Classic Rock: Evolve or Die!

[davideduardo]

And how is repeating "We know best because we've been doing things the same way over and over and over forever so shut up" any different?

That, sir, is the exact opposite of what numerous posters have been trying to tell you.

We do not do things the same way over and over. Were that true, we'd still have "color radio" and "boss jocks" and reverb on the DJ mike.

Radio evolves without revolutions. The last revolutionary event was either KOWH in 1952 or the FCC's mandate to end major market FM simulcasts in 1967. Even in these cases, change happened over a period of years. In 1952, radio found the formula to coexist with TV and in 1967 radio found old formats fragmented and a slew of new formats created. But in each case, there was a sequence of great change.

Behind the scenes, we refresh and adapt. If we are good at it, the listeners don't notice. New formats emerge and some succeed and others don't. We find listeners don't respond to high energy jocks. We stop relying on jingles. We find jocks that sound more like regular people are increasingly preferred. Playlists get longer on some formats, shorter in others. Different kinds of contests get more or less reaction and results. We adapt to the changes at the record companies which seem to barely have enough money to keep the doors open any more. And we pick up on trends, which sometimes turns out to be a mistake.

What does not get much press is that there are plenty of failed formats. Someone took a risk and it did not pan out. EOR. Red in St Louis. The original Jammin' Oldies. KNAC-like Active Rock which faded and died after many years of minor success. Attempts at business news or at all news in smaller markets. Even formats that defied descriptions such as Frank Cody's "Blu" in Santa Fe.

But all kinds of eclectic and different formats have been tried. We don't hear much about failures, though. But those of us with some experience remember them.

And all kinds of extended playlists have been tried. Those of us who competed with one of those wish this would happen more often, but those stations don't last and are little remembered.

So, NO, radio does not do the same thing over and over. Today, I have about a half dozen conferences and meetings a week that are totally about how to improve, innovate and create new approaches. Most are based on things listeners have told us.

We all know the standard format names. Two thirds or more of them did not exist 40 years ago. A third did not exist 20 years ago. And a bunch of formats that used to exist no longer do or only do so on a very few stations or on non-commercial stations: oldies, smooth jazz, beautiful music, big band, standards, jazz.

What we have seen is that any implementation and adaptation of the things you want to hear results in unqualified disaster, no matter when or how it is done.

And just how often do you think you folks can keep insulting other people without them responding back in kind?

From your original posts, we saw an attitude that reflected your belief that the entire industry is characterized by incompetence and lack of intelligence. Insult our livelihood, your insult each of us individually.

 

[Avid Listener]

That, sir, is the exact opposite of what numerous posters have been trying to tell you.

We do not do things the same way over and over. Were that true, we'd still have "color radio" and "boss jocks" and reverb on the DJ mike.

You make it seem like minor trappings are significant things. The core format of tight playlist over tested burned out formats hasn't really changed since the late 1960's. You've changed the paint job and made a few other minor cosmetic modifications, but the fundamentals I'm talking about haven't changed.

 

[TheBigA]

You've changed the paint job and made a few other minor cosmetic modifications, but the fundamentals I'm talking about haven't changed.

Yet the core audience for this format loves these songs, and continues to tune in regardless. "Change" is not a big word among the core audience. They don't listen to a classic rock station for change. If change is what they want, they know there are other stations on the dial. They come to this kind of station for LACK of change. It's the one place where they can go where they know what they'll hear, and get what they expect. It's the one consistent thing in their life. That and their mom's cooking. We have asked a lot of listeners, at station events, via email, via social media, and even by phone if they want us to change the songs, and the vast majority say no. Sure there is a small minority who'd like to hear some obscure classic every now and then, and a lot of stations have shows that do that on the weekends. But we see no demand at all for this "new classic rock" thing you keep talking about. None.

Right now I'm watching Motley Crue on Jimmy Fallon and they're doing "Girls, Girls, Girls." They could play anything in their repertoire. They can play an obscure album cut. They can play something new. They choose one of their most familiar hits. And they sound great. They probably made some new fans tonight, because a big chunk of the TV audience wasn't alive when this song was released. A classic is a classic. Then and now.

