60's and 70's Classic Hits with some 50's?

[muskrat14]

It makes them "forget" that the others even existed. So when one is played on a themed weekend, these people would say.." Boy, haven't heard that one in a while" or "Wow, I remember that one way back..it reminds me of my girl back in 73".

Yet these "forgotten songs", were HUGE hits in the day.

It's irrelevant if a song was a hit "in the day," it's only relevant how it works TODAY. There are lots of songs -- from all eras -- that charted quite highly in the day, that make no sense to play today. Why would you waste precious airtime playing stiffs (according to today's audience research), even if they charted quite highly back then? Are there hordes of people clamoring to hear The Singing Nun, or Sukiaki? "Honey?" "Love Is Blue?" "The Streak" was a number one hit, but you'd be loony to play it today. Frank Sinatra had a number one ("Strangers In The Night") in 1966 -- should we play that to? Why not, if all you're concerned with is chart position from The Day.

As David E pointed out, charts back then were highly influenced by politics, money, drugs and other things (remember "paper adds?"). Worry about how a song tests TODAY.

The facts have been laid out over and over again, but you folks don't want to believe them. 55+ targeted radio does not make money in major and mid sized markets. David's Tampa example is the whole situation in a nutshell. I worked for a guy in 1985 who shut down his Music Of Your Life AM station to simulcast our CHR format, even though he was #1 12 plus. Couldn't sell it because it was all 55+. This was in 1985, so those folks were listeners of 30's and 40's music, and they went through what you're going through now.

And it'll happen to 70's and 80's fans in a few years too.

 

[oldies76]

deltas69 why play them on a themed weekend ? why not play the whole 4000 or so playlist ? if they can remember their old girl friend from 73 on a weekend..surely they can remember her on a thursday afternoon..

We've been called dreamers by the 12,000+ poster, so what else is new?

Radio is not how it used to be. Thankfully CBS is willing to go deep on weekends (at least)

 

[muskrat14]

Why play them on a themed weekend ? why not play the whole 4000 or so playlist ? if they can remember their old girl friend from 73 on a weekend..surely they can remember her on a thursday afternoon..i'm not saying don't play the same 300..just insert all then others with proper jingles, sandwich them in between the tested stuff..yea..they might not have thought of Ringo (lorne greene, 1964, #1) since they were in the 9th grade..but play that, properly inserted,,and i bet they say..holy $**t ..where'd that come from ..or navy blue by diane ray..they don't have to be one hit wonders like these two.and yes the listener has been dumbed down by having the same songs thrown at them day after day...i understand that captureing and keeping a listner is what it's all about..you got an hour or so in drive times..but that doesn;t mean you have to hear, pretty woman, the loin sleeps tonight, and do you love me, every morning and afternoon at the same time..but hopefully i'm beginning to make my case to the rock jury here.one thing is for sure i obviously have a totaly different take on what and how to play this genre' than most others, ..lol..

Tell me you're kidding. "Ringo?" Who in their right mind would sit through that?

Ratings results for decades confirm that huge, unfocused, playlists don't work. People may say that want "variety" (whatever that means), but their behavior shows otherwise. People tune out the unfamiliar, the obnoxious, the out-of-place. Go ahead -- play "Ringo," "The Streak," and the like on a regular basis and see what happens. They don't say "oh wow.." they say "what the hell?"

And as for old girlfriends, once you've remembered her once, why would you do it again?

 

[oldies76]

muskrat14 Go ahead -- play "Ringo," "The Streak," and the like on a regular basis and see what happens. They don't say "oh wow.." they say "what the hell?"

We're talking about a station that plays it's core 488 songs PLUS extras every so often, like WCBS and themed weekends.

NO, I would not play "Ringo" or "The Streak" or even "Afternoon Delight" every day, but I would play extras, like these and others, every once in a while, as to not bore the listener with the same 488 over and over again. You gotta have some variety and depth and specials...make your station unique..not redundant.. Who wants to hear "My Girl" and "Pretty Woman" 3 times a day...everyday..wouldn't that make you say....geez..not again?

Variety means..the core playlists + extras on weekends and at times during the day & evening plus entertaining DJ's and promos. Gotta have some fun with your audience.

