BBC Radio 1 = World's Best Station?

[clubfm]

Re: Wrong! Wrong ! WRONG!

> Well mate, WMC is American, right? So perhaps the Americans
> don't get what the BBC is about? It has never been a dance
> station, it never will be. It's a music station that is
> block programming. If you take the time to go back in this
> forum, way back, you'll see how I made the point that BBC is
> not dance station, regardless of them winning this "award".
>
>
> > Well considering they have been Dance Radio Station of the
>
> > Year for the past 4 years at DanceStar and WMC.. ummm, i
> > sort of kind of thought that. I mean, if a Country Radio
> > Station won Country Radio Station of the Year, I would
> think
> > that the country station picked would probably lean very
> > heavily on Country Music. Sorry, I dont sit there on the
> BBC
> > website all day listening to their stream so I really dont
>
> > know what they play. I was just making an observation
> about
> > their POP/TOP 40 shows... I was hoping that the station
> > would be more RHY leaning with a heavy dose of dance
> > music... which is totally not the case in the afternoons.
> >
> > Well mate, life is more than dance music
>
> No, I said I liked Milky. If you step outside your little
> hate for me and read what I write, you might see I was
> commenting on the state of dance pop. No where have I
> commented on the state of deep house, hard trance, goa or
> anything else for that matter. FM radio doesn't play that
> music, and in case you aren't aware, the American audience
> isn't open to it and hasn't been for half a decade.
>
> As for your snitty little comment about my knowledge of
> "dance" music based on the fact I said I liked Milky, well
> it rings of your arrogance, not mine. Let me toss a barb
> your way mate. You're likely nothing more than some aging
> clubster that can't get over the fact that not a bloody soul
> gives a rats ass about your "electronic" music, regardless
> of your massive ego fueled by 1Club FM.
>
> If you don't like what I write, don't read it. If you don't
> like the BBC, then don't listen to it. Problem is, just
> like far to many ravers you believe that if you don't like
> it, it's rubbish.
>
> I'm quite aware that this forum is about dance music. The
> entire genre, not your narrow snitty opinion of it.


I dont have hate for you.. but like I said.. for the past 8 months you have tatooed in our heads that dance music in 05 sucks... when in fact its one of the better years we have had in a while.

You dont think I know that the American general public doesnt care about dance music? Everyone knows this.. and there are several reasons for this... and its not because of the music quality... like you keep telling us.

You're likely nothing more than some aging
> clubster that can't get over the fact that not a bloody soul
> gives a rats ass about your "electronic" music

Like a give a (BLEEP) what people think about the music I like. What kind of bone head analogy is that? I like every single genre imaginable... not just EDM

massive ego fueled by 1Club FM.

1Club.FM did not teach me to be honest. GOD did... Im just honest and straight forward... and people like you take it the wrong way. Cry me a river.

Problem is, just
> like far to many ravers you believe that if you don't like
> it, it's rubbish.

Arent you doing the same thing for dance music? How many times on this board have you said dance music in 05 sucks.. and that its not what it used to be? So you are basically describing the way that you are acting.. at least I said several times that "IT'S ONLY MY OPINION". When I say something like that, I'm not preaching it to everyone like you have been doing.

I dont use the terms "bloody", "mate", and "rubbish"... therefore the British pop and rock scene does nothing for me. How many times did I say... "only my opinion". Im not speaking for everyone.. Im speaking for myself.

But for the what? 4th or 5th time now? I simply said that I was disappointed that R1 was not the RHY-type dance/hip-hop station that I always thought it was. Remember, I live in Florida and not London, so before this Sirius thing became a reality... I always thought that until I heard the station on Sirius.

Let me repeat it again.... Before hearing the station for the first time on Sirius.... I always thought the station was similar to like a 95.3 Party format, but with more house and trance. Thats all that I was trying to say... and you turn the post into a hate thing.<P ID="signature">______________
www.1Club.FM INTERNET RADIO STATION
30 Channels... 1 Club DOT FM</P></P>

 

[Renegade_X]

The meaning of success

You want to know why I'm hard on Dance Music? Let me be straight up blunt about it.

