Coming soon... K-EARTH 101 streaming live in September!

[calguy]

KRTH does sound MUCH better since ex-KOST PD Jhani Kaye took over and enlarged the library, while cutting down on the repetition which former PD Mike Phillips used to the point of overkill.

I agree that musically K-Earth sounds a million times better than before Jhani Kaye, but I wouldn't blame Mike Phillips. That man knew how to program a station better than most on the planet.

Kaye's predecessor Jay Coffey was really tight with the rotations and could've fixed the problem in my opinion, but for whatever reason didn't. Then again his hands may have been tied by his bosses back then. I understand the GM is a tough one.

Now while KRTH sounds better tune-wise, I do find the air-staff inconsistent. Mornings, Middays and late afternoons are great, above average. Nights don’t quite sound right to me. Christina Kelly sometimes sounds a little lost, but that could be related to being hot-lined a lot as Kaye likes to do. Normally she’s very smooth and makes few if any mistakes.

The weak spots have to be some of the weekend shifts and the 1-4pm shift. Joshua Escondon has to be the worst hire at KRTH in the last 30 years. What's he always laughing at? He tries to up his energy level by yelling into the mic and basically sticks out like a sore thumb. It’s clear that he doesn’t know most of music, and while the other jocks follow the format he seems to do whatever he wants. K-Earth used to be a station with a very slick, polished presentation, almost mistake free, but during early afternoons it's a total mess.

Weekends are a mixed bag with some very good and some not so good. I can't recall the guy's name but there's a weekender who always throws the call letters away with this weird inflection on the "101" part of K-Earth 101. Overall the station sounds better than it has in quite a while, but it could be that much better with just a few adjustments...

 

[BACKnUSSR]

David, I think you have way too much faith in audience research. It is not always accurate.

I remember once asking the P.D. of an oldies station in Memphis why his station played Listen To The Music and Long Train Runnin, but did not play Black Water. His reply was that Black Water did not test well.

I refuse to believe that someone who likes Listen To The Music does not like Black Water.

Same station played A Horse With No Name but not Sister Golden Hair. He had the same response. About 3 months later they started playing Sister Golden Hair. His response was that it tested well this time.

Do you really think the audience didn't want to hear Sister Golden Hair in February, but did in May.

This kind of thinking is why radio is boring and losing the next generation.

No research is always accurate...even David knows that. Otherwise it would be fortune-telling.

However....I kinda like "Listen To The Music" but don't care for "Black Water"

I like "Sister Golden Hair", and am lukewarm about "A Horse with No Name"

I like "Revolution" and dislike "Ob La Di, Ob La Da"

I loved "Gimme Shelter" and "Sympathy for The Devil" but absolutely hated
"Beast Of Burden" and "Emotional Rescue"

The point being....most listeners judge song by song, and usually don't LOVE everything
from an artist. In many cases, the band themselves have songs they dislike.

Ever see Billy Joel perform "Just The Way You Are" in the last 20 years?
No? Ever wonder why?

 

[scooty430]

I can't imagine a time when people aren't going to want to hear the Beatles, "I Feel Good," or the Beach Boys.

I can. Nearly everyone under 50 doesn't want to listen to that. Many over 50 have moved on.

Bull. Who are all those people going to those Vegas shows? They're all over 50?

That music is timeless, and will be around forever, like Beethoven's 9th Symphony.

Hardly. It will be a memory in a few decades, when those who listend to the songs when they were current hits die. Very few people outside that group have a passion for this music.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't even alive when the Stones and Beatles were in their prime and had hits. None of my friends in school were. Those were the bands we all liked.

Marketed properly, a savvy person could create a station that an entire family can listen to in the car, everyone enjoying the music together.

You obviously don't have kids in a different generation. To think what you posted is remotely possible is ingenuous.

Indeed, every classroom in the country harbors at least one or two Beatles freaks,

OK, just for the heck of it, go to a high school, any high school, in Huntington Park and find me one person who likes the Beatles who is not a 50+ teacher.

If you did it, you'd find a Beatles fan, guaranteed.


and the band continually tops the charts even today with greatest hits packages, or even a mashup album, for god's sake! And in the illegal download department, the biggest deal from a few years ago was the combo of Jay Z and the Beatles on the "Grey Album."