 

[davideduardo]

You make it seem like minor trappings are significant things. The core format of tight playlist over tested burned out formats hasn't really changed since the late 1960's. You've changed the paint job and made a few other minor cosmetic modifications, but the fundamentals I'm talking about haven't changed.

You selected to reply to my opening remark. You obviously did not read the rest, as it is equally obvious that no real evidence and proof will change your fact-immune mind.

I went on to describe examples of broad spectrum or long playlist stations that tried doing what you suggested, only to fail and either have to be sold or going through a format change.

Some of these were very significant efforts such as the varied and textured KSCA in Los Angeles with a deep playlist, a lot of jock choice and people with deep music experience. It never got really useful ratings, and eventually changed format.

Or the famous KNAC with an active rock format, no fear of new music and bands and an audio chain that made it sound as smooth as a fine-tuned chainsaw.

Maybe Indie 103.1, the "we will play the songs from the smaller labels along with the bigger things" station that was at least twice as broad as the more traditional KROQ, but never got even 15% of the KROQ cume.

And speaking of KROQ... a station that pioneered alternative before "alternative" was understood to be a format. They introduced... and still do... many acts over their nearly 40 years of rocking. But they started out as innovators and now are established market leaders.

Another format that was invented in LA is called "Spanish Adult Hits" in the trades and first aired 14 years ago with a thousand-plus playlist and songs from the 50's to the 90's. The format had never existed anywhere prior to its creation in LA. Some variant of the format is on in every major Southwestern Hispanic market, and it has spread to Mexico, too.

Then there is Scott Shannon's "rock 40" Pirate Radio back in the other century. They spent millions trying to be different from KIIS and traditional Top 40 but failed. And they lost perhaps $20 million on operations and on the loss when they had to sell the station.

How about "The Wave" which was the first New Age station. It was later called "smooth jazz" but to create it Metromedia blew up heritage progressive rocker KMET, very much an institution in the market, to try a format that had never been proven anywhere.

And KMET, when it began, was a brave experiment in broad spectrum rock ranging from acoustic stuff to what would be called metal later on.

And there were three brothers who bought a soft AC FM in LA and converted it into the US' first Spanish AC station when there were no Spanish language FMs in the US. Another risky move that turned out to be brilliant despite advertisers and the industry where folks thought it was crazy.

These are just a few examples in the highest revenue radio market in the US... where any mistake is enormously expensive. The same sort of thing goes on and has gone on all over the country.

The stations with the big playlists almost always fail. The notable exceptions like Jack, often don't have staying power and the libraries shrink over time. The stations that promise familiar music and then add unknown cuts or currents have no record of success, despite numerous intents in various genres.

History repeats itself. Going back a bit over 2 decades, I took a Top 15 market station that had a 1,500 song list and pared it down to about 450. They had 87 currents, which became 17. They were the lowest rated FM in the market. In 90 days, they went to absolute #1 where they remained for the next 22 years... a record for a Top 50 market. You can't expect successful stations to change, and you can not expect a #1 station to risk its market position.

In most markets, you have very few viable stations that are not successful. No reason to change. And when changes are done, the ones that continue to bring success are the ones that listen to what the listeners want to hear, and not the ones that think they know better than the listeners.

 

[Avid Listener]

Yet the core audience for this format loves these songs, and continues to tune in regardless.

I stopped reading at "loves". You keep missing the point. You have a certain number of listeners who like what is being played enough that they'll tune in for lack of anything better to listen to. You think those listeners love it, but they don't. They merely like it. And not nearly as strongly as you seem to think.

You selected to reply to my opening remark. You obviously did not read the rest, as it is equally obvious that no real evidence and proof will change your fact-immune mind.

When you start out with something as misleading and beside the point as you did, what's the point of going any deeper?