Personal and professional achievement is looking inward and finding your weak point and improving upon them. When I send out radio demo's to be critiqued, I get two kinds of answers. 1. That's really good Mark. 2. A list of what I did wrong and how I should improve. While it would seem that I'd appreciate the compliments more than criticism, it's exactly the opposite. i want the critcism, because it comes from mentors and I recognize they're better than I at thecraft. I want people to be hard on me.

What I often see on this forum is people basking in the "success" of dance music. Statements like "Hey, it was a great year for dance music". Was it really? We can dwell on our success of being virtually non-existant on FM radio, the typical dance single sells just a few thousand copies. Society at large just doesn't give a damn about this genre. But we bask in our own glory because DHT reaches number 10.

And when I challenge people on that, I'm greeted with the answer "We don't have the money or marketing abilities to market like the big labels". That automatically tells me you've resigned yourself to never achieving anything more than being a niche player. When Toyota started off do you think they resigned themselves to be second class players in the automotive industry? Did Vonage resign itself to be second class compared to the far more powerful phone companies? Of course not, they believed in themselves, and constantly worked to improve themselves.

Too many on this forum seem to hate me for my nasty critcism. I'm an "(BLEEP)" because I challenge the status quo on the success of dance. And all the "it's a great year for dance" crap just doesn't fly with me. As a saleable product, the form of music is close to non-existant. Even in the UK, the genre has fallen behind hiphop/r&b in sales.

So please, continue to be critical of what I say and continue to dislike it. But I'm not interested in dance music's opinion of success as a Hot 20 hit every 3 years. In my opinion, that's failure....not success. If you can't see that, then I guess we're all destined to keep spinning music that a tiny handful of people care about.

No thanks.

 

[clubfm]

Re: The meaning of success

> You want to know why I'm hard on Dance Music? Let me be
> straight up blunt about it.
>
> Personal and professional achievement is looking inward and
> finding your weak point and improving upon them. When I
> send out radio demo's to be critiqued, I get two kinds of
> answers. 1. That's really good Mark. 2. A list of what I
> did wrong and how I should improve. While it would seem
> that I'd appreciate the compliments more than criticism,
> it's exactly the opposite. i want the critcism, because it
> comes from mentors and I recognize they're better than I at
> thecraft. I want people to be hard on me.
>
> What I often see on this forum is people basking in the
> "success" of dance music. Statements like "Hey, it was a
> great year for dance music". Was it really? We can dwell
> on our success of being virtually non-existant on FM radio,
> the typical dance single sells just a few thousand copies.
> Society at large just doesn't give a damn about this genre.
> But we bask in our own glory because DHT reaches number 10.
>
>
> And when I challenge people on that, I'm greeted with the
> answer "We don't have the money or marketing abilities to
> market like the big labels". That automatically tells me
> you've resigned yourself to never achieving anything more
> than being a niche player. When Toyota started off do you
> think they resigned themselves to be second class players in
> the automotive industry? Did Vonage resign itself to be
> second class compared to the far more powerful phone
> companies? Of course not, they believed in themselves, and
> constantly worked to improve themselves.
>
> Too many on this forum seem to hate me for my nasty
> critcism. I'm an "(BLEEP)" because I challenge the status
> quo on the success of dance. And all the "it's a great year
> for dance" crap just doesn't fly with me. As a saleable
> product, the form of music is close to non-existant. Even
> in the UK, the genre has fallen behind hiphop/r&b in sales.
>
>
> So please, continue to be critical of what I say and
> continue to dislike it. But I'm not interested in dance
> music's opinion of success as a Hot 20 hit every 3 years.
> In my opinion, that's failure....not success. If you can't
> see that, then I guess we're all destined to keep spinning
> music that a tiny handful of people care about.
>
> No thanks.
>

We look at it with 2 different views.

