Title: Robert Plant & The Band Of Joy "Satan, Your Kingdom Must Come Down" Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Feb 5, 2011 Author:Robert Plant Post Date:2011-02-05 15:36:51 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:31953 Comments:45
I've been a Zeppelin fan since the early 70's, but had no idea about this band. I just read about them on wiki.
Kind of shows you the awful state of radio, music companies that the front man of Led Zep has an acclaimed new group but even long time fans don't know it unless they actively run across it.
It seems in the age of the Internet some information gets lost? You can also blame the music companies for a poor business model and the fact that radio has been taken over by a handful of corporations so there are few independent radio stations in big markets that can bring new trends forward.
This does sound a lot like the Led Zep unplugged sessions. It seems Plant really fell for that unplugged sound and played with it since then and this new effort is the result.
Kind of shows you the awful state of radio, music companies that the front man of Led Zep has an acclaimed new group but even long time fans don't know it unless they actively run across it.
It seems in the age of the Internet some information gets lost? You can also blame the music companies for a poor business model and the fact that radio has been taken over by a handful of corporations so there are few independent radio stations in big markets that can bring new trends forward.
Wrong again. The music companies are providing what their customer base wants,hip hop/rap crap. Most music buyers are under 30,and that is the crap the under 30 buyers listen to. People with genuine musical talent are out there producing good music every day,but you have to search them out because they aren't being pushed.
There are a few like Lady GaGa that does have amazing talent,but even she has to have a gimmick to sell records. Her self-promotion talents match her musical talents,or nobody would have ever heard of her,either. Even then I have no doubt a lot of her fan appeal is based more on her costumes than on her musical ability.
Here are two female singers that are perfect examples of what I am talking about. I say "female" instead of "women" because the first one was only 14 years old when this video was recorded. How a 14 year old can look like that and put that kind of emotion into a torch song is a total mystery to me,but there it is for all to see and hear.
How freaking scary was THAT?
The second one is a young woman who is in her mid-20's.
Wrong again. The music companies are providing what their customer base wants,hip hop/rap crap. Most music buyers are under 30,and that is the crap the under 30 buyers listen to. People with genuine musical talent are out there producing good music every day,but you have to search them out because they aren't being pushed.
Are you defending the big music companies and the big radio owning companies for just supplying what the market wants?
Well, then thanks for admitting the free market is stupid and does not work.
At least in the late 60s and 70s you still had independent radio stations or radio stations that allowed disk jockeys to program their own music based on their own tastes.
Most music buyers by the way are not under 30 - they are not buying music anymore the younger yiu get thansk to the internet file sharing.
Most musicians make their music in live performances now anyways.
I have not listened to the radio - outside of news radio to get the weather - in years. When I do listen to the radio the rock stations only play the classics which I have heard a million times.
Are you defending the big music companies and the big radio owning companies for just supplying what the market wants?
Uhhhhhh,yeah. Ain't providing your customer base the function of a successful business? I realize that doesn't jib with your socialist reality where the government dictates what the people want and should be allowed to buy,but it's the way things are and should be.
Well, then thanks for admitting the free market is stupid and does not work.
Thank YOU for admitting you are incapable as understanding something this basic. Which,of course,is why you hate free markets. The idea of people running around free to make up their own minds scares the hell out of you.
At least in the late 60s and 70s you still had independent radio stations or radio stations that allowed disk jockeys to program their own music based on their own tastes.
Did you grow up in some kind of "home"? Or possibly some sort of commune or socialist country? You HAVE to be divorced from reality to think station owners allowed DJ's to play whatever they want.
Most music buyers by the way are not under 30 - they are not buying music anymore the younger yiu get thansk to the internet file sharing.
Really? So you think it is people over 30 buying shit by people like Piddly Diddly,fiddy cent,and the other losers that dominate the air waves?
The idea of people running around free to make up their own minds scares the hell out of you.
No. The free market also produces mediocrity which you yourself stated was the reason music sucked these days. Anyways, our founding fathers did not trust the masses hence we are a representative republic not a direct democracy.
No entity can own more than one AM and one FM radio station, one TV and newspaper in any given market.
That works for me,but it will have the Tan Klan and the La Raza crowd screaming bloody murder. IIRC,the way it is set up now they are guaranteed 13 radio or tv stations due to skin color,and if they don't have enough money to buy them,the government will give them the money to buy them with as a grant.
Of course,they aren't all in one market. What sense does it make to compete with yourself?
That's how a black minister ended up owning a ABC affiliate and several radio stations in the Norfolk,Va,area. One radio station,a classic rock station that was the most popular radio station in the area was turned into "the black spot on yore dial" by switching to a "urban" format and firing ALL the white station employees except for the janitor and replacing them with people who barely spoke English. The Rev-Rund/Bishop even took out a two page spread in the local paper to publish photographs (no mug shots,though) of all his new employees.
All the white DJ's and other station employees ended up finding jobs on other local stations. Some had been at that station for over 20 years before being fired for having white skin.
The same Rev-Rund/Bishop also ended up owning his own bank,thanks to federal grant money to promote minority biznez. In less than two years it was closed down because bank regulators couldn't find over 6 million dollars in customer deposits,and nobody was even charged with a crime. The federal government paid off all the depositors who had lost their money,so they had nothing to complain about.
