[joe-frank-list] Re: Joe Frank heard on the radio in Chicago 24
hours a day
fsedghip at yahoo.ca
Thu Oct 28 13:24:44 PDT 2004
Thanks for setting the record on this one. I think (or hope) that Joe agrees with you. That he really does want his work to be out there so that people can listen to it. The real question is then, why is Joe Frank not in the public domain? Some of his shows are bar-non the best I've heard.
Those in Chicago who can get the show are very lucky. And I don't think it's a bad idea. First of all, it's great publicity for Joe Frank. Second, not everyone who likes Joe's work can afford to buy them. I can vouch for that. I'm a college student, and I have to work and borrow money to cover my tuition. For the time being, I can't afford the luxury of buying the man's cd's. But someday, hopefully I can (at least that's what my college is promising). I've also just recently been introduced to his work. And have raved about him to all of my friends and many professors-who can buy his work. In turn it's good for Joe, because although I cannot afford his shows, the more exposure I get to them, the more publicity he gets from me. And also, I may become a more inspired person and do better things for this world.
I'd argue then that somehow, those who do not have the finances to buy Joe's work, should still be able to get access. First, it's intellectual material. Imagine what kind of society we'd be living in if only those who could afford to buy library memberships could get access to the library. The current arrangement, robs millions of potential listeners of a great intellectual experience, and instead many turn to brain numbing radio entertainmen in the form of talk shows, sports and songs by Eminem and Britney Spears.
But my argument is not limited to issues of equity and justice alone. I obviously would like Joe to be rewarded for the great work that he puts out.
In terms of Joe making money. The argument for on-line music applies here as well. Those who like his work, and appreciate it, will in turn buy or donate money to support his work. I've done this with songs that I've downloaded free off of my friends, but then, actually wrote checks to the musicians themselves. Furthermore, I'd argue that the widespread availability of Joe's Shows is great publicity, and will in turn attract a much greater fan base to his work. For instance, if such a radio show was available around the world, those who tune in and like particular shows could go to his site and order them. It's the greatest kind of marketing there is, because the show itself is doing the marketing. And a lot of money is not being spent on Joe's behalf to indirectly market his products. So by making his shows available online, Joe's increasing his fan base, increasing his customer base, and cutting on marketing costs -- one of the biggest wastes in our economy today, 1/5 of
all spending is spent on marketing, which in-of-itself produces nothing.
So make Joe's shows public, just like www.thislife.org . Here, you can listen to shows for free, but also purchase them on CD. If joe's producers don't like this idea, then they can make his show's play around the clock in random sequence. That way, those who like certain shows and want to listen to them at their discretion, will be forced to buy the cds. Nontheless, make Joe's radio public, and everyone's interests would be better served.
Of course, there is a caveat here.
While listeners will no doubt better off if Joe's shows are made public, the same argument is not necessarily true for Joe.
Since, there is little in the way of intellectually stimulating radio programming being produced, either on radio or television, Joe's product is unique. This makes demand for his shows inelastic. That is, he could raise the prices of his shows, and those interested would still buy them. If Joe can in fact do that, then, it may be the case that he can make more profits by not going public.
I am not trying to demonize Joe here. I know that there are other producers and decision makers involved. However, if anyone of them has even the most rudimentary understanding of economics, this is how they would probably see it. And thus, they would be enticed not to make Joe's shows public.
Aside from this reason, I do not know why Joe's shows are not public. But like I mentioned earlier, I've just recently been introduced to his shows and don't know much about its history. If there are other reasons, perhaps someone can fill me in.
served by Joe's work being available to the public, this is not necessarily true for Joe's producers. It may very well be that they can make more money by making subscription mandatory.
Jargonym at aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/27/2004 2:00:44 PM Central Daylight Time, joe-frank-list-request at armory.com writes:
I wonder how they are paying Joe for the use of his
OK I got the skinny on this broadcast from of friend of a friend; the broadcast is being done by an artist (or group of artists, my source didn't know) in Chicago who have done other "electronic free speech" and "nonlinear radio" things in Chicago. I understand that all the material being aired was purchased from Joe Frank on CD, and that since this is a noncommercial use there's not a question of "someone making money off Joe's work."
I'm sure Joe's staff reads these email postings, perhaps they have some opinion on this. Or maybe the people responsible for this will come forward.....
Don't forget to keep this in perspective- this isn't someone ripping Joe off and playing his stuff to make money for him/herself that Joe will never see, not to mention the fact that it's only covering a certain area on the North side of Chicago, not the country or even the whole city. Also, I'm sure it will only be on for a limited duration. If 30 people ever hear this broadcast it'd be a lot. I mean, who besides radio hobbyists and lonely cabbies sit there tuning around on their radios? Most people set the station memories and leave it at that.
I've heard quite a bit of this Joe broadcast - I drive a cab in the broadcast area- and I have heard SOME repeated material now over the past two weeks, but not that much. I'd say there is about 50- 100 hours of Joe material here, and at $15 an hour (which is about the cost of CDs, when you figure shipping) that's $750-$1500 spent on Joe Frank recordings, not to mention who knows how much for the transmitter. I don't know about you, but I've not spent $750 on Joe Frank CDs, I have listened mostly to MP3's which used to be available and WBEZ here for my weekly one-hour fix. I'd say whoever is doing this has offered at least some financial support to the artist.... more than I have, anyway.
In my opinion, this is NOT one of those MP3 radio deals, because the signal comes in too well over too large an area. The coverage area is about the same as some 100-watt college stations here in Chicago, and the audio quality is really good, so I'd say this is more than some jury-rigged setup.
I have to say, the effect of listening to these shows end to end is kind of profound, it certainly has more impact than just the usual one-hour-a-week format.
As far as the FCC is concerned, I don't see them on the Joe Frank discussion EMAIL mailing list so unless John Ashcroft is reading all my EMAIL I think this "Radio Free Joe" operation is safe for the period of time they are likely to be running.
It's inspired me, I really enjoyed what I heard today and I am for sure gonna subscribe to the Joe Frank website. _______________________________________________
Joe Frank Mailing List
joe-frank-list at armory.com
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the joe-frank-list