• 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

Best Dance Show in the US!!

M

Mourpheux1

Guest
Some of you might feel different as to what I'm about to say.The truth is the truth.If you are in the NY Tri-State area then you know that freestyle is the sh*t!.I'm listening to the freestyle free for all by Judy Torres.When freestyle make it's comeback it wil be cause of shows like this.........love you JUDY!
 
> Some of you might feel different as to what I'm about to
> say.The truth is the truth.If you are in the NY Tri-State
> area then you know that freestyle is the sh*t!.I'm listening
> to the freestyle free for all by Judy Torres.When freestyle
> make it's comeback it wil be cause of shows like
> this.........love you JUDY!
>
Unless something weird happened with this weekend's time change, we are in 2006...not 1986! Sorry, I am older (36) and grew up on freestyle in the mid and late 80s and loved it (and still do). But to claim it is going to have a huge comeback on the current dance scene seems a bit outlandish. As I say, I do still like freestyle, and I agree, Judy Torres does a great job, but appreciate it for what it is; a great time period in dance music. And as much as we loved it back then, I don't see freestyle coming back onto the current scene anymore than I do disco. Today's dance has elements of freestyle (particularly breakbeat stuff), and it is an important part of the history of dance, but today's current dance is still based in trance, progressive house, and breaks.
 
> Unless something weird happened with this weekend's time
> change, we are in 2006...not 1986! Sorry, I am older (36)
> and grew up on freestyle in the mid and late 80s and loved
> it (and still do). But to claim it is going to have a huge
> comeback on the current dance scene seems a bit outlandish.
> As I say, I do still like freestyle, and I agree, Judy
> Torres does a great job, but appreciate it for what it is; a
> great time period in dance music. And as much as we loved
> it back then, I don't see freestyle coming back onto the
> current scene anymore than I do disco. Today's dance has
> elements of freestyle (particularly breakbeat stuff), and it
> is an important part of the history of dance, but today's
> current dance is still based in trance, progressive house,
> and breaks.
>

x2, ditto on all of the above :)
 
Devil's advocate.

>> but today's
> current dance is still based in trance, progressive house,
> and breaks.>>

Freestyle is most likely not coming back like others have said, at least in that form it existed. It will have a place in dance history like disco and other dance music types from yesteryear.

But, trance, progressive house and breaks overall concerning radio, scream low end demo's, and commercial radio rejection. Dance has never been shunned so much as it is at an all time low on commercial radio. If you are talking non-radio, then it is a whole diff ballgame.

Back to radio, for dance to be adopted and embraced, at the least on a long list of problems, it needs to become more mainstream, less cookie cutter having one artist make 2 songs that sound the same, getting no video or promotional money to get the bands name out there, and not sound like a nightclub on a Friday night.

Another problem with dance is the lack of artist familiarity. You need to have a few artists that can be identified on your station, dance looks less disposable then. Look at CHR, and while you have some unknowns, there are identifiable artists. Same can be said about KTU, among all the gold, the currents are never a bunch of unknowns, but mostly known artists with a few no names not to scare people off.

This can go on, but my point is, I agree Freestyle is over as a current dance trendsetter, but the current dance sounds lack something Freestyle had, Mass Appeal for commercial radio acceptance.<P ID="signature">______________

"Z"
Music Coordinator/Technical Support</P>
 
Re: Devil's advocate.

> >> but today's
> > current dance is still based in trance, progressive house,
>
> > and breaks.>>
>
> Freestyle is most likely not coming back like others have
> said, at least in that form it existed. It will have a place
> in dance history like disco and other dance music types from
> yesteryear.
>
> But, trance, progressive house and breaks overall concerning
> radio, scream low end demo's, and commercial radio
> rejection. Dance has never been shunned so much as it is at
> an all time low on commercial radio. If you are talking
> non-radio, then it is a whole diff ballgame.
>
> Back to radio, for dance to be adopted and embraced, at the
> least on a long list of problems, it needs to become more
> mainstream, less cookie cutter having one artist make 2
> songs that sound the same, getting no video or promotional
> money to get the bands name out there, and not sound like a
> nightclub on a Friday night.
>
> Another problem with dance is the lack of artist
> familiarity. You need to have a few artists that can be
> identified on your station, dance looks less disposable
> then. Look at CHR, and while you have some unknowns, there
> are identifiable artists. Same can be said about KTU, among
> all the gold, the currents are never a bunch of unknowns,
> but mostly known artists with a few no names not to scare
> people off.
>
> This can go on, but my point is, I agree Freestyle is over
> as a current dance trendsetter, but the current dance sounds
> lack something Freestyle had, Mass Appeal for commercial
> radio acceptance.
>
I've said in the past, that one of dance's major hurdles today in breaking into the mainstream is the lack of artists or image. Today's dance is very "dj" or "remixer" based, with the vocalist (if there are any) being secondary and almost disposable. Often dj's or remixers will use many different vocalists on different tracks. Personally, as a dance fan, this doesn't bother me, but it does not lend itself to dance breaking onto the mainstream charts. The CHR/pop charts are all about artist "image" and style. And the focus is certainly almost ALWAYS on the lead vocalist on pop hits. As I said above, dance is all about dj's and producers who are "faceless" with little importance placed on the vocalists. This is totally opposite of what works on today's pop charts, and this is where I think dance runs into a huge obstacle in breaking into the mainstream with the youth market.

