Obscure hits within a soft AC format

[passtheword]

I was on youtube a few days ago, pulling up music videos to watch and came across this little gem I haven't heard in years. I can recall hearing this song on soft AC stations back during the 80's, including our own Lite 99 FM, but for some reason, this song and many others like it have been "pushed under the rug" by broadcast radio stations today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQtQFtVdON0

When I come across these kinds of songs I heard years ago that are no longer aired on broadcast radio, I realize just how dumbed down broadcast radio formats have become. I suppose many listeners have forgotten about these songs because radio stations have been ignoring music such as this for so long. One of the wonderful aspects of the soft AC format (at least how it sounded originally 25-30 years ago) was that there were many songs included within the format that mainstream AC stations wouldn't even air, and I'm not just referencing the easy listening artists, such as Neil Diamond, Barbra Streisand, Barry Manilow, etc, either. I have quite a bit of these more obscure tracks on my online station, just because I believe they fit formatically and listeners remember hearing those particular songs on soft AC stations during the 80's. Just wondering how other soft AC aficianados approach the more obscure material...do you like it or would you rather hear the hits exclusively? If you do enjoy the obscure material, how much of it is too much?

 

[Music Lover]

I love hearing obscure stuff I haven't heard in ages. For instance, "Thinking of You" by Sa-Fire. That was one of many 80's favorites I very rarely hear these days on terrestrial soft AC's.

On the flip side of that, you have a variety of older artists, in their 40s and over, who are still putting out new music, yet terrestrial radio doesn't play new material by them, obviously due to age-ism.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I can recall hearing this song on soft AC stations back during the 80's, including our own Lite 99 FM, but for some reason, this song and many others like it have been "pushed under the rug" by broadcast radio stations today.

I'm sure that if the song isn't getting airplay, at some point in the past quarter-century (yep, that's how long ago "Carmelia" was on the charts ... 27 years) it stopped testing as a favorite among the majority of listeners in the target audience demographics.

No station would drop a song if it tested well. And even though it may be a song you remember well, it wasn't even that big a hit on the Adult Contemporary chart, peaking at #8. (A song pretty much has to make #1 or #2 to be considered an AC hit if it wasn't also a hit on CHR.)

But that's what online stations are for ... to serve the handful of people who don't tune out when an obscure song plays.

 

[passtheword]

I'm sure that if the song isn't getting airplay, at some point in the past quarter-century (yep, that's how long ago "Carmelia" was on the charts ... 27 years) it stopped testing as a favorite among the majority of listeners in the target audience demographics.

No station would drop a song if it tested well. And even though it may be a song you remember well, it wasn't even that big a hit on the Adult Contemporary chart, peaking at #8. (A song pretty much has to make #1 or #2 to be considered an AC hit if it wasn't also a hit on CHR.)

But that's what online stations are for ... to serve the handful of people who don't tune out when an obscure song plays.

Sadly, terrestrial radio listeners have gotten accustomed to these "watered-down" playlists that have been "fed" to us over the years. btw, a #8 position doesn't sound too shabby. I could understand the reasoning behind why that song no longer airs if it charted outside the top 40 AC hits, but #8??

 

[Music Lover]

btw, a #8 position doesn't sound too shabby. I could understand the reasoning behind why that song no longer airs if it charted outside the top 40 AC hits, but #8??

I second that. Charting in the top 10 isn't too shabby to me either.

 

[Avid Listener]

The suits are convinced, mostly through bogus "testing", that their listeners are too stupid to stay tuned in to a station that plays good music. No matter how many people want to hear wider playlists, or at least wouldn't change from their favorite station to one playing a genre of music that they don't like just because one semi-familiar song came on, the suits won't believe it.

 

[semoochie]

Sadly, terrestrial radio listeners have gotten accustomed to these "watered-down" playlists that have been "fed" to us over the years. btw, a #8 position doesn't sound too shabby. I could understand the reasoning behind why that song no longer airs if it charted outside the top 40 AC hits, but #8??

The song in question peaked at #8 on the AC chart but didn't chart anywhere else. That means that Top 40 probably didn't play it at all and if that's the case, it must have had more appeal to the upper end of the AC audience of the time and might still appeal to them now but they're 27 years older and out of salable demographics. On the other hand, if no one has heard the song in 27 years, there was apparently no demand to continue playing it, after its initial run. Also, since it was only played on AC, anyone not listening to AC 27 years ago, would not know the song and have no interest in it.

 

[Avid Listener]

Also, since it was only played on AC, anyone not listening to AC 27 years ago, would not know the song and have no interest in it.