 

[deltas69]

i didn't say play them on a regular basis ..i have roughly 20 gigs of music from 63 through 93..every song right off billboards top 100 charts..big hits, one hit wonders,bottom 50's that got played, but didn't make the top 20.every one is a song that i and other jocks played when they were released.it will run about 8 days 24/7 without repeating ringo..or any other...after hearing the same stuff ad naseum every day..i would think listeners would gladly welcome something more..make them want to tune in and stay there..as formatted now if you miss pretty woman at 7:05..not to worry..i can catch it at 9:30, or 1pm, or 4:25..the same old stuff has been done and overdone to death..it's no wonder sat radio seems to be slowly growing from what i understand,,never listened to any..but i'm told a much more varied format of all types of music is up there..however since you can't sell +55 demo's it doesn't matter since pretty woman stations apprently are dying a fast death anyway..

 

[davideduardo]

ok..now i'm educated on HOW this is done..but i find it hard to believe that out of 1400 songs, this crowd can only recognize 300 or so songs..they surely have listened to hundreds and hundreds more than that when these songs were released new...yet i'm being told they can only remember these few?

You missed the point. Oldies stations would seldom test a song that was unfamiliar. When that might happen is when today's listeners in a market (and such testing is done in each market, not nationally) may have come from different areas where some songs were played less or not at all.

Nearly ever song will be highly familiar. But very few will score over the 70 to 75% acceptance overall and with few "hate" ore "dislike" scores. So you can test the songs over and over, but you find that most are no longer hits if they ever were.

i contend that played by jocks that know the music..ALL the songs can be played ..and people will listen..

The last station I competed with that had that attitude lost 1.8 to over a 20 share, with a cume of 300,000 to our 4.2 million.

 

[davideduardo]

Pretty sad!! I think they can only recognize 300..because the stations they've listened too, since these "other" hits were taken off the air, only played the successful "tested" music since.

It makes them "forget" that the others even existed. So when one is played on a themed weekend, these people would say.." Boy, haven't heard that one in a while" or "Wow, I remember that one way back..it reminds me of my girl back in 73".

You are misinterpreting a post of a poster who did not understand the original posts. Those big oldies tests are virtualy 100% recognized. But about 60% or more of the songs score too low to play. I recognize dog poop, too... but I don't try to intentionally step in it.

Yet these "forgotten songs", were HUGE hits in the day.

But, if they really were hits... and many charting songs, even top 10 ones, were not hits... they are not hits today. Nobody wants to hear them again except oldies freaks, who are not typical listeners.

This tells me that most oldies & classic hits stations have "brainwashed" most average listeners..into thinking..these 300 or 500 are the only hits in town! Let pick them again...so the repetitious cycle drags on...year after year. It's a fact.

No, it's not a fact. It is far from a fact. You really have to stop making stuff up as "the truth" because it is obvious you have never worked in a successful... or any... radio station, never seen research designed and done, and believe there are a lot of people so deeply interested in obscure oldies as you: there aren't.

I'm not the only successful programmer posting... try listening first.

 

[davideduardo]

why play them on a themed weekend ? why not play the whole 4000 or so playlist ? if they can remember their old girl friend from 73 on a weekend..surely they can remember her on a thursday afternoon..

The vast bulk of the audience does not like those "other" 3,500 songs. In fact, in most cases they either dislike or hate the songs, and would be gone to another station if an oldies or classic hits station played them today.

Very few of yesterday's hits are hits today. Oldies stations play the ones that people, today, still want to hear.

And lots of the "hits" of the 60's were not hits, in fact.

 

[oldies76]

DavidEduardo But, if they really were hits... and many charting songs, even top 10 ones, were not hits... they are not hits today. Nobody wants to hear them again except oldies freaks, who are not typical listeners.

oldies76 This tells me that most oldies & classic hits stations have "brainwashed" most average listeners..into thinking..these 300 or 500 are the only hits in town! Let pick them again...so the repetitious cycle drags on...year after year. It's a fact.

DavidEduardo No, it's not a fact. It is far from a fact. You really have to stop making stuff up as "the truth" because it is obvious you have never worked in a successful... or any... radio station, never seen research designed and done, and believe there are a lot of people so deeply interested in obscure oldies as you: there aren't.