 

[davideduardo]

I stopped reading at "loves". You keep missing the point. You have a certain number of listeners who like what is being played enough that they'll tune in for lack of anything better to listen to. You think those listeners love it, but they don't. They merely like it. And not nearly as strongly as you seem to think.

The difference here is that you think, but you do not know, how listeners feel. You have no research, no data, just personal opinion.

Those of us who talk to our listeners know that many songs are "loved". We know that many listeners use that word in describing their favorite station, too.

When you start out with something as misleading and beside the point as you did, what's the point of going any deeper?

Again, you ignore the verifiable facts so that you can go off and suggest that radio stations should play unfamiliar songs by unknown artists from Europe and all the other "kiss of death" solutions you think would make radio better.

Our point is that all the things you thing should be done have been... most of them many times in different decades or eras by people with dreams that became nightmares. Yet there has been constant innovation, as demonstrated by all the successful stations running formats that did not exist a decade or two or three ago. And, similarly, the way the product is assembled in any format has changed to suit todays listeners per their guidance.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Avid, I put it to you bluntly: You are entitled to your opinions. However, when you state them as facts, as your syntax invariably suggests, you need to back up your statements with documented evidence.

We have documented evidence. We cite from it all the time in our responses. Yet you dismiss our statements as our "opinions".

You have turned the concept of a discussion on its side and treat opinions (yours) as facts, while dismissing the facts (ours) as opinions. Please, for the love of all that is decent, stop.

 

[davideduardo]

When you start out with something as misleading and beside the point as you did, what's the point of going any deeper?

As an addendum, here is a good list from Sean Ross containing what can be considered innovative or eminently successful stations, ranging from the over-10-share WDUV to some unique translator-based niche offerings.

http://www.wisebuddah.com/jingles/a...-iii-the-listener-picks-or-norway-folk-you-up

 

[vchimpanzee]

As an example of a classic rock station that doesn't play the same few songs, there is 95.7 the Ride in Charlotte, NC:

http://www.957theride.com/

There is some R&B and some soft oldies that would actually fit in a standards format, but this station has been described as being like "progressive rock" in the 70s. This one man owns it and seems happy with the money he is making and won't make changes. We don't know how they're doing because Arbitron no longer lists it, but it wasn't doing so badly when ratings were shown.

And to correct one misconception, in commercial radio the advertisers are the customers and we listeners are the product.

 

[Silkie]

What will happen with hard core music fans is they will drop radio in all its traditional forms and establish personal libraries or listen to niche streams via the Net. Music radio will become a skeleton of its former self.

Sounds about right.

 

[Avid Listener]

I presume that the average classic rock or other vintage format radio station uses a playlist of around 300 songs, more or less. To many of us, that's just too few songs. That's the number I'd heard bandied about most often.

During the era when classic rock that was played on the air when it was new was first recorded, from around the middle of the 60s to the end of the 80s, there are probably a hundred albums recorded and released per month that might have songs on them that classic rock fans would like. Those albums probably averaged around ten songs per album (or CD, depending on the date). That's 25 years times 12 months times 100 albums per month times 10 songs per album, a total of 300,000 songs. After the suits stopped playing new classic rock songs, the output of new classic rock recordings probably diminished to an average of only ten albums per month in the 90s, 00s, and up to 2015. In that 25 years, that's only 30,000 songs. That would mean that an estimate of 330,000 classic rock songs our out thee in the universe. I would guess that only 5% of them are really good songs. That's 16,500 songs to pick from for a large-playlist classic rock radio station. That also means that there are 313,500 songs that probably shouldn't be played on the radio.

Now, we keep being told that every time a station has attempted to succeed with a large playlist, no one has ever mentioned just how large of a playlist they considered "large". And, given how many bad songs are out there compared to how many good songs there are, it's a hell of a lot easier to assemble a bad "big" playlist than a good "big" playlist. On top of that, there are many other factors that contribute to a radio station's success or failure. A station can put the greatest possible content on the air, but if they don't publicize it to the people who would like to hear it, if their potential audience doesn't even know they're on the air, they aren't going to have many listeners. Anyone who understands music should understand how important the sequence of songs can be, and how a song that is "loved" (a deliberate exaggeration) can change depending on what other songs the listener has heard recently. If you think about it objectively and carefully (something I don't expect to happen around here!), there are far more chances for a radio station to fail than there are for it to succeed.