Yeah, 50 year olds also know how to download and go to a record store... very few younger people under the mentioned age have any real interest in that music.

So they only like, what....Justin Timberlake and Green Day? Is that music so different? If the Beatles, Stones and U2 are only for people over 50, why were those the last three bands at the Superbowl? Only old men watch it? Sorry, buddy. Everybody watches it.

Meanwhile, the music of the 80s and 90s? No legs. A few good tunes will last, but overall, it's inferior and will fade.

In your opinion. On the other hand, I think that such music is just as good, from REO Speedwagon all the way to the late 90's.

REO Speedwagon suck.

K-Earth would be gone if Jack hadn't already been taken, and will probably go, you're right. But it's a short-sighted choice.

Radio is about paying the bills with advertising

......and that is why it sucks so very very much.

 

[davideduardo]

No research is always accurate...even David knows that. Otherwise it would be fortune-telling.

Research is to find out how people feel right now about something. People themselves can not predict their own behaviour, so trying to predict the future is simply impossible and not the goal of research. research presents present day facts so someone can build a product or service or refine an existing one for current needs.

 

[BACKnUSSR]

No research is always accurate...even David knows that. Otherwise it would be fortune-telling.

Research is to find out how people feel right now about something. People themselves can not predict their own behaviour, so trying to predict the future is simply impossible and not the goal of research. research presents present day facts so someone can build a product or service or refine an existing one for current needs.

Wonderful. Its not always accurate....nothing is.

It isn't uncommon for things to fly in the face of research
(some of the most heavily researched product launches in hostory have been disasters)

 

[davideduardo]

Wonderful. Its not always accurate....nothing is.

It isn't uncommon for things to fly in the face of research
(some of the most heavily researched product launches in hostory have been disasters)

The what is at issue is not the research, but the implementation. research gives you data on how people have behaved up to the moment of the research, and the users of the data try to determine based on the real data how people will behave in the future.

"Ah, if we play the songs people like and don't play the songs they don't like we will go up in the ratings."

Not so simple... the competetitve array may change, the imaging and talent may be weak, the transmitter may be on half power, etc., etc. Non of this can be shown by research ahead of the fact, but can make a station that is well researched fail.

 

[scooty430]

Research is responsible for the boring playlists. It means that only the songs that please the common denominator, or don't offend anyone, get on the air.

The reality is, if I am loyal to a station, and am hearing a few of my own favorites, I am going to tolerate a few songs I don't like. Take JACK FM. I can't stand Whitesnake. But I'll put up with it because the next song is going to be, say, the Clash. Someone on the other side of town is psyched to hear Whitesnake, and puts up with the Clash.

And yes, I know JACK FM uses research, but the original concept did not come from research, and in fact ran against the prevailing thinking in radio. ("Smaller playlist = bigger ratings," which, by the way, Jhani Kaye still believes in with all his heart and soul.) Jack FM also combines genres, another thing "research" said was not popular. Oops. Guess that was wrong.

The other thing research prevents is innovation. Do you think if someone had gone out and "test-marketed" the early Beatles singles, people would have rated them highly? Doubt it. Or how about this. I once saw a clip of American Bandstand from 1967. It was Dick Clark playing Strawberry Fields Forever to his teen audience. They did a "rate-a-record" on it. Almost all hated it. They thought it was dark, depressing, terrible. I am sure a few years later those people were totally sold on the more creative, complex Beatles, but in that little bit of "research," one of the Beatles more popular and memorable songs was given the thumbs down.

Here's what research produces: Snakes on a Plane. A movie that was tested, revised, tested again, actually re-shot, and then tested some more. Then it was marketed and hyped with every trick in the promotional handbook. Not only did it suck, it flopped commercially.

 

[calguy]

Research is responsible for the boring playlists. It means that only the songs that please the common denominator, or don't offend anyone, get on the air.

The reality is, if I am loyal to a station, and am hearing a few of my own favorites, I am going to tolerate a few songs I don't like. Take JACK FM. I can't stand Whitesnake. But I'll put up with it because the next song is going to be, say, the Clash. Someone on the other side of town is psyched to hear Whitesnake, and puts up with the Clash.