First, you look at it as... Dance music is not selling.. and there is no dance on the radio.. so the music quality sucks.

I look at it... as the above (and it has ALWAYS been like that... nothing new)... but i look at the quality of the music.. which this year has been much better than the past. Im talking about the actual song (not sales, not popularity, not crossover achievments... but the actual quality of the music)

There's no argument that this genre is suffering on the radio.. but for you to come out everyday and say that this year's releases are not good (which is why dance radio is failing) is downright wrong IMO.

Why dont you travel back in time and look at the companies that have tried this format... and NOT blame the music itself, but blame the people behind running the stations that failed. For example, I dont care what a station is playing, but if they keep the playlist the exact same for 5 months (without adding new material)... no matter what.. the station is going to fail... doesnt matter if its hip hop or what. A station in LA did this for 5+ months... of course thats going to fail. They had a playlist of 200 songs and looped it for 5 months straight... and you are going to blame the failure of that station on the music?

Everybody knows that Dance music in the U.S. is not as big as we would like it to be... so there is no need to tell us that everyday. We already know this.. and you keep preaching it to us.

I honestly could careless about FM dance radio. I learned back a few years ago that it is never going to work on FM radio in the United States... thats not the argument I am having with you. Thats old news to me.

My argument with you is that you talk trash about the actual music quality in 2005. I read a few weeks ago a post you made about how Station A is not playing good dance music, and Station B is not playing any dance music... so to you, that means dance music currently sucks. Just because Station A is playing sh-it dance songs.. doesnt mean that there are no quality tunes out there.

<P ID="signature">______________
www.1Club.FM INTERNET RADIO STATION
30 Channels... 1 Club DOT FM</P></P>

 

[Renegade_X]

Re: The meaning of success

LOL, OK buddy.

Now you're blaming radio for the demise of dance music? I think I've found my first American socialist.

We should blame the PD's and MD's of dance stations? If Widget A doesn't sell at Wal-Mart, should we blame Sam Walton? Or should be blame the CREATORS of WIDGET A for making a product no one wanted?

And using that analogy, how do you explain DHT? What made DHT get airplay? Could it be that DHT made a song that was marketable and people wanted to buy it? Could radio have played that song because the Music Directors of this country felt it was a "good add" to their playlists and their audience would like it? Could it be that DHT was a GOOD song?

Dance music could very well be a commercial success but it's not going to be when the general attitude is that everyone else has failed us. I read this on raver forums all the time where people whine and complain "no one understands the music". Yes they do, they just don't give a sh*t about it. YOUR job is to make a product THEY GIVE a sh*t about.

And you know what Club? To get dance in the maintream.....well that will require that you make a record SO good that people just can't stop buying it. A record that the mainstream masses want on their CHR, the record they want on their club. The record they play in their car.

You know...like all those dance records that were embraced by the mainstream for wha? 15 years? Rock's still around. Rap is still around. Pop is still around. Each has it's ups and downs...but it's all there in the mainstream. Not dance dood. It wallows in obscurity. And that has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that a bunch of lifeless filler is being release. Oh, they might be good songs, but they aren't good enough to attract the attention and interest of the American public.

It's called the Free Market.

 

[Renegade_X]

AND

on the topic of radio....

Why are there so many country stations in the USA? Um, cause lots of people like it?

Why are there so many urban stations in the USA? Um, cause people like it

Why are there so many classic rock stations in the USA? Cause people like it.

Why are there so many AC stations in the USA? Cause people like them.

----

Why are there only a few dance music stations in the USA? Because radio has it's head up it's ass.

Uhuh.

 

[Metro]

Re: The meaning of success

> i want the critcism, because it
> comes from mentors and I recognize they're better than I at
> thecraft. I want people to be hard on me.

Point taken.

Criticism is all fine and dandy, so long as its reinforced with some sort of positive guidance as to what can be done to better things. Lately, you've done little more than reiterate the genre's short-comings and... well, not much else.

