Talk:Payola
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Huh?
This article states:
- Because of this, a very large majority of DJs are cut out of the song-picking decisions and are instead told what to play and when (for the most part) by music directors and/or "higher ups" at their radio stations.
I don't know where this writer has been for the past three decades. Bill Drake was telling the jocks what to play and when in the late '60s! Back then, the talent was given a paper log or card file of titles to play; today it is all done by computer based on the latest focus-group research. Only in college radio and a very few surviving (mostly non-commercial) "freeform" stations do the jocks have any say in the music. (Of course, the MD often pulls down a jock shift as well.) 121a0012 02:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- That statement doesn't imply that there is anything new about the situation, so I don't see any problem with it as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.151.205.13 (talk • contribs) .
- The statement implies that "promotion payments" (the referent of "this", in the previous paragraph) are the proximate cause of jocks not picking the songs, which is flat-out false. If I had a good verifiable source (rather than simply knowing how the business works) I'd replace that statement with an explanation of why this is a common misconception. (The RCS Web site used to have an explanation, but I can't find it any more.) 121a0012 01:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merger would be wrong
Pay to play is a distinct term from payola. Payola means paying for radio play, pay to play refers to paying for playing a live show.
Payola is also known as 'pay for play', but 'pay to play' is having to pay for playing a live gig. Agreed that merger would be a bad idea
[edit] Foo
Payola leads to smaller artists, poorer record companies and broke but talented producers being unable to get radio play. It is a shame that the same records and record companies continue to control the airwaves due to illegal payola acts! What's just as disgusting is that the airwaves are supposed to be PUBLIC owned, yet radio stations and billion dollar conglomerates continue to make money off the public airwaves while charging struggling artists money to get on the very air that the public owns. What a travesty. The FCC is sleeping on the job. Or does the FCC work for the conglomerates and not the people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.68.49 (talk • contribs) .
- I think you answered your own question there with that last one. Rummy
[edit] Dropping Globalise template
This is an article about an American business practice in the American music industry. There is nothing in here (and no necessary evidence) to suggest justification for the globalise template. I'm thus dropping it, because there is no need for it, until someone can explain otherwise. Brokenwit 04:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Payola might be in existence in other countries, but it has not received the publicity that the practice has in the US; therefore it would be really difficult to find sources for a "globalized" article. SoundStone 08:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] When?
What is the timeframe of payola? The Alan Freed article mentions the scandal as being in the 60's, but when did payola start, when did it end - if it has ended? The article does not address these questions. Kevs 04:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
