A Suggestion for classic Rock stations-Good or Bad?

[vibe]

I'm just a listener and only vaguely familiar with the economics and reality of radio but I'm throwing this out for discussion;
There's a lot of great songs by great groups such as the Beatles, Stones, Pink Floyd etc that have been played over the years by classic rock stations but these songs have been probably been heard by many of us hundreds or thousands of times (yes thousands) to the point where they are heard ad nauseum.
In the last year there have been remixs of some of the same tired old songs but they have a refreshingly different beat. And the ability to do these old songs with today's technology enhances the sound.
Why don't the classic rockers play more of the Roger Water's version of "The Wall" songs/?
Why don't they play more cuts from the 2006 release of the Beatles Love CD? Songs such as "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" are so much different and to me better) than the opriginal versions.
Why don't classic rockers play "Time is on My Side" by The Band of Bees or Kyle Shaker's version of Dylan's "Ballad of a Thin man?" I almost fell over when I heard them; they REALLY blew me away.
Stations could possibly run a "then and now" segmant and have their listeners weigh in on what version of the song they like.
Here's my standing offer. I will bet any radio executive I can pick out 10 recent cuts; versions of the same tired old classic rock songs that have been updated and bet $100 per song (I am not rich) that the version I choose would have more listener appeal of the same tired old songs currently on their playlist. And I would not choose more than 2 songs per artist. THIS would make it more difficult for me and require that I do some research on the subject..
I just want to make enough $$ to cover my travel expenses to and fro and to spend a few days in that area. No checks please, just Mr. Franklins.
Or y'all can try this idea for free and save yourselves the time and embarassment.

 

[88.9 Miracle]

We are already doing some of what you recommend here in Cincinnati on 88.9, ClassX

http://www.classxradio.com

 

[TheRover]

I'm just a listener and only vaguely familiar with the economics and reality of radio but I'm throwing this out for discussion;
There's a lot of great songs by great groups such as the Beatles, Stones, Pink Floyd etc that have been played over the years by classic rock stations but these songs have been probably been heard by many of us hundreds or thousands of times (yes thousands) to the point where they are heard ad nauseum.

Here's my standing offer. I will bet any radio executive I can pick out 10 recent cuts; versions of the same tired old classic rock songs that have been updated and bet $100 per song (I am not rich) that the version I choose would have more listener appeal of the same tired old songs currently on their playlist. And I would not choose more than 2 songs per artist. THIS would make it more difficult for me and require that I do some research on the subject..

Well, I certianly agree with you vibe, about the ad nauseum part of hearing the same exact old songs, over and over.

But what I beleive is the problem here, is that, in a most deliberate effort, by the stations to reach and keep the highest amount of listeners, however "short" that time of listening is, that, the stations must craft playlists that will not offend or confuse their mass audience.

And sadly, the mass audience has a different way of consuming rock, than you or I do.

I compare it to the fattys that eat at McDonald's ALL of the time. They are content with the same old, same old. It's not that these consumers would not enjoy a Fudrucker's hamburger, it's just that these comsumers are not looking for anything but the same old, same old. Sad, but true.

And, if you were a mass adverstiser, then you look for the "McDonald's" kind of radio customer to hawk your goods to. As a mass advertiser, you could care less about the good tastes of "Fudrucker's" customers.

So if the radio stations started playing more of the songs you have suggested, in place of the same old same old, they would lose precious "McDonalds" class of listeners ---- And the most precious mass advertising that those listeners bring.

So, it's not about what would be easier on my ears and your ears......

If you're not a simple-minded "McDonald's" listener, then your "Fudruckers" requests are going to be ignored for the most part, not because of any "quality" issue, but because of the Bottom Line.

You NEVER move away from your Mc Donald's customers, as that-- is where the maximum advertising revenue is. It's really a very simple business model.

----------------------------------------------------------

I am surpsrised that there is not even just --one-- filthy rich boomer that, would put the cultural quality of rock music ahead of playing to the lowest common denominator, and play something --other than-- the same old tired hits that are in regular rotation in just one major market in this land.