Anyway, with that said, personally, I LOVE today's dance music scene, but if you are looking for dance to become "mainstream"; the current dj focus is not going to do it. (at least in the U.S. Thank goodness, Europe is much more open to the DJ and Dance scene in general).

And this also applies to the statement above about Freestyle being mainstream in the 80's. With freestyle you had "artists" that were the image of the music (TKA, SaFire, Stevie B., Judy Torres, Nancy Martizez, Cover Girls, Sweet Sensation, Company B., etc.). That is a big plus in marketing the image of the music to the pop audience. Nowdays you have "DJ *** vs. DJ **** featuring ****" It may be a great track, but how are you going to market that in a visual, "artist driven" world. Not very successfully. <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by BRH on 04/04/06 02:22 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Yesterday vs today

Everyone seems to forget that Hip Hop wasn't on the radio back when dance/freestyle artist ruled the airwaves. As rap grew bigger, dance began to shrink at radio. Could it be because the audience only wants to hear one kind of rhythmic music?

And since major labels will only really support artists that sell albums, which dance artists never did, the marketing money started to shift towards rap and away from dance. As marketing shifted, the audience slowly eroded leaving us where we are today.

The biggest problem that dance music faces today is the lack of talented songwriters. We need to put the pieces of our puzzle back together and that starts with songs. Not endless loops, not tracks that are made for the clubs (although there's nothing wrong with that if your not going for radio). Songs. That's why there are so many covers out. The songs are well crafted and it's easy to update the sound. Making a track is easy, having well written lyrics is tough. So a lot of todays artists and producers take the easy way out and follow whatever trendy cover run is happening at the moment. How many Bryan Adams songs have we heard, how many 80's covers, etc. Or they try to make some fast cash by knocking out a track in a few hours and selling it for a little money instead of taking the time to knock out a masterpiece. A lot of the dance tracks you hear out are really just demos or under developed ideas. If they took the time to fully develop these, maybe we'd have more quality material.

After we get songs that fit on the radio today, then we can work on marketing. Videos for dance artists are pretty much a waste of money right now. That could change shortly but as of today if your a dance artist, do yourself a favor and pay more money for a better song and forget the video budget.

jp
 
Re: Devil's advocate.

Unfortunately, dance has a stigma attached to it due to the fact that stuff like OAKENFELD, Digweed etc is what's marched into big wigs as dance and it's not going to appeal to MASSES who wish to hear songs as opposed to tracks going on and on and on. That's reality. There's plenty of great SONGS within the dance format however too many DJ's bastardized it and now you have upper management in radio brainwashed into believing DANCE is some X party on steroids.

> > >> but today's
> > > current dance is still based in trance, progressive
> house,
> >
> > > and breaks.>>
> >
> > Freestyle is most likely not coming back like others have
> > said, at least in that form it existed. It will have a
> place
> > in dance history like disco and other dance music types
> from
> > yesteryear.
> >
> > But, trance, progressive house and breaks overall
> concerning
> > radio, scream low end demo's, and commercial radio
> > rejection. Dance has never been shunned so much as it is
> at
> > an all time low on commercial radio. If you are talking
> > non-radio, then it is a whole diff ballgame.
> >
> > Back to radio, for dance to be adopted and embraced, at
> the
> > least on a long list of problems, it needs to become more
> > mainstream, less cookie cutter having one artist make 2
> > songs that sound the same, getting no video or promotional
>
> > money to get the bands name out there, and not sound like
> a
> > nightclub on a Friday night.
> >
> > Another problem with dance is the lack of artist
> > familiarity. You need to have a few artists that can be
> > identified on your station, dance looks less disposable
> > then. Look at CHR, and while you have some unknowns, there
>
> > are identifiable artists. Same can be said about KTU,
> among
> > all the gold, the currents are never a bunch of unknowns,
> > but mostly known artists with a few no names not to scare
> > people off.
> >
> > This can go on, but my point is, I agree Freestyle is over
>
> > as a current dance trendsetter, but the current dance
> sounds
> > lack something Freestyle had, Mass Appeal for commercial
> > radio acceptance.
> >
> I've said in the past, that one of dance's major hurdles
> today in breaking into the mainstream is the lack of artists
> or image. Today's dance is very "dj" or "remixer" based,
> with the vocalist (if there are any) being secondary and
> almost disposable. Often dj's or remixers will use many
> different vocalists on different tracks. Personally, as a
> dance fan, this doesn't bother me, but it does not lend
> itself to dance breaking onto the mainstream charts. The
> CHR/pop charts are all about artist "image" and style. And
> the focus is certainly almost ALWAYS on the lead vocalist on
> pop hits. As I said above, dance is all about dj's and
> producers who are "faceless" with little importance placed
> on the vocalists. This is totally opposite of what works on
> today's pop charts, and this is where I think dance runs
> into a huge obstacle in breaking into the mainstream with
> the youth market.
>
> Anyway, with that said, personally, I LOVE today's dance
> music scene, but if you are looking for dance to become
> "mainstream"; the current dj focus is not going to do it.
> (at least in the U.S. Thank goodness, Europe is much more
> open to the DJ and Dance scene in general).
>
> And this also applies to the statement above about
> Freestyle being mainstream in the 80's. With freestyle you
> had "artists" that were the image of the music (TKA, SaFire,
> Stevie B., Judy Torres, Nancy Martizez, Cover Girls, Sweet
> Sensation, Company B., etc.). That is a big plus in
> marketing the image of the music to the pop audience.
> Nowdays you have "DJ *** vs. DJ **** featuring ****" It
> may be a great track, but how are you going to market that
> in a visual, "artist driven" world. Not very successfully.
>
 
