Do You Really Care About Radio?

[landtuna]

Landtuna: For L.A., could you be thinking of KFWB? 980 on the dial (next station to the right of KHJ) and they were in direct competition with KRLA at the time.

I think you are correct. KHJ listening might have been done a few years later.

 

[michael hagerty]

Since this thread popped up, I've been doing some informal listening of a number of my local stations. Of them about 3 do a "lunchtime request" or a "5 o'clock request" type show. These are stations that I sometimes listen to all day long for a week at a time or more so I am as familiar with their playlists as the DJ's and PD's are. Not kidding about that.

When folks call in for the request hour, they always, and I mean always request the same stuff that was played sometimes an hour before, or within the same day. Chicago's 25 or 6 to 4, Lynyrd Skynyrd of any variety as long as its Sweet Home Alabama or Free Bird, America's Sister Golden Hair or Horse With No Name, Looking Glass's Brandy, etc, ad nauseum.

What does this prove? Probably nothing as its just what I've heard this week, but either the people who call in just switched the radio on and called in their request not knowing this stuff was already played eight times this week just between 8AM and 6PM, or they all like the same played over stuff and can't get enough of it. Now, given the attention span of the average modern American at 2.2 seconds, I'd say they just turned on the radio, found the 800 number and called in their request. If they are hearing these songs half as much as I am, why on earth would they request them yet again? All the afore mentioned songs are staples, and all are good in their own right, and there are millions of different people out there, but for goodness sake I can't honestly believe they want this stuff constantly with little to no variation.

They're listening for 20 minutes. Probably at the same time every day and probably only half-listening. If you can keep the same record from coming up in those 20 minutes for 6 days, that listener is probably not burning out on it. They're hearing it 5 times in a month...probably 4 and maybe 3, since the 6 days will put the record back in that 20-minute window on Saturdays and Sundays, when the weekday listener probably isn't listening at the same time.

 

[Silkie]

Do I care?

It is a hobby; when it becomes a drag instead of an enjoyable hobby it goes away.

 

[michael hagerty]

Final thought (for now, anyway): Classic Hits stations in 2012 may play some of the songs Top 40 stations played in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, but they are very different animals. Those Top 40s aimed at 12-24 year olds who spent hours a day listening, whose lives put a huge importance on music, and who had maybe one or two other radio stations that might be acceptable alternatives.

Classic Hits stations are aimed at adults who have lives beyond music, who use the station as a mood setter, and who have probably five, six or more stations they would be just as comfortable spending 20 minutes with.

 

[landtuna]

Final thought (for now, anyway): Classic Hits stations in 2012 may play some of the songs Top 40 stations played in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, but they are very different animals. Those Top 40s aimed at 12-24 year olds who spent hours a day listening, whose lives put a huge importance on music, and who had maybe one or two other radio stations that might be acceptable alternatives.

Classic Hits stations are aimed at adults who have lives beyond music, who use the station as a mood setter, and who have probably five, six or more stations they would be just as comfortable spending 20 minutes with.

I may be an exception here but my listening habits today are pretty much the same as when in Top-40 mode (high school). I listened then while doing homework. I listen today while typing away on my computer. I listened to one primary station back then (KTKT) with one additional station as a backup (KAIR). They were almost identical except for the on-air jocks. After I moved to the Bay Area I listened to KYA with KEWB as a backup. Today my listening is exclusively KODS - an Oldies station out of Reno which mimics the stations of my youth.

I used to have 4-5 more on my car presets but over time they have either changed their playlists (KOOL) or formats (KYOT) so all the locals have lost my listenership. I would listen to KOY as an alternative but its signal is so cluttered with junk it isn't listenable in my area of town.

 

[PirateJohnny]

A lot of younger listeners are hearing oldies for the first time as oldies, not currents. I hear from many friends that their children really enjoy the music of their parents. But they're only hearing a small percentage of what was on the air back then. Would they like the rest? Would they like all the chart hits of The Grass Roots?

One of these days I'm going to play some 60s air checks of various Top 40 DJs for some of my friends' teen children. I wonder what they will think of the jocks. i wonder if they ask "Wow, what was THAT song?"

 

[michael hagerty]

A lot of younger listeners are hearing oldies for the first time as oldies, not currents. I hear from many friends that their children really enjoy the music of their parents. But they're only hearing a small percentage of what was on the air back then. Would they like the rest? Would they like all the chart hits of The Grass Roots?

One of these days I'm going to play some 60s air checks of various Top 40 DJs for some of my friends' teen children. I wonder what they will think of the jocks. i wonder if they ask "Wow, what was THAT song?"