I would consider doing that a more worthy endeavor than giving millions to a college or a university. The benefit of current rock playlists is not cultually enlightening, anyomre than a McDonalds is. You are culturally starved, but, your gut is full, so why go to the next level??

 

[vibe]

The next level is either XM or purchasing approx 30 used CD's a year (equiv. to the cost of XM) and have total control over what is listened to. I can do this but keep giving radio the chance to redeem itself; noble but not realistic.
The Mc Donald marketing concept is interesting but here's my "Shark theory" on radio. In the ocean where food is abundant, there is a consistent food chain but in some areas of the ocean the sharks get eaten by other sharks.
Radio's audience is dwindling for that very reason; in an attempt to carve out an ever decreasing portion of the listening audience, their playlists keep getting safer and safer but that leads to more and more people like myself who are ready to do what was almost unthinkable; to go to satelite.

 

[RFLA]

I find some people wouldn't even notice the difference but others will scream because you use the edited version of the Who's "who are you".

Listeners are a weird bunch espcially when a song has become engrained like the adnauseum times we hear it.. there are still people at the end of the day crying for "freebird" because they actually want to hear the song, and not the Johnny Van Zant led Lynyrd Skynyrd version either.

Sat radio has the advantage of many more channels than terrestrial but I find it still comes up woefully short in my opinion as I love classics with new rock for instance but never hear it there... have to locate stations airing that kind of playlist or make my own playlist (the randomness is what I love actually)

Sat radio still won't please everyone... It will be like your McDonald's idea where instead of just Hamburgers,fires and a drink like the orignial idea was (and that basically was your only choices), we have added a more thought out menu (with salads,fish, and other ideas), but I still can't get my McRib.

Radio tries to play it safe and yes it's a hard balancing act... they try and play too safe sometimes and alienate people.. but going wild on the playground sometimes is just like on the playground. People will stay away... we all want that comfortable medium.

RFLA

 

[vibe]

But how much "Honky Tonk Women" can a listener take? Why can't they play the Leon Russel version once in awhile instead of the Stones version? Better yet why not have a playoff of sorts and let your listeners decide?

 

[TheRover]

But how much "------ Tonk Women" can a listener take? Why can't they play the Leon Russel version once in awhile instead of the Stones version? Better yet why not have a playoff of sorts and let your listeners decide?

The listeners have decided.... The ignorant masses have spoken.... to the Consultants....

And that's why you don't hear Leon R. !

He's too Hi-Brow for the ignorant masses..... and The Consultants should know ! ! !

 

[88.9 Miracle]

Hang the Consultants!

 

[Big D]

KSEG 96.9 in Sacramento does a good job of blending in many live tracks and covers of classic staples. While some just aren't as good as the originals, it's nice to hear some variety on occasion.

 

[stefanokills]

"Time is on My Side" by The Band of Bees


I gotta check that out.

 

[TheRover]

Classic Rock stations by the classical definition of the "Classic Rock" format, play music that was corporately released as a "single". And then, they do not play regularly every single released, just their consultant-driven pick of singles released.

That is compared and contrasted to the "Rock" format, which plays hard rock, and tracks not necessarliy released as singles.

So, by it's very nature, any "Classic Rock" stations bulk of programming will be those consutlant-picked "singles". It's like asking a grackle, who by it's nature "squawks", to "sing" like a Bluebird.

"Classic Rock" should always be viewed as "Hit Single Rock" at all times ! !
That is 90% what "Classic Rock" will always be about.

What we need are more "Rock" formats to replace the these bloated "hit single" machines. NOw that's amatter of taste, and corporate advertisers could care less about what taste. They need the hit single vechicle to carry their important messages to the common masses, every day !!

The purpose of radio is to provide corporate America a portal to foist it's marketing to the "masses". Corporations, don't have souls, they have bottom lines. Whatever music appeals to the lowest common denominator, is the "best" music out there to them. So crappy hit music of all genres is the butter on their bread.

HAVE A SLICE ! ! MAKE THAT TWO !!