Re: Yesterday vs today

As usual, on point and very correct on every single point. Many would do well to heed your words. You stated the 12 Inch version of what I said. Your label is one of the very few exceptions to the rule.


> Everyone seems to forget that Hip Hop wasn't on the radio
> back when dance/freestyle artist ruled the airwaves. As rap
> grew bigger, dance began to shrink at radio. Could it be
> because the audience only wants to hear one kind of rhythmic
> music?
>
> And since major labels will only really support artists that
> sell albums, which dance artists never did, the marketing
> money started to shift towards rap and away from dance. As
> marketing shifted, the audience slowly eroded leaving us
> where we are today.
>
> The biggest problem that dance music faces today is the lack
> of talented songwriters. We need to put the pieces of our
> puzzle back together and that starts with songs. Not
> endless loops, not tracks that are made for the clubs
> (although there's nothing wrong with that if your not going
> for radio). Songs. That's why there are so many covers
> out. The songs are well crafted and it's easy to update
> the sound. Making a track is easy, having well written
> lyrics is tough. So a lot of todays artists and producers
> take the easy way out and follow whatever trendy cover run
> is happening at the moment. How many Bryan Adams songs have
> we heard, how many 80's covers, etc. Or they try to make
> some fast cash by knocking out a track in a few hours and
> selling it for a little money instead of taking the time to
> knock out a masterpiece. A lot of the dance tracks you hear
> out are really just demos or under developed ideas. If they
> took the time to fully develop these, maybe we'd have more
> quality material.
>
> After we get songs that fit on the radio today, then we can
> work on marketing. Videos for dance artists are pretty much
> a waste of money right now. That could change shortly but
> as of today if your a dance artist, do yourself a favor and
> pay more money for a better song and forget the video
> budget.
>
> jp
>
 
Re: Devil's advocate.

> Unfortunately, dance has a stigma attached to it due to the
> fact that stuff like OAKENFELD, Digweed etc is what's
> marched into big wigs as dance and it's not going to appeal
> to MASSES who wish to hear songs as opposed to tracks going
> on and on and on. That's reality. There's plenty of great
> SONGS within the dance format however too many DJ's
> bastardized it and now you have upper management in radio
> brainwashed into believing DANCE is some X party on
> steroids.
>
I disagree with what you said.
First of all it's Oakenfold, and many Dance fans actually consider him to be past his prime right now (his mixing skills arent what they used to be), and too mainstream by some fans as he releases a lot of vocal records. He's had quite a bit of success on the charts in the UK during the 90s (when vocals were in) which is more then I can say for a lot of the "vocal" artists you seem to be siding with nowadays. Haddaway is still releasing records, but no one seems to care. So is Whigfield, and so are some of the older Freestyle artists. Do you see a lot of people getting excited? Do you see people willing to shell out 30-50 dollars to see just Haddaway or the Real MCcoy? B/c guys like Oakenfold and Digweed do bring in the crowd, they do sell (mixed albums, a decent amount of artist albums, singles, etc.).
Paul used to to do a lot of the same type of work that John Parker himself does. It was Oakenfold who'd helped discover and market Hip Hop and House acts in the late 80s/early 90s over in Europe. His contribution to the scene is far bigger then most of you give him credit for.
He was among the first to bring the Ibiza vibe and Chicago House sound off the white isle, and into the clubs in the UK. Sven Vath did the same in Germany even a couple of years before then.

