stern's listeners
#1
Posted 11 April 2006 - 11:45 AM
#2
Posted 11 April 2006 - 12:01 PM
Howard Stern stopped being listenable about 10 years ago. People listened because nothing else existed. Mancow became unlistenable about the time I was in my early 20s, so a little bit over 10 years. And, there really has never been anything else.People just said: "Stern has sucked for so long, but I had no alternative. But, I certainly am not going to pay or go out of my way to listen to the douchebag".It just goes to show: radio is tough. It solidifies an incredible legacy for Stern in my eyes. He is a genius. A boring, old, tired genius, but one nonetheless.interesting article, here -- 8 million missingreminds me of the end of "The Truman Show" when people just turned off their tv's or changed the channel.
#3
Posted 11 April 2006 - 12:04 PM
"Is everyone on here just an act sometimes?"--Hummingbird
Read all of my stupid song parodies here. Latest song improved/ruined: "Barbara Ann" by The Beach Boys.
Download all of my alleged music free through the remainder of May at www.soundclick.com/agrimorfee
Also jabbering about music and movies at www.rateyourmusic.com
#4
Posted 11 April 2006 - 12:07 PM
They don't like Stern enough to bother is the answer here.I figure those folks just don't want to (or can't) pony up the $ for a satellite radio receiver, or they don't understand the concept enough to bother.
#5
Posted 11 April 2006 - 12:10 PM
#6
Posted 11 April 2006 - 12:17 PM
It can be really, really funny. And, people NEED to BELONG. They somehow feel they are a part of something. These clowns cater to these imbeciles with T Shirts, slogans. Make 'em feel part of an "army" kind of BS.I am proud of you. Keep up the good work.The ManagementGiven that I have always hated morning disc jockeys (I want to hear music on my way to work in the morning, not some douchebag talking about the reality show he watched last night), I find the idea of people willing to pay to hear some bonehead talk a couple hours a morning completely astounding.
#7
Posted 11 April 2006 - 12:52 PM
#8
Posted 11 April 2006 - 12:55 PM
stunning postStunning thread.
#9
Posted 11 April 2006 - 12:58 PM
#10
Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:02 PM
#11
Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:02 PM
Not necessarily your initial post and the article, but more for MCF's participation. Another one of those cats that I just think is a character/sociopath that likes to fuck with people.stunning postStunning thread.
#12
Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:06 PM
#13
Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:14 PM
Interesting take -- maybe that's it. I'll go out of my way to have music playing in nearly everything I do, but during the commute I always prefer to talk or news.My theory behind my personal preference is that I like feeling like I'm listening to something current, it breaks up the monotony of the routine and gives the day a feel that it's not just another forgettable day on the way to the job.
Friday, March 13th - Thornwood Lounge (Wood Dale,IL)
Tuesday, April 21 - Abbey Pub (Chicago, IL)
Web Site I MySpace
#14
Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:18 PM
Kind of the same. I need talk on the commute too work; and music during the commute home. I think it's because music is almost like a celebration, which I don't really want on my way to the office..so talk/humour is more important.When i started driving to work a year ago or so, I found it weird that I never wanted to listen to music. I don't know if it was my mood or what, but regardless of how inane either the news, NPR, or sports radio (intellectual crack) was, I always preferred it in the morning. My theory behind my personal preference is that I like feeling like I'm listening to something current, it breaks up the monotony of the routine and gives the day a feel that it's not just another forgettable day on the way to the job. Now that I ride the el to work everyday, I don't use an MP3 player in the morning though I have one. I just like reading the WSJ or a novel everyday.