I'd be interested in hearing how that goes. Remember, though, what's relevant is what today's 39 year old thinks of them.

 

[oldies76]

which is why some comparatively low-charting records are heard a lot today and some #1s never are.

The key is: What older rock-era hits do today's adults want to hear now? Period.

I can understand cheesy novelties and such, but MANY #1's that fit as good, regular sounding pop classics are not played.....Radio is leaving way too many of them out, and not just #1's, how about positions 2-15? It's a travesty that only 10% (maybe less) of all the hits from the past (1964-1985) that charted top 15- 20 are even aired today. Radio has to do better than this Michael.

Besides, novelties and the cheesies only account for a miniscule portion of the total rejected music today, ie: (The Streak, Billy Don't Be A Hero, Green Berets, Snoopy.., Yummy, Yummy...etc..). There are thousands of other songs that qualify as regular classic hits that are being avoided.

I believe strongly the listeners are being short-changed, especially in the upper end of the target demo, for classic hit stations. Sorry.

 

[michael hagerty]

which is why some comparatively low-charting records are heard a lot today and some #1s never are.

The key is: What older rock-era hits do today's adults want to hear now? Period.

I can understand cheesy novelties and such, but MANY #1's that fit as good, regular sounding pop classics are not played.....Radio is leaving way too many of them out, and not just #1's, how about positions 2-15? It's a travesty that only 10% (maybe less) of all the hits from the past (1964-1985) that charted top 15- 20 are even aired today. Radio has to do better than this Michael.

Besides, novelties and the cheesies only account for a miniscule portion of the total rejected music today, ie: (The Streak, Billy Don't Be A Hero, Green Berets, Snoopy.., Yummy, Yummy...etc..). There are thousands of other songs that qualify as regular classic hits that are being avoided.

I believe strongly the listeners are being short-changed, especially in the upper end of the target demo, for classic hit stations. Sorry.

Again, Oldies76, the question is: Do people born in 1973 care about (or even know) those songs? And that's what music testing's supposed to determine.

 

[TheBigA]

There are thousands of other songs that qualify as regular classic hits that are being avoided.

That's because they really AREN"T hits.

 

[oldies76]

Again, Oldies76, the question is: Do people born in 1973 care about (or even know) those songs? And that's what music testing's supposed to determine.

A few might, but the people born in 1956 would remember 1973 music. That would put them at the upper portion of the target. And even if radio does not target 55+, many of them are listening still.

But mid-late 70's music to about 1985 would be prime for the mid to upper reaches of the target audience....people born in 1959 to 1968....about 44 to 53 years old today. And a good portion of those hits are missing today. Disco, funk to new wave and adult contemporaries.

Someone born in 1973, would relate to 1988-1993 hits...music that is not even aired on KRTH yet, except for "Black or White" by Michael Jackson.

 

[davideduardo]

Again, Oldies76, the question is: Do people born in 1973 care about (or even know) those songs? And that's what music testing's supposed to determine.

A few might, but the people born in 1956 would remember 1973 music. That would put them at the upper portion of the target. And even if radio does not target 55+, many of them are listening still.

If a station playing classic hits wishes to target 40-54, then they will make sure that the older songs they play are liked by people in the 35-39 segment.

That means that you step back in time to when today's 35-39 was in their early music taste formative years... which means early adolescence. Today's 40 year old was 14 or 15 around 1980, but was exposed to "gold" and "recurrents" from earlier years.

The core of the format is going to be 45-54, which means that the bulk of the familiar music is from the 70s. A few 60's songs that got big 70's play as well may test well, and as long as they are, at the very least, neutral to the 40-44 group who never heard them when they were hits, they might be playable in small numbers.

But mid-late 70's music to about 1985 would be prime for the mid to upper reaches of the target audience....people born in 1959 to 1968....about 44 to 53 years old today. And a good portion of those hits are missing today. Disco, funk to new wave and adult contemporaries.

A person born in 1956, as you mention, will have a bond with music from the very late 60's and on. And a person who was born in that year is out of the demo that classic hits is interested in; they certainly don't take 55+ into account when doing research to find out what songs people like today.

 

[PirateJohnny]

There are thousands of other songs that qualify as regular classic hits that are being avoided.

That's because they really AREN"T hits.

OK, when you (anybody reading this, not just TheBigA) were young and listening to the radio, did you, or your friends, buy and request EVERY song you liked? What, then, really determined the hits back then? I never bought a lot of songs I liked. I never requested a lot of songs I liked. I think songs that are considered "hits" would be different if I and my friends had contributed to the data by buying and requesting songs.

