Huge technological advancements have allowed us to demystify the whole broadcasting process. We can now broadcast all over the world without the need for full time staff and full time salaries, which means that we don't have to keep advertisers and sponsors happy by diluting what we believe is the "right" thing to do on-air.

The radio industry appears to have become obsessed with only playing "hits". It is an easy way of making an art form into a science; play only top 10 hits and you won't give the listener the opportunity to switch off ... It's a fine theory but what you end up with is a very small amount of songs being played over and over again. Just because you choose to listen to a station which plays music made in the past, it doesn't mean that you don't want to be challenged .... It doesn't mean that you don't want to hear something you may never have heard or even forgotten. Plenty of the music we play has been forgotten, much of it as a direct result of not being played on the radio.

Would you say that this is a lie:
"I would buy a single (or 45!) and rush home to listen to it, then I'd flip it over and play the B side."

Or what about the sentiment expressed here, would you say that this was typical of the record buying public?
"When I came home with the album under my arm, I played it all the way through, both sides, sure I had my favourite tracks on the album, but they weren't always the singles ... I listened to all the tracks."

If we agree that those sentiments are typical, then why don't we bear that in mind when we "programme" our radio stations? At CCRN, we do. Because we run CCRN for fun we don't need to deliver a huge profit to shareholders, we can do what we know is the right thing for US, working on the principle that if we feel this way, others will too, after all, we all went through the same stuff didn't we?

Just after The Beatles split up, John Lennon said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about because people would still have their Beatles music to listen to, the music wasn't being taken away. Music appears to be the only art form to be criticised simply because of how old it is. Books are not regarded as inferior because they were written 40 years ago, it's either good or not, and that is decided on by the person reading it. Because a film was made in the early 70's is not a reason to dismiss it out of hand without watching it first ... And yet pop music is derided simply because of its age. Complete nonsense isn't it?