|
Post by wiz on Aug 21, 2017 16:04:40 GMT -6
To the OP. not much. I have a pet theory. I think that the middlemen, Spotify Apple YouTube etc blah blah will always have new music to sell. even if artist's can't make music for a living wage, they will still make music. A lot of creative people don't really have a choice in the matter. They make art because they HAVE to for their personal meaning in life and enjoyment. That's why I am involved in music. I have never been delusional enough to think getting involved in the industry would be a wise financial decision. If you can scratch together a living doing whatever it is you love, then you are winning big time. Even if you can't make a living doing what you love, but find a way to do it anyhow, you are still winning. . Even John Lennon was disgruntled about the percentages. In his last television interview he expressed animosity towards the industry saying that the Beatles didn't even see a lot of the money they were bringing in. It was siphoned off before they even knew it was there. Granted what they were left with was still a living wage (lol), but greed and people taking advantage of one another is absolutely nothing new. Man, I love this. Quitting music has never been an option. This is something I HAVE to do. There is no choice. I don't make my living in music. There was a time when I did, and I did not make much money. I was barely getting by. I chose to pursue a different path. Now I make a good living still doing (educational) audio/video production work, just not music production. I earned my Masters degree from Ohio State where I studied and researched the diffusion of new music through online social networks. I literally researched how young people learn about and consume new music. Generally, people find out about new bands from their friends. It's a word of mouth world. There are still those who are into music, that go out and seek new music, buy records, see shows, etc. Then they recommend stuff to their friends, etc. But, the way young people consume music is different. It's Spotify and YouTube for most. Those that do buy tend to purchase singles the majority of the time. There are no absolutes, either. When someone speaks in absolutes (all, none, etc.), they are full of it. Also, and this is anecdotal, but there is TONS of good (IMO) new music to be heard. The rate of new discovery for me is at an all time high. And I don't even try that hard to seek. But that's the thing. The old methods of distribution/discovery are largely done. New music doesn't come to you anymore. You must seek it out, or have an opinion leader in your social network. Guys that go around saying new music sucks and largely base their opinion on what they hear coming from the old channels of distribution (top 40 stuff), either aren't seeking, or have no opinion leaders in their network. Their worldview is narrow and affirmed by everyones same outlook, a giant circlejerk. And someone is recording all that new music. The guy on here that's going around saying that all kids wanna hear is dance music, (and if you're not playing dance music, then you will not be successful) has a narrow world view. I'm not saying it's an invalid world view. His experience and social influence has shaped this view. But it's a skewed reality. I can't comment on the financial stability of engineering full time. I tried it for a short while, and wanted more. I wanted to buy gear. I wanted to own a house. I wanted to have children. I wanted decent health care. I could have made more serving ice cream down at the Dairy Queen. So I opted for a different route. I do second guess my decision some times, because there is never enough time for music. And I see guys on here that are successful and makes me wonder if I should have stuck with it longer, or moved to a different city. But I'm 38 now. And I have two young kids who I couldn't imagine my world without. So, there can be no regrets, because regrets would mean a world without them. I've played through the scenario where I quit my day job and open my own studio. For starters, I'd probably be looking at a $30K-$40K pay cut, no 401K and no paid time off. We'd have to move because we wouldn't be able to afford our house. The school district for my kids wouldn't be nearly as good. I'd probably have to give up a lot of time spent with my girls, because typically bands need to record nights/weekends. I probably wouldn't be able to afford nice gear anymore. I'd have to compete with a half dozen or so other nice studios in this area, and deal with the typical band un-pleasantries we've all dealt with before. And then there's the startup costs. I'd have to find a space and renovate it to studio spec. Probably have to sell my gear off to afford it. Then, I'd have to be out on the scene late nights trying to meet some new people. And there is no guarantee any of this would work. It sounds exhausting. I think it's a young mans game. I think my time for this pursuit has passed. I should have packed up and moved when I was twenty. But on the upside, I can afford nice gear now. I can afford to build a pretty great studio space. I am a musician. I am an engineer. I can choose to work on my own music (a la wiz, ragan, Johnkenn, etc.). And I could (and have) taken on other band projects from time to time. This thread has evolved into a few different areas, which is super cool, and all relevant, though there have been some darker turns by a couple of negative nancy posters. My post is probably more introspective than I intended, but I started the thread with a question, and these are my evolving thoughts. Plus, it helps the soul to lay it out there from time to time. Great post. cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Aug 21, 2017 19:59:04 GMT -6
