1998

20.1

Samuel J. Sauls
The Role of Alternative Programming in College Radio

Jon Pareles has reasonably observed that "College radio is as varied as college towns or college students" (18). As Torey Marcus explains, some stations mirror commercial radio, while others opt to develop their own style. And, as is to be expected, geography can play a role in that rural programming preferences differ greatly from those in urban areas. Also, small town versus the big city comes into play (27). Even so, Caton, Schneider, and Uhlmann can safely generalize that "nearly all [college and university radio] stations see their primary function as one of providing alternative programming to their listening audiences" (9). In the vast majority of cases, the focus of alternative programming is the programming of "alternative" music.

When did the alternative music "thing" really take off? In 1994, Cheryl Botchick, an associate editor at the College Music Journal New Music Report said that "[t]en years ago, college radio existed in kind of a bubble. . . .Then came Jane's Addiction, Nirvana, Lollapalooza, Pearl Jam, and the lucrative marketing of alternative music" (Knopper 84). Some record companies have gone so far to suggest "that college stations are 'wasting their signal' if they aren't playing alternative music" (Stark 90). Why has "alternative music" become so popular? It is projected that some 70% of all campus radio stations licensed to colleges and universities program some type of "alternative rock" (Wilkinson, 1994). Radio consultant and Pollack Media Group CEO Jeff Pollack said that "[p]eople are taking a rawer, tougher, more substantive approach to things in general, and there's a rejection of what's predictable and too slick" (Zimmerman, 1992, 66). This feeling has also produced talent like Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, Tracy Chapman, Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians, Living Colour, Ziggy Marley, Dire Straits, the Police, the Cars, the Clash, Elvis Costello, 10,000 Maniacs, and Nine Inch Nails ("The Usual Suspects" 44)). These are ones who became the commercially viable (now known) "mainstream" groups.

But alternative music is not just limited to rock music. In 1989, Gil Creel, Music Director of Tulane University's WTUL, New Orleans, told the audience at the College Music Journal's New Music Report's Music Marathon "that concentrating on 'the latest kick-ass hardcore or feedback [rock]' wasn't enough to be alternative, but that jazz, house music, hip-hop, and blues must also be represented" (Bessman and Stark 12). Even "college-appropriate country music" should be exposed (Bessman 52).

"College radio is a safety valve in the sanity of the music world" (Gimarc 1995). This is where new talent is born and discovered. "Today, college radio is all-important. It's the breeding ground for the new talent ... [and] it's also the lifeblood of the independent record industry" (Ward 47). By the mid-1980s, it was discovered that college radio could break new groups in such genres as country/punk fusion, the ‘60s sound, and punk rock. This supports David P. Stearns’s claim: "College radio stations--greenhouses for cutting edge rock 'n' roll--nurture new bands that often become mainstream hits a few months later" (D4). Thus, "[a]t a time when many new artists face difficulty breaking through at commercial radio, college radio has grown into a virtual industry within an industry" (Starr 30). Major music industry trade magazines, such as Gavin, now cover college radio playlists, along with the mainstream music. "The major record companies view format-free college stations that play alternative music as rock's minor league, the training ground for future U2s and Depech Modes" (Mundy 70). Additionally, the college students playing the music tend to appreciate it more than mainstream djs. "Says singer Tanya Donelly, who's often interviewed by campus deejays. 'They're more educated and excited about the music.'" (Mundy 70). This leads to the social implication of discovering new talent. "College radio is garnering new respect and clout as a launching pad for undiscovered, and under-appreciated, talent" (Gundersen 5D). New talent, alternative music, and college radio are being desired more and more (Mayhew, 1994).
 
 

Another issue is that of music publicity, including published charts, and recommendations from music industry representatives to formulate station playlists. "One problem that arises when discussing college radio charts, playlists, and formats is the temptation to assume that formatting and programming according to the charts are bad; that they make college radio somehow less authentic" (Kruse 42-44; 157-179).

As mentioned earlier, today the major music industry trade magazines cover college radio playlists, along with the mainstream music. Publications include Cash Box, Radio & Records, Hits, Billboard, Rockpool, CMJ [originally debuted in 1979 as the College Media Journal] and the Gavin Report. "CMJ's charts are the ones most watched by the industry; its figures are used in programming college radio stations and stocking retail stores" (Kruse 183-193). Playlists supply the needed information to find out what’s happening in the music world. "Chart information [is] especially useful in promoting records to college radio; charts are a sort of shorthand record labels can use to describe a record's success or potential success to music directors" (Kruse 183-193).