#15
Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:23 PM
Friday, March 13th - Thornwood Lounge (Wood Dale,IL)
Tuesday, April 21 - Abbey Pub (Chicago, IL)
Web Site I MySpace
#16
Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:55 PM
You are very correct, except that the quaility of sound isn't there...yet. Nor is the portability of the internet.....yet. There are great stations on the net with great servers making the quality very good. Still, more bandwidth is needed. And, until the internet is totally wi-fi able...meaning being able to cruise in your car and listen to a stream...sat is still attractive. Once that day comes though and I'm sure it will...then might wanna think about selling those Sirius and XM shares...............The concept of paying monthly for radio when there are thousands of stations that can be listened to on the interent (I know this isn't always possible) really just seems alien to me. Here if you want Digital Radio away from the Internet (or TV where Freeview screens it.) you stump up $80 for a Radio (or a set top TV Freeview box) and that's all you pay.


#17
Posted 11 April 2006 - 02:10 PM
I've thought about this, but I've basically come to the conclusion that there are probably too many hurdles to make it a viable competitor with satellite. First; users will have to pay a monthly fee to a wireless provider for the hardware in their vehicle. So you basically remove any economic advantage over satellite, because users will still be paying a monthly fee (which will potentially be greater than the $12.95 per month fee for Satellite).Second, if the internet radio stations want to be for-profit (which is practically a necessity if they are to have sufficient bandwith to serve a sizeable listener base); they'll need to run commercials (or request a second monthly subscription from listeners). Sure it's possible that some "community" not-for-profit radio stations could pop up, but their appeal (as it is now) would probably be limited to die-hards.You are very correct, except that the quaility of sound isn't there...yet. Nor is the portability of the internet.....yet. There are great stations on the net with great servers making the quality very good. Still, more bandwidth is needed. And, until the internet is totally wi-fi able...meaning being able to cruise in your car and listen to a stream...sat is still attractive. Once that day comes though and I'm sure it will...then might wanna think about selling those Sirius and XM shares...............
#18
Posted 11 April 2006 - 02:30 PM
#19
Posted 11 April 2006 - 02:40 PM
We have those too, although they're called HD radio; although my understanding is that they are still broadcast (somehow) over the traditional radio spectrum. Technology aside though, the bigger problems that prevents hd radio from (likely) becoming a viable competitor is two-fold: (1) the fcc still regulates those broadcasts, so they cannot contain any indecent content; and (2) because the stations are free, they need commercials to generate revenue; and American radio stations typically run 15 to 20 minutes of commercials per hour.Oh and I forgot, all of the terrestrial radion stations (hd or otherwise) are owned by a few large conglomerates, so the content is homogenous throughout the nation (and it sucks).Well if European countries can put radios in cars that pick up digital signals and DAB why should people in the US have to pay for it?
#20
Posted 11 April 2006 - 02:50 PM
those are good points to think about....I've thought about this, but I've basically come to the conclusion that there are probably too many hurdles to make it a viable competitor with satellite. First; users will have to pay a monthly fee to a wireless provider for the hardware in their vehicle. So you basically remove any economic advantage over satellite, because users will still be paying a monthly fee (which will potentially be greater than the $12.95 per month fee for Satellite).Second, if the internet radio stations want to be for-profit (which is practically a necessity if they are to have sufficient bandwith to serve a sizeable listener base); they'll need to run commercials (or request a second monthly subscription from listeners). Sure it's possible that some "community" not-for-profit radio stations could pop up, but their appeal (as it is now) would probably be limited to die-hards.You are very correct, except that the quaility of sound isn't there...yet. Nor is the portability of the internet.....yet. There are great stations on the net with great servers making the quality very good. Still, more bandwidth is needed. And, until the internet is totally wi-fi able...meaning being able to cruise in your car and listen to a stream...sat is still attractive. Once that day comes though and I'm sure it will...then might wanna think about selling those Sirius and XM shares...............
oh say very correct...on the net,,,I prefer listening to terrestrials that do live stream as well....there are a few great ones left here and some abroad as well. I like the regional feel you get from them as upposed to net only stations that can be coming from anywhere. That's a downside of sat too....that local flavor.Oh and I forgot, all of the terrestrial radion stations (hd or otherwise) are owned by a few large conglomerates, so the content is homogenous throughout the nation (and it sucks).














