Format specialization is not censorship

[davideduardo]

In another thread, rbrucecarter said,

The main reason "underground" rock FM stations of the late 60's and early 70's existed was because of censorship on AM top-40. The format still exists, morphed into classic rock. Top-40 format stations learned their lesson and don't censor today.


To understand how totally wrong that statement is, you need to know some radio history. When the FCC mandated a near-end to simulcasting AM with FM in the larger markets at the beginning of 1967, station owners had to find new programming for hundreds of larger market FMs that had been simulcasting. They looked for formats that did not appear to compete with the AM cash cows they owned, so they either went to the progressive rock side or to the soft "beautiful music" side to protect revenue.

Top 40 stations were mainstream. Most progressive rock was not mainstream, and would drive away the bulk of the adult female listeners of Top 40. The music, being produced in quantity by that time, did not fit the listener target of AM Top 40. As mentioned, the cuts tended to be very long and the appeal, initially, was very narrow.

Just as Top 40 stations did not play hard core country, they did not play hard core progressive rock. It was not "censorship" but, rather, a protection of the listener base of which a large percentage would hate it if too many hard or "acid" rock songs were played. Still, plenty of Airplane and Joplin and Zepp songs became hits, because they were crossovers (or good bathroom records).

I'm reminded of an early 70's anecdote where the staff of a Top 40 AM spliced an Iron Butterfly into a Shulke tape that would be played later in the day on the sister beautiful music station. The announcer on the FM nearly had a stroke! Of course, the point is that Shulke did not play Butterfly, not due to censorship, but due to fit.

 

[stan]

I bet Iron Butterfly affected not only the announcer but those seeking the mindless enjoyment of 'beautiful music'.

At our AM / FM combo in Tulsa, the AM was top 40 and the FM automated Drake Chenault programming. At night, we simulcast because the AM signal was so poor.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

In another thread, rbrucecarter said,

The main reason "underground" rock FM stations of the late 60's and early 70's existed was because of censorship on AM top-40. The format still exists, morphed into classic rock. Top-40 format stations learned their lesson and don't censor today.


To understand how totally wrong that statement is, you need to know some radio history. When the FCC mandated a near-end to simulcasting AM with FM in the larger markets at the beginning of 1967, station owners had to find new programming for hundreds of larger market FMs that had been simulcasting. They looked for formats that did not appear to compete with the AM cash cows they owned, so they either went to the progressive rock side or to the soft "beautiful music" side to protect revenue.

Top 40 stations were mainstream. Most progressive rock was not mainstream, and would drive away the bulk of the adult female listeners of Top 40. The music, being produced in quantity by that time, did not fit the listener target of AM Top 40. As mentioned, the cuts tended to be very long and the appeal, initially, was very narrow.

Just as Top 40 stations did not play hard core country, they did not play hard core progressive rock. It was not "censorship" but, rather, a protection of the listener base of which a large percentage would hate it if too many hard or "acid" rock songs were played. Still, plenty of Airplane and Joplin and Zepp songs became hits, because they were crossovers (or good bathroom records).

I'm reminded of an early 70's anecdote where the staff of a Top 40 AM spliced an Iron Butterfly into a Shulke tape that would be played later in the day on the sister beautiful music station. The announcer on the FM nearly had a stroke! Of course, the point is that Shulke did not play Butterfly, not due to censorship, but due to fit.

You kind of mis-read what I was saying. Top-40 censorship in the 50's and 60's was a FACT. A good example was refusal in the 50's to play black artists - but to play white artist covers of the songs. And our local top-40 in Midland only played what the Scharbauer family wanted it to play - they were the "S" at the end of KCRS. Something like "For What's Its Worth" by Buffalo Springfield, or "Ohio" by CSNY did NOT line up with their politics. Gordon McLendon was a conservative, and known to exert tremendous pressure on the record industry to tone it down, so KILT was censored along with his other top-40 stations.

Perhaps I overestimated the backlash against censorship, but growing up 60's, even hundreds of miles from uncensored radio stations, almost everybody I knew was aware of album rock, and of cuts on albums that definitely wouldn't meet top-40 standards. We shared discoveries of new and controversial songs with each other. So when "underground" album rock stations became available, they already had an enthusiastic audience - finally freed from the fetters of station owners and programmers with conservative agendas. The fact that it was the same owners cashing in on a new FM license is ironic.

 

[davideduardo]

You kind of mis-read what I was saying. Top-40 censorship in the 50's and 60's was a FACT. A good example was refusal in the 50's to play black artists - but to play white artist covers of the songs. And our local top-40 in Midland only played what the Scharbauer family wanted it to play - they were the "S" at the end of KCRS. Something like "For What's Its Worth" by Buffalo Springfield, or "Ohio" by CSNY did NOT line up with their politics. Gordon McLendon was a conservative, and known to exert tremendous pressure on the record industry to tone it down, so KILT was censored along with his other top-40 stations.