The reason a lot of Dance went the vocal route in the 90s was b/c it was a lot less restricting. It went back to the idea of just dancing to the music, and not necessarily needing some over the top lyrics to go hand in hand with the music. Some of the best and most creative Dance music ever occured during the late 80s to mid 90s. Different types of House, Progressive, Breakbeats, Trance, Drum N Bass, Hardcore. The music was so new, fresh, exciting, and different from the rest of the music coming out in Rock, Pop, Hip Hop, and obviously Country. That's when I really fell in love with the music.

A lot of people, especially in Europe, don't necessarily view a lot of the Dance/Pop records released through labels like Ministry of Sound as real Dance. A lot of the passionate Dance fans can't stand acts like Ultrabeat or the likes of them. they claim those acts give Dance a bad rep. <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by CHRles on 04/05/06 02:54 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Devil's advocate.

While you may disagree it's truth. Many dance fans is NOT mainstream RADIO. You can't seriously expect a corporate big wig who's oblivious to anything after Vanilla Ice to really grasp that.

Steve Silk Hurley and Goddess had success in Europe too, it means nothing, two different cultures.

I'm telling you from many, many, many discussions with people in very high places they believe dance to be meaningless, useless, worthless and boring tracks, nothing memorable or identifiable. Don't argue with me, argue with them, they are PERCEIVING what they hear and what they hear when they hear the majority of that is NOTHING, no song, just a track from some guy playing with his computer in between playing with himself.

The Grateful Dead, Kiss and The Rolling Stones sell out COLLISEUMS and rock radio doesn't play them very much either. In fact, rock radio has little to no respect for Kiss.

What Oakenfeld draws is peanuts compared to what a radio station is about and what is required for it to draw en masse. As far as who he is and what he's about, I'm well aware of it all and there's many who did the same thing long before he was around and they're not around anymore. I'm talking about TODAY, now and if you walk into a PD, A consultant, a CEO, A VP of Programming a GM and talk that, they'll shoot dance down all the time.

And once again, Radio is for playing SONGS not tracks. They riot in Europe too over jobs bills, I don't think we need to be doing that here either.



> I disagree with what you said.
> First of all it's Oakenfold, and many Dance fans actually
> consider him to be past his prime right now (his mixing
> skills arent what they used to be), and too mainstream by
> some fans as he releases a lot of vocal records. He's had
> quite a bit of success on the charts in the UK during the
> 90s (when vocals were in) which is more then I can say for a
> lot of the "vocal" artists you seem to be siding with
> nowadays. Haddaway is still releasing records, but no one
> seems to care. So is Whigfield, and so are some of the older
> Freestyle artists. Do you see a lot of people getting
> excited? Do you see people willing to shell out 30-50
> dollars to see just Haddaway or the Real MCcoy? B/c guys
> like Oakenfold and Digweed do bring in the crowd, they do
> sell (mixed albums, a decent amount of artist albums,
> singles, etc.).
> Paul used to to do a lot of the same type of work that John
> Parker himself does. It was Oakenfold who'd helped discover
> and market Hip Hop and House acts in the late 80s/early 90s
> over in Europe. His contribution to the scene is far bigger
> then most of you give him credit for.
> He was among the first to bring the Ibiza vibe and Chicago
> House sound off the white isle, and into the clubs in the
> UK. Sven Vath did the same in Germany even a couple of years
> before then.
>
> The reason a lot of Dance went the vocal route in the 90s
> was b/c it was a lot less restricting. It went back to the
> idea of just dancing to the music, and not necessarily
> needing some over the top lyrics to go hand in hand with the
> music. Some of the best and most creative Dance music ever
> occured during the late 80s to mid 90s. Different types of
> House, Progressive, Breakbeats, Trance, Drum N Bass,
> Hardcore. The music was so new, fresh, exciting, and
> different from the rest of the music coming out in Rock,
> Pop, Hip Hop, and obviously Country. That's when I really
> fell in love with the music.
>
> A lot of people, especially in Europe, don't necessarily
> view a lot of the Dance/Pop records released through labels
> like Ministry of Sound as real Dance. A lot of the
> passionate Dance fans can't stand acts like Ultrabeat or the
> likes of them. they claim those acts give Dance a bad rep.
>
 
Re: Devil's advocate.

Radio does play the Rolling Stones - Oldies, Classic Rock, Mainstream Rock, Adult Contemporary, the Adult Hits/Jack format.
Kiss gets played on Classic rock and Adult Hits/Jack stations.

The Rolling Stones are in a league of their own really. They come out around the same time as The Beatles and they're still around!

record and radio execs arent as dumb as some of you make them out to be. Sure most of them are looking for that vocal song with that unfortgettable hook, or that perfect song that RELATES to a certain large audience (can you say Teen Pop, Grunge, Hip Hop, EMO, and yes Electronica?)

