though, the stuttering, stammering, and bumbling from within the industry has been nothing short of...well, some very amusing entertainment, anyway. I’ve run across comments from Lon Helton where he stated to the effect, that the average person that bought "O Brother" was not really the "country audience," but rather the crowd that sits around eating bean sprouts and listens to Allison Krauss CDs. Well, Lon, last time I heard, Allison was indeed a country artist- least that’s where her CDs are filed in the record stores (hmmm...then again- so are Shania Twain’s and Faith Hill’s...yikes!!). However, that’s what her music sure sounds like to me, and to an awful lot of other country music listeners. So therefore, it IS indeed the "country audience" that listens to her. Only it’s that big chunk of audience that gave up in disgust, and walked away from radio and mainstream country years ago. Yoo-hoo, hello!! Here we are...WAY over HERE!!

Then there was the story I heard from an acquaintance the morning after the Grammys. The DJs were blasting Dolly Parton’s win for female vocalist. They said it wasn’t fair, because her song wasn’t even country- it was bluegrass!! It just goes to prove how far the country industry has sunk, when the very people that work in it, don’t even know the SIMPLE FACT- that bluegrass IS indeed country music!! But then, I could see how they might have gotten easily confused. After all, DRUMS weren’t the predominate instrument heard in this music...

One of the funniest things yet, was an article I recently read where the writer was actually trying to say that O Brother’s Grammy wins (and ultimately it’s success) was due to music critics’ swaying opinion for their own agenda- and in bold face print stated "THIS WAS NOT THE PUBLIC’S OPINION." I suppose then, it was 5 million "music critics" that went out and BOUGHT the CD?? It couldn’t possibly be that people were simply thrilled with hearing some REAL music for a change- that there was some that actually still existed, and wasn’t some "pre-fab" pretty boy/girl act, singing some gooey, overly sentimental, meaningless, slobbering song that doesn’t sound any different from the next one, and who doesn’t really care what genre of music they sing- just as long as they get to sing something. Nah, couldn’t be, then the music industry would have to admit they were...gulp, WRONG!!

Then there was the one about why radio wouldn’t play "Man Of Constant Sorrow." They claimed it tested poorly. People didn’t think it fit in with the rest of the music the station played. Well, DUH!! Of course it didn’t!! It stuck out like a sore thumb, because radio doesn’t play anything else remotely like it in their "all pop-country, all the time," format. Heck, if they played George Strait’s "All My Exes Live In Texas" today- that would stick out like a sore thumb too. On the other hand, if they were still playing a WIDE variety of country music, such as the aforementioned Strait song, along with say, Merle Haggard’s remake of "If You’ve Got The Money"- then "Man Of Constant Sorrow" would have slid nicely, right into rotation, and not have stuck out.

Then we get the lame "explanations." Like pressure from advertisers. Country music radio stations are targeting the over 30 female, and women are very family oriented and don’t want to hear music that’s not "family friendly", or in any way "negative." So no cheatin’, drinkin’, lyin’ or prison songs- only the "happily ever after" schmaltz, or upbeat meaningless, bubblegum ear candy. This was "determined" by Arbitron, (advertiser, Proctor & Gamble, and their product Crest WhiteStrips, being used as an example), who claim that women make the majority of the decisions as to where a family’s money is spent, and that’s who they wanted the music geared towards. And in the trickle down effect, that’s the type of music the major labels have been churning out.

I’ve got a few problems with this one. First of all, I happen to be female, and I happen to love "cheatin’, drinkin’, lyin’, and prison" songs. Always have, always will. I happen to be old enough and mature enough, to realize life isn’t always "happily ever after." And while I enjoy a good "fun"- and even downright silly song every now and then, I want songs that speak to me. I want to be able to differentiate between songs and artists, I don’t want them all sounding the same, and looking the same, so much so that it’s mindnumbing, and is reduced to mere sterile Muzak performed by a bunch of half dressed mannequins. I certainly don’t like 99% of what mainstream’s been churning out these past several years, and I personally don’t know one other female that does either.