And yes, I know JACK FM uses research, but the original concept did not come from research, and in fact ran against the prevailing thinking in radio. ("Smaller playlist = bigger ratings," which, by the way, Jhani Kaye still believes in with all his heart and soul.) Jack FM also combines genres, another thing "research" said was not popular. Oops. Guess that was wrong.

The other thing research prevents is innovation. Do you think if someone had gone out and "test-marketed" the early Beatles singles, people would have rated them highly? Doubt it. Or how about this. I once saw a clip of American Bandstand from 1967. It was Dick Clark playing Strawberry Fields Forever to his teen audience. They did a "rate-a-record" on it. Almost all hated it. They thought it was dark, depressing, terrible. I am sure a few years later those people were totally sold on the more creative, complex Beatles, but in that little bit of "research," one of the Beatles more popular and memorable songs was given the thumbs down.

Here's what research produces: Snakes on a Plane. A movie that was tested, revised, tested again, actually re-shot, and then tested some more. Then it was marketed and hyped with every trick in the promotional handbook. Not only did it suck, it flopped commercially.

Sadly I have to agree with most of your observations, but the whole "tighter rotation= higher ratings" did work in the older days of Top 40, and sadly it still does today. That's why the current rotations at KIIS are so tight. The problem is that most PD's think that's the way every format should be programmed. It works best on teen oriented CHR's, but it's a horrible way to program an oldies station unless you're bicycling your categories every few days.

 

[BACKnUSSR]

The what is at issue is not the research, but the implementation. research gives you data on how people have behaved up to the moment of the research, and the users of the data try to determine based on the real data how people will behave in the future.

"Ah, if we play the songs people like and don't play the songs they don't like we will go up in the ratings."

Not so simple... the competetitve array may change, the imaging and talent may be weak, the transmitter may be on half power, etc., etc. Non of this can be shown by research ahead of the fact, but can make a station that is well researched fail.

Yes, but there lies the problem. The data that is used is accepted as you say as "how people have behaved up to the moment of the research". More accurately, it is a measure of how a SAMPLE of people had behaved and the inaccuracies come from the weighting of this data to speak for all people. It is often flawed. For example....typically you'd hope that the sample of 25-34 year old African-American females would represent all who might be listening...but in the real world...thats nothing more than a hopeful assumption...(which we DO unfortunately rely upon).

 

[doublecashkgb]

Jahni Kaye has a better grasp on the music and rotations than Coffey, the music flow and energy is better. However his achilles heel has always been talent. He tries to control talent with liner cards.

Joshua & Christina don't have the talent to work at KRTH. Christina is likely an EOE case, Joshua may be another kind of case.

 

[scooty430]

Research is responsible for the boring playlists. It means that only the songs that please the common denominator, or don't offend anyone, get on the air.

The reality is, if I am loyal to a station, and am hearing a few of my own favorites, I am going to tolerate a few songs I don't like. Take JACK FM. I can't stand Whitesnake. But I'll put up with it because the next song is going to be, say, the Clash. Someone on the other side of town is psyched to hear Whitesnake, and puts up with the Clash.

And yes, I know JACK FM uses research, but the original concept did not come from research, and in fact ran against the prevailing thinking in radio. ("Smaller playlist = bigger ratings," which, by the way, Jhani Kaye still believes in with all his heart and soul.) Jack FM also combines genres, another thing "research" said was not popular. Oops. Guess that was wrong.

The other thing research prevents is innovation. Do you think if someone had gone out and "test-marketed" the early Beatles singles, people would have rated them highly? Doubt it. Or how about this. I once saw a clip of American Bandstand from 1967. It was Dick Clark playing Strawberry Fields Forever to his teen audience. They did a "rate-a-record" on it. Almost all hated it. They thought it was dark, depressing, terrible. I am sure a few years later those people were totally sold on the more creative, complex Beatles, but in that little bit of "research," one of the Beatles more popular and memorable songs was given the thumbs down.

Here's what research produces: Snakes on a Plane. A movie that was tested, revised, tested again, actually re-shot, and then tested some more. Then it was marketed and hyped with every trick in the promotional handbook. Not only did it suck, it flopped commercially.

Sadly I have to agree with most of your observations, but the whole "tighter rotation= higher ratings" did work in the older days of Top 40, and sadly it still does today. That's why the current rotations at KIIS are so tight. The problem is that most PD's think that's the way every format should be programmed. It works best on teen oriented CHR's, but it's a horrible way to program an oldies station unless you're bicycling your categories every few days.

Right. A tight playlist works on Top 40, but that's because people are wanting to hear new stuff. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Even Indie 103, probably one of my favorite stations ever, has a very tight playlist, outside of all the (excellent) specialty programs. But it works because they are playing new songs. For example, every time I turn it on, I am pretty pleased to hear that new Beck song, "Think I'm in Love." They're probably playing it every two hours.

On the other hand, I am not that excited to hear "Listen to the Music" by the Doobies every two hours....

 

[calguy]

Jahni Kaye has a better grasp on the music and rotations than Coffey, the music flow and energy is better. However his achilles heel has always been talent. He tries to control talent with liner cards.

Joshua & Christina don't have the talent to work at KRTH. Christina is likely an EOE case, Joshua may be another kind of case.

I actually think that Christina Kelly is a decent jock, but may be intimidated by Jhani Kaye.

Escondon is "another" kind of case alright. He simply does not belong at KRTH.
After his antics at KBIG it was thought by many people I work with that he couldn't get hired unless a friend took him in.
Having a friend is still the best way to get a job. It may not always be right, but it's the truth...

 

[cyberdad]

Quote

"To me, this station sounds like just any other safe, inoffensive, dumbed-down station anywhere....albeit with a few "more-creative-than-average" jocks."

Good. Then, as a media professional, you know that that is the formula that works. Works for TV, Movies, and Radio.

Sad, but ABSOLUTELY true. I do agree with you.

 

[Marv-L.A.]

KRTH does sound MUCH better since ex-KOST PD Jhani Kaye took over and enlarged the library, while cutting down on the repetition which former PD Mike Phillips used to the point of overkill.

The out-of-the-box success of the JACK-FM format, certainly in LA, proves convincingly that a LARGE library (1,200+ songs) CAN results in solid ratings and enormous 25-54 numbers if executed properly.

Since Top 40 radio (aka CHR/Pop) abandoned its original MASS-APPEAL format roots well over a decade ago, oldies stations such as KRTH will continue to do VERY well, especially if the station gets freshened with eighties material, as Kaye has done exceptionally well.

The baby-boomers out there have FAR more money for disposable income than ANY other age cell out there, and stations such as KRTH are VERY happy to have them as listeners, as are KRTH's advertisers.

With a library composed of songs from 1955 to the early eighties (1982/83). KRTH isn't going away anytime soon, and especially with a GREAT morning showm with a host (Gary Bryan) whom KRTH's listeners can identify with, as opposed to his hoeplessly overmatched predecessor, Sean (Hollywood) Hamilton.

 

[davideduardo]

[EDIT--post removed]

So not liking an artist is being racist? I don't like Barry Manilow, either, but like Rod Stewart.

FYI, CCR sold many more albums in Latin America than The Beatles did... and I love CCR, lots of Stones, Supremes, etc. I just don't like The Beatles, that's all.

"Taste" is personal. I don't have to like The Beatles to be American.

 

[briancraig]

One doesn't have to like The Beatles to be an American or a decent person or even a successful radio programmer. Everyone is entitled to their own taste in music, movies, entertainment etc.

But the Beatles are so important in understanding the history of popular music, that it could be said that someone who doesn't like the Beatles is certainly not qualified to be judging popular music of the last 40 years.

 

[rwagoner]

One doesn't have to like The Beatles to be an American or a decent person or even a successful radio programmer. Everyone is entitled to their own taste in music, movies, entertainment etc.

But the Beatles are so important in understanding the history of popular music, that it could be said that someone who doesn't like the Beatles is certainly not qualified to be judging popular music of the last 40 years.