Mainstream radio, especially CHR/Pop radio is making some big changes these days. Wanna know why? B/c the hottest show in America is a Pop music show on Fox. Because Ipods mean people want variety, because satellite and internet radio means choices, and b/c music tastes are changing according to national Pop charts (why do you think James Blunt and Daniel Powter went to number one all of a sudden here?).
Dance music can be part of that change. You and John Parker do make a lot of valid points, and I see Robbins is doing an excellent job of trying to market their product to radio. You don't think many of the big name DJs are aware that to usually make it big you've gotta release a record with catchy vocals? Look at Bob Sinclair, read interviews with ATB or Tiesto.
Above & Beyond also recently talked about how many vocal records from outside the US and the UK that are sung in English end up sounding bad/funny b/c the artists don't speak English as a first language.

There are so many vocal Dance tracks out right now it's not even funny. And there are plenty of instrumental leaning ones that could grab a mainstream audience's attention. It's all in how you market your product.
For the longest time radio didn't want to play Hip Hop records (even up until the mid 90s many CHRs tried to play as little of it as possible) b/c the Hip Hop records werent perceived as songs, but rather as lyrics and rhymes that were spoken. The melodies were also oftentimes missing, or you just heard the same loop over and over again. Sound familiar?
If radio managed to get past that, and it can sure as hell embrace a lot of the Dance records out there.

Just my 2 cents.

> While you may disagree it's truth. Many dance fans is NOT
> mainstream RADIO. You can't seriously expect a corporate big
> wig who's oblivious to anything after Vanilla Ice to really
> grasp that.
>
> Steve Silk Hurley and Goddess had success in Europe too, it
> means nothing, two different cultures.
>
> I'm telling you from many, many, many discussions with
> people in very high places they believe dance to be
> meaningless, useless, worthless and boring tracks, nothing
> memorable or identifiable. Don't argue with me, argue with
> them, they are PERCEIVING what they hear and what they hear
> when they hear the majority of that is NOTHING, no song,
> just a track from some guy playing with his computer in
> between playing with himself.
>
> The Grateful Dead, Kiss and The Rolling Stones sell out
> COLLISEUMS and rock radio doesn't play them very much
> either. In fact, rock radio has little to no respect for
> Kiss.
>
> What Oakenfeld draws is peanuts compared to what a radio
> station is about and what is required for it to draw en
> masse. As far as who he is and what he's about, I'm well
> aware of it all and there's many who did the same thing long
> before he was around and they're not around anymore. I'm
> talking about TODAY, now and if you walk into a PD, A
> consultant, a CEO, A VP of Programming a GM and talk that,
> they'll shoot dance down all the time.
>
> And once again, Radio is for playing SONGS not tracks. They
> riot in Europe too over jobs bills, I don't think we need to
> be doing that here either.
>
>
>
> > I disagree with what you said.
> > First of all it's Oakenfold, and many Dance fans actually
> > consider him to be past his prime right now (his mixing
> > skills arent what they used to be), and too mainstream by
> > some fans as he releases a lot of vocal records. He's had
> > quite a bit of success on the charts in the UK during the
> > 90s (when vocals were in) which is more then I can say for
> a
> > lot of the "vocal" artists you seem to be siding with
> > nowadays. Haddaway is still releasing records, but no one
> > seems to care. So is Whigfield, and so are some of the
> older
> > Freestyle artists. Do you see a lot of people getting
> > excited? Do you see people willing to shell out 30-50
> > dollars to see just Haddaway or the Real MCcoy? B/c guys
> > like Oakenfold and Digweed do bring in the crowd, they do
> > sell (mixed albums, a decent amount of artist albums,
> > singles, etc.).
> > Paul used to to do a lot of the same type of work that
> John
> > Parker himself does. It was Oakenfold who'd helped
> discover
> > and market Hip Hop and House acts in the late 80s/early
> 90s
> > over in Europe. His contribution to the scene is far
> bigger
> > then most of you give him credit for.
> > He was among the first to bring the Ibiza vibe and Chicago
>
> > House sound off the white isle, and into the clubs in the
> > UK. Sven Vath did the same in Germany even a couple of
> years
> > before then.
> >
> > The reason a lot of Dance went the vocal route in the 90s
> > was b/c it was a lot less restricting. It went back to the
>
> > idea of just dancing to the music, and not necessarily
> > needing some over the top lyrics to go hand in hand with
> the
> > music. Some of the best and most creative Dance music ever
>
> > occured during the late 80s to mid 90s. Different types of
>
> > House, Progressive, Breakbeats, Trance, Drum N Bass,
> > Hardcore. The music was so new, fresh, exciting, and
> > different from the rest of the music coming out in Rock,
> > Pop, Hip Hop, and obviously Country. That's when I really
> > fell in love with the music.
> >
> > A lot of people, especially in Europe, don't necessarily
> > view a lot of the Dance/Pop records released through
> labels
> > like Ministry of Sound as real Dance. A lot of the
> > passionate Dance fans can't stand acts like Ultrabeat or
> the
> > likes of them. they claim those acts give Dance a bad rep.
>
> >
>
 
Re: Devil's advocate.

