Don't know about this RadioInsight article on "annoying" tracks.

[tall_guy1]

When Records Aren’t Just Irksome, But Annoying Some of the time I agree with his observations, but some of these seem on a limb. For instance, Dance Monkey was mostly a novelty song, so I could see how it could irk some people. But Don't Let Me Down by The Chainsmokers/Daya? That song still gets played today 8 years later, and crossed over from CHR to Hot AC to AC. Never Be the Same was also a pretty big hit by Camila Cabeo. While it faded, those songs even if you aren't particularly fond of them, feel like "background music " to me not, "oh god, turn it off." For top 40 music there's a lot more things that are/were "in your face" that could be construed as annoying, and multiple songs that are just repetitive as the songs listed. Stuff like Baby by Justin Bieber, Kesha, a lot of stuff from like the early 2010s that were very fast paced rhythmic pop I could see grating to some people, but the period of time he is talking about, the tempo kind of slowed down. Not sure I quite agree with these observations.

 

[TexasTom]

There are a lot of songs mentioned in that article...and more than anything it just seems like a list of various peoples' pet peeves. As such, it was interesting reading but not really something that I take all that seriously.

One that did bring a chuckle was this mention:

it’s still the “ooga-chaka” opening of Blue Swede’s “Hooked on a Feeling.”

A long time ago, I picked up a book that claimed to be about subliminal content in media (music, advertising, films, and TV), but really just turned out to be another diatribe by a right-wing Christian writer against pop culture. One of the songs that he picked on was that version of "Hooked on a Feeling" -- specifically, the author claimed that the "ooga-chaka" subliminally changes to something dirtier ("who got ------ off") part way through the song. Guess what? It doesn't do any such thing. But then the writer also claimed that "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" was a drug song.

But this was the era during which these right-wing Christians were obsessing over all manners of nonsense when it came to rock and pop music to the point where they were hallucinating backward-masked messages in songs where nothing existed.

 

[K.M. Richards]

While I used to see value in Sean's blog on RI, in recent years he seems to be championing programming methodologies and formats that are ... well, something less than what I believe to be viable from an ad sales perspective.

Whether anyone likes it or not, we are not in the entertainment business, we are in the advertising business. Formats are designed to bring in the highest number possible of listeners in whatever saleable demo the station wants, in order for the sales staff to sell that listenership to businesses wanting to reach that demographic.

I have read posts many, many times taking consultants to task for "ruining" radio. To some degree, I am in agreement with them; a consultant who pushes their own vision, refusing to listen to station management or accepting listener trends, are bad consultants. They are not creating a sustainable product in terms of advertiser desirability, they are programming for their own satisfaction and everyone else be damned.

Of course, any good programmer or consultant has to be knowledgeable about whatever format they are programming, but they also have to maintain objectivity. I have been fortunate -- and I know it -- that there is still a market for 80's based Classic Hits, and also that very few programmers have the knowledge base to program both a mainstream CH format and a New Wave-based weekend feature. I am also blessed with a client in Albuquerque who likes what I am doing, is getting ad revenue from it, and can make suggestions to me for tweaks without them seeming like orders.

But it still boils down to my own mantra, which Sean seems to have forgotten lately: If the programming you run isn't generating revenue, it's not worth sending to the transmitter.

On that basis, I have no reason whatsoever to even care what his opinion is in that linked blogpost.

 

[tall_guy1]

There are a lot of songs mentioned in that article...and more than anything it just seems like a list of various peoples' pet peeves. As such, it was interesting reading but not really something that I take all that seriously.

One that did bring a chuckle was this mention:

A long time ago, I picked up a book that claimed to be about subliminal content in media (music, advertising, films, and TV), but really just turned out to be another diatribe by a right-wing Christian writer against pop culture. One of the songs that he picked on was that version of "Hooked on a Feeling" -- specifically, the author claimed that the "ooga-chaka" subliminally changes to something dirtier ("who got ------ off") part way through the song. Guess what? It doesn't do any such thing. But then the writer also claimed that "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" was a drug song.

But this was the era during which these right-wing Christians were obsessing over all manners of nonsense when it came to rock and pop music to the point where they were hallucinating backward-masked messages in songs where nothing existed.

That's pretty crazy...didn't know that. Hooked on a Feeling I could definitely see irking people with its opening, but not drive people to conspiracy theories.

 

[tall_guy1]

While I used to see value in Sean's blog on RI, in recent years he seems to be championing programming methodologies and formats that are ... well, something less than what I believe to be viable from an ad sales perspective.

Whether anyone likes it or not, we are not in the entertainment business, we are in the advertising business. Formats are designed to bring in the highest number possible of listeners in whatever saleable demo the station wants, in order for the sales staff to sell that listenership to businesses wanting to reach that demographic.

I have read posts many, many times taking consultants to task for "ruining" radio. To some degree, I am in agreement with them; a consultant who pushes their own vision, refusing to listen to station management or accepting listener trends, are bad consultants. They are not creating a sustainable product in terms of advertiser desirability, they are programming for their own satisfaction and everyone else be damned.

Of course, any good programmer or consultant has to be knowledgeable about whatever format they are programming, but they also have to maintain objectivity. I have been fortunate -- and I know it -- that there is still a market for 80's based Classic Hits, and also that very few programmers have the knowledge base to program both a mainstream CH format and a New Wave-based weekend feature. I am also blessed with a client in Albuquerque who likes what I am doing, is getting ad revenue from it, and can make suggestions to me for tweaks without them seeming like orders.

But it still boils down to my own mantra, which Sean seems to have forgotten lately: If the programming you run isn't generating revenue, it's not worth sending to the transmitter.

On that basis, I have no reason whatsoever to even care what his opinion is in that linked blogpost.

It's just some of the songs listed from like 2016-2017 were actually when pop songs were actually slowing down tempo wise and kind of mellowing out...I wouldn't call much of the music then annoying. Maybe Sean likes his music more upbeat (from what I remember, he was a fan of the Lady Gaga song Applause). For comparison, 2016 and 2017 were a bit what I think post-disco radio was or moving away from a certain trend...there's not really music that stands out as "annoying" then, too much.