Back to Pitching...good, bad or indifferent

[shilton]

So we all had a week to spew on about pitching the music up and what it is and such...but we never really got to the root of my question...so I think I will ask it in a different way.

Do you agree with the practice...disagree and why?

I am kind of surprised how hot of a topic this turned out to be. Just last night, I got a personal email from an old friend in the biz whom we all most likely know (but I will withhold his name out of respect) and he told me that the CHR he works with now pitches like 3%, his oldies outlet pitches like 2% and even his country outlet pitches too. He feels it makes the songs sound HOTTER....more upbeat them your competition and apparently the practice sounds ok to them. Kiss Fm in Pittsburgh Also pitches up although those who pop into the Pittsburgh forum from time to time will note that people seem to be griping about the practice there too. You may recall that B94, now K-Rock in Pittsburgh DID NOT pitch, at least not as much if they ever did...so to the more tuned ear in the Burgh...it sounds silly to them as well

My own ear, at least on some of the songs I hear on 103, I think it sounds silly. Granted, it is more apparent on some songs than others. I believe it sounds the WORST on the really up-tempo stuff like Hollaback Girl and 1985 and it also sounds bad on the ballads. When you have a tune like Mariah Carey spinning at 2% faster and its on many other stations in the area within ear shot (95.3, 101.1, 97.7, 103.5) and they ALL play the same slower cut...I think it sounds like something is drastically wrong. It does not seem to sound too awful on the stuff in between...the medium tempo cuts.

Obviously Logan, Turner or whomever at 103 thinks it sounds just great and I assume PRR (sorry...old habits die hard)...I mean Hot 100 most likely pitches too...now my question is what is your take on it. For...against...indifferent and Why???

 

[McCall]

> So we all had a week to spew on about pitching the music up
> and what it is and such...but we never really got to the
> root of my question...so I think I will ask it in a
> different way.
>
> Do you agree with the practice...disagree and why?

I'm generally against doing it across the board. Some songs sound great when pitched up, and some stand out like a turd in a punchbowl. I would consider doing it on a song-by-song basis, and would only modestly pitch them up.

My question for the programmers is: Do you really think pitching gives you a competitive advantage?

 

[mountaineer]

A. If you're in a direct format battle, and "excitement" (or some variation) is critical to your positioning, then it might be positive. If not, it's wasted motion.

B. Of all the variables/elements that constitute a station's programming--and there are a TON--it probably ranks way the hell down the totem pole (below such things as playing the right songs... not playing the wrong songs... recruiting/hiring/supervising-coaching & retaining air talent... info content (news/weather, etc)... info presentation... contesting... conversational content (that is, what the AT says and how he/she says it)... attitude... liners/jingles... commercial production... stop-set management... you get the drift). Way the hell down the totem pole. But in a lot of cases, all this stuff--the important stuff--is beyond the control of the PD. So maybe screwing with "pitch" gives the PD something to do. Something to control.

And, hey, if that keeps 'em off the street and out of trouble, maybe it's a good thing!

> > So we all had a week to spew on about pitching the music
> up
> > and what it is and such...but we never really got to the
> > root of my question...so I think I will ask it in a
> > different way.
> >
> > Do you agree with the practice...disagree and why?
>
> I'm generally against doing it across the board. Some songs
> sound great when pitched up, and some stand out like a turd
> in a punchbowl. I would consider doing it on a song-by-song
> basis, and would only modestly pitch them up.
>
> My question for the programmers is: Do you really think
> pitching gives you a competitive advantage?
>

 

[jumper]

> Do you agree with the practice...disagree and why?

I don't really care as far as most songs go....Although some songs are too noticeable.

Froggy pitches most of it's music 2% when it is recorded into Maestro using a Denon CD player. There are a few songs that were downloaded and not pitched. Some of Waly's music is pitched as well.

 

[inthemorining]

> So we all had a week to spew on about pitching the music up
> and what it is and such...but we never really got to the
> root of my question...so I think I will ask it in a
> different way.
>
> Do you agree with the practice...disagree and why?
>
> I am kind of surprised how hot of a topic this turned out to
> be. Just last night, I got a personal email from an old
> friend in the biz whom we all most likely know (but I will
> withhold his name out of respect) and he told me that the
> CHR he works with now pitches like 3%, his oldies outlet
> pitches like 2% and even his country outlet pitches too. He
> feels it makes the songs sound HOTTER....more upbeat them
> your competition and apparently the practice sounds ok to
> them. Kiss Fm in Pittsburgh Also pitches up although those
> who pop into the Pittsburgh forum from time to time will
> note that people seem to be griping about the practice there
> too. You may recall that B94, now K-Rock in Pittsburgh DID
> NOT pitch, at least not as much if they ever did...so to the
> more tuned ear in the Burgh...it sounds silly to them as
> well
>
> My own ear, at least on some of the songs I hear on 103, I
> think it sounds silly. Granted, it is more apparent on some
> songs than others. I believe it sounds the WORST on the
> really up-tempo stuff like Hollaback Girl and 1985 and it
> also sounds bad on the ballads. When you have a tune like
> Mariah Carey spinning at 2% faster and its on many other
> stations in the area within ear shot (95.3, 101.1, 97.7,
> 103.5) and they ALL play the same slower cut...I think it
> sounds like something is drastically wrong. It does not
> seem to sound too awful on the stuff in between...the medium
> tempo cuts.
>
> Obviously Logan, Turner or whomever at 103 thinks it sounds
> just great and I assume PRR (sorry...old habits die
> hard)...I mean Hot 100 most likely pitches too...now my
> question is what is your take on it.
> For...against...indifferent and Why???
>
well here is the perspective from the old guy......when I started in 1973 in NH we used 4 qrk turntables and they all were sped up to 46 2/3 rpm and 34 rpm...at the time the engineer and group PD told me the songs sounded brighter and because of the cue back with the vinyl we needed that extra millisecond to be tight...also in those days we had a lot of shotgun jingles that were very up so a 'brighter faster' intro sounded better. Our cart machines also were juiced a tad.....at the time I don't think it had anything to do to add a song....we played 22min of spots and hour any how.....And the tried and true editing of music belongs to the late Rick Sklar who famously edited hits his own way for WABC that weren't even close to what you heard on say 99x. Again radio folk can debate these foibles endlessly......if the litener likes it do it.

 

[SheepDip]

> > So we all had a week to spew on about pitching the music
> up
> > and what it is and such...but we never really got to the
> > root of my question...so I think I will ask it in a
> > different way.
> >
> > Do you agree with the practice...disagree and why?
>
> I'm generally against doing it across the board. Some songs
> sound great when pitched up, and some stand out like a turd
> in a punchbowl. I would consider doing it on a song-by-song
> basis, and would only modestly pitch them up.
>
> My question for the programmers is: Do you really think
> pitching gives you a competitive advantage?
>
Some songs should not be pitched... They should be tossed.