When someone claims "no radio station with a large playlist has succeeded", that claim is meaningless without conclusive evidence that none of the failures were due to (1) the wrong songs on the large playlist, (2) a lack of publicity and promotion, (3) slipshod programming of the way the songs are presented, and (4) other factors not mentioned, or (5) some combination of the factors.

Now, to steer the subject just a little, the ability to discern and identify a flaw in something is different from the ability to correct the flaw. A baseball umpire doesn't need to be able to throw a 95 mph fastball himself to tell whether or not a pitch has hit the strike zone. A restaurant patron who cannot make a bechamel sauce, or doesn't even know what a bechamel sauce is, can still tell if his Fettuccine Alfredo doesn't taste right. A motorist who cannot rebuild a transmission himself can still tell when his car's transmission isn't working right. And an avid listener of music who doesn't know all the ins and outs of programming a radio station can still tell when the radio stations he hears sound like crap.

I don't claim that I can pick the best 3,000 songs out of a universe of over 300,000 possibly songs. But those who can only manage to find 300 songs to put on their stations haven't proved that there are only 300 songs worth picking. They've only proven that they could not pick out the best 3000 songs.

 

[davideduardo]

I presume that the average classic rock or other vintage format radio station uses a playlist of around 300 songs, more or less. To many of us, that's just too few songs. That's the number I'd heard bandied about most often.

300 is a more / less number for formats like Hot AC and CHR where a significant portion of the spins in each hour are high rotation currents. .

Gold based pop formats like classic hits tend to end up with anything from mid-500's to around 800 songs in the competitive markets. Two heritage classic hits stations that morphed from being oldies stations have in the high 700's in the regular library. Ultra tight KRTH in LA is just under 500, because the market is so diverse (less than 30% non-Hispanic US born white population) so finding any kind of consensus is hard... but that is the exception.

Classic rock stations tend to have libraries anywhere from 600 to 800 songs, with a select few having more and some having less. (The number of songs does not include ones just used in feature or specialty shows)

Adult hits stations like the many Jack, Bob and such incarnations, run from 800 to 1200 songs. They are a mile wide and an inch deep.

During the era when classic rock that was played on the air when it was new was first recorded, from around the middle of the 60s to the end of the 80s, there are probably a hundred albums recorded and released per month that might have songs on them that classic rock fans would like.

While there were a couple of rock FMs before 1967, such as the short-lived WOR-FM in 1965, progressive rock did not reach a large number of markets until 1968-69, and the "explosion" in station count happened in the early 70's. But, while the early progressive stations had very broad playlists, by 1972 those free-form stations began to be killed off... massacred in some cases... by the "Superstars" format designed by Lee Abrams. There was one of these or an imitation in nearly every rated market by the middle of the 70's.

The reason why "Superstars" stations killed the broad, unstructured stations is that they stuck to the hits, and reduced the number of new songs played and they played the selected new cuts in a strategic way that let them be exposed and become hits if the audience liked them.

Those albums probably averaged around ten songs per album (or CD, depending on the date). That's 25 years times 12 months times 100 albums per month times 10 songs per album, a total of 300,000 songs. After the suits stopped playing new classic rock songs, the output of new classic rock recordings probably diminished to an average of only ten albums per month in the 90s, 00s, and up to 2015.

First, in the late 60's and 70's and into the 80's, the "suits" did not play "classic rock" because the term had not been invented. The format was called AOR, or Album Oriented Rock because listeners / consumers bought albums, not singles. So on the air, you might hear "San Antonio's Best Rock" or "Rocking' the Rockies" or "She's Only Rock n' Roll" or "The Buzzard" or just names like DC 102.5 or whatever.