Secondly, what century are these people living in? I see just as many, if not more, men doing the shopping, carpooling the kids, and sharing household chores. And in most households these days- money matters are decided equally by BOTH heads of the household. So therefore "Dad" is as likely to be choosing the brand of toothpaste or soda being bought, as any "Mom."

Then after a moment of thinking about it, this isn’t even the type of advertising heard on radio to begin with. I hear commercials for Napa Auto Stores, car dealerships, beer, maybe an occasional dept. store, Scotts grass seeds and fertilizers, a Burger King ad every now and then. But beer? Auto parts? Lawn care? Not exactly the type of ads I’d consider geared towards women- so let’s get out the shovels and bury this one.

Then we have the latest dilly, from those good folks at that monopoly called Clear Channel. Randy Michaels, the CEO of Clear Channel, recently made the following statement: "I think that putting stations in the hands of people who are committed to public service and who are top broadcasters is good for the public." He then goes on to say that before the age of mega-conglomerate radio, half the stations were owned by people who played what they liked, as opposed to serving the public, and playing what their audience wanted to hear.

Come on now Randy!! These were DJs  at one of YOUR stations who griped about bluegrass not being country!! They don’t know the first thing about the genre, otherwise they would have known it indeed IS. When was the last time one of your stations played a listener request- one not on your 20 song playlist? The "mom & pop" station owners, as you referred to them as, weren’t playing what THEY liked, they were playing what their LISTENERS liked- and that happens to vary from market to market- not the "one size fits all" formats your company force feeds the entire country, regardless of demographics or regional tastes!! So now, WHO are the ones committed to public service again?

The RIAA has just released a report showing the biggest gains in music sales are in the over 45 group. In 1991, this group accounted for 11.8% of sales. In 2000, this group accounted for 23.8% of sales- doubling in the past decade. The greatest majority of music buyers are over 30. They also found that this group does not make their purchases from music they hear on the radio, as very little of it appeals to them, but rather, do a lot of legwork to find what they like on their own. Satellite radio subscriptions have far exceeded initial projections, and will continue to do so as the prices of the equipment drop, because people can program the music THEY really want to hear, and not that of someone telling them what they "want" to hear.

So to sum things up, let’s stop the game playing. The music listening and buying public are far more intelligent than they are given credit for. There may be a few that are buying the rhetoric and lame excuses they’re being fed, but not many. The majority are too smart for that, and have spoken. Falling music sales and radio listenership have already proved that. We know what we like and want to hear, and what we don’t. Since we’re not getting it from the mainstream- radio and major labels- we’re out hunting it down on our own.

Stop telling us what we "want" to hear, because we don’t! Stop trying to speak for the majority, when you’re only getting feedback from a micro-minuscule MINORITY! Stop trying to turn country music into something it’s not! Accept the fact that it’s a "niche" market, and those that listen to it, love it, and are fiercely loyal to it. It will never appeal to the mass market anymore than jazz, classical, or blues. People either love it or they don’t, and it’s high time the industry started refocusing on those who DO, instead of chasing after people that never will. While you’re at it, how about some DJs that actually know the difference between Alan Jackson and Michael Jackson?

The mega-conglomerates removed the listener from the equation. At least they think they did. However, ultimately, it is still the audience that will make or break a song or artist- and we seem to be flexing our muscle, although they don’t seem to have caught on yet. Seems to me, gold and platinum albums are getting mighty few and far between these days...and because listenership has dropped, so has radio’s ad revenue. Not very good business practice, if you ask me.

I believe Waylon Jennings said it best, when he said, "Since when does some guy with a degree in business, know more about music than me?" Waylon’s words speak for us too. We’re not a bunch of numbers on a graph, chart, or in some report. Music reflects people’s emotions, and no amount of "numbers" is going to change that. The music industry may be a business, but not one in any conventional sense, and cannot be run as such. The sooner the "guy with the degree in business" realizes that, the sooner we can all get back to the "business" of MUSIC- and not just one flavor- but ALL of them!!