If you think the money is bad in the music engineering biz just try the ultra low/zero budget indie film making business! (I also work occasionally as a gaffer and location sound recordist and shoot some video) Although the driving motive for most budding film makers is getting their work noticed and then being hired to work on productions with real budgets, the contemporary film making business has also followed a similar path to the recording industry with the cost of technology plummeting since film was replaced by digital video which means more players are all now competing for attention. The biggest cost inhibitor in film making these days is labor especially on a several week shoot. Serious budding film makers will do almost anything to get their dream on the screen which means recruiting anyone they can find especiallly those with gear, cameras, lighting, location sound gear etc. Most of the money raised to make indie films generally goes towards pro gear rental rather than paying wages. If you thought the recording business was sometimes a labor of love then try the indie film business!! Shooting a music video in the Yarra Valley a couple of years ago. I'm the ugly SOB holding the light stand on the right. My lighting setup during another music video shoot at Kindred Studios in Melbourne.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 21, 2017 20:12:43 GMT -6
If you think the money is bad in the music engineering biz just try the ultra low/zero budget indie film making business! Oh yeah. I was on an NC film commission call list for years, only calls I got were essentially for volunteers.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Aug 21, 2017 20:28:11 GMT -6
If you think the money is bad in the music engineering biz just try the ultra low/zero budget indie film making business! Oh yeah. I was on an NC film commission call list for years, only calls I got were essentially for volunteers. Film making can really get in your blood. I did FREElance work for a small production company for a while. I got called because I had some lighting and audio gear and when I did I knew it was becomes there was little or no budget. When there was a budget I didn't get called because some guy with half a million bucks worth of gear, a truck and crew would get hired instead. I'm planning on a couple of my own film projects next year.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,918
|
Post by ericn on Aug 22, 2017 6:57:02 GMT -6
In many ways the low cost of entry and the acceptance of a low budget aesthetic the world of film mirrors music, accept that TV film has developed some reasonably successful on demand premium pay models that have expanded top tier production and product!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 22, 2017 9:28:40 GMT -6
Putting anything in front of a camera or microphone that people are willing to pay for has always been far more expensive than a crew of professionals. There's a lot of false "build it and they'll come"/field of dreams narrative BS floating about. Getting a real film financed has always been a five to ten year process.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 22, 2017 15:53:01 GMT -6
The guy on here that's going around saying that all kids wanna hear is dance music, (and if you're not playing dance music, then you will not be successful) has a narrow world view. I'm not saying it's an invalid world view. His experience and social influence has shaped this view. But it's a skewed reality. No. First, I never said that ALL they want to hear is dance music. What is said is that the key to commercial success with kids is music they can dance to. There's an awful lot of different kinds of music they (or anyone*) can dance to. Kids like to dance, or at least the more socially oriented kids do. They always have and they always will. The music and the dance change with the years, decades, and centuries but the element of dance is part of youth. There has recently been noticed a trend that kids may be becoming less social. I find that trend, if it's true, quite alarming. This article goes into that: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/?utm_source=hpfbIf true, that has a bearing on music consumption, but there are many other ramifications, almost none of them good. What I find most concerning is that this may indicate the advent of a pandemic technologically induced mental illness or social dysfunction among our young. * - anyone except me, that is. Damned arthritis. Spare tire doesn't help, either...
