Formats: Rock dying

[TheBigA]

not in philly and many other markets where repetitious rap and hip hop are dead.

I can think of two big heritage rock stations that are still current and still getting strong ratings: WMMR in Philadelphia and WMMS in Cleveland.

Originally owned by the same company, but not any more. Great heritage, and they've managed to survive all the trends.

But there are a lot more. WRIF in Detroit comes to mind.

 

[davideduardo]

the demise of 106.1 and 96.5, poor showings of Power and the constant dismal ratings of Radio One properties, to name a few..

To evaluate a music genre today, you have to look at downloads and on-demand streams. The largest group of on-demand streamed songs is in the rhythmic area, not rock.

We can't judge all the Radio One stations as they have some very limited facilities that don't cover the full market.

Considering the percentage of African Americans in Philly and the very small number of Hispanics, the core rhythmic stations do quite well... even the ones with bad signals.

 

[TheBigA]

Considering the percentage of African Americans in Philly and the very small number of Hispanics, the core rhythmic stations do quite well... even the ones with bad signals.

With WDAS and WUSL, iHeart owns the demo completely. They're actually cherry-picking the market, with urban, soft AC and alternative.

Very unusual cluster for them.

 

[Tibbs4]

That's why the format is struggling in radio, and why stations like KFOG are giving up. But at the same time, you have Rock 100 in Atlanta shifting to a younger presentation. My question there is will the younger audiences come back to a traditional platform when they can get exactly what they want digitally? I don't know the answer there.

You mention the jazz analogy, and what happened there was the music became less commercial. Miles Davis was very different from Benny Goodman. It's not that Miles made bad music, but he wasn't making radio songs. Less commercial means smaller audiences, and a lot of rock today is less commercial. It's the tribalism thing that Seth Godin predicted 10 years ago. Bands are targeting tribes rather than making music for a radio format. It's up to radio programmers to identify the biggest tribes and play the music that'll attract them. That's a real challenge, and then the next question is are the existing formats appropriate for where the music is going. We know that radio formats have adapted and changed as the music has changed, and perhaps that's where things are going. But I agree with your view that the music has to keep changing, and that's why to the boomers who define rock strictly around what they grew up with, rock (as they knew it) is dying.

I am interested in how this Rock 100 change "affects" ratings. LOL. My reason for asking landtuna when he started to pull away from rock music that he liked (age or year) and started to not like the product as much was because there are some pretty serious studies that say most people's listening habits are pretty much frozen after the ages of 25 to 27. That is why there is so much dissolution of rock music. For example: the listeners that were in their mid-20's in the 90's did not continue to have monumentally big acts or great choices in music that they bonded with as they turned 27-32. Then you started to see the rise of rap and European pop that segued to the Latin sound. Pull at those changes into a force generated by continuing demographic changes and you end up with a small niche for the old-fashioned style of rock that new artists could not replicate and the market did not support. Today's 25-27 year old listeners simply have so many genres of music that far excel and interest them than rock. In fact, my 18 year old is totally not aware of any current rock acts. It's not the music she or her friends would be caught listening. But, they all know tons of songs from 70's and 80's because, well that what their parents listened too and those songs are still cool to them.

I am with BigA on whether Rock 100's music shift is really going to help. They have always had so many issues with that signal that it's probably cheaper to just go with this change, than try another format of the month. This station has so many signal obstacles, regardless of format.

BigA - don't get me started with Godin. Read many of his books? I thoroughly enjoy him.

 

[TheBigA]

BigA - don't get me started with Godin. Read many of his books? I thoroughly enjoy him.

I've heard him speak...him and Gladwell.

 

[landtuna]

My reason for asking landtuna when he started to pull away from rock music that he liked (age or year) and started to not like the product as much was because there are some pretty serious studies that say most people's listening habits are pretty much frozen after the ages of 25 to 27. That is why there is so much dissolution of rock music.

I must be a unique bird. My tastes in music have pretty much expanded since I turned 40ish (about 30 years ago). I listen not only to Oldies but Big Band, Be-Bop, New Age, Classic Country - even some Bluegrass, Folk and Standards. I used to be Oldies only. I still listen to 60's Protest Rock because I was part of that generation (and the war) and it is still very meaningful to me. Heck, I still listen to Big Organ and Harpsichord instrumentals as well. One of my favorite easy listening albums is the Boston Pops playing the Beatles Songbook.

Pretty wide listening and it probably is very unique among people my age (or younger).

But I think BigA nailed it when he said Rock, as we had always known it, exploded into so many niches it got lost in the shuffle. In general, I hated the niches: Grunge, Hair, etc. With very few exceptions I disliked Disco and I absolutely detest rap. More than anything else these niche Rock genre's moved me away from 'modern' Rock.

 

[michael hagerty]

I must be a unique bird. My tastes in music have pretty much expanded since I turned 40ish (about 30 years ago).