> But we bask in our own glory because DHT reaches number 10.

Damn right we do.

Looking at the current Mediabase mainstream pop chart with my own two eyes as I type this, DHT presently has the number two most played song in the US, the first record of its kind to lay claim to such a feat in years.

If you can't bring yourself to qualify that as even the tiniest of successes for dance music, then there just really is no pleasing you, is there?

> And when I challenge people on that, I'm greeted with the
> answer "We don't have the money or marketing abilities to
> market like the big labels". That automatically tells me
> you've resigned yourself to never achieving anything more
> than being a niche player.

Do you truly believe this of the people who work day in and day out to bring dance music to the masses? That they simply accept things as is and do absolutely nothing to change the status quo?

That sort of phenomenal pessimism doesn't do much to help anyone - frankly, you're either part of the problem or part of the solution. Many of the frequent contributors to this forum stand tall among the latter. Which of the two applies to you mate?

- M<P ID="signature">______________
Marcus McBride
Supermixx/XM
Select Mix</P>

 

[clubfm]

Re: The meaning of success

> LOL, OK buddy.
>
> Now you're blaming radio for the demise of dance music? I
> think I've found my first American socialist.
>
> We should blame the PD's and MD's of dance stations? If
> Widget A doesn't sell at Wal-Mart, should we blame Sam
> Walton? Or should be blame the CREATORS of WIDGET A for
> making a product no one wanted?
>
> And using that analogy, how do you explain DHT? What made
> DHT get airplay? Could it be that DHT made a song that was
> marketable and people wanted to buy it? Could radio have
> played that song because the Music Directors of this country
> felt it was a "good add" to their playlists and their
> audience would like it? Could it be that DHT was a GOOD
> song?
>
> Dance music could very well be a commercial success but it's
> not going to be when the general attitude is that everyone
> else has failed us. I read this on raver forums all the
> time where people whine and complain "no one understands the
> music". Yes they do, they just don't give a sh*t about it.
> YOUR job is to make a product THEY GIVE a sh*t about.
>
> And you know what Club? To get dance in the
> maintream.....well that will require that you make a record
> SO good that people just can't stop buying it. A record
> that the mainstream masses want on their CHR, the record
> they want on their club. The record they play in their car.
>
>
> You know...like all those dance records that were embraced
> by the mainstream for wha? 15 years? Rock's still around.
> Rap is still around. Pop is still around. Each has it's
> ups and downs...but it's all there in the mainstream. Not
> dance dood. It wallows in obscurity. And that has
> EVERYTHING to do with the fact that a bunch of lifeless
> filler is being release. Oh, they might be good songs, but
> they aren't good enough to attract the attention and
> interest of the American public.
>
> It's called the Free Market.
>

If Widget A doesn't sell at Wal-Mart, should we blame Sam Walton? Or should be blame the CREATORS of WIDGET A for making a product no one wanted?

If Wal-Mart doesnt have the money, advertising dollar, stores (in this case, signal), management, market knowledge, employees (in this case talented jocks),or a professional presentation to market their new widgets sucessfully, then how in the hell is Wal-Mart even going to be able to sell the widgets to the general public? The general public will never care about a Wal-Mart...

In America, we have 4 types of retail stores

1) Wal-Mart
2) Target
3) K Mart
4) Dollar General/Big Lots

A station like 933 FLZ in Tampa is probably a Wal-Mart. Every dance station that has failed was a Dollar General store... Party 931 was probably a K Mart.

Look I know its lame to compare radio stations to stores, but you brought up the idea.

Amazing how this wal-mart http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board.php?Post=512510&Board=dance sells "unmarketable" & poor quality dance widgets all day, but gets their highest ratings ever. How did they get these high ratings?

by the way, back to the original topic, this is the station that i thought R1 would sould like (before i got Sirius).

