It depends. Some national personalities do a lot to advocate for music. But if you're on local radio, local radio people advocate for what's local, and the music for the most part isn't local. Sure, LA is different. But most places have no real music scene. So there's not much to talk about. You end up promoting a lot of people that nobody knows and generally can't experience directly unless they go to a concert, and the majority of people don't go to concerts very much unless they're free and take place at other things they're doing.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
1090 XEPRS Has Gone Back to Oldies Plus Wolfman - L.A. Daily News
- Thread starter Daryl Lynn L.A.
- Start date
It depends. Some national personalities do a lot to advocate for music. But if you're on local radio, local radio people advocate for what's local, and the music for the most part isn't local. Sure, LA is different. But most places have no real music scene. So there's not much to talk about. You end up promoting a lot of people that nobody knows and generally can't experience directly unless they go to a concert, and the majority of people don't go to concerts very much unless they're free and take place at other things they're doing.
Could you give some examples?
I think you might have "Wagoner derangement syndrome". No, I appreciate the past. I don't like what I currently hear on the radio, but I do believe the alternatives to radio are the future and very exciting. I wish I could live another 50 years (can I make it to 122?) to see it all happen.
I gave Zach Bryan. His music appeals to men, but most women hate it.
The problem with Wagoner is he doesn't know about currents-based radio. He knows what he likes, and all of that is in the past. He needs to get out more and go to radio symposiums and conferences the way Sean Ross does. Sean listens to currents-based radio, and writes about it. It's great to revel in the past and talk about all the great radio that once happened. But the world changed 20 years ago. If you're going to write about radio, you need to see the bigger picture, because the environment for radio has changed. LA isn't the same town it used to be either.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
And that also comes into play with this observation from my friend Mr. Hagerty:
One of the biggest issues in Classic Hits is "what songs from the '90s and beyond work?"
For the moment, the question can be sidestepped to some degree. What we've learned from running The Eighties Channel™ in Albuquerque (for two years come Monday!!) is that the 80's are the "safe" decade for 25-54 ... at least right now. I've already proved that there are enough consensus favorites from that decade to build an entire format around them.
That bar has traditionally moved forward very gradually, but it does move. Case in point: KRKE runs the classic American Top 40 programs from the '80s on Sundays. Whenever a scheduled chart week is from 1980, 1981 or 1982, Premiere gives stations the option of a "B" show, which is always from 1986, 1987 or 1988. The aging out of songs in the earlier years creates enough "unfamiliar" songs to negate the benefit of having the late Casey Kasem on. And this has to be affecting a significant number of affiliate stations, or Premiere wouldn't be providing the option.
In fact, iHeart (who I hope everyone here knows is Premiere's corporate parent)'s CH station in San Francisco, KOSF, is now defaulting to the "B" show when it is offered. Up until about six months ago, they ran the "A" show no matter what.
In my own library at KRKE, the peak range in terms of quantity is mid-1982 to late-1988. So I obviously watch this trend carefully but I avoid crossing even to 1990 except for a few songs which listeners perceive as being '80s (e.g., "Enjoy The Silence" by Depeche Mode and "It Must Have Been Love" by Roxette).
KRTH is being very selective as they move forward chronologically. Every song they has specific Los Angeles market appeal, largely due to the presence of Urban CHRs, going back to the late '80s. But the presence of those "evergreens" from the '70s that Mike mentioned proves they are being rightfully cautious.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
I'm aware of ALL the complaints about Richard. I'm not Richard, I don't do a podcast with him any longer and I only brought it up because I was compared to him. Based on the continued rehash of complaints, I JOKED about the "derangement syndrome".
KCRW is a great example of an LA station that plays new music and new artists. No big hit songs by people who play stadiums. They do a great job reaching out to artists. They have a performance studio in their building where artists perform new music all the time. When people make general statements about what radio does or doesn't do, none of them consider KCRW. If this is what people want, here it is. There are stations just like this in a lot of other places.
Last edited:
The less successful followup to "I'm Not Lisa"
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
The less successful followup to "I'm Not Lisa"
Hell, he isn't even Waylon.
Keep in mind that radio airplay only pays the songwriters. That's been the case through the history of radio. Neither artists nor labels get paid by radio for airplay. In addition, payola laws were written to prevent payments to be made to radio for airplay without acknowledgement. Those laws only apply to broadcast radio, not digital. So artists and labels get paid by Sirius and Spotify, and in return, artists and labels can buy airplay on those platforms. No payola laws.