I've been trying to tell you that, on this very board, for the better part of ten years now, Landtuna.

 

[TheBigA]

I must be a unique bird. My tastes in music have pretty much expanded since I turned 40ish (about 30 years ago).

Keep in mind most current music is aimed at people in their 20s and 30s. Consider the topics they're singing about. Unless you're head is in the exact same place it was 30-40 years ago, none of that music means anything to you any more. It's not intended to. That would be a little creepy.

 

[landtuna]

I've been trying to tell you that, on this very board, for the better part of ten years now, Landtuna.

But......I like your car reviews Michael.

 

[landtuna]

Keep in mind most current music is aimed at people in their 20s and 30s. Consider the topics they're singing about. Unless you're head is in the exact same place it was 30-40 years ago, none of that music means anything to you any more. It's not intended to. That would be a little creepy.

I won't admit to listening to a lot of modern music but the little bit I do hear doesn't sound too different from the lyrics of old (with the notable exception of rap). The music however is void of almost everything that made the Oldies classic. Way too many talentless people in the biz today.

 

[TheBigA]

Way too many talentless people in the biz today.

If you don't listen how do you know? We've gone through this before. Be Bop a Lula, Tutti Fruiti? What was that about?

And what is talent? Most of it is appearance. Do you think Elvis would have been as big if no one saw him?

 

[michael hagerty]

But......I like your car reviews Michael.

Thank you, Landtuna. That's very kind.

 

[CTListener]

If you don't listen how do you know? We've gone through this before. Be Bop a Lula, Tutti Fruiti? What was that about?

Raw exuberance as opposed to churning out heavily researched, focus-group tested "product" targeted at a specific demographic?

 

[landtuna]

If you don't listen how do you know? We've gone through this before. Be Bop a Lula, Tutti Fruiti? What was that about?

That was called Be-Bop and would probably be called novelty today. It wasn't in the majority then either.

And what is talent? Most of it is appearance. Do you think Elvis would have been as big if no one saw him?

Appearance is of no consequence unless the performer is appealing to teeny-boppers. If appearance were talent you would have never heard of the Rolling Stones (among many others).

Elvis appealed to teeny-boppers then switched to ballads and died a slow musical death but he did have considerable talent voice-wise. People went to see him out of curiosity more than anything else. I knew of at least one - my ex. She said she was never so disappointed in a musical performance as that one. That also seemed to be the general opinion if the local newspaper review could be trusted.

Elvis was the young people's version of Liberace. I liked a couple of Elvis' songs but couldn't stand to watch him. He was pathetic.

 

[landtuna]

Raw exuberance as opposed to churning out heavily researched, focus-group tested "product" targeted at a specific demographic?

It was a very different period in time which contributed mightily to the type of commercial music produced.

The 1950's were indeed a "happy time" and pop music reflected that.

 

[davideduardo]

Raw exuberance as opposed to churning out heavily researched, focus-group tested "product" targeted at a specific demographic?

This brings up an interesting subject which is how record companies have tried for decades and decades to predict whether a song would be a hit.

In the last 25 years or so, I've seen all kinds of computer analysis software being marketed or developed by which a new song could be compared to a database of characteristics of actual hits to see if the new song had any "hit genes". Of course, none of them worked.

In the past, labels have tried listening parties, had music "Burked" (from the Burke company's system for testing TV commercials for effectiveness) and the like. I've never heard of focus groups being used, as that is a really bad tool (finding personal taste in a group environment is not workable), but record companies tried all kinds of things.

And they likely will continue to try to find the holy grail of hit-ness.

And, in the meantime, labels will continue to issue dozens and dozens of songs for every one that "makes it".

 

[TheBigA]

Appearance is of no consequence unless the performer is appealing to teeny-boppers.

So what if they are? John Lennon said the reason he made music was to get girls. That's why most people that age make music. And it worked. Is there something wrong with that? What does that have to do with whether or not he has talent?

BTW Be Bop a Lula was an early hit by Buddy Holly. Figured you'd know that. The other one was Little Richard.

 

[TheBigA]

Raw exuberance as opposed to churning out heavily researched, focus-group tested "product" targeted at a specific demographic?

It depends. The big stars get to the point where no one can tell them anything. They're making music for their tribe. Research doesn't matter.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with targeting music to an audience. It beats singing to a hairbrush in your bedroom.

 

[davideduardo]

BTW Be Bop a Lula was an early hit by Buddy Holly. Figured you'd know that.

Gene Vincent and the Blue Caps. I don't think Holly or The Crickets ever covered it.

 

[TheBigA]

Gene Vincent and the Blue Caps. I don't think Holly or The Crickets ever covered it.

There were loads of thoughtless mindless songs in the 50s. There was a reason why schools & churches didn't want kids to listen to it, and why radio stations typically played it after dark.