The first reference to Edison’s phonograph seems to be this satirical piece from November, 1877. At least, I hope it’s satirical:

There is good reason to believe that if the phonograph proves to be what its inventor claims that it is, both book making and reading will fall into disuse.
…
The politician, instead of howling himself hoarse on the platform, will have a pint of his best speech put in the hands of each one of his constituents.

I’m not sure I’d want a pint of anything offered by a politician.

The Times’ first description of Edison’s phonograph appears in March of the following year, recounting the demonstration to “an intelligent audience” of a six-tabled array of mysterious instruments.

A June, 1878 article discusses David Hughes invention of the carbon microphone, an “astonishing instrument or apparatus, which opens to our ears a universe of sounds hitherto inaudible.”

Berliner’s gramophone was first mentioned October 24th, 1890.

Jul 19, 1897 saw the earliest reference to Marconi’s “contrivance for wireless telegraphy.”

an electrical machine on a stick with an electric wire wrapped around it. Electric vibrations are transmitted to another stick attached to a receiver. An electric hammer records the dots and dashes.

There’s no reference to Fessenden’s invention of AM radio, nor his first “broadcast” on Christmas Eve, 1906. (Though we wouldn’t really expect one. Fessenden wasn’t recognized as the inventor of modern radio until much later.) However, the prevailing favour of Marconi’s approach is evidenced in this OpEd piece from December, 1907, championing Marconi’s accomplishments from across the pond: “Of ten dispatches from our correspondent in America, nine have been delivered correctly.” Apparently, the “can you hear me now” guy has historical precedent.

Finally, the earliest reference to a music industry I could find appeared February, 1921. Musical instrument manufacturers argued in favour of a uniform sales tax, and against excise and surplus income taxes. Draw your own conclusion from that one.

a VERY VERY old demo of the Matchbox Twenty song “3 AM”. This was recorded around ‘93-94 and is from the Tabitha Secret days, which was the name of the band Rob, Paul and Brian were in before they started Matchbox Twenty.

Some thoughts on mixing for radio, a situation I hope we all find ourselves in someday:

Also, remember that since the track will be so compressed, it’ll bring out your background stuff (reverb, FX, you name it). So you may mix a little dry for that situation.

The more systems on which you listen to a mix, the more confident you’ll be that the mix translates well. So just how many ways are there to check a mix for compatibility?

I SO walk to out of the room to check what mixes sound like. When you realize that most listening is done from everywhere but the sweet spot, it only makes sense to me.

Hypercompressed material does not sound louder on the air. It sounds more distorted, making the radio sound broken in extreme cases. It sounds small, busy, and flat. It does not feel good to the listener when turned up, so he or she hears it as background music. Hypercompression, when combined with �major-market� levels of broadcast processing, sucks the drama and life from music. In more extreme cases, it sounds overtly distorted and is likely to cause tune-outs by adults, particularly women.