As the AOR stations found that their partisans liked less and less of the newer music (the late 70's and early 80's are where alternative stations like KROQ and AAA stations like KBCO evolved, targeting a different kind of rock partisan), fewer new songs were played as a response to listener behaviour. Eventually we got stations that positioned as "Howard Stern in the morning and Classic Rock all day" that played almost entirely well known, familiar core gold songs. The new music was on the alternative, AAA and active rock stations.

In that 25 years, that's only 30,000 songs. That would mean that an estimate of 330,000 classic rock songs our out thee in the universe. I would guess that only 5% of them are really good songs. That's 16,500 songs to pick from for a large-playlist classic rock radio station. That also means that there are 313,500 songs that probably shouldn't be played on the radio.

But what you forget is familiarity. Of the umpteen thousand songs you envision, maybe 60 to 80 were hits in any given year over the perhaps 18 peak years of the genre (or sub-genre if we subdivide rock). Of those, 30 to 40-some years later, some are no longer liked or relevant. That gets us down to 600 to 800 songs where listeners say, "I want to hear that song on the radio today".

Now, we keep being told that every time a station has attempted to succeed with a large playlist, no one has ever mentioned just how large of a playlist they considered "large".

First, the number varies by format. And it varies to some extent by market.

I did mention to you that I did a classic rock sign-on in 2000 in a market of 17 million. The station played about 600 songs, and took one book to become a dominant #1 with over a 20 share. Soon, another station decided to come directly against us and they had around 1800 songs in the library, and gloated about it often on the air. A year later, we had over a 20 share and they had under a 2 share. They changed format. Every one of the songs they played was by a good artist and had been a hit of some sort when the song was new. When we did a couple of thousand street intercepts, the overwhelming response to the new station was, "yeah, I tried them but they play more bad songs than good ones" or "they only play a couple of songs I like an hour" and similar statements.

And, given how many bad songs are out there compared to how many good songs there are, it's a hell of a lot easier to assemble a bad "big" playlist than a good "big" playlist.

You can't go out and assemble a "big" playlist. The list is determined by asking the listeners if they want to hear each song. If there are only 500 songs that have only minimal negatives and good positives, that is the size of the list. Period.

On top of that, there are many other factors that contribute to a radio station's success or failure. A station can put the greatest possible content on the air, but if they don't publicize it to the people who would like to hear it, if their potential audience doesn't even know they're on the air, they aren't going to have many listeners.

You exaggerate this, and have done so multiple times

Radio itself is an ad medium... there is a certain amount of publicity in just being on the air. I kept a very agressive foreground station #1 for 22 years in a market with 122 stations and we never spent a dollar on outside advertising. We did contests, concerts, promotions and such but no billboards, no TV, no print.

On the other hand, if I was doing soft AC or some other passive format station, I'd be all over TV.

The problem with advertising classic rock is that it is hard to target the listener efficiently; there is a lot of spillage in mass media where the message is wasted on people who hate classic rock.

Anyone who understands music should understand how important the sequence of songs can be, and how a song that is "loved" (a deliberate exaggeration) can change depending on what other songs the listener has heard recently. If you think about it objectively and carefully (something I don't expect to happen around here!), there are far more chances for a radio station to fail than there are for it to succeed.

We can see the reaction to each song that is played over time using MScore data. Songs that have negatives on one play will have the same negatives the next time and the next and the next. Position, time of day, context and such have very very little to do with it. That statement applies to every format I have identified.

When someone claims "no radio station with a large playlist has succeeded", that claim is meaningless without conclusive evidence that none of the failures were due to (1) the wrong songs on the large playlist, (2) a lack of publicity and promotion, (3) slipshod programming of the way the songs are presented, and (4) other factors not mentioned, or (5) some combination of the factors.

Execution of a format is generally at par with the other stations in a market. Revenue potential being the same, stations budget much the same what across all the full signals. And we have seen this often enough to know that most of the stations with big lists failed mostly because they were playing too many weak songs. I'm sure that there was a case or wto of incompetence and bumbling, but the real issue is when a station plays music listeners don't really want to hear.

