Dude, he was, and still is, for the most part, country.
-
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
Classic Hits 80s
- Thread starter AM/FMRAINMAN
- Start date
You will have to ask him that. But I am increasingly seeing advertising heading to more modern mediums, like right here on the computer, pop-ads, anywhere they can place them.
Good for you. How many advertisers do you work with?
Quite a few when I was in radio. But then again, the OP's question was about whether or not to play '80s on classic hits radio. I say sure! Play from about 1964 to 1989. That is a 25-year-span. I am just not ready for '90s on classic hits radio yet.
I know. I thought you were mourning his exile to country radio as a result of MTV's influence on CHR playlists. So we agree that CHR after MTV sounded better without Kenny, Anne Murray and Alabama cluttering up the playlists or don't we?
Yes, we do.
No, I absolutely was not mourning his exile to country. Seemed to me that that was where he belonged all along.
Hello David. That does make sense, but how would you make sense of WOMC in Detroit a CBS Classic Hits Station...they are playing 1 60s song an hour and the rest 70s and 80s. Playing maybe 1 motown song every other hour. I just think if WOGL on their HD2 played all 50s and 60s with sweepers and DJ's and then the fm station and website focused on the 80s maybe 7 an hour and then 5 70s and 1 90s that would be play well. What are you thoughts?
Each market is different. In the case of Detroit, there has been heavy radio play of Motown for decades on many kinds of stations, so even those 60's songs are familiar to younger generations. This, essentially, makes those songs behave as if they were newer.
In general, a number of the industrial cities of the Northeast where there has been little inbound migration have much greater music commonality, particularly in older songs, than do Sunbelt cities full of "I wasn't born here" people. So the songs that will not pass music testing in those growth markets tend to be different from the ones that pass in the more stable low growth markets... and the lists tend to be longer in those heritage markets, too.
Hey David. What I meant to say is that Detroit is the birth of Motown and they are no longer playing these 60s songs but WOGL does. It does not make sense to me if WOMC the classic hits station in Detroit abandoned 60s, why would WOGL not abandon them. I can understand KRTH, WRBQ in tampa, WOCL in Orlando and Khits in Chicago. Can you explain this?
A
Avid Listener
Guest
The folks who built Motown records were in their 20's in the 1960's, so they're in their 70's today. Motown was born in Detroit, but it moved to Los Angeles, and then it got old and died.
Having seen this debate pop up over so many of these discussion boards and then the fur starts flying, the two distinct sides are the business of radio (the money side, the advertising side of the industry, who are looking for ratings, which equal advertising for the various products that Madison Avenue wants to help sell, whether it's cars, hamburgers or funny blue pills for a certain part of the male anatomy), which seems to cater to the more casual listener who might have the radio playing in the background while working; the type of person that DavidEduardo or TheBigA would consider the typical radio listener, and then there are the people who like to listen to music for fun, as a hobby, like building scale model cars or observing the stars and planets through a telescope. People like Oldies76, Avid Listener and myself who want more variety in their radio stations' programming and who get tired of the same old songs. In reality, there is truth in both sides of the argument: after all, the radio stations are going to go "queep" and die without advertising (the like of commercial-free KCDX in Florence, Arizona notwithstanding; but even they have to appeal to the public for donations, even though the guy running the station himself has a lot of money; it might take ten thousand dollars a day or more to run it, which would be prohibitive even for a multi-millionaire), and the people who make cars, hamburgers, and so forth can't sell their products without advertising them (even though they don't advertise to me: the minute the commercials come on my car radio, I'm switching to another station that's not playing a commercial, guaranteed!), but at the same time, larger, less rigidly-controlled playlists would help the likes of the "hobbyist" listeners stay tuned to the stations longer. Whichever side ultimately wins out, it's obvious that we're not changing the other side's mind and gee, let's sit back and relax, enjoy a ball game or the swimming pool, or if, like me, you build models, "cutting some plastic."
By the way, I find it helps to like several different kinds of music; scan through my car radio and you'll find about five different music formats, from hard rock to oldies to country to old-school R&B.
By the way, I find it helps to like several different kinds of music; scan through my car radio and you'll find about five different music formats, from hard rock to oldies to country to old-school R&B.
I know what you mean. You have to understand that in my spare time, when I'm not working (which isn't very often) I actually still listen for fun. That may seem hard to believe, but I got into this business because I love music. Still, I know the difference between fun and work. I have to. This is why I keep talking about non-commercial radio, listener-sponsored radio, and all the other variations. There ARE places for what you're talking about, and fortunately technology makes it possible for people to find these things if they look hard enough. The killer in all of this is music royalties, which are prohibitively expensive now, and needs fixing. I believe a time will come when some popular music channels will find their way onto technological superhighways, that will then be broadcast on OTA radio for a fee. That's what I think will happen someday. So you will be happy, but it's gonna cost you.
Last edited:
Big A are you on vacation? You sound relaxed. Your point above is very valid. Indeed the costs of OTA is flat out insane and many folks don't understand that side of the equation. While some of us get the privilege and pleasure of doing this radio thing and still loving the music, the bills gotta be paid and there be at least a little profit for beer. Also, interestingly, being on various sides of the commercial stations (ownership, single-stand alones vs. corporate, management) is a big adjustment as well. Playlists, cutting costs and running a smart and profitable company is not easy for anyone. I actually think it's tougher for the big Cs and their teams. Case in point, more on air live nights disappearing. It's a no win situation. Kind of like playing "Dead Skunk in the Road."
A
Avid Listener
Guest
If a station has a copy of Bruce Springsteen's 1984 album, "Born in the USA", and regularly plays "Born in the U.S.A.", "Glory Days", and "Dancing in the Dark", how much does it increase their royalties if they slip in "I'm on Fire" or "My Hometown"? I'm talking about slipping those songs into the playlist maybe once each every other month. How much does that increase the royalties that the radio station plays?
That's an interesting observation Tibbs.
Royalties and playlists are two very different unrelated things. Playlists are a function of the audience the advertisers seek. Change that, and the playlists change.
By the way, I don't know any stations that play music directly off albums. I'm sure there are a few, but none that I know.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
It doesn't matter because terrestrial radio has blanket ASCAP and BMI licenses (some also SESAC, depending on format). It also doesn't matter to a stream because those royalties are per song and for every song you "slip in" and pay royalties for there will be another song you didn't play and pay royalties for.
So if you thought that was another clever argument in favor of larger playlists, try again.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
No, I thought that it was a rebuttal to claiming that stations could not expand playlists because of royalty fees was bogus. And you confirmed that "higher royalties" is NOT an excuse for keeping playlists small.
No one said it was. All I said was that internet radio is being killed by music royalties. Nothing more.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
Looks to me like some reading between the lines took place there. Because I don't remember anyone making that claim either.
Perhaps our avid friend will find the quote he thinks he is referring to and share it with us.
WOGL, small town radio, numerous AM stations, WLNG, Superhits 106, Hippie Radio, KFXM...etc..etc........try again.
Last edited:
- Status