<P ID="signature">______________
www.1Club.FM INTERNET RADIO STATION
30 Channels... 1 Club DOT FM</P></P>

 

[Metro]

Re: And theeeen...

> Why are there so many country stations in the USA? Um, cause lots of people like it?
> Why are there so many urban stations in the USA? Um, cause people like it
> Why are there so many classic rock stations in the USA? Cause people like it.
> Why are there so many AC stations in the USA? Cause people like them.

Because many of these are nearly automatic, tried-and-true, easy-sell, no-brainer formats that your typical play-it-safe media conglomerates know will work well across the board in many instances.

> Why are there only a few dance music stations in the USA?

Because there isn't much courage among the typical play-it-safe media conglomerates to pump time, money, research, and resources into something that isn't a nearly automatic, tried-and-true, easy-sell, no-brainer format that may or may not work across the board.

I applaud the ones who do though; shame there aren't more of them.

> Because radio has it's head up it's ass.

Some would say that that's a given, but I digress...

- M<P ID="signature">______________
Marcus McBride
Supermixx/XM
Select Mix</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Metro on 08/20/05 12:25 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[smorris]

Re: AND

> on the topic of radio....
>
> Why are there so many country stations in the USA? Um,
> cause lots of people like it?
>
> Why are there so many urban stations in the USA? Um, cause
> people like it
>
> Why are there so many classic rock stations in the USA?
> Cause people like it.
>
> Why are there so many AC stations in the USA? Cause people
> like them.

Not "people"... advertisers.

The customers for radio are not listeners, they are advertisers. And advertisers don't necessarily just want the maximum number of listeners.

The music you get is the music advertisers want associated with their products. Generally the sort of music people with high levels of disposable income like to listen to. Dance does not fall into that category right now.

> Why are there only a few dance music stations in the USA?
> Because radio has it's head up it's ass.

There are only a few dance music stations partly because not that many people that like dance music any more - many of the original 'dance' generation are switching to other genres as they get older - but also because these people are not at all a priority target audience for advertisers.

It's not because the music's getting worse. In fact I'd say it's getting better, at least recently. In my opinion dance tends to suffer more than most genres from 'bandwagonism' where every time a style gets popular a deluge of formulaic rubbish is produced which makes people bored of the entire genre, but gets played because it sounds similar to a track which was a hit before. Also I think in the US dance radio in the past has tended to play it almost *too* safe, partly because there is this perception that the audience can't handle music that doesn't fit the melody led 3 minute pop song with uplifting female vocals model. If ideas about what makes a good hip-hop or alternative track were so set in stone then neither of these genres would have survived.

The fact that dance does slightly better on the radio in Europe I think is partly due to the fact that radio is occasionally willing to take a small risk and play something a little bit different and see if people like it.

After all, people are never going to start liking other styles of dance music if they never hear anything but what they have already...

 

[clubfm]

Re: AND

> Not "people"... advertisers.

without people... there are NO advertisers.<P ID="signature">______________
www.1Club.FM INTERNET RADIO STATION
30 Channels... 1 Club DOT FM</P></P>

 

[Renegade_X]

Re: AND

Well, urban radio is not in the money demo, unless it's serving a white audience where it becomes CHR-Rythmic. There are many cases of top rated urban station that do not bill anywhere near what they would if they had the same numbers as a Hot AC or Rocker. Yet, there are still many urban stations (I would venture 1000 or more in the USA). There are many reasons, including the popularity of urban music (and the support of the community).

All music does suffer from bandwagonism, but I agree it is more common in dance. When Grunge was released, we had a sea of rock coming out that followed the lead of Nirvana.

I think that the production and marketability of dance was best in the late 90's and 2000. There have been some choice records released in the past few years, but from a marketable standpoint, 2005 has been a DREADFUL year for American dance music. Note I said American dance music (and I will add that UK dance pop hasn't been shining like it usually has).

Many seem unconcerned that dance music is not in the mainstream, but they should care. Mainstream stardom brings many things, most importantly money to the label. If DHT sells a million records, well Robbins can use that money on chicken wings and beer, or invest it back into new product.