DE, I have a vast interest in oldies & classic hits. I mentioned above that playing the core 488 is fine, as long as extras are filled in every so often and themed weekends are aired. That's my style, ok? WCBS does it, so what the heck is wrong with that? I do not appreciate you calling me & others oldies freaks. There are many listeners like me out there, & unfortunately by asking ONLY 100 -300 people to test songs, you're chances of getting a person testing, that has my similiar preferences are slim, otherwise it would make a difference in the playlists of these stations. AND yes I have worked in radio....KWVE 107.9 in the early 90's to be exact!

Big hits in the day, that are not aired today, are not obscure, they are simply absent from today's playlists. Songs that charted under position 40 to 100 are deeply obscure.

 

[Tom Wells]

Ringo's not a deep cut, turn that puppy over and play "BONANZA!"

I'm right there with deltas69. I can't wait for the next forgotten song to turn up and I'm also building my own pt 15 AM
playlist up and see no problem with 4000+ songs. I've been complaining about the "officially sanctioned 500 oldies" since the late 70's.

I can't say I'd ever need to hear "Honey" again.
I do enjoy "Who will take Gramma" by Walter Brennan.

I'm trying to avoid the schmaltz, yet I break my own "rules" with
some songs that are schmaltzy or burned out, if they still sound good to me. I play music back to 1925, with heavy emphasis
on 1960's garage proto-punk.

 

[oldies76]

DavidEduardo I'm not the only successful programmer posting... try listening first.

And some of us so-called "dreamers" would love to try something different.

What would happen if your favorite songs from, say 1971 (an example) were yanked of the air. Wouldn't you want to hear them again on your station of choice? Most people would. 100 - 300 people testing, to me, does not represent fairly what songs should be aired, considering there are thousands upon thousands of potential listeners.

 

[davideduardo]

100 - 300 people testing, to me, does not represent fairly what songs should be aired, considering there are thousands upon thousands of potential listeners.

To test your blood, they do not take a gallon out of your system... they take a few drops. The same is true with research. You only need a small sample of the group that listens, or would listen, to know what the entire group likes and dislikes.

The test, as I have now said three times, of a research sample is whether you could do the same project over again with the same results. If you can replicate the results, the sample size is adequate. In music testing, for just about every format, around 100 persons is all that you need. Nothing will change if you test 200, 300, 500 or 1000 persons as long as the original 100 persons were correctly recruited.

It's really tiring to try to explain to you how things work in the real world... the same principals of research work if Proctor & Gamble is testing a new type of laundry detergent, too. In fact, American industry and commerce runs on consumer research, all very similar to the things done to research in radio.

By denying proven reality, you come across as Quixotic and ill-informed. Thousands of music tests are done every year and many more projects are done for morning shows, station image and format development. This is because such projects, when well done, work marvelously.

Swimming against the current works for salmon, but not for radio stations.

 

[davideduardo]

I do not appreciate you calling me & others oldies freaks.

You do not even know what a "freak" is. What planet are you from?

A "speed freak" is someone adicted to drugs. An "oldies freak" is someone adicted to oldies... an unusual if not unhealthy adiction not shared by 99.99% of the population (start with the fact that oldies only garners a couple of percent of listening in most markets... and is, today, a niche format).

There are many listeners like me out there, & unfortunately by asking ONLY 100 -300 people to test songs, you're chances of getting a person testing, that has my similiar preferences are slim, otherwise it would make a difference in the playlists of these stations.

You contradicted yourself. If I test 300 of a particular station's listeners, and don't find an oldies freak like you, that means your ilk is less than a half of a percent of the listners to the station... a group that can't be served or satisfied and thus worthy of being ignored at the risk of otherwise driving off the other 99.7% of the station listeners who don't give a rat's patootie about those awful and obscure songs.

AND yes I have worked in radio....KWVE 107.9 in the early 90's to be exact!

As I suspected, you never worked at a station that had to make a profit by getting ratings.

Big hits in the day, that are not aired today, are not obscure, they are simply absent from today's playlists. Songs that charted under position 40 to 100 are deeply obscure.