Hogwash. It is insulting to all listeners to imply that we're so stupid that we have no interest in hearing a good sounding song if we haven't had it pounded into our brains decades ago. If it sounds good, we'll like it, even if we're hearing it for the first time. We aren't stupid. We're capable of enjoying a song that is new for us because we never heard it before, even if it was originally recorded a long time ago.

 

[semoochie]

Hogwash. It is insulting to all listeners to imply that we're so stupid that we have no interest in hearing a good sounding song if we haven't had it pounded into our brains decades ago. If it sounds good, we'll like it, even if we're hearing it for the first time. We aren't stupid. We're capable of enjoying a song that is new for us because we never heard it before, even if it was originally recorded a long time ago.

OK, I listened to the song and it strikes me as something tolerated by the upper end. It's just not that good of a song, unless you're partial to Dan Hill's work. It sounds like an album cut.

 

[Music Lover]

The song in question peaked at #8 on the AC chart but didn't chart anywhere else. That means that Top 40 probably didn't play it at all

Even AC-only hits that charted 10 years ago are being pushed under the rug. Josh Groban is a good example. His music was too soft for Top 40, so the only format to play him was AC. He had multiple top 10 hits in the early to mid 00's. Now, his music is very rarely heard, because there's nowhere soft to play him. Which angers and saddens me.

 

[Music Lover]

@PassTheWord

K M, just like the other pros I've put on ignore because I'm sick and tired of their no-can-do, throw anyone who doesn't fit their specific demographics under the bus attitudes, thinks in terms of mega-broadcasting.

 

[Music Lover]

Even AC-only hits that charted 10 years ago are being pushed under the rug. Josh Groban is a good example. His music was too soft for Top 40, so the only format to play him was AC. He had multiple top 10 hits in the early to mid 00's. Now, his music is very rarely heard, because there's nowhere soft to play him. Which angers and saddens me.

Jim Brickman is another contemporary artist whose music is also very rarely heard because there's nowhere soft to play him.

I want to tune in to my car's FM dial and at least hear one station dedicated to playing such artists.

 

[Avid Listener]

OK, I listened to the song and it strikes me as something tolerated by the upper end. It's just not that good of a song, unless you're partial to Dan Hill's work. It sounds like an album cut.

No, it's not that great. It's OK. It's not so bad that anyone would tune out because of it, but it's not good enough to deserve more than one play per week, maybe. But it's something a little different, something to keep the station playing it from sounding too boring.

 

[Music Lover]

This is an upbeat AC stream but even this one is playing some upbeat hits from the 80's I haven't heard on over-the-air upbeat AC's. http://splash-fm.com/splash1d.html

 

[Music Lover]

For me, it's all about music discovery. Hearing stuff I would have shunned as a kid. Being able to hear artists from other countries. Finding gems that may have charted low.

 

[passtheword]

OK, I listened to the song and it strikes me as something tolerated by the upper end. It's just not that good of a song, unless you're partial to Dan Hill's work. It sounds like an album cut.

The song couldn't be that bad. Again...it did chart at #8 on AC.

 

[Avid Listener]

For me, it's all about music discovery. Hearing stuff I would have shunned as a kid. Being able to hear artists from other countries. Finding gems that may have charted low.

The problem is that too many suits assume that only us old farts feel that way, and we don't count in the ratings. They ignore the fact that there are lots of people in the "money" demographics who've discovered that a lot of the music from before their time was really good, and they like it. It's not even like when we Baby Boomers discovered how good Big Band music could be, except that the only recordings of it were low quality 78's. Today, if someone discovers that the music of the people who are the "influences" of modern artists are often even better songs, they're hearing recordings that are excellent quality and that sound as good technically as anything recorded this week.

Now, I don't know why the cockamamie tests the suits use don't reveal this. Maybe they only invite test subjects who only like what the station already plays, so that they'll get test results to show their higher-ups that prove they're doing the right thing. Maybe the people who would start listening to the radio more if there was something good to hear aren't included as test subjects. After all, if the suits don't see it in a test, then they don't believe it exists. The suits are too busy mocking and underestimating us listeners to actually spend any time actually thinking. Or, they're too busy coming up with new zingers to use to insult and mock us listeners to be bothered considering what we have to say.

 

[Music Lover]

Probably members of loyal listener clubs.

 

[rwells2265]

Maybe they only invite test subjects who only like what the station already plays, so that they'll get test results to show their higher-ups that prove they're doing the right thing.