That works for me,but it will have the Tan Klan and the La Raza crowd screaming bloody murder. IIRC,the way it is set up now they are guaranteed 13 radio or tv stations due to skin color,and if they don't have enough money to buy them,the government will give them the money to buy them with as a grant.
Man, I try and have a legit conversation with you and you bring it back to some kooky racist conspiracy. Lesson learned.
Man, I try and have a legit conversation with you and you bring it back to some kooky racist conspiracy. Lesson learned.
The FACT that you still "think" that is some sort of conspiracy theory is proof you are incapable of learning anything.
It IS racist,though. It's racist because it is against federal law for a white man to own that many radio or tv stations,and because whites don't qualify for those special "minority loans" or grants.
The FACT that you still "think" that is some sort of conspiracy theory is proof you are incapable of learning anything.
It IS racist,though. It's racist because it is against federal law for a white man to own that many radio or tv stations,and because whites don't qualify for those special "minority loans" or grants.
What are you nuts? The "white man" owned radio conglomerates own most of the radio stations including the spanish ones (including even the largest Spanish language television).
This idea that minorities are owning multiple radio stations but white's can't is kook-burgers nutso.
“a person or entity may own, operate, or control: (1) up to eight commercial radio stations, not more than five of which are in the same service (i.e., AM or FM), in a radio market with 45 or more radio stations; (2) up to seven commercial radio stations, not more than four of which are in the same service, in a radio market with between 30 and 44 (inclusive) radio stations; (3) up to six commercial radio stations, not more than four of which are in the same service, in a radio market with between 15 and 29 (inclusive) radio stations; and (4) up to five commercial radio stations, not more than three of which are in the same service, in a radio market with 14 or fewer radio stations, except that an entity may not own, operate, or control more than 50 percent of the stations in such a market unless the combination of stations comprises not more than one AM and one FM station.”
There’s also the radio/television cross ownership rule, which allows a person or entity
“to own up to two television stations (to the extent permitted under the local television ownership rule) and up to six radio stations (to the extent permitted under the local radio ownership rule) in a market where at least 20 independently owned media voices would remain post-merger. In markets where parties may own a combination of two television stations and six radio stations, the rule allows a party alternatively to own one television station and seven radio stations. A party may own up to two television stations (where permitted under the current local television ownership rule) and up to four radio stations (where permitted under the local radio ownership rule) in markets where, post-merger, at least 10 independently owned media voices would remain. The rule allows a combination of two television stations (where permitted under the local television ownership rule) and one radio station regardless of the number of voices remaining in the market.”
Since Congress established the radio rule in 1996 and the FCC set up the TV/radio rule three years later, empires have risen and, it appears, are poised to fall. These rules greatly relaxed previous ownership limits. Indeed, once upon a time, the agency limited national broadcast media ownership to the “7-7-783; rule: seven FM, seven AM, seven TV stations. Thus, Clear Channel famously gobbled over over 1,200 stations, automated many of them, then over leveraged itself to the point of collapse. Ditto for Citadel and much of the rest of the industry.
In 1996, there were 10,257 commercial radio stations with 5,133 owners, the FCC notes. Today, there are less commercial stations and 39% less owners: 11,202 and 3,143, respectively. Advertising revenue for radio has fallen by almost 11 percent between 2006 and 2008. And between 2008 and 2009, revenue for radio fell by about 22%.
“In contrast, total Internet advertising revenues rose: 25% between 2006 and 2008, but dropped 5% between 2008 and 2009,” the Commission adds.
So do we still need radio ownership limits? The FCC wants to know:
“Are the current numerical limits appropriate to achieve the goals of the local radio ownership rule? The local radio ownership rule currently distinguishes between AM and FM services. Does it continue to make sense to have sub-caps for the two services? Have recent technological advances eliminated the need for this aspect of the rule? What part should low-power FM stations play in the rule? Should we account for other sources of audio programming in applying the rule? Should the degree of consolidation of other media in the local market be a factor in the rule, or should we continue to count only the number of radio stations in a market in applying the rule? Should this rule take account of market share?”
If you want to help the FCC with these questions, you can post a comment here. We’d be interested in your thoughts as well, either via a comment below, or send us an e-mail. The Commission also has a lot of questions about localism, which we’ll consider in a later post.
What are you nuts? The "white man" owned radio conglomerates own most of the radio stations including the spanish ones (including even the largest Spanish language television).
What is the surname of that white man?
This idea that minorities are owning multiple radio stations but white's can't is kook-burgers nutso.
Your mama dropped you on your head a lot when you were a baby,didn't she?
WHERE did I ever say that whites can't own multiple radio stations?
I am going to type slowly so that MAYBE it won't zoom right over your head,but there is a difference between not being legally able to own as many radio and tv stations as blacks is NOT the same thing as not being able to own more than one. Think on that one for a couple of months,and then get back to me on it.
What you quote is very nice,but since I see NO mention of minority-owned regulations,you were either cherry-picking or just didn't research rules on minority ownership.
Not to say that whites don't get around these rules by buying stations in the names of their wives or daughters. I personally know of two white guys that got minority grants and special tax breaks along with no-bid government contracts for starting a plumbing business in one case and a hardware store in another case in their wife's or sister's name.