The Digital Copyright Act created a payment system for artists and labels for digital airplay. All streaming stations, including those from broadcast radio, must pay those additional royalties. The artists and labels want that law extended to broadcast radio. It would more than triple the royalty payments radio stations pay now. Plus it would cause payola problems. But if they get their way, it's likely that a lot of stations will stop playing music altogether. As it is, the number of internet radio stations has dropped from where it once was, because the royalty payments increase every three years. A few years ago, Live365 shut down because the royalties got too expensive. They figured out a way to come back. But those expenses increase all the time.
This is why radio stations are really focusing more on the content they create, which is news, sports, and talk. That is likely going to be the future of radio, because the music is becoming less focused and less consensus, and there's less money for stations that attract fewer people.
And, in 1972, ARB (to become Arbitron) had not taken over radio ratings. We still had lots of stations depending on the soon-to-end Hooper and The Pulse (which lasted until 1979). And they stressed 18-49. IIRC, the ARB's back then had not moved to 18-49 yet (Chris can give the dates).
So those 18-24's were important. Once we went to 25-54, a lot of stations realized that the "high end" could be very viable.
I think these rules don't enrich artists as much as some may perceive. Probably the labels, but I don't know the stats. I do know that the indie and unsigned artists I deal with are - obviously - not happy with the Spotify pay out AND most would wave ALL payments just to get as much airplay as possible. Of course, that attitude would probably change for most of them once they "make it".
Everything above is on target.
But Mike, the essential thing to understand is that while Oldies were based on previous chart success when new (you and I are about two years apart in age) and generally, the idea was to play music from 20-30 years before, none of those things are givens, or maybe even considerations now.
It's all about what the target audience wants to hear at that time.
About ten years ago I caused a minor panic here when someone asked what Adult Contemporary is.
I answered that AC is whatever 35-year-old women want to hear. And if they suddenly want to hear Five Finger Death Punch, that might be an AC artist.
That was followed by someone on the board who mentioned (seriously) that the Ramones' "I Wanna Be Sedated" was in fact testing well with women in their mid-30s.
But Mike, the essential thing to understand is that while Oldies were based on previous chart success when new (you and I are about two years apart in age) and generally, the idea was to play music from 20-30 years before, none of those things are givens, or maybe even considerations now.
It's all about what the target audience wants to hear at that time.
About ten years ago I caused a minor panic here when someone asked what Adult Contemporary is.
I answered that AC is whatever 35-year-old women want to hear. And if they suddenly want to hear Five Finger Death Punch, that might be an AC artist.
That was followed by someone on the board who mentioned (seriously) that the Ramones' "I Wanna Be Sedated" was in fact testing well with women in their mid-30s.
They don't. The artists I talk to don't care about them. That's not where they make their money. They make their money from live shows. The reason indie artists don't make much from Spotify is because the payouts are based on audience, and the audience for their music is very small. Artists should learn from radio: If you want to make more money from your music, you need to make music that appeals to more people. Do audience research and find out what people like. But they don't want to do that. They want to do whatever they want, and that's why their music doesn't get airplay, and why they get low payouts from Spotify. Facebook & YouTube work the same way. It's all based on usage and audience. So thankfully for them, they make enough from touring, but they have to tour all the time and play lots of shows for it to make enough for them to live.
Last edited:
My wife (won't disclose her age because I value life) LOVES the Ramones. So are you saying they track older? As an Underground Garage fan, that band is an absolute staple on that channel, but I don't think anyone on terrestrial radio still plays them (maybe KROQ?).
Perhaps by then they could really identify with the song.
This is a personal thing, but any artist that would let his art be dictated by this immediately would lose my respect and likely I'd kick them to the curb. That's just me. I know it isn't a hobby, but.....
OK, I was resisting, but now you force me to bring Jimmy Buffett into this conversation. The song says it all.
He ended up doing alright on the money side anyways.
All four original members are dead. That tells you all you need to know. I doubt KROQ still plays them.
Ha! I was watching the MLB playoffs this week, and one of the stadiums plays the opening riff from "Blitzkrieg Bop" in between pitches. "Hey-Ho, Let's Go!" So people hear the riff. But I bet nobody could identify the song.
I'm sure the artists agree. But if they want to know why their payments are small, that's why. I go to music conferences where I hear all the complaints from the small artists who say they can't live on the money. I want to just explain why, but they wouldn't want to hear it. They testify at hearings pleading for the rates to be increased. All it would do is buy bigger private jets and homes for the big stars.
- Status