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Sept 9, 2017 23:47:47 GMT -6
My musical interests changed--coincidentally--at about the time this world went away. The huge number of clubs was based in part on the fact that we were involved in a very large war. All of those soldiers and sailors needed a place to kick back for a little while, and a club with a live band was just the ticket. The war ended, thank goodness, but the club scene dried up and was replaced by a guy with a turntable. Sorry to keep harping on this, but those soldiers and sailors went to the clubs LOOKING FOR CHICKS, The chicks were there to dance. When rock music lapsed into self-indulgent virtuosity the chicks went away. Nobody wants to see wannabe Yngwie showing off how fast he is except other wannabe Yngwies. Nobody wants to hear some prog band display their knowledge of esoteric modes in some time signature that you'd have to be a be-bop drummer to count. An hour's worth of live music. Right. That brings me to the other big problem - musicians who don't want to play, who think that one set a night is enough. Which goes hand in hand with idiots who think that they're big stars who deserve to get paid for playing a handful of mediocre originals. You need to play a night's worth of music, not one set. When it's active, my country band does one set of originals, about 45 minutes to an hour's worth, maybe a bit more. But we intersperse those originals among another 2 or 3 sets worth of "country classics". The people aren't really there to hear our originals, except maybe for a couple of friends. The people are there to dance to mostly familiar sounding country tunes. I regard it as high praise when taking a break after doing a set of half original material somebody comes up to mke and asks if we do any originals. If they can't tell the difference between my stuff and songs by Merle, Buck, Willie and George then I must be doing something right! The other point is that I only cover tunes that speak to me personally. If I can't be emotionally invested in the tune in some way I won't do it. One of the things that keeps country a viable tradition is that everybody has always done material by other people. Even a guy like Willie Nelson does covers, and he could fill a couple of night with his own material. I'd love to get paid for just doing one set of originals (with a couple of favorite covers thrown in) - but at any given time the repertoire is FOUR SETS. Something I've started running into that really pisses me off is musicians who think they're too good to rehearse. Hey, even if you do happen to know all the tunes (which you don't), you need to know the arrangements. You have to learn the cues. I don't care how many jam sessions you do a week. John, you've given me a lot to think about here and I suspect you are on to something. What you are saying fits with how I see things. Doesn't make me right, but I track with what you are getting at here.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 10, 2017 7:48:26 GMT -6
What makes people great is the combination of talent and experience. There has always been plenty of talented people but there are very few experienced people and that has resulted in very few experienced listeners. There's a whole lot more to music than recordings just like there's a whole lot more to sports than video games.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Sept 10, 2017 9:08:32 GMT -6
OK, I'll play a little devil's advocate.. Greatness is a subjective term. There's a lot more to music than performance experience. In the"classical" world of music, composers traditionally write what they want to hear - then it is realized by the ensemble/artist/orchestra, etc. Pencil and paper was the technology that enabled this, and technology has and will continue to stretch the boundaries of music. Of course, you can argue that there's a down-side to this. Most of what people think of as great music has turned into performance art. The show is often much more important than the composition. Take away the stage theatrics, light shows, videos, and 90% of the time you end up with a half dozen chords with sing-along melodies and insipid lyrics. However, it would be wrong to be judgmental about these musicians. Today, "Greatness" is mostly driven by what the larger public craves. You can't blame musicians for the state of music any more than you can blame politicians for the state of politics. Ultimately, it comes down to the knowledgeability and proclivities of consumers. The blame lies with the people who give them the stage.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 10, 2017 11:06:23 GMT -6
Most of today's shows suck! I blame the demise of live venues.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 10, 2017 12:22:45 GMT -6
OK, I'll play a little devil's advocate.. Greatness is a subjective term. There's a lot more to music than performance experience. In the"classical" world of music, composers traditionally write what they want to hear - then it is realized by the ensemble/artist/orchestra, etc. Pencil and paper was the technology that enabled this, and technology has and will continue to stretch the boundaries of music. Of course, you can argue that there's a down-side to this. Most of what people think of as great music has turned into performance art. The show is often much more important than the composition. Take away the stage theatrics, light shows, videos, and 90% of the time you end up with a half dozen chords with sing-along melodies and insipid lyrics. However, it would be wrong to be judgmental about these musicians. Today, "Greatness" is mostly driven by what the larger public craves. You can't blame musicians for the state of music any more than you can blame politicians for the state of politics. Ultimately, it comes down to the knowledgeability and proclivities of consumers. The blame lies with the people who give them the stage. No. Greatness, for the most part, is art that passes the test of time, or (since often great works do become lost) at least evokes a strong emotional or intellectual (for a given value of "intellectual - I don't mean "highbrow") response from a significant percentage of the audience. That doesn't mean complexity - often simplicity can be quite profound whereas technically complex works may leave the audience cold. What the larger public craves on an immediate, popular level is all too often mediocrity and familiarity. Hence all the "me too" material on the charts. Also, sometimes greatness is not immediately recognized and only becomes apparent after a bit of time has passed. (But, of course, sometimes it is....) A glitzy performance may draw a large immediate audience, but that doesn't make it "great", it's just entertaining at the time. That doesn't preclude that the music might be great, but usually not, and it'll be nearly forgotten in a few short years. And sometimes the glitzy performance may actually be a distraction from the greatness of the art.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 10, 2017 12:28:28 GMT -6
Most of today's shows suck! I blame the demise of live venues. That and the lack of financial support for anything that doesn't look like it'll turn an immediate profit to the bean counters and ad men who are presently in control of the means of distribution and promotion. I understand that all of Bob Dylan's seminal early albums (before the motorcycle accident) lost money for CBS but they kept him on and promoted him because having him on the label attracted many more profitable acts. You won't see that these days. In fact you won't see any Bob Dylans getting signed at all...