But I have neglected to mention the artist. The dance artist seem locked in the past believing that "faceless, voiceless" music is going to sell. It is not. CHR radio in the USA has never been about taking risks, it's about playing hits. The formula, while tired and dull to myself, it very successful. If a song cannot grab your attention in 45 seconds, the song is destined for the rubbish bin.

Music goes through waves of popularity. In the early 80s, the new wave movement, in the mid 80s the growing trend of alternative, the hair bands era, the grunge era, the hiphop era. Yet, the pillars of pop music (hiphop, r&b, rock and pop) have continously put out records each year that chart. Dance, in the USA, does not. There is a gap between records of 24 months, which is unacceptable.

I recognize not a single individual on this forum agrees with me, but that's fine. I'm not in a popularity content, and I've enough british blood in me to stubbornly stand my ground and not be concerned about what others feel. But, I do care greatly about the genre, I just wish it would set it's goals higher and try to achieve more than being some obscure culture with a few thousand followers.

And thanks for getting this is a debate rather than a pissing session mate.

>
> Not "people"... advertisers.
>
> The customers for radio are not listeners, they are
> advertisers. And advertisers don't necessarily just want the
> maximum number of listeners.
>
> The music you get is the music advertisers want associated
> with their products. Generally the sort of music people with
> high levels of disposable income like to listen to. Dance
> does not fall into that category right now.
>
> > Why are there only a few dance music stations in the USA?
>
> > Because radio has it's head up it's ass.
>
> There are only a few dance music stations partly because not
> that many people that like dance music any more - many of
> the original 'dance' generation are switching to other
> genres as they get older - but also because these people are
> not at all a priority target audience for advertisers.
>
> It's not because the music's getting worse. In fact I'd say
> it's getting better, at least recently. In my opinion dance
> tends to suffer more than most genres from 'bandwagonism'
> where every time a style gets popular a deluge of formulaic
> rubbish is produced which makes people bored of the entire
> genre, but gets played because it sounds similar to a track
> which was a hit before. Also I think in the US dance radio
> in the past has tended to play it almost *too* safe, partly
> because there is this perception that the audience can't
> handle music that doesn't fit the melody led 3 minute pop
> song with uplifting female vocals model. If ideas about what
> makes a good hip-hop or alternative track were so set in
> stone then neither of these genres would have survived.
>
> The fact that dance does slightly better on the radio in
> Europe I think is partly due to the fact that radio is
> occasionally willing to take a small risk and play something
> a little bit different and see if people like it.
>
> After all, people are never going to start liking other
> styles of dance music if they never hear anything but what
> they have already...
>

 

[mattii70]

Re: Why R1 doesn't play much dance at night.

> Evenings on R1 have always been rock leaning....partially
> due to John Peel being on the air.
>
> John Peel is a legendary DJ, and in my opinion, the best
> musicolgist of the 20th century. John played every style
> of music, even DnB, and much of his program was about
> discovery. When John died, some of the worlds most
> influential and popular artists thanked him for playing
> their record and breaking them out. If you read a biography
> on John Peel, you'll discover much of the new sounds over
> the past 25 years were played first by him. Not in one
> format, but in many. Even the UK's Prime Minister publicly
> acknowledged the impact John Peel had on the United Kingdom.
>
>
> So that might explain why there isn't alot of mainstream
> dance hits in the evening. It just wasn't about playing
> Mynt.
>

Might be worth pointing out BBC Radio 1 is 'A local station for local people, there's nothing for you here' (Obscure League of Gentlement reference). If you don't like the mix of music its probably because you don't have stations in America that regually break new artists that haven't been manufactured by record companies to fit into tightly formatted stations and who's airplay has been paid for with widescreen tellies and holidays.....
<P ID="signature">______________
US Stations Broadcasting on the Net
www.thestreamcentre.com</P>