^^^ This. I don't question the sound science behind these tests, but anyone -- regardless of industry, not just radio -- can get the result they 'want' if they pay attention to how the room is populated, which will "validate" the views of those who commission the survey. (How do you think Ken Jennings had 70-someodd consecutive days of runaway victories on "Jeopardy!"? He's smart, but was he THAT smart? The game wasn't fixed, but they almost had to have given him opponents pulled from the "Wheel of Fortune" contestant line. The producers got the blockbuster ratings they wanted, and the game was still played on the level.)

I'm 50, which means no major commercial station gives a flying something-or-other what I think. But I still have opinions, and a big one is there's a sensible middle ground between playing ONLY kajillion-seller hits that spent as many weeks at the top as "You Light Up My Life" ... and loading down a playlist with middling-charters and obscure stiffs. There's room for spice -- on occasion, throw in that Dan Hill tune, or another which - gasp! - might've peaked only at #10. It meant stations once played it in a high rotation. People once bought the record. Play it, and you get that "oh wow" factor without the baggage. If the listener doesn't like it, it's only four minutes, give or take; it's not as if the P1 lurves every single song on the 25-deep playlist, anyway.

Where does 40-year-old Tiffany go if she detests "Up Where We Belong" or "Hey Soul Sister"? And she comes back to her favorite station, doesn't she? The same would apply to a top ten "obscure stiff" by Dan Hill. One of four things would happen:
1) "Wowowow .... I've forgotten ALL about this song!! I haven't heard this since I was a high school junior. Is this on iTunes??"
2) "I've never heard this. I kinda like it. Is this on iTunes?"
3) "I've never heard this, and I don't like it" ... grits her teeth and waits out the four minutes until the next song.
4) "I've never heard this, and I don't like it" ... and changes the station. But she'll be back. Where else would she go? She's a radio listener. If she wanted Pandora or iTunes, she'd have already jumped off the FM grid for good ... you know, like many "geeks" who like big playlists and obscure songs, and aren't blessed enough to live in a market with a quirky, non-commercial music station catering to those tastes.

Just a couple of old pennies from a newly-minted curmudgeon.

--Russell

 

[davideduardo]

The problem is that too many suits assume that only us old farts feel that way, and we don't count in the ratings.

You have misread all the posts from folks actually in the industry. What we find is that the people who want "outside the mainstream" music are, each, individually, distinct. There is little to no commonality in the kinds of things that they would enjoy being added to a station that has, at least, a base in the kind of music they seek.

Now, I don't know why the cockamamie tests the suits use don't reveal this. Maybe they only invite test subjects who only like what the station already plays, so that they'll get test results to show their higher-ups that prove they're doing the right thing.

When we test "what if" songs we find plenty of songs that a few people like, but which most people don't know and don't like. Since OTA radio has to seek a consensus of likability, those songs never gain enough positive acceptance to be considered.

Again, you have not been reading or, if you have, you are so skeptical that you do not accept logical explanations that are based on decades of success and failure. Music tests obviously include everything a station plays; that is how we decide rotations and whether some songs need to be cut. But we also test many more songs to see if any of the things we don't play that are "in the ball park" might work.

What gold-based stations don't do is test new music or unfamiliar songs. We've done enough perceptual research to understand that our USP is playing familiar favorite songs. New music or deep cuts violates the listener trust that says, "every time you tune in you will hear a song you know" and almost always "and it will be one of your favorites".

Oh, and generally programmers don't present the music research to "higher ups". It's assumed that we know how to select songs for a test and how to implement them based on our station's profile and target. We don't have to prove anything to "higher ups" via granular dissection of music tests; we are judged on ratings and revenue generating performance by owners and their delegates.

Maybe the people who would start listening to the radio more if there was something good to hear aren't included as test subjects.

There is a great wealth of proof that stations with too-large libraries and off-the-wall music don't do well. Nobody believes there is a wealth of music nearly all of our station listeners would love just sitting out there and not being played.

There may be songs that individual listeners like and would enjoy hearing. But we never find those to be consensus songs.

After all, if the suits don't see it in a test, then they don't believe it exists. The suits are too busy mocking and underestimating us listeners to actually spend any time actually thinking.

The principal reasons why listeners may use less radio are commercials and personalized playlists. Commercial stations can't run without commercials, so that problem has no real solution. And personalized playlists are something Pandora can deliver, but which one-to-many radio stations can not.

Making radio stations less consensus driven will drive more listeners away, not attract them.

Or, they're too busy coming up with new zingers to use to insult and mock us listeners to be bothered considering what we have to say.

Personally, I only find "mockable" those people who put their own, ego-driven personal tastes above those of all listeners together as a community. In that sense, you are eminently worthy of insult and mockery.