And an avid listener of music who doesn't know all the ins and outs of programming a radio station can still tell when the radio stations he hears sound like crap.

You can tell if you like it, but you can not tell how many others would like it. Or dislike it.

I don't claim that I can pick the best 3,000 songs out of a universe of over 300,000 possibly songs. But those who can only manage to find 300 songs to put on their stations haven't proved that there are only 300 songs worth picking. They've only proven that they could not pick out the best 3000 songs.

You are, again, ignoring the fact that it is the listeners who determine which songs and how many get played.

 

[Avid Listener]

While there were a couple of rock FMs before 1967, such as the short-lived WOR-FM in 1965, progressive rock did not reach a large number of markets until 1968-69, and the "explosion" in station count happened in the early 70's. But, while the early progressive stations had very broad playlists, by 1972 those free-form stations began to be killed off... massacred in some cases... by the "Superstars" format designed by Lee Abrams. There was one of these or an imitation in nearly every rated market by the middle of the 70's.

If you don't recognize (or can't tell) the difference between "progressive rock" and "classic rock", then how can anything else you say be considered as being from a knowledgeable source?

 

[CTListener]

If you don't recognize (or can't tell) the difference between "progressive rock" and "classic rock", then how can anything else you say be considered as being from a knowledgeable source?

Were you alive and listening to radio in the late '60s? Those stations that the "Superstars" album rock format slaughtered WERE "progressive" or "free form" stations. The terms were interchangeable, and "progressive" back then didn't mean the pretentious art-rock of groups like Yes and Emerson, Lake & Palmer. It was a catch-all term to describe such stations and the non-mainstream, non-single rock played on such stations. They weren't playing "classic rock" because that term hadn't been invented. If it had, it would have referred to the early/mid '50s sound of rock 'n' roll, not to Cream and Jimi Hendrix.

 

[davideduardo]

If you don't recognize (or can't tell) the difference between "progressive rock" and "classic rock", then how can anything else you say be considered as being from a knowledgeable source?

Most of the "Progressive Rock" stations became "Superstars" stations. Those that did not survived for varying periods of time, and then for the most part died or morphed into something else such as KMET or WMMS or KSHE.

"Progressive Rock" was the same format as "Free form".

Progressive Rock, Free-Form and AOR were all forms of album based rock mostly because the fans did not buy 45s.

All the forms of album rock which gradually became referred to as AOR. The trades all referred to them as AOR. And they differentiated, depending on the trade publication (Fred, hamilton, R&R, Gavin, FMQB, etc) the other forms of rock like modern rock, active rock and alternative rock.

AOR is the parent of "classic rock" since it was those stations and not the alternative rockers or the active rock stations or the AAA stations that morphed into "classic rock" as less and less new music appealed to the established listener base of those stations. Over the years, then, the percentage of gold increased and the format began being called "classic rock" as a positioning label.

You obviously don't know the progression or the timeline. Before slamming people, myself included, you should know what you are talking about.

 

[Avid Listener]

Were you alive and listening to radio in the late '60s? Those stations that the "Superstars" album rock format slaughtered WERE "progressive" or "free form" stations. The terms were interchangeable, and "progressive" back then didn't mean the pretentious art-rock of groups like Yes and Emerson, Lake & Palmer. It was a catch-all term to describe such stations and the non-mainstream, non-single rock played on such stations. They weren't playing "classic rock" because that term hadn't been invented. If it had, it would have referred to the early/mid '50s sound of rock 'n' roll, not to Cream and Jimi Hendrix.

Yes, I was alive in that era. I was alive when the groundbreaking changes happened in the music industry, and I was alive when radio FOLLOWED the changes that happened in the music industry a few years later. The name "classic rock" was applied retroactively to describe the output of changes that had occurred in the recent past. Most labels of social phenomena are applied retroactively. Back in the years 1914 through 1918, none of the participants realized that they were fighting in World War ONE, because it didn't get that name until the decided to name the second one World War TWO.

