Re: smooth jazz

[Norm Rosen <inorm99@earthlink.net>]

Donna Halper wrote:

> it was written:
> >Smooth Jazz didn't work in Boston for two reasons.  One, the minority
> >population is not large enough, and it's an important demographic for a
> >smooth jazz station.
>
> Most of Boston's minority population, at least in the younger demographics,
> seems to prefer rap and dance music stations, based on what I have
> observed.  For them, "smooth jazz" is just like elevator music, much too
> wimpy.  Personally, I would love to see a 'real' jazz format on the air
> somewhere-- I worked at WRVR-FM in New York when it was jazz, and we had
> similar demos to what a classical station gets-- a small but very loyal
> niche audience that listened for hours and hours.   It's interesting that
> despite all the hoo-hah over Ken Burns' recent documentary, jazz records
> are selling fewer and fewer copies.  Yet I still think there IS a niche for
> this type of station.

I agree with it being irrelevant whether or not a minority population has
anything to do with a smooth jazz being successful or not.WICN 90.5  plays 130
hours of real jazz per week.
Most of the shows are locally produced, the audience is sizable, and growing.
That's the exception.
In Boston as well as elsewhere, the Greater Medias, Infinities,Clear Channels
aren't about to take a chance on a format that hasn't "tested" well in market
other than New York.