WNMC's Music Format

For a long time, long before I got here, WNMC has been dedicated to bringing alternative music of many kinds to the airwaves, to a multi-genre daytime schedule, and to what Fred Nelson calls "program radio": having a variety of specialty shows in addition to the flagship mixed-genre programming. Coincidentally, I happen to be a believer in these things as well, and I don't anticipate the station going in a very different direction on these basic principles. (Why? That's for a different day, but go ahead and ask the question if you like.) But what we do within them I think we should question.

For instance, why do as much jazz as we do?

When I got here the answer to that question was easy: it was a recognized and fairly well-supported public radio format that wasn't represented up here during the day. Because of the media changes I outlined in the last episode--the overall weakness of radio and the even more pronounced weakness of the recognized jazz format--that argument carries a lot less weight.

So we really do have to ask the question again. So why jazz in this set of circumstances?

Well for one, there's a lot of really good jazz. Jazz musicians and composers are among the best, most creative musicians we've got. They make a lot of great music.

Also jazz is a music that lends itself readily to fusion. These days the majority of our jazz rotation is some kind of fusion--soul jazz, pop-jazz, world-jazz, Latin jazz, etc. etc. Having a music whose form is driven by creative and curious musicians, means you get a *lot* of interesting variety to work into mixed formats like ours.

There's a downside to musician-driven music, though, too. At times the audience orientation disappears. Sometimes jazz becomes studied musicians playing for studied musicians. It's like listening to a stand-up act in a language you don't know. It might well be good. It just isn't good for you.

Same goes for a lot of jazz. It might be good, but very few people have the tools to figure that out. And some musicians don't seem to care. And that's great: if they can make their way in the world with that sort of freedom, hats off to them.

But we're in the radio business. Radio is a mass medium. It is about audience. We've got to care about whether the audience has the tools to appreciate the music we play. If they don't they switch off. If they switch off enough they stop listening. If they stop listening, they stop giving. If they don't give, there's no longer a community radio station around for them to neglect.

My primary consideration as a decision-maker at WNMC absolutely cannot be the artistic merit of the music. It has to be the audience I can build around it. I think we can build an audience around music of merit. But I don't think all music of merit lends itself to building and keeping an audience. In other words, just because something is good, that's no excuse to play it on the radio.

So the question for the supporter of jazz is can we build and keep an audience with it. I think the answer is a conditional yes.

WNMC has not suffered the same sorts of problems that a lot of other public jazz stations have. For instance the radical demographic narrowing of the audience (55-year-old white, male, lawyer syndrome). Why? Because we broadcast a jazz mix. We've always been a bit different, a bit outside the orbit of the jazz nazis, a bit more of an open house, a bit more of a ragbag, a bit less alienating to audiences that didn't grow up listening to jazz or who didn't adopt it as a rather intense boy-hobby (a la record collecting).

We've done well to the extent that we've been off-beat and different. And I think we can continue to succeed. But I also think we need to refine and redefine the mix periodically to ensure that success continues.

What I see now is that very few folks who are under, say, 55 grew up with jazz. They grew up with rock, for the most part. A lot of them picked up on folk rock or blues rock along the way, but not many people have much exposure to jazz anymore. Increasingly, jazz is music we have to win people over to.

There are a variety of reasons why we have a mixed-genre format. The first I'd mention is that it is in keeping with how jazz has been presented, on radio and in live settings for a long time. Before jazz was presented in classical-style concert settings, it was generally presented along with other kinds of dance music, romantic songs, ethnic schtick and other stuff. At the height of the jazz era, there were no jazz radio stations. Radio presented a fairly wide variety of music its audience might find appealing. That's the tradition out of which WNMC comes.

Right now, I think that mix of music our audience might find interesting needs to be shifted a bit toward *(carefully selected) rock--the music most of them grew up with. But I don't think we should abandon jazz, either.

So my feelings:

-We should keep the programmatic format (that is different types of music at different times of day, with a generous helping of specialty shows).

-That a mixed-genre format is our best bet for the flagship daytime programming.

-That jazz should be part of that mix.

-That the mix should be altered specifically to appeal to those less familiar with jazz, but generally receptive to it.

-We need to pay particular (by no means exclusive) attention to younger folks when we think about this.