I'm also alive today. So, I accept and use the contemporary meaning of terms for casual, everyday conversation.

Most of the "Progressive Rock" stations became "Superstars" stations. Those that did not survived for varying periods of time, and then for the most part died or morphed into something else such as KMET or WMMS or KSHE.

"Progressive Rock" was the same format as "Free form".

Progressive Rock, Free-Form and AOR were all forms of album based rock mostly because the fans did not buy 45s.

All the forms of album rock which gradually became referred to as AOR. The trades all referred to them as AOR. And they differentiated, depending on the trade publication (Fred, hamilton, R&R, Gavin, FMQB, etc) the other forms of rock like modern rock, active rock and alternative rock.

AOR is the parent of "classic rock" since it was those stations and not the alternative rockers or the active rock stations or the AAA stations that morphed into "classic rock" as less and less new music appealed to the established listener base of those stations. Over the years, then, the percentage of gold increased and the format began being called "classic rock" as a positioning label.

You obviously don't know the progression or the timeline. Before slamming people, myself included, you should know what you are talking about.

You keep talking about radio as if radio set the trends. Radio followed the trends. It did not set them. Classic Rock, as a genre of music, started before radio noticed it and made changes to exploit it. If anyone needs to learn the timeline, it's the people who don't recognize that the musicians created the new music FIRST, then the radio people jumped on the bandwagon. The radio formats you mentioned didn't create anything. They applied labels to things after the things were created.

"Classic rock", as a musical genre, was created by musicians. The musicians didn't name the genre, they were too busy creating great music. The suits in the radio industry back in the day had the sense to recognize something that they could exploit, and so they did.

Now, in 2015, if there wasn't such a lack of forward thinking radio suits like the suits of half a century ago, those contemporary suits would open their eyes and realize that there is a musical genre out there that they could exploit very successfully if they could just learn to think outside the box. But since the suits of today can only remember what their forbears did and imitate it, and cannot come up with a new thought of their own, the opportunity will be lost.

In a way it's sad to see someone who knows all the trivial minutiae of what happened to radio in the 1960's, but who cannot see the bigger picture.

 

[John Gallagher]

Instead of raking David E, K.M. and others over the coals, read through all of this. David's explanation is how he and others have had ratings success for decades. I am fascinated by reading posts like this because he's explained how winning works. I spent 23 years in the business and one of the FM stations I worked at had a PD and MD that, supposedly, did their own local research. In almost 10 years, they had no competition on the FM band, only an AM Top 40 (this was the 1980s) so they played some very odd titles alongside the hits that went into recurrent categories, then gold. The year that another AM Top 40, who had a slimmer library that was full of nothing but the hits took over a 3000 watt FM frequency in town, they beat the station I was working at that was 50,000 watts. The stationI worked at tanked within the next 3 years, going through a multitude of short-lived formats before being sold. Keep in mind, the 50,000 watt station was #1 for many years only because they had no FM competition and listeners weren't tuning in AM for music anymore.

Moral: Play the hits, play the songs people want to hear, not titles that no one else is playing. You'll lose listeners.

 

[davideduardo]

You keep talking about radio as if radio set the trends. Radio followed the trends. It did not set them. Classic Rock, as a genre of music, started before radio noticed it and made changes to exploit it. If anyone needs to learn the timeline, it's the people who don't recognize that the musicians created the new music FIRST, then the radio people jumped on the bandwagon. The radio formats you mentioned didn't create anything. They applied labels to things after the things were created.

In fact, actually, in the real world you are wrong in this case.

While radio generally reflects trends rather than setting them, nearly the opposite happened in the late 60's.

Top 40 stations were full of later Motown, Monkees and Merseybeat music. They did play Somebody To Love and White Rabbit and Innagodadavida (withor without hyphens) in 67 and 68 and they were hits. But they could not and did not go deep into those emerging acts. So, nationally, exposure to those "hard rock" (a term that spawned a chain of restaurants and venues) artists got little exposure. The bands sure did not appear on Ed Sullivan!