MLII, in regards to commercial radio and its perception of dance music, you are 100% right on point. There are VERY few GMs, group executives, consultants, and even PDs that perceive dance music as marketable or mass appeal. You're talking about a group of people who pin the label of "that techno music" and associate it with kids at underground dance clubs or at raves shooting up crack and taking ecstasy. And unfortunately, Oakenfold is considered to be part of that category.

And yes, Oakenfold sells out crowds. No doubt. His show, "Paul Oakenfold Presents", generates a decent national following on alternative and a handful of CHR stations. But his show is just that-- a syndicated weekly hour-long show (which is usually buried in the overnights, doing almost ZERO for a station's overall ratings). Listeners check out the show for the beats-- but you won't find them rushing to the stores to buy CDs of the individual artists of the tracks. That really doesn't do much for the advancement of dance radio or dance artists. Like it or not, the show is considered a NOVELTY to most of these stations.

Yes, Oakenfold has moved a bit into the mainstream. (I don't buy the idea that he's "selling out". I HATE that term, for reasons I'd rather explain in a separate post.) However, Oakenfold's efforts haven't really made enough of a dent in radio nationally at all. Taking a look at the monitors for this year, and looking at numbers for his entire music library, Oakenfold barely got any spins at the nation's alternative radio stations (except perhaps WXDX Pittsburgh). Of the CHR stations, he got a FEW spins for "Starry Eyed Surprise" but barely much else. KNGY spun Oakenfold tracks 133 times this year, making them the top station in the nation spinning his tracks. But even KNRJ only spun Oakenfold 24 times this entire year. What does that tell you?

And 133 year-to-date spins translate into almost nothing in mainstream radio. Compare that to RIHANNA, who generates year-to-date spins in the THOUSANDS at HUNDREDS MORE radio stations nationwide. Or BUBBA SPARXXX, who enters his single, "Ms. New Booty," at HUNDREDS MORE radio stations nationwide than Oakenfold ever had with his entire library combined. Oakenfold can't even make a blip on the national radar as far as mainstream radio is concerned.

Nothing replaces good songwriting, memorable lyrics, strong vocals, and powerful hooks-- these type of songs are demanded by mainstream radio as material to transform into ratings.


<P ID="signature">______________
radioinfosignature.gif
</P>
 
Re: Yesterday vs today

>> As rap grew bigger, dance began to shrink at radio. >>

Excellent post.

It is a shame that the 18-34 demo can only be milked so much, and hip-hop dominates it. End of dance music being supported by record labels. Why compete your own cash cow?

No matter how gross, vile, negative or degrading hip-hop can be, it is catchy. Catchy hooks. Kids and young adults eat it up. Dance needs to capitalize on this too. Become the alternative to Hip Hop, and those disfranchised by it.<P ID="signature">______________

"Z"
Music Coordinator/Technical Support</P>
 
Re: Devil's advocate.

>> Nothing replaces good songwriting, memorable lyrics, strong vocals, and powerful hooks-- these type of songs are demanded by mainstream radio as material to transform into ratings.

Excellent post JD, and on target.<P ID="signature">______________

"Z"
Music Coordinator/Technical Support</P>
 
> > Some of you might feel different as to what I'm about to
> > say.The truth is the truth.If you are in the NY Tri-State
>
> > area then you know that freestyle is the sh*t!.I'm
> listening
> > to the freestyle free for all by Judy Torres.When
> freestyle
> > make it's comeback it wil be cause of shows like
> > this.........love you JUDY!
> >
> Unless something weird happened with this weekend's time
> change, we are in 2006...not 1986! Sorry, I am older (36)
> and grew up on freestyle in the mid and late 80s and loved
> it (and still do). But to claim it is going to have a huge
> comeback on the current dance scene seems a bit outlandish.
> As I say, I do still like freestyle, and I agree, Judy
> Torres does a great job, but appreciate it for what it is; a
> great time period in dance music. And as much as we loved
> it back then, I don't see freestyle coming back onto the
> current scene anymore than I do disco. Today's dance has
> elements of freestyle (particularly breakbeat stuff), and it
> is an important part of the history of dance, but today's
> current dance is still based in trance, progressive house,
> and breaks.