Big hits from the past that people don't want to hear today are no longer big hits. Get it through your head that oldies or classic hits or classic rock stations (or any format playing no currents) don't care what the national charts said. They care about what the listeners, today, want to hear.

 

[amfmsw]

OK fellas, let's look at this from both sides. That giant gulping sound is me swallowing my pride to say that Dave has a very valid point in the concept of "what are hits today?" I too find obscure music tedious to listen to. Dave is NOT always wrong, although I disagree and cringe most of the time!

I love do-wop. But when I would listen to Don K. Reed's Do-Wop Shop on WCBS-FM Sunday nights, I could only take so much. He had a wonderful voice, (live jock mentioned to present the songs), awesome knowledge and personality. But after 4 of 5 B sides, I was hungry for some mainstream hits. To argue against the narrow platform, I don't mean "Rock Around The Clock", or ANY hit for the millionth time. Just something familiar.

With that in mind, I'd like DE to realize 1: we're not freaks (rather insulting). 2. we're today's listeners. 3. P&G and A-B just might be WRONG.

I believe DE is mistaken in today's listeners' "tolerance" for more, but not necessarily deeper cuts. Today's listeners want more variety. While Tom's podcastst and part 15 are really, way cool, on a personal level, I don't want Billie Holiday with my Tymes. I don't think ANY obsure record has it's place in a hit radio station, even as a feature, unless it's a few seconds long to make the feature work. Example would be playing the forst 10 seconds of the 1952 recording of Tommy Edwards "It's All In The Game" then intro the '58 popular version. You'd lose your audience in the Arbitron World.

But Dave, what we are saying is INCLUDE wonderful songs like the Edward's hit. Include more top 20. And yes, there are exceptions of novelty hits. They old saying of when it doubt, leave it out does need to be scrutinized when playing 40 year old songs 12 time a week.

 

[oldies76]

DavidEduardo You do not even know what a "freak" is. What planet are you from?

You are VERY insulting and based on your 12,000+ posts...you have nothing better to do, than to be-little posters that don't agree with your philosophy about music & radio. You aren't the radio king here...your only one!

And yes, I understand all this junk about testing and so forth...but I disagree on some of its methods and it's not how radio should run nowadays with boomers aging.

Quit calling those "obscure" songs awful...they may be awful to YOU, but not to many other listeners. You have no idea what people like and dislike, outside of testing, no idea!

 

[davideduardo]

With that in mind, I'd like DE to realize 1: we're not freaks (rather insulting). 2. we're today's listeners. 3. P&G and A-B just might be WRONG.

1. "Freak" in this context means "obsessive or obcessed fan." Not insulting, although obcessive behaviour may be a little strange when it involves divorce from reality as is apparent here.
2. You are not today's listeners. As our other obcessive poster stated, "a test of 300 persons might not include someone like me..." that means that your kind are one in a thousand, and irrelevant to today's radio.
3. P&G is not wrong. Do some researched products fail? Yes, but that is because P&G tries to determine what consumers will do in the future based on products that don't today exist. Their batting average is very high, so it works. Radio does something more simple: we separate the playable songs from the unplayable, and rank the playabñle ones based on what listeners say they would like to hear on the radio today.

I believe DE is mistaken in today's listeners' "tolerance" for more, but not necessarily deeper cuts.

All of us in programming have experience either playing too deep ourseleves or seeing a cometitor do it. The results were disasterous, and we learned that more is not better and fewer is generally best. Variety, by the way, has nothing to do with more songs... it has to do with not playing bad songs; it's a perception, not a count.

But Dave, what we are saying is INCLUDE wonderful songs like the Edward's hit. Include more top 20. And yes, there are exceptions of novelty hits. They old saying of when it doubt, leave it out does need to be scrutinized when playing 40 year old songs 12 time a week.

"All in the Game" would only appeal to people who are in their 60's now, so it's not going to get played much anyway even if it tested. You are not distinguising between songs that don't get played because they appeal or might appeal to an over 55 audience and songs that appeal to 35-54 because the bulk of 35-54's don't like the song any more.