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 10, 2017 13:31:31 GMT -6
The good news is that there is a hell of an opportunity for creating new venues.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Sept 10, 2017 15:22:04 GMT -6
OK, I'll play a little devil's advocate.. Greatness is a subjective term. There's a lot more to music than performance experience. In the"classical" world of music, composers traditionally write what they want to hear - then it is realized by the ensemble/artist/orchestra, etc. Pencil and paper was the technology that enabled this, and technology has and will continue to stretch the boundaries of music. Of course, you can argue that there's a down-side to this. Most of what people think of as great music has turned into performance art. The show is often much more important than the composition. Take away the stage theatrics, light shows, videos, and 90% of the time you end up with a half dozen chords with sing-along melodies and insipid lyrics. However, it would be wrong to be judgmental about these musicians. Today, "Greatness" is mostly driven by what the larger public craves. You can't blame musicians for the state of music any more than you can blame politicians for the state of politics. Ultimately, it comes down to the knowledgeability and proclivities of consumers. The blame lies with the people who give them the stage. No. Greatness, for the most part, is art that passes the test of time, or (since often great works do become lost) at least evokes a strong emotional or intellectual (for a given value of "intellectual - I don't mean "highbrow") response from a significant percentage of the audience. That doesn't mean complexity - often simplicity can be quite profound whereas technically complex works may leave the audience cold. What the larger public craves on an immediate, popular level is all too often mediocrity and familiarity. Hence all the "me too" material on the charts. Also, sometimes greatness is not immediately recognized and only becomes apparent after a bit of time has passed. (But, of course, sometimes it is....) A glitzy performance may draw a large immediate audience, but that doesn't make it "great", it's just entertaining at the time. That doesn't preclude that the music might be great, but usually not, and it'll be nearly forgotten in a few short years. And sometimes the glitzy performance may actually be a distraction from the greatness of the art. I don't disagree with you. In fact, I agree with you pretty strongly ..except the "No" part. Our points are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Sept 10, 2017 18:34:38 GMT -6
The good news is that there is a hell of an opportunity for creating new venues. I watch "1000 cap" rooms come and go like new artists. It takes a ton of money to build a good venue and if you're in a secondary market it will take almost a decade or more to make it back. If you're in an "A market" you are competing with large corporate interests like AEG/Live Nation and landlords with large massive real estate holdings. And if you're running a "small venue" you are working around the clock to make the same pay as someone with a mid level corporate job. And in secondary markets there isn't room for more than one player. You need every pro tour that comes through town to be able to pay the bills, and then that has to be supplemented with corporate events, benefits, and weddings.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Sept 10, 2017 19:37:22 GMT -6
Most of today's shows suck! I blame the demise of live venues. That and the lack of financial support for anything that doesn't look like it'll turn an immediate profit to the bean counters and ad men who are presently in control of the means of distribution and promotion. I understand that all of Bob Dylan's seminal early albums (before the motorcycle accident) lost money for CBS but they kept him on and promoted him because having him on the label attracted many more profitable acts. You won't see that these days. In fact you won't see any Bob Dylans getting signed at all... I'll second the notion about CBS Columbia Records' philosophy of long term developement of their artist roster in the 60's-70's. They signed their artists to long term deals and expected to develope an artist's talent and experience over that period. Blue Oyster Cult's first album in 1972 sold about 100k over the first year, but that was enough to do the second, and then the third, which stairstepped up in sales even in the absence of an AM radio hit. Our first gold record was the forth one, a live album, and the first platinum was the fifth, the one with the Reaper on it. Of course we were doing our part, touring relentlessly and promoting ourselves as we could. But if Columbia could never quite figure out how to market us, they certainly could deliver the product to retail when we finally hit. And I'm grateful to the label's then-philosophy of maintaining a long term relationship with the artists. One thing, Columbia never lost money on 100k sales. They recouped their expenses for recording and advances and promotion with those numbers. I would bet they did with the early Dylan records too. But the artist didn't recoup those expenses, for which they were charged every penny and then some. The label made more per disk than the artist did.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 10, 2017 20:13:04 GMT -6
