In the interest of broadening the perspective, here is an article from the NY Times on
the whole
Clear Channel list debacle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/19/arts/music/19POPL.html?ex=1001895812&ei=1&en=2e0d1
6964ae0c1ea
As much as I think Clear Channel's practices singularly symbolize the trouble with the
music biz
today, it is unfair to completely blame the corporate office for one person's zeal:
"<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param><FontFamily><param>Verdana</param>A Clear Channel
spokeswoman emphasized that the list was not a mandate or
order to radio programmers. In a statement, the company said the list came not
from the corporate offices but from 'a grass-roots effort that was apparently
circulated among program directors.'
"Others in the Clear Channel network, speaking on condition of anonymity, told a
more complicated story. They said that a smaller list of questionable songs was
originally generated by the corporate office, but an overzealous regional executive
began contributing suggestions and circulating the list via e-mail, where it
continued to grow. "<FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger>
</color><FontFamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>It would certainly be interesting to
see what the original smaller list had on it.<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>
It's also f</color>unny that the spokeswoman classified it as "grass roots"...
Brenda
n.p.: Starsailor - "Good Souls"
On 19 Sep 2001, at 10:41, Janene Otten wrote:
<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> I thinking out loud and writing it down. Hope
y'all don't mind. I heard that
> most Clear Channel station DJ's are ignoring the request. Thank goodness for
> that. My company is now owned by Clear Channel and no matter how you slice
> it, one corporation owning over a thousand stations is NOT a good thing for
> radio. Even if one company owned 100 stations it would still be a drag. As
> soon as the words music and industry were paired we could no longer call
> music our own.
></color>
<nofill>