My post might have been a bit overzealous but it's not any different than those that believe that dance music in general will be mainstream in the US again.The only genre of dance that has a chance of that wil be anyuthing freestyle derived.Why? It has the most loyal base of fans from Latinos all over the US and Italians in the Northeast and Canada.There's also the filipinos in the west and other ethnic groups like the Greeks,Portugeese etc.Not too mention that it has become heritage music for these groups and it's being passed down from generation to generation.The only dance concerts that draw big crowds are the freestyle concerts.Even the old school perfromers till this day are booked more often that current dance acts.More later gotta go start working....
>
 
> > > Some of you might feel different as to what I'm about to
>
> > > say.The truth is the truth.If you are in the NY
> Tri-State
> >
> > > area then you know that freestyle is the sh*t!.I'm
> > listening
> > > to the freestyle free for all by Judy Torres.When
> > freestyle
> > > make it's comeback it wil be cause of shows like
> > > this.........love you JUDY!
> > >
> > Unless something weird happened with this weekend's time
>
> > change, we are in 2006...not 1986! Sorry, I am older
> (36)
> > and grew up on freestyle in the mid and late 80s and loved
>
> > it (and still do). But to claim it is going to have a
> huge
> > comeback on the current dance scene seems a bit
> outlandish.
> > As I say, I do still like freestyle, and I agree, Judy
> > Torres does a great job, but appreciate it for what it is;
> a
> > great time period in dance music. And as much as we loved
>
> > it back then, I don't see freestyle coming back onto the
> > current scene anymore than I do disco. Today's dance has
>
> > elements of freestyle (particularly breakbeat stuff), and
> it
> > is an important part of the history of dance, but today's
> > current dance is still based in trance, progressive house,
>
> > and breaks.
>
> My post might have been a bit overzealous but it's not any
> different than those that believe that dance music in
> general will be mainstream in the US again.The only genre of
> dance that has a chance of that wil be anyuthing freestyle
> derived.Why? It has the most loyal base of fans from Latinos
> all over the US and Italians in the Northeast and
> Canada.There's also the filipinos in the west and other
> ethnic groups like the Greeks,Portugeese etc.Not too mention
> that it has become heritage music for these groups and it's
> being passed down from generation to generation.The only
> dance concerts that draw big crowds are the freestyle
> concerts.Even the old school perfromers till this day are
> booked more often that current dance acts.More later gotta
> go start working....
> >
>

hmm - guess white people don't dance.
I liked freestyle - in the 80's. It was great.
I've progressed and so has the music.
 
Re: Yesterday vs today

I've said this before...

DANCE IS THE ALTERNATIVE.

It's an ALTERNATIVE to everything else that is played on at least TWO radio stations in each of the the top 10 if not 20 markets.

But what dance? COMMERCIAL dance, Bob Sinclair? HIT, Freemasons, HIT,

I've turned a few consultants onto somethings this week as well as VP's and others, it's amazing how lost they are people. And I'm telling you, the Paul Oakenfelds, Digweeds and other guys who do nothing but play tracks for nine minutes do more to damage the perceptions of what DANCE is than you know. FAR MORE. In fact, I'm headed for a meeting now regarding some things involving that. It's great to open people's eyes, hopefully it will render results.

Robbins is an example of a label making SONGS with substance. Memorable songs not just some pierced freak in a booth grooving to a song no one else knows and only those in some trance care to hear.

While that has a place, it's not as a power, recurrent or even medium rotation on a station that needs more than a cume of 20,000.

> >> As rap grew bigger, dance began to shrink at radio. >>
>
> Excellent post.
>
> It is a shame that the 18-34 demo can only be milked so
> much, and hip-hop dominates it. End of dance music being
> supported by record labels. Why compete your own cash cow?
>
> No matter how gross, vile, negative or degrading hip-hop can
> be, it is catchy. Catchy hooks. Kids and young adults eat it
> up. Dance needs to capitalize on this too. Become the
> alternative to Hip Hop, and those disfranchised by it.
>
 
Re: Yesterday vs today

> And I'm telling you, the Paul Oakenfelds, Digweeds
> and other guys who do nothing but play tracks for nine
> minutes do more to damage the perceptions of what DANCE is
> than you know. FAR MORE. In fact, I'm headed for a meeting
> now regarding some things involving that. It's great to open
> people's eyes, hopefully it will render results.
>

This is one of the most retarded statements I've ever seen here.
Who are you to tell a DJ what tracks to play, and how long they can play them?

Deep Dish oftentimes play some songs for more then 10 mins, so does Tenaglia, and Jonathan Peters sometimes can loop the same song for 30 minutes. Go see them spin live and you'll see the only "damage" they're doing is on the dancefloor.

At the same time Deep Dish have reached the Top 10 in the UK twice last year, as well as many other countries.

Please quit putting the blame on people whom you and others are simply jealous of. Their success is well deserved.


> Robbins is an example of a label making SONGS with
> substance.

Robbins just distributes other people's music and markets them. Robbins doesn't MAKE the music. Robbins also oftentimes has success with artists who rely on Remakes to make it big.