There is a difference between censorship and programming for your market.

When a station played few hard r&b songs and did play more pop sounding ones, it is more likely that in the station's markets that kind of record did not sell or perform well. We knew for decades that some markets leaned more r&b than others, and some just would not take much of that kind of product. Similarly, there have been markets where harder rock (and alternative rock today.

In areas that are more conservative, we've always found a bit more caution in the use of language and subject matter. At the time that McLendon instituted lyric control on his station, he was running for office and was fearful of the press and voters perceiving him to be permissive. So, in a sense, he was reacting to what the FCC calls "Community Standards". If we look back at the songs he questioned, we don't know whether to laugh or scream, but it was a fact of the times. And it was the same "fact of the times" that caused CBS to telecast the first TV appearance of Elvis showing the singer from the waist up.

Anecdotally, when I had a Top 40 operation in Ecuador, we found that the harder core r&b (think "James Brown") did not work. It was not because the artists were Black as the listeners had no way of knowing what the artists looked like back then. It was just that the particular style did not appeal in that market; on the other hand, the Supremes and Four Tops and other Motown acts did wonderfully well. To the opposite side, the Beatles did not have much interest but CCR was absolutely huge, and the Rolling Stones had many hits.

Perhaps I overestimated the backlash against censorship, but growing up 60's, even hundreds of miles from uncensored radio stations, almost everybody I knew was aware of album rock, and of cuts on albums that definitely wouldn't meet top-40 standards.

You are failing to distinguish between your local market and the kind of station local advertisers in a small market would tolerate and the tastes in far, far away DXable markets where the community standards and local attitudes were perhaps very different.

The fact that your little group of friends ("little" by comparison with the total market population) liked certain songs or artists is irrelevant. The local stations had to appeal to broader audiences. What you call censorship was simply the reality of having a format that many if not most local merchants did not listen to but which had to appear to be acceptable to the "image" of those potential advertisers.

We shared discoveries of new and controversial songs with each other. So when "underground" album rock stations became available, they already had an enthusiastic audience - finally freed from the fetters of station owners and programmers with conservative agendas. The fact that it was the same owners cashing in on a new FM license is ironic.

It took quite a while for progressive rock stations to gain smaller market acceptance. Mostly this happened when Lee Abrams created a formula in a smaller market, Raleigh, by taking elements of Top 40 and very severely formatting album rock content to get away from the "hey, man, lets do a J and groove". His "Superstars" format killed the free-form anything-goes progressives in nearly all markets, and wounded the few survivors. To you, he censored the playlist. To us in radio he broadened the appeal and made the format commercially successful to all except DXers.

 

[TheBigA]

There is a common misunderstanding of what the word censorship means. When country stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks in protest of what their lead singer said about President Bush, a lot of people claimed it was censorship. That was not correct. Censorship requires PRIOR restraint. If a radio station had prevented the lead singer from speaking out against the President, that would have been censorship. Refusing to play their music, or music by another artist isn't censorship. Preventing them from recording it is. Others brought up the lead singer's First Amendment rights. The First Amendment only relates to government suppression of speech. So once again, it didn't apply. In this country, we can say anything we want. But that doesn't guarantee an audience. Radio stations are in the business of attracting audience. That means playing what is popular, not giving everybody a soapbox. Very different things.

 

[gr8oldies]

Nobody played everything that was ever released. It was the top 40 (or Big/Boss 30), not the top 1000. Stations had no obligation to play "Timothy" by The Buoys but many didn't. There were top 40 stations in the early 80s that played only rock, not R&B, because the audience was burnt out on anything that even reminded them of disco. CKLW was said to have waited on "Society's Child" in 1967 due to the riots and unrest.

 

[joebtsflk1]

And there was also, at least in small markets, de facto censorship by sponsors. If they took offense to what the station was playing, it wasn't too hard for them to call the station owner and gripe. We called it at the station "programming for sponsors" instead of "programming for listeners." I think that's what tempered many a county-seat station playlist.

This anecdote was more a stylistic difference, not at all censorship of a song on a playlist, but when I rapped a commercial for a small town clothing store in northeast MO circa 1986, the sponsor had my version killed within 24 hours.

 

[First Fone 65]

I remember the station I worked at in the middle sixties had a sign over the studio control board. " DONT ROCK THIS STATION "

 

[TheBigA]

I rapped a commercial for a small town clothing store in northeast MO circa 1986, the sponsor had my version killed within 24 hours.

It's not censorship. Advertisers typically have approval rights. If it's a live read, they can choose not to run their ad in your shift.

 

[gr8oldies]

Advertisers can choose not to do business with a station, a station has no obligation to accept your ad (except certain categories of political)