And, again, the charts from the 50's well into the 70's are, first, national. They may not reflect what was played in a specific market. Second, they are so subject to the games record companies played back then that, without local music testing, they give no real help in knowing what to play. Many, many songs that charted were NOT hits at all. What radio wants to know is how a song is perceived today, not how it may have done 45 years ago. Otherwise, we would have the Singing Nun instead of Brown Eyed Girl... one not being a hit today and the other being one that the average oldies station would like to hear at least once a week (meaning it could be played up to 15 times a week quite safely, using a reach and frequency calculation baseed on average TSL).

 

[davideduardo]

And yes, I understand all this junk about testing and so forth...but I disagree on some of its methods and it's not how radio should run nowadays with boomers aging.

Radio can not and will not serve the "ageing boomers" once they hit 55 because there is no revenue. Give up on this, it's a fact in all but small or unrated markets. The first boomers are now 62, so a significant percentage are over 55 and not of interest to radio because they are not of interest today to advertisers. If the advertisers suddenly become interested, there will be formats for older listeners. But today, no.

You have demonstrated no knowledge of survey techniques as evidenced by the fact that some things have been repeated to you multiple times and you do not get it. I will add another... were radio to do music tests for 300 or more people, they would be so expensiven nobody outside the top 5 or 10 markets could afford them.

Quit calling those "obscure" songs awful...they may be awful to YOU, but not to many other listeners. You have no idea what people like and dislike, outside of testing, no idea!

Again, you show ignorance. To a programmer, a low scoring song is a stiff. A stiff is dangerous and awful. Most of us remove any personal taste from programming, and go by what the listener tells us they want... and that is having a real clear idea of what people want and don't want.

Research is all about finding out listener needs so a station can satisfy them. It gives a clear and balance idea of what listeners want. Your idea of giving listeners what they want involves playing stiffs that you and only a few other people in a whole market want to hear and assuming your taste is what listeners will gravitate too. You are wrong, of course, and we have seen so many arrogant "I know what they want... I don't need no stinkin' research" programmers fail over the years. Your lack of experience, passion for the obscure and failure to understand the economic model of radio as well as your unwillingness to accept that everything you suggest has been tried over and over and failed makes you nothing like the typical listener.

 

[davideduardo]

I do not appreciate you calling me & others oldies freaks.

Today's definition of "freak" is this:

In current usage, the word freak denotes a person with an unusual personality. This usage dates from the so-called freak scene of the 1960s and 1970s. "Freak" in this sense may be used either as a pejorative, a term of admiration, or a self-description. It can also denote a strong obsession with a particular activity, e.g., "He's such a neat-freak" or "You're a singing freak".

 

[deltas69]

lets' give it up guys..eddy obviously has the radio playbook 101 and is using it verbatim..anything that diviates from that is sacriledge..breaks the rules etc.i don't think anyone here is a freak of any sort, and your arrogant and condecending attitude toward us i'm sure makes you feel much better..however there seems to be just as many that agree with myself and others that agree with you...next thing he'll say is i shouldn't play my coal mine triolgy, "big bad john,workin' in a cole mine, timothy"... keep your little format ed, and your testing as it obviously is a sacred cow for you... most of the rest prefer a much wider variety...even Honey every eight days..

 

[oldies76]

DavidEduardo Again, you show ignorance. To a programmer, a low scoring song is a stiff. A stiff is dangerous and awful. Most of us remove any personal taste from programming, and go by what the listener tells us they want... and that is having a real clear idea of what people want and don't want.

your unwillingness to accept that everything you suggest has been tried over and over and failed makes you nothing like the typical listener.

We are talking about having a core playlist AND playing specialty weekends AND throwing in some extras (like "It's All in the Game) What is wrong with that? OK, a stiff may be dangerous at 745am during drive time, but it CAN be included in a specialty weekend, at least...right? If a station features a number one hits weekend, or the like, All in the Game, Purple-People Eater or The Morning After would have to be aired in this slot, correct?

We are not saying..play them all the time, like Brown Eyed Girl or Unchained Melody, just every once in a while.

And you are very correct...not a "typical" listener by any means. I enjoy MOST (90%) oldies and classic hits. The "awful" ones are songs I truly dislike, not dislike because they're not aired.