If you think DJ Sammy is better for Dance then Paul Oakenfold then you're the one whose hurting the scene here.

>Memorable songs not just some pierced freak in a
> booth grooving to a song no one else knows and only those in
> some trance care to hear.

Maybe we should all just go back to Hillbilly music and Adult Standards. Seriously, what kind of close minded crap is that? With that attitude Rock & Roll would have never taken off, nor Hip Hop.
 
> > > > Some of you might feel different as to what I'm about
> to
> >
> > > > say.The truth is the truth.If you are in the NY
> > Tri-State
> > >
> > > > area then you know that freestyle is the sh*t!.I'm
> > > listening
> > > > to the freestyle free for all by Judy Torres.When
> > > freestyle
> > > > make it's comeback it wil be cause of shows like
> > > > this.........love you JUDY!
> > > >
> > > Unless something weird happened with this weekend's
> time
> >
> > > change, we are in 2006...not 1986! Sorry, I am older
> > (36)
> > > and grew up on freestyle in the mid and late 80s and
> loved
> >
> > > it (and still do). But to claim it is going to have a
> > huge
> > > comeback on the current dance scene seems a bit
> > outlandish.
> > > As I say, I do still like freestyle, and I agree, Judy
> > > Torres does a great job, but appreciate it for what it
> is;
> > a
> > > great time period in dance music. And as much as we
> loved
> >
> > > it back then, I don't see freestyle coming back onto the
>
> > > current scene anymore than I do disco. Today's dance
> has
> >
> > > elements of freestyle (particularly breakbeat stuff),
> and
> > it
> > > is an important part of the history of dance, but
> today's
> > > current dance is still based in trance, progressive
> house,
> >
> > > and breaks.
> >
> > My post might have been a bit overzealous but it's not any
>
> > different than those that believe that dance music in
> > general will be mainstream in the US again.The only genre
> of
> > dance that has a chance of that wil be anyuthing freestyle
>
> > derived.Why? It has the most loyal base of fans from
> Latinos
> > all over the US and Italians in the Northeast and
> > Canada.There's also the filipinos in the west and other
> > ethnic groups like the Greeks,Portugeese etc.Not too
> mention
> > that it has become heritage music for these groups and
> it's
> > being passed down from generation to generation.The only
> > dance concerts that draw big crowds are the freestyle
> > concerts.Even the old school perfromers till this day are
> > booked more often that current dance acts.More later gotta
>
> > go start working....
> > >
> >
>
> hmm - guess white people don't dance.
> I liked freestyle - in the 80's. It was great.
> I've progressed and so has the music.
>
Don't be silly.Of course white people dance....look at dancing with the stars :)
I was just pin pointing out the fan base.Let's not get to politically correct lol.
 
> > Some of you might feel different as to what I'm about to
> > say.The truth is the truth.If you are in the NY Tri-State
>
> > area then you know that freestyle is the sh*t!.I'm
> listening
> > to the freestyle free for all by Judy Torres.When
> freestyle
> > make it's comeback it wil be cause of shows like
> > this.........love you JUDY!
> >
> Unless something weird happened with this weekend's time
> change, we are in 2006...not 1986! Sorry, I am older (36)
> and grew up on freestyle in the mid and late 80s and loved
> it (and still do). But to claim it is going to have a huge
> comeback on the current dance scene seems a bit outlandish.
> As I say, I do still like freestyle, and I agree, Judy
> Torres does a great job, but appreciate it for what it is; a
> great time period in dance music. And as much as we loved
> it back then, I don't see freestyle coming back onto the
> current scene anymore than I do disco. Today's dance has
> elements of freestyle (particularly breakbeat stuff), and it
> is an important part of the history of dance, but today's
> current dance is still based in trance, progressive house,
> and breaks.


Part deux

Not 1986? You mean this I should take of my studded belt?Oh wait,the 80's are sorta back.Besides,freestyle peaked in 92(before radio decided to pull the plug on it).Freestyle was still charting on billboard in the mid to late 90's with acts like Jocelyn Enriquez,Planet Soul,Collage,Johnny O.I think Rockell has most recently charted in 2002.Freestyle can still chart just as well as any trance,house or flavor of the month dance genre around.Problem with most of the freestyle out there is that they are badly produced and lack originality.But getting back to the whole 80's thing(which was cute!) right now we are still under a 80's nostalgia with alot of nu wavish rock bands charting.On the dance side we have acts like Gwen Stefani releasing freestyle/electro records.Don't forget Missy Elliot's "lose control" and Ciara's "1,2 step",LL's "control myself".These are electro base records that freestyle was founded on.So it's not ooooover!As the house song goes...

Btw, there is a huge freestyle concert that is close to being sold out at Madison Square Garden.That's unheard of with any dance genre in the US.
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Mourpheux1 on 04/05/06 05:00 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom