Classic Hits: Evolution or Revolution?

[oldies76]

Unfortunately, I can't agree with your last statement. I fear that by 2015 we won't be hearing them. They are too good, but radio is too stubborn, greedy, and narrow-minded for sentimentality.

Well, I'm really referring to staples, like the Beatles, Supremes, Rolling Stones and yes, the dreaded "Brown Eyed Girl".

I don't expect to hear "Ode to Billy Joe" in 2015, as much as I would like to.

Maybe we can all do Part 15 radio from our homes and re-live the glory days of radio and do it OUR WAY.

 

[michael hagerty]

Come 2015, though, I'd be very surprised to see many 50 year old records getting play. It's a miracle they've lasted this long. '64 is as far back from today as 1915 was then.

Because it's Rock and Roll, recorded with far better technology, than the records of the teens and 20's were to 1964. Do you think radio stations in 1964, would play music off cylinders and old static sounding 78's? And besides, the records of the 60's (and the 50's) are standing the test of time, because it's rock and roll, it sounds crisper even digitized.

In 1964, there was simply lack of technology to preserve the older teens and 1920's music for airplay, unless they were saved on quality reel to reel tape or reissued on newer 45's.

And yes, we'll still be hearing some 60's classics in 2015...they're just too good to eliminate them totally.

Well put Oldies!!!
These comparisons of time simply don't work. Like you said, a music station in the 60's did not have the need nor the technology to play then 50 year old records.

People are missing the point of rock and roll --- it defines modern music and is the basis of all current records, like it or not. These oldies are too iconic to go unplayed. Today numerous commercials employ tracks from the 50s-80's, yet I can't think of any good widespread use of commercials in the 60's using songs from 1900-1940.

Unfortunately, I can't agree with your last statement. I fear that by 2015 we won't be hearing them. They are too good, but radio is too stubborn, greedy, and narrow-minded for sentimentality.

Well put, perhaps. But wrong.

It's not about the technology. It's about the fact that music stations in the 1960s were trying to reach 18-49 and 25-54 year old adults. And you don't do that, regardless of technology, then or now, by playing 50 year old records. (I actually have an aircheck of a fall, 1970 Lohman and Barkley show on KFI where they had an old record collector as a guest. He brought and played some of his 78s going back as far as 1914. The technical quality was the least of the problems).

Songs too iconic to go unplayed? That's an opinion. One that, over the years, has been applied to the works of Perry Como, Doris Day, Nat King Cole, Mario Lanza, The Andrews Sisters, Rudy Vallee, Bing Crosby..........the list is as long as this thread.

And again...if rock and roll is the basis of all current records, then we'll all have no problem adding a preset to our car radios for the local CHR stations and spending quite a bit of our listening time with them.

Hard fact: The rock and roll of the 50s and 60s is standing the test of time with the people who heard them when new, and a few people who are a bit younger. But in terms of airplay for a generation of grown adults in their late 30s and early to mid 40s who have jobs, children, homes and their own music and memories.....life has gone on.

 

[michael hagerty]

Unfortunately, I can't agree with your last statement. I fear that by 2015 we won't be hearing them. They are too good, but radio is too stubborn, greedy, and narrow-minded for sentimentality.

Well, I'm really referring to staples, like the Beatles, Supremes, Rolling Stones and yes, the dreaded "Brown Eyed Girl".

I don't expect to hear "Ode to Billy Joe" in 2015, as much as I would like to.

Maybe we can all do Part 15 radio from our homes and re-live the glory days of radio and do it OUR WAY.

That would be a solution.

Staples? They're only staples now. And nearing the end of that run. No different from "Rock Around The Clock", "Hound Dog" and "Peppermint Twist"...which were staples of oldies radio a few years back, when people were saying 70s records would never work.

 

[oldies76]

Well put, perhaps. But wrong.

So is everything I've posting "wrong"?? Apparently it is to you and David.....I really wish you would see it the other way, but you will refuse. It's really apparent that others in these thread DO agree with me on some issues, such as Biondi4Mayor, LA RadioRewind, SolidGold 16 and Firepoint and possibly others. Just because you and David don't or will ever agree, doesn't mean it's "wrong"..It's only wrong to you. If YOU were a listener of repetitive radio, you'd see what the heck we're talking about here, and on the Tune Out thread AND on KOLA!

 

[oldies76]

Staples? They're only staples now. And nearing the end of that run. No different from "Rock Around The Clock", "Hound Dog" and "Peppermint Twist"...which were staples of oldies radio a few years back, when people were saying 70s records would never work.

You cannot even compare the music of the 70's with that of the 90's. The music of the 70's will stand the test of time, longer than any hit song from the 90's ever will. There are some great acts from the 90's, but pale in comparison to the rock and roll of the 1970's, in terms of creativity and talent!

 

[michael hagerty]

Staples? They're only staples now. And nearing the end of that run. No different from "Rock Around The Clock", "Hound Dog" and "Peppermint Twist"...which were staples of oldies radio a few years back, when people were saying 70s records would never work.

You cannot even compare the music of the 70's with that of the 90's. The music of the 70's will stand the test of time, longer than any hit song from the 90's ever will. There are some great acts from the 90's, but pale in comparison to the rock and roll of the 1970's, in terms of creativity and talent!

Which is exactly what fans of 50s and 60s rock and roll (to say nothing of fans of music from before the rock era) said about 70s music.

And which is almost never said by people who grew up with the more recent decade of music. They're the ones who made them hits. To expect them not to want to hear them as they age into the demo is irrational.

 

[michael hagerty]

Well put, perhaps. But wrong.

So is everything I've posting "wrong"?? Apparently it is to you and David.....I really wish you would see it the other way, but you will refuse. It's really apparent that others in these thread DO agree with me on some issues, such as Biondi4Mayor, LA RadioRewind, SolidGold 16 and Firepoint and possibly others. Just because you and David don't or will ever agree, doesn't mean it's "wrong"..It's only wrong to you. If YOU were a listener of repetitive radio, you'd see what the heck we're talking about here, and on the Tune Out thread AND on KOLA!

Oldies:

I am a listener. But I don't burrow into one genre of music on one or two stations and then complain because I hear the same songs over and over. I may be out of the demo, but my listening behavior pretty well mirrors what we find to be the majority behavior (listening divided between 6 and 9 stations over a two week period) within the demo.

David and I (we've never met, by the way) bring you the facts of how and why it's done. What you say is often unsupported by or outright contradicted by those facts.
It's opinion, it's wishful thinking, but it isn't how radio functions. For us to agree would be essentially like saying water is dry or fire is cold when we have the facts that tell us otherwise. The fact that others agree with you doesn't validate your position.

And I wouldn't say we are even refusing to agree with you, but hoping that reasonable people will see and understand facts and data. If anyone has dug their heels in and refused to see it the other way, it's you, Oldies:


(cue harp music and wavy screen)

Quote from: michael hagerty on January 05, 2013, 07:51:12 PM

I feel like I'm saying this for the tenth time but...

No, Oldies...we're not saying no one likes them. But that a significant enough percentage dislikes them to negatively impact ratings.

Quote from: oldies76 on January 05, 2013, 11:11:19 PM

What 75%, 85%, 99%....

10th time or 101st time, I will disagree, sorry.

 

[oldies76]

And I wouldn't say we are even refusing to agree with you, but hoping that reasonable people will see and understand facts and data. If anyone has dug their heels in and refused to see it the other way, it's you, Oldies

Just an opinion and wishful thinking......as you stated above.

 

[davideduardo]

(cue harp music and wavy screen)

VO: (Rod Serling imitation) "... you've entered the Oldies Zone."

 

[PirateJohnny]

...Maybe we can all do Part 15 radio from our homes and re-live the glory days of radio and do it OUR WAY.

Funny you should mention this. But online would reach more audience...

(cue harp music and wavy screen)

VO: (Rod Serling imitation) "... you've entered the Oldies Zone."

I'm trademarking this!

 

[firepoint525]

Unfortunately, I can't agree with your last statement. I fear that by 2015 we won't be hearing them. They are too good, but radio is too stubborn, greedy, and narrow-minded for sentimentality.

Well, I'm really referring to staples, like the Beatles, Supremes, Rolling Stones and yes, the dreaded "Brown Eyed Girl".

By the time my generation ages out of the format, most stations (even on the FM dial) will be given over to sports or talk. How would you like to be the programmer trying to play the "clean" version of "Me So Horny" to kids who have heard the raunchy version for so many years?

 

[michael hagerty]

Unfortunately, I can't agree with your last statement. I fear that by 2015 we won't be hearing them. They are too good, but radio is too stubborn, greedy, and narrow-minded for sentimentality.

Well, I'm really referring to staples, like the Beatles, Supremes, Rolling Stones and yes, the dreaded "Brown Eyed Girl".

By the time my generation ages out of the format, most stations (even on the FM dial) will be given over to sports or talk. How would you like to be the programmer trying to play the "clean" version of "Me So Horny" to kids who have heard the raunchy version for so many years?

The "kids" you are talking about are now moms and dads in their mid-late 30s. I'm guessing that song doesn't rank huge on their list of favorites in either version.

 

[firepoint525]

Unfortunately, I can't agree with your last statement. I fear that by 2015 we won't be hearing them. They are too good, but radio is too stubborn, greedy, and narrow-minded for sentimentality.

Well, I'm really referring to staples, like the Beatles, Supremes, Rolling Stones and yes, the dreaded "Brown Eyed Girl".

By the time my generation ages out of the format, most stations (even on the FM dial) will be given over to sports or talk. How would you like to be the programmer trying to play the "clean" version of "Me So Horny" to kids who have heard the raunchy version for so many years?

The "kids" you are talking about are now moms and dads in their mid-late 30s. I'm guessing that song doesn't rank huge on their list of favorites in either version.

There is a God!

You take my definition of "kids" a little too literally. I believe I dropped a mention of 20-somethings and 30-somethings on the other thread.

I always believed that "Me So Horny" got far too much media attention, far more than it deserved. And by "media attention," I don't mean airplay. I'm guessing that it got almost NO airplay, for the obvious reasons.

 

[michael hagerty]

Unfortunately, I can't agree with your last statement. I fear that by 2015 we won't be hearing them. They are too good, but radio is too stubborn, greedy, and narrow-minded for sentimentality.

Well, I'm really referring to staples, like the Beatles, Supremes, Rolling Stones and yes, the dreaded "Brown Eyed Girl".

By the time my generation ages out of the format, most stations (even on the FM dial) will be given over to sports or talk. How would you like to be the programmer trying to play the "clean" version of "Me So Horny" to kids who have heard the raunchy version for so many years?

The "kids" you are talking about are now moms and dads in their mid-late 30s. I'm guessing that song doesn't rank huge on their list of favorites in either version.

There is a God!

You take my definition of "kids" a little too literally. I believe I dropped a mention of 20-somethings and 30-somethings on the other thread.

I always believed that "Me So Horny" got far too much media attention, far more than it deserved. And by "media attention," I don't mean airplay. I'm guessing that it got almost NO airplay, for the obvious reasons.

There was a 3-way CHR battle here in Phoenix when "Horny" was new. All three stations played the clean version, but I imagine a lot of stations and cities passed. It peaked at #26 on the Billboard Hot 100 (but was #1 on the R&B chart).

 

[firepoint525]

Michael, you live in Phoenix? The land of Guy Zapoleon? (sp) Seems to me that he was a programming genius. He is the one who was behind the reissues of early '80s near-misses like "Red Red Wine" and about half a dozen others which (belatedly) became hits in the late '80s. I'm sure that all the "suits" were telling him NOT to play songs like that, but he did, and in so doing, created a demand for them.

Unless someone can come up with a more recent example, the late '80s were probably the last time in which anything became a hit solely because of radio airplay. More often than not, it has been MTV, uses of songs in television and movies, American Idol and most recently, youtube which has created the demand for music. Radio has been, more or less, a reflection of these trends. It is okay to play something because it is a hit, but it used to be that radio created the hits and drove the demand for them.

 

[michael hagerty]

Michael, you live in Phoenix? The land of Guy Zapoleon? (sp) Seems to me that he was a programming genius. He is the one who was behind the reissues of early '80s near-misses like "Red Red Wine" and about half a dozen others which (belatedly) became hits in the late '80s. I'm sure that all the "suits" were telling him NOT to play songs like that, but he did, and in so doing, created a demand for them.

Unless someone can come up with a more recent example, the late '80s were probably the last time in which anything became a hit solely because of radio airplay. More often than not, it has been MTV, uses of songs in television and movies, American Idol and most recently, youtube which has created the demand for music. Radio has been, more or less, a reflection of these trends. It is okay to play something because it is a hit, but it used to be that radio created the hits and drove the demand for them.

Yep. Well, the home of Guy Zapolean for a few years in the 80s. He's been in Texas for 20 years or so.

Guy was one of the first people I met when I came to town, and KZZP was a great station when he was programming it. But remember...music research goes back a long way and Guy was doing it (and as a consultant today, would never recommend you ignore it). None of the songs that broke on 'ZZP (UB40, Glenn Madieros, Billy Vera) were the result of Guy having a wild hair.

As to radio no longer being the sole source of exposure, yes, but it's more like early 80s (MTV is over 30!).

 

[TheFonz]

I'm not understanding why Oldies fans are so intent on changing current AM/FM music radio. There are so many other options out there. If for some reason you don't like Internet or Satellite radio, get into the hobby of Airchecking. I can suggest a site (below) that has more great radio than you could listen to in a lifetime.

http://people.umass.edu/~ahmintz/

 

[landtuna]

I'm not understanding why Oldies fans are so intent on changing current AM/FM music radio. There are so many other options out there. If for some reason you don't like Internet or Satellite radio, get into the hobby of Airchecking. I can suggest a site (below) that has more great radio than you could listen to in a lifetime.

http://people.umass.edu/~ahmintz/

Speaking only for myself, I am not intent on changing music radio. I am protesting that current FM music radio is abandoning the first and sometimes second generation of RnR music for the garbage that came later in the 80's and the whole of the 90's and 00's.

I am protesting that advertisers do not understand my age demo, unlike TV which does, and have agreed to believe that we as a generation no longer exist.

But most of all I am protesting that music radio is making no significant attempt to expose younger listeners to the variety and innovation that was early RnR and will remain classic long after we are gone. Radio is abandoning its listeners because it is abandoning the greatest music ever played on the radio.

Music radio will not die during my lifetime but it will die and I am telling you now why it will do so.

You think I am full of bull? Look at the movie industry which regularly uses classic music in its product. Look what happens when one of these old chestnuts is exposed to the younger movie goers. You think the younger people of today can't appreciate this music? You'll never convince me.

 

[Oldbones]

Speaking only for myself, I am not intent on changing music radio. I am protesting that current FM music radio is abandoning the first and sometimes second generation of RnR music for the garbage that came later in the 80's and the whole of the 90's and 00's.

But most of all I am protesting that music radio is making no significant attempt to expose younger listeners to the variety and innovation that was early RnR and will remain classic long after we are gone. Radio is abandoning its listeners because it is abandoning the greatest music ever played on the radio.

I'm glad you prefaced your post with the speaking only for yourself disclaimer. Not everyone gets stuck musically in their high school years. Some move on to other genres (country, classical, jazz, whatever), others' taste evolve and may even (gasp!) enjoy "the garbage that came later in the 80's and the whole of the 90's and 00's". I'm one of them...despite being in my 60s, I still like a lot of what's out today. Maybe you're stuck in 1966 (or whenever), but most of us aren't. Shoot me if I ever take the attitude that "all music after (year) is crap". Sure, there's crap today, but there was crap in every era. My parents thought the Beatles, Stones, etc. were nothing but noise. Steve Allen, Mitch Miller and others of their generation thought Elvis was the beginning of the end of civilization. And so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby.