Enter the FCC. January 1 of 1967 all FM simulcasting of AM sister stations in nearly all markets (with a few exceptions like for daytimers) had to end. So on the first day of 1967... the same week "Light My Fire" was released... hundreds of FM stations had to find new formats. Many did Beautiful Music: cheap, easy, and it did not compete with the AM cash cow for revenue. But some did "hard rock" or "progressive rock" (we still did not have a term for it. It just "was") formats.

Suddenly, all those artists who had seen only their most commercial songs played on Top 40 had a national venue. And bands that did not have Top-40-like "singles" immediately found a home for their sound. Listeners, particularly 18-34 year old males, discovered these stations. They did not "flock to them" but they gradually listened more and more and as that happened, we got progressive rock stations not only in LA and SF and NY, but in Alexandria, LA and Tucson, AZ.

A whole nation was exposed to real rock music. They discovered a station that did not follow "Born to be Wild" with Bobby Goldsboro's "Honey".

"Classic rock", as a musical genre, was created by musicians. The musicians didn't name the genre, they were too busy creating great music. The suits in the radio industry back in the day had the sense to recognize something that they could exploit, and so they did.

The music was generally termed "heavy" or "hard". I remember one station that actually called itself "Heavy" back then. It became "classic rock" because it aged well and people wanted to hear it decades later.

But the music achieved widespread exposure and commercial success because AM radio stations needed a format that would "sustain" their now-separate FM without impinging on the billing base of the AM. The critical mass that having so many stations programming a similar format gave to the music brought it into the mainstream. But none of those stations "exploded" to the top of the ratings... radio had to do new formats and this one created its own audience over a period of years.

Now, in 2015, if there wasn't such a lack of forward thinking radio suits like the suits of half a century ago, those contemporary suits would open their eyes and realize that there is a musical genre out there that they could exploit very successfully if they could just learn to think outside the box. But since the suits of today can only remember what their forbears did and imitate it, and cannot come up with a new thought of their own, the opportunity will be lost.

We've talked with classic rock listeners (I gave an example of one I started in this Millenium) and what they want are the durable songs from the past. At the station I mentioned, owned by one of America's most innovative broadcasters, we tried to include "compatible" currents... several an hour. And we researched the songs and the listeners and they told us they really only wanted to hear their favorites.

So I actually tried to put some new songs by newer artists as well as the traditional ones on a classic rock station. It did not help, and it turned out that it annoyed the listeners. When they had no other classic rock station to go to, it did not hurt much, but as our success attracted competitors, it did hurt and we stopped flagellating ourselves and cut the new stuff out.

As I said before, everything you think we should do has been tried. Over and over. And it didn't work.

In a way it's sad to see someone who knows all the trivial minutiae of what happened to radio in the 1960's, but who cannot see the bigger picture.

I've looked for bigger pictures many times. When I found one I exploited it with new formats or variations. But when the big picture is really just a wall with dirt specs on it, I move on.

 

[Avid Listener]

As I said before, everything you think we should do has been tried. Over and over. And it didn't work.

You still don't get it. No matter how often attempts are made but executed poorly, and failed because of that poor execution, that only proves that the attempts were poorly executed.

 

[davideduardo]

You still don't get it. No matter how often attempts are made but executed poorly, and failed because of that poor execution, that only proves that the attempts were poorly executed.

So you think every single person in the industry is incompetent. And that ever station owner or group is clueless. And that audience measurement is wrong. You believe proprietary research done for programming decisions is done by boobs and morons. You think listeners don't really tell us what they want.

Is there anyone in radio that you think is not an idiot? Please, go ahead, name one or two or three.





...Or are you the only person who really knows what to do?


Before you answer, here's a clue: when only one person out of tens of thousands believes something, that person is playing the starring role in "The Emperor Has No Clothes."