I'm talking about much smaller venues.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,918
|
Post by ericn on Sept 10, 2017 20:40:33 GMT -6
Let's not forget with the age of the Internet and demise of college radio, college booking as become a very specific niche market where the bookers seam to do very well and the acts while busy live hand to mouth!
|
|
|
Post by donr on Sept 10, 2017 20:58:23 GMT -6
Let's not forget with the age of the Internet and demise of college radio, college booking as become a very specific niche market where the bookers seam to do very well and the acts while busy live hand to mouth! Did college radio die? Streaming with a www. address would make college radio stations viable now that nobody has FM radios anymore. The school connection would imply a captive audience for curated playlists by people with their ear to the ground, or at least gullible to indy promo efforts. I dunno, did college radio succumb to Social Justice, like free speech?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,918
|
Post by ericn on Sept 10, 2017 21:22:01 GMT -6
Let's not forget with the age of the Internet and demise of college radio, college booking as become a very specific niche market where the bookers seam to do very well and the acts while busy live hand to mouth! Did college radio die? Streaming with a www. address would make college radio stations viable now that nobody has FM radios anymore. The school connection would imply a captive audience for curated playlists by people with their ear to the ground, or at least gullible to indy promo efforts. I dunno, did college radio succumb to Social Justice, like free speech? To easy to simply pick an Apple stream, advantage of college radio was you had a pretty good signal on campus now everybody has a clear signal! The thing was small local promoters and College radio needed each other, now more and more campus entertainment is booked by the schools, the schools don't take risks just bring back who ever did well for the last couple of years. As much as most of what was played on College radio sucked if you were sober, the symbiotic relationship with local promoters meant there was always something new not anymore!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 10, 2017 23:35:57 GMT -6
No. Greatness, for the most part, is art that passes the test of time, or (since often great works do become lost) at least evokes a strong emotional or intellectual (for a given value of "intellectual - I don't mean "highbrow") response from a significant percentage of the audience. That doesn't mean complexity - often simplicity can be quite profound whereas technically complex works may leave the audience cold. What the larger public craves on an immediate, popular level is all too often mediocrity and familiarity. Hence all the "me too" material on the charts. Also, sometimes greatness is not immediately recognized and only becomes apparent after a bit of time has passed. (But, of course, sometimes it is....) A glitzy performance may draw a large immediate audience, but that doesn't make it "great", it's just entertaining at the time. That doesn't preclude that the music might be great, but usually not, and it'll be nearly forgotten in a few short years. And sometimes the glitzy performance may actually be a distraction from the greatness of the art. I don't disagree with you. In fact, I agree with you pretty strongly ..except the "No" part. Our points are not mutually exclusive. The "No" was directed at the statement that these days greatness is primarily what the public craves. That's not greatness, it's popularity. They're not at all the same thing, although the general public often confuses the two. Greatness tends to last, even grown with time. Popularity, by itself, seldom does. However the two are not always mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Sept 10, 2017 23:43:58 GMT -6
Let's not forget with the age of the Internet and demise of college radio, college booking as become a very specific niche market where the bookers seam to do very well and the acts while busy live hand to mouth! Did college radio die? Streaming with a www. address would make college radio stations viable now that nobody has FM radios anymore. I get the idea from the little bit of college radio around here that they are considering shuttering, because the kids have no interest in DJ'ing, it's just older volunteers keeping it alive, thus there is no student mission. Sounds dead to me.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 11, 2017 0:02:40 GMT -6