It's not radio's job to "expose younger listeners to the variety and innovation that was early RnR and will remain classic long after we are gone". Maybe my radio was broken that day, but I don't remember my favorite top 40 station when I was a teenager playing a whole lot of Benny Goodman, Andrews Sisters or Rudy Vallee. If we didn't want to hear those timeless classics mixed in with our music, what makes you think a teen today wants the Beach Boys or Cyrkle played next to Gaga or Bruno Mars?

 

[landtuna]

Not everyone gets stuck musically in their high school years.

Nor am I. My high school years were 1958-1962. The first two years were great. The next two were terrible. If you've been following this general topic you already know the reasons why.

Some move on to other genres (country, classical, jazz, whatever), others' taste evolve and may even (gasp!) enjoy "the garbage that came later in the 80's and the whole of the 90's and 00's".

As have I although the topic we're discussing here is specifically Oldies and not my general taste in music.

I'm one of them...despite being in my 60s, I still like a lot of what's out today.

I am familiar with the 60's (mine, not Rock and Roll) but frankly I don't see, as I've stated many times before, any originality or innovation in pop music for the past 25 years. Videos became the marketing ploy of the labels and suddenly the performers (note that I didn't use the term "artists") adopted a look-alike, play-alike stage presence all formulated to appeal to the MTV gawkers. As the Country boys say "all buckle and no belt". The performances of recent Idol contestants is downright embarrassing and that they have to be force fed to the public is a further disgrace.

Bear in mind we're talking about popular music here and not genre's other than Country (which is having its own miserable existence). The true innovation is being done outside the genre and has been for more than two decades.

Maybe you're stuck in 1966 (or whenever), but most of us aren't. Shoot me if I ever take the attitude that "all music after (year) is crap". Sure, there's crap today, but there was crap in every era. My parents thought the Beatles, Stones, etc. were nothing but noise. Steve Allen, Mitch Miller and others of their generation thought Elvis was the beginning of the end of civilization. And so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby.

Along with many, many other people I believe that the "best" popular music was produced from the years 1955-early 80's. Are there exceptions? Certainly, but not very many. Are there exceptions today? No. We may not live to see it but I sincerely doubt anything being played in the past ten years will still be on the radio 20, 30 or 40 years from now - as "my" music has already been.

And it might do you some good to actually read the history of the people you quote in their dislike of Elvis. It was not so much his music that they disliked but rather his "obscene" performances. Mitch Miller disliked all popular music save his personal brand of folksy sing-along and Allen was a classical music buff. Both Allen and Miller were proved wrong by the longevity of the first and second generations of the music which sadly wasn't killed by subsequent music but by video.

It's not radio's job to "expose younger listeners to the variety and innovation that was early RnR and will remain classic long after we are gone".

We all seem to agree that music radio today has a problem. It is losing revenue and listeners. Radio has lived for the past 70 years largely by introducing music to its audiences and now, just when very little is coming down the road that is drawing in new listeners it is trying its hardest to shed itself of perhaps its largest and most loyal listener group in its history.

Music, such as it is, is now being introduced via the Internet, not radio. The fragmentation of music has divided the radio pie into very small pieces - except for the period I mentioned before. There are still lots of listeners out there who love that old music and more still who would love it if they were exposed to it.

If you are in radio today you don't have a lot of options. You can ride the current downhill slide and eventually take a job selling real estate or you can look for other ways to make your station appeal to a new group of listeners. After all, those "kids" back then hadn't heard the music before they heard it either. Just because a great song was first sung in the 30's, 40's 50's or 60's doesn't mean it still isn't a great song. But you've got to play it. And you have to establish a repore with the listener - just as was done by the great DJ's of the past. One is not likely to be successful without the other.

Maybe my radio was broken that day, but I don't remember my favorite top 40 station when I was a teenager playing a whole lot of Benny Goodman, Andrews Sisters or Rudy Vallee. If we didn't want to hear those timeless classics mixed in with our music, what makes you think a teen today wants the Beach Boys or Cyrkle played next to Gaga or Bruno Mars?

Why wouldn't a teen today like the Beach Boys or The Cyrkle just as much as we did when we first heard them? Kids today seem to like the same Disney movies that we saw first 50 years ago. What makes music any different? Do you really think a 17-year old girl isn't affected when she hears "Love Me Tender" these days?