You obviously didn't grow up with my sister, who played nothing but the Beatles and Barbara Streisand (Funny Girl and Funny Lady soundtracks) 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for at least two years. I can't stand most Beatles songs any more.

 

[ItalianAce]

I haven't listened to K-RTH for several years. I would say the last time I sat down and really listened to the station was back in 2001ish before I went to Internet and other means of radio listening. I'm a huge fan of oldies especially the 1954-1969ish format. Anyhow, I sat down and listened to KRTH the last few days to compare the station to the buzz on this forum.

First off I was a major listener of KRTH 101.1 back in the late 1980s and 1990's (along with than KODJ/KCBS-FM when they were oldies). I noticed KRTH 101.1 still has the same jingles more or less. But, the talent is very slow and boring. Pretty much like everyone said on this forum. The DJ's play a song, say a one liner, than flip to a new song. The DJ's are for sure nothing like the golden era of KRTH when they had Reel Don Steel, Robert W. Morgan, Mr. Rock 'n' Roll and Jonie Caroll (I know I spelt her name wrong). KODJ/KCBS had Machine Gun Kelly and Charlie Tuna. I remember KRTH had a show called "Live from the 60's", and they had the Big Kahoona, and other fun means to bring listening pleasure.

Keep in mind these DJ's were part of KRTH back in the 1988-1995 era. I guess it's just the way FM is going with these type of DJs. Little say or no say at all. The music has made a big turn but I know FM oldies stations have gone into the 60s/70s format and away from the 50s/early 60s format. But speaking on for DJ's...KRTH has taken a major dive with their Jocks from what I can tell listening in Feb. 2007.

KRTH on the other hand did always have a tight playlist after around 1994-96ish. I noticed after KCBS ditched oldies and went classic rock, and later on KRLA went silent music wise, that KRTH stuck to a very tight rotation of songs and they stopped playing some songs I was use to hearing. I remember very clearly calling KRTH one time back around 1996 to request the early 1960's song "You Can't Sit Down" by The Dovells which use to be played on KRTH only to have the DJ tell me they know longer play that song nor have it in their playlist. But that's FM, and FM stations do what they can to target listeners and advertisers.

When KRTH starts streaming over HD-2 it should be interesting to hear their HD format since they've stated (Wikipedia/HDRadio) that the format will be Pre-Beatles oldies only. All and all the station needs to do something with their DJ's. The station needs personality life.

A.

 

[rwagoner]

nothing like the golden era of KRTH when they had Reel Don Steel, Robert W. Morgan, Mr. Rock 'n' Roll and Jonie Caroll (I know I spelt her name wrong). KODJ/KCBS had Machine Gun Kelly and Charlie Tuna.

The Golden era of KRTH was, in my opinion, when they were oldies/AC in the early 1980s. You could actually listen during the day and be surprised at what they would play, and weekends were actually special. When Sabo made them go all-oldies (1986?) it killed a great station and replaced it with one that -- due to being on FM -- hurt the better all-oldies station, KRLA.

Yes they got decent ratings for a short while, but at what cost?

 

[scooty430]

One doesn't have to like The Beatles to be an American or a decent person or even a successful radio programmer. Everyone is entitled to their own taste in music, movies, entertainment etc.

But the Beatles are so important in understanding the history of popular music, that it could be said that someone who doesn't like the Beatles is certainly not qualified to be judging popular music of the last 40 years.

You obviously didn't grow up with my sister, who played nothing but the Beatles and Barbara Streisand (Funny Girl and Funny Lady soundtracks) 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for at least two years. I can't stand most Beatles songs any more.

I'm drifting off-topic here, but I can relate. Like any suburban male growing up in the 80s (or 70s) I of course loved Led Zeppelin. Then I got a summer job at a parts factory in Dedham, Mass. filling orders for Whirlpool. The head guy there had a set of cassettes: every Zeppelin album, plus one Montrose (Sammy Hagar) album. That was all he had. While we worked, he played them back to back to back, 8am to 5pm, every day that summer. It took about ten years before I could pull out my Zeppelin vinyl and enjoy it!

Still can't bear to hear Montrose though, especially "Hot, Sweet and Sticky." Instantly takes me back to that dark, dank factory....