The stations I have listened to in my lifetime that were "current music" stations also played oldies. So someone born in 1973 could have heard songs older than them even though they were listening to a "current music" station. I was born in 1957 and the station I grew up listening to in the late 60s had "Memory Making Weekends" where I heard a lot music from before my time. I still like those songs today.

How many years do people really listen to music stations and how many of those songs do they want to hear from time to time on the radio? In another post in this thread I mention the period from the Beatles/British Invasion to the Disco period, roughly 11 years. Songs from that 11 year period are at the core of my listening preference, and I figure I heard at least 3245 new songs in those 11 years. In my iTunes playlists I have, among others, Pre-Beatles, Beatles to Disco and Post Disco to 1987. Of those 3245 songs I figure I heard from 1963-1975 I have 2238, but I'm still organizing my over 18000 song inventory.

 

[michael hagerty]

OK, when you (anybody reading this, not just TheBigA) were young and listening to the radio, did you, or your friends, buy and request EVERY song you liked? What, then, really determined the hits back then? I never bought a lot of songs I liked. I never requested a lot of songs I liked. I think songs that are considered "hits" would be different if I and my friends had contributed to the data by buying and requesting songs.

The stations I have listened to in my lifetime that were "current music" stations also played oldies. So someone born in 1973 could have heard songs older than them even though they were listening to a "current music" station. I was born in 1957 and the station I grew up listening to in the late 60s had "Memory Making Weekends" where I heard a lot music from before my time. I still like those songs today.

How many years do people really listen to music stations and how many of those songs do they want to hear from time to time on the radio? In another post in this thread I mention the period from the Beatles/British Invasion to the Disco period, roughly 11 years. Songs from that 11 year period are at the core of my listening preference, and I figure I heard at least 3245 new songs in those 11 years. In my iTunes playlists I have, among others, Pre-Beatles, Beatles to Disco and Post Disco to 1987. Of those 3245 songs I figure I heard from 1963-1975 I have 2238, but I'm still organizing my over 18000 song inventory.

Three things...one from each paragraph above:

1) How did you decide which records you bought and which you didn't? The perception is that songs you'd actually spend money to hear mean more to you than those you'd simply pick up the phone and ask a DJ to play. And either of those mean more than a song for which you'd do neither
(Sales>Jukebox Play>Requests>Inaction).

2) You've just described how today's adults discovered songs they like from the past (plus inclusion in TV shows, commercials and films). Now: How many of those songs from the year before you were born until you began caring about contemporary music did you want to hear on a regular basis when you were in your mid 30s to mid 40s? All of them?

3) 18,000 songs in your library. I'm impressed. But you know, don't you, that that alone takes you out of the "typical" radio listener category?

 

[oldies76]

OK, when you (anybody reading this, not just TheBigA) were young and listening to the radio, did you, or your friends, buy and request EVERY song you liked? What, then, really determined the hits back then? I never bought a lot of songs I liked. I never requested a lot of songs I liked. I think songs that are considered "hits" would be different if I and my friends had contributed to the data by buying and requesting songs.

It was a hit, because it was played often, if it reached the top 10-20+ of a chart, it reached #1, it reached #17....they are all hits. Personally I didn't request every song I liked either on the radio (The Mighty 690 or KISS-FM to be exact), but I remember them. At one time or another, all these hits were played on the radio at some time, whether 50 times or just a few on Top 40 stations. Most of these songs that I remember from, say 1983, are not played today, but were huge hits then. I don't even believe more than 10-15% of all the big hits from 1983, are played today, and this is what I'm basing my opinion on.

The stations I have listened to in my lifetime that were "current music" stations also played oldies. So someone born in 1973 could have heard songs older than them even though they were listening to a "current music" station. I was born in 1957 and the station I grew up listening to in the late 60s had "Memory Making Weekends" where I heard a lot music from before my time. I still like those songs today.

I listened to Top 40 stations in the late 70's and 80's, but also listened to KRTH as a teen, and they played some good 60's, 70's and very memorable specials during holiday weekends.

How many years do people really listen to music stations and how many of those songs do they want to hear from time to time on the radio?

I don't mind the tested songs on the radio, just mixed them in with the others to avoid repetition. I only need to hear "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" one a week.

In my iTunes playlists I have, among others, Pre-Beatles, Beatles to Disco and Post Disco to 1987. Of those 3245 songs I figure I heard from 1963-1975 I have 2238, but I'm still organizing my over 18000 song inventory.