Of course, along with the charts, come the music company representatives themselves. Music reps are the direct contact to music labels that produce and distribute music to radio stations. The aspects of promotion, public relations, and pressure from outside entities, particularly record promoters, can put a great deal of strain on the college radio station programmers. The station manager/faculty advisor therefore needs to work closely with student programmers and station music directors to develop and nurture the relationship with record promoters. However, the student must be cautious to determine the difference between recommendations and influence. (The university radio station which the author managed had an underlying policy of not accepting gifts, including meals, from record reps. Small items received in the mail unsolicited, such as desk ornaments, were acceptable. The only time that the student was allowed to socialize with record reps was at national record conventions.)

As for music licensing, this is where the likes of BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC are concerned as to securing the rights to play music and determine royalty payments. "BMI is in the forefront of recognizing the contributions of college radio because it collects data from college radio. . . . Subsequently, the role of college stations in their minds of the managers, agents, venues, etc., will be more publicly known and appreciated" (NACB 166).

The ideals of expression and censorship must be considered within the discussion of alternative music and its relationship with college radio programming. From the outset, the ideal of free speech must be addressed. A 1996 article entitled "Protect Your Freedom," stated succinctly: "It is ironic that this paradigm of freedom does not extend to the electronic press. Content regulation of television and radio--in the form of "safe harbor hours" and V-Chips and possibly even an A-Chip--is, by extension, unconstitutional." Here, the point was made clear that broadcasters "will have to make a stronger effort to protect their rights if First Amendment parity with the printed press is to be achieved" (Radio World 5).

"From scholarly jazz programs to unusual classical repertory to crashing, howling post-punk hardcore rock, college radio (alongside a few listener-supported and community radio stations) supplies music heard nowhere else on the airwaves" (Pareles 18). This type of programming, an actual service, is consistent with the fact that colleges and universities, like commercial broadcasters, are licensed to "operate broadcast facilities in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" (Ozier 34). Additionally, the on-going broadcasts provided by college radio help to serve as public relations arms for the schools themselves. Often college radio stations are the only outlets for such broadcasts as campus sports and news.

In regard to the colleges' and universities' perceptions of college radio, one advantage is that the institutional image is enhanced every time a well-programmed station identifies itself as affiliated with the school (Sauls, 1995). This identification, though, can lead to potential problems, particularly in regards to music programming and censorship. Wolper, in 1990, clearly indicated this issue when he wrote that "[t]he licenses of campus radio stations are held by boards of trustees at universities and colleges. Those groups traditionally avoid arguments with the FCC [Federal Communications Commission]" (54). Wolper cited the concern of Ken Fate, the student general manager of KUOI-FM, at the University of Idaho, in Moscow, in regards to the FCC: "They are trying to censor us. . . .They are making it criminal to play music. To read poetry on the air. To read literature" (54). "As the influence of college radio grows, however, so does its caution." Here, a college radio station in Santa Barbara, California, was issued a warning in 1987 by the Federal Communications Commission that it had committed "actionable indecency" by broadcasting the punk-rock song "Makin' Bacon" after 10 P.M. It was written that "the warning was part of a broadening of the commission's restrictions on broadcast indecency" (Pareles 18).

Now entitled "The Role of Expositional Obscenity in College Radio," Robert McKenzie wrote in his 1994 paper of the concerns detailing college radio in broadening broadcast language:

I believe that college radio deejays have a very real understanding of obscenity issues because they expose the new language forms to their audiences and experience firsthand whether or not the audience is offended by their remarks. Moreover, because the ambiguous nature of the expositional obscenity in question engages the mental imagery of audience, the public reaction to the language is truer to FCC-actualized definition of obscenity--an expression that some group of people finds to be extremely offensive. Therefore, college radio performs a decidedly productive role in establishing the boundaries of acceptable broadcasting expressions, and in exposing its practitioners directly to the process by which symbols become obscene. (14)

As of September 1994, The M Street Journal reported that out of 11,565 operating dario stations, 370 were programming alternative rock as their primary format. Of these stations, 276 were noncommercial. Listed as the tenth most popular format out of twenty-nine, it is apparent that alternative rock is growing as a fundamental format (back cover). Thus, it can be projected that alternative music will continue to maintain, if not expand, its influence on college radio stations. Add to this that with "more than 1,100 college stations to appeal to, many bands just breaking into the music industry can be heard across the United States" (Allen 13).