Let's not forget with the age of the Internet and demise of college radio, college booking as become a very specific niche market where the bookers seam to do very well and the acts while busy live hand to mouth! Did college radio die? Streaming with a www. address would make college radio stations viable now that nobody has FM radios anymore. The school connection would imply a captive audience for curated playlists by people with their ear to the ground, or at least gullible to indy promo efforts. I dunno, did college radio succumb to Social Justice, like free speech? The problem with college radio now is that it's extremely difficult to sell local advertising or raise other financial backing for a "station" that exists only as a streaming website. For some years before being forced out of SF by the insane rents and other inflation I had an affiliation with "KUSF-In-Exile" the streaming presence that was/is all all that remains of the once proud college radio station KUSF, formerly attached to University of California San Francisco before the college sold the bandwidth out from under them in a back room deal. My association was primarily related to putting on Music Bar Trivia benefit shows to attempt to cover expenses and hopefully raise some support for their lawsuit to nullify the (somewhat questionable) sale. The money taken in was pretty pitiful. As I understand it, if they had been taking in any remotely reasonable amount in advertising they would not have had to resort to bar trivia and the occasional benefit at a small bar. I also understand that their audience on the internet was nowhere remotely close to what their audience had been over the air. You can't listen to internet streams on your car radio, at least not like you can broadcast. Maybe now that new cars are coming equipped with audio USB jacks it will get better, but how many college kids and alternative/underground music fans can a afford a new car for the USB audio? And it's still doubtful that even this will bring the advertising back. The thing is that it takes PROMOTION (and lots of it) to attract ears on the internet, and that kind of promotion is expensive. College/community radio is functionally dead. When a tree falls in the forest with nobody to hear does it make a sound? The answer is that yes, it does, but it really doesn't matter.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,918
|
Post by ericn on Sept 11, 2017 7:18:40 GMT -6
Did college radio die? Streaming with a www. address would make college radio stations viable now that nobody has FM radios anymore. The school connection would imply a captive audience for curated playlists by people with their ear to the ground, or at least gullible to indy promo efforts. I dunno, did college radio succumb to Social Justice, like free speech? The problem with college radio now is that it's extremely difficult to sell local advertising or raise other financial backing for a "station" that exists only as a streaming website. For some years before being forced out of SF by the insane rents and other inflation I had an affiliation with "KUSF-In-Exile" the streaming presence that was/is all all that remains of the once proud college radio station KUSF, formerly attached to University of California San Francisco before the college sold the bandwidth out from under them in a back room deal. My association was primarily related to putting on Music Bar Trivia benefit shows to attempt to cover expenses and hopefully raise some support for their lawsuit to nullify the (somewhat questionable) sale. The money taken in was pretty pitiful. As I understand it, if they had been taking in any remotely reasonable amount in advertising they would not have had to resort to bar trivia and the occasional benefit at a small bar. I also understand that their audience on the internet was nowhere remotely close to what their audience had been over the air. You can't listen to internet streams on your car radio, at least not like you can broadcast. Maybe now that new cars are coming equipped with audio USB jacks it will get better, but how many college kids and alternative/underground music fans can a afford a new car for the USB audio? And it's still doubtful that even this will bring the advertising back. The thing is that it takes PROMOTION (and lots of it) to attract ears on the internet, and that kind of promotion is expensive. College/community radio is functionally dead. When a tree falls in the forest with nobody to hear does it make a sound? The answer is that yes, it does, but it really doesn't matter. In KC UMKC radio is now NPR & the little station out of Mid Missouri is now Lic. To the PBS station format is progressive but nothing like the 80's! Both are in fund drive mode right now!
|
|