18000, that amazing. I'm only at 5680 so far, (1955 to 2012 hits)

 

[DavidKaye]

We could get KFRC in middle Marin County but it was not static-free and had bleed-over from nearby signals. KFRC got into SW San Francisco better but its signal still wasn't as good as KYA or even KEWB.

Another alternative back then was KLOK but it had a weak signal also.

KLOK had a 5kw signal that didn't reach much out of San Jose until they went to 50kw in the late 70s, though much of that signal went out over the ocean. I think they just upped the power to be able to say they had 50kw.

As for KFRC they've had 4 transmitter sites over its lifetime as far as I know. The roof of the Hotel Whitcomb, where it was horizontal wires. The Don Lee Building 1000 Van Ness, where apparently it was a horizontal wire array replaced later by some kind of vertical radiator suspended somehow other than a tower.

Next came KSFO's tower out at Islais Creek (where KSFO still is), and then the current one which I believe was put into use about 1966 or so, on the KRE tower at 601 Ashby in Berkeley, by far the best site of any station for the power.

What I was curious about was the time frame for KFRC's transmitter sites prior to the move to KRE. How was the signal from the KSFO tower? What was the construction of the antenna on the Don Lee building? How was the reception?

 

[michael hagerty]

There are thousands of other songs that qualify as regular classic hits that are being avoided.

That's because they really AREN"T hits.

Exactly. Those of us who programmed in the 70s know that "turntable hits" (songs that got requests but not much in sales) outnumbered true hits by a significant margin. And the Billboard charts counted wholesale, not retail sales. If the record companies could convince stores the new Band X single was a smash, a million copies could ship over the first few weeks. Billboard wasn't counting when 975,000 of them got shipped back 90 days later.

Research is a much better indicator of what songs are popular with today's listener than the charts were for listeners back then.

 

[oldies76]

Exactly. Those of us who programmed in the 70s know that "turntable hits" (songs that got requests but not much in sales) outnumbered true hits by a significant margin.

But they were all hits.....I mean, going by what Casey Kasem does, anything that reached top 40 was a hit, some bigger than others. Personally though, I'd stick with top20, which still leaves thousands of hits unplayed today, within that top 20.

 

[michael hagerty]

OK, when you (anybody reading this, not just TheBigA) were young and listening to the radio, did you, or your friends, buy and request EVERY song you liked? What, then, really determined the hits back then? I never bought a lot of songs I liked. I never requested a lot of songs I liked. I think songs that are considered "hits" would be different if I and my friends had contributed to the data by buying and requesting songs.

It was a hit, because it was played often, if it reached the top 10-20+ of a chart, it reached #1, it reached #17....they are all hits.

Nope. They're what are called mid-chart stiffs. There's a huge difference in the sales, assuming you have an honest count (see post above for disclaimer on the unreliability of chart numbers), between a #1 record (especially one that stays there for multiple weeks) and a record that only makes it to #5. There's a bigger gap down at #10.

#17? The radio station won't tell you, because they need 30 records on that list every week...but #17's not a hit. And I guarantee you that the label and the artist would, given sodium pentathol, use the word "stiff".

Exceptions: After the middle 70s, many popular songs charted lower than they should have because the audience bought the album. A lot of programmers at the time factored that in to our decisions (if you look at the Hot 100, the Cars were losers the first few times out...with songs now rightly regarded as their biggest hits). But if you're talking singles sales, with no monster LP, #17 is at best a near miss.

 

[michael hagerty]

Exactly. Those of us who programmed in the 70s know that "turntable hits" (songs that got requests but not much in sales) outnumbered true hits by a significant margin.

But they were all hits.....I mean, going by what Casey Kasem does, anything that reached top 40 was a hit, some bigger than others. Personally though, I'd stick with top20, which still leaves thousands of hits unplayed today, within that top 20.

Casey Kasem needed to fill a three-hour show. "Top 40" was a term synonymous with "hit music" in 1970. And it was an antiquated concept then. Bill Drake was quoted as not liking his stations' weekly countdowns of the Boss/Big/Now 30 because "the audience has to sit through our 20 worst records to get to our 10 best". It's why stations eventually replaced their own full chart countdown with things like "The Telephone Top 10" (that day or week's most requested songs).

And sometimes, they had to fake #8, #9 and #10 (Buzz Bennett's rule that there are only 7 real hits at any given time, which is why his stations dropped to 20-22 record lists).