In 1992, a study was conducted which specifically sought to analyze programming elements in public radio. Conducted on behalf of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (the entity which oversees National Public Radio) by Audience Research Analysis and Thomas & Clifford, 568 stations participated in the survey. Entitled Public Radio Programming Strategies: A Report on the Programming Stations Broadcast And the People They Seek to Serve, the "project’s central thrust [was] to seek out underlying patterns in the key dimensions of stations’ audience service . . . and to identify where these patterns are shared among significant numbers of stations" (Giovannoni, Thomas, and Clifford 1). In the study it was established that local programming "is central to the identity of Local Alternative stations. So is the sense that they are an 'alternative' to other radio stations" (22). Looking to the future of alternative programming, it is interesting to note that the report delves into "intra-cohort diversity," in regards to local alternative stations. "While this diversity makes it difficult to imagine a single program or programming stream that would be of use to the majority of these stations, it does expose some of the cohorts' unique programming needs" (22).

As a final thought concerning alternative programming in college radio and its future, it was stated:

You get a lot more confrontational radio in college radio. And, it's actually very healthy from two different standpoints. One is it gives an accurate reflection of that part of society which doesn't really get much exposure in the normal media. And the other part is, as broadcasters, these kids get to work it out of their systems for 4 years before they have to put on the suit and tie and be real people . . . real responsible broadcasters. (Gimarc 1995)

Samuel J. Sauls
Department of Radio, Television, and Film
University of North Texas
Denton, TX 76203

Allen, Shannon R. "College Radio Rocks More than the Music Industry." Seton Hall University Magazine 7.2 (Fall 1997): 13-16.

Bessman, Jim. "Swear Off the 'C' Word, CMJ College Panel Says." Billboard 18 Nov. 1989: 48, 52.

Bessman, Jim, and Phyllis Stark. "College Radio Focus of CMJ Panels." Billboard 11 Nov. 1989: 12, 18.

Caton, Bernard, Frederick Schneider, and Judith Uhlmann. Public Radio in Virginia. Telecommunications Study Commission, (Working Paper No. 12). Richmond: Virginia State Telecommunications Study Commission, 1979. ERIC Document ED 183 209.

Gimarc, George. Punk Diary: 1970-1979. New York: St. Martin's, 1994.

Gimarc, George. Personal interview. 8 Mar. 1995.

Giovannoni, David, Thomas, Thomas J., & Clifford, Theresa R. Public Radio Programming Strategies: A Report on the Programming Stations Broadcast And the People They Seek to
Serve. Washington, DC: Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 1992.

Holterman, S. The Relationship Between Record Companies and College Music Directors: A Descriptive Study of Alternative Radio. Unpublished Master's Thesis, U of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1992.

Kruse, Holly C. Marginal Formations and the Production of Culture: The Case of College Music. Diss. U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1995. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1995, A56109, 51-52.

Marcus, Torey. Tuning in to College Radio." Link, The College Magazine (Oct./Nov. 1997): 26-27.

McKenzie, Robert. "The Role of Obscenity in College Radio." 1993 Speech Communication Association Convention. New Orleans, La. Freedom of Expression Division. 1993 Speech Communication Association Convention. Miami, Fl. 24 Jan. 1994.

The M Street Journal. "October Sample." New York: M Street Corp, 1994.

NACB. Radio Station Handbook. Providence, RI: National Association of College Broadcasters, 1995.

Ozier, Lance W. (1978). "University Broadcast Licensees: Rx for Progress." Public Telecommunications Review 6.5 (Sept./Oct. 1978): 33-39.

Pareles, Jon. "College Radio, New Outlet for the Newest Music." The New York Times 29 Dec. 1987: C18.

Sauls, Samuel. J. "College Radio." Entry submitted to the Encyclopedia of United States Popular Culture. Bowling Green, OH: Popular Press, 6 Mar. 1995.

Stark, Phyllis. "CMJ Examines the Effects of Success on Alternative Music." Billboard 20 Nov. 1993: 13, 90.

Starr, Victoria. "CMJ Aims to Broaden Scope of Alternative Scene." Billboard 2 Nov. 1991: 30, 32.

"The Usual Suspects." Unlimited Action, Adventure, Good Times (Winter 1998): 44, 46.
Ward, Ed. "Back to School Cool." Mother Jones Sep. 1988: 47.

Wolper, Allan. "Indecency Suit Chills Campus Stations." Washington Journalism Review 12.9 (Nov. 1990): 54.