• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

GOOD TIMES Magazine on CBS FM Flip

here's the advance copy of my Rhythm Tracking column in GOOD TIMES Magazine, Long Island, for next week

CBS FM;
We moaned when NY's WCBS -FM, the 'oldies' channel, was transformed into Jack FM ,a modern, 80s ,90s oriented station playing artists of the MTV generation. The switch caused a major outcry in the NY area, where 101 had always been the home of Elvis, The Beatles and The Supremes to name a few.Long Island does have it's own fab version, B 103, but CBS FM had leaned more to the 'rock' side of oldies, in the same way that 102.9, WDRC from Connecticut does.
101.1 had become "Jack" FM,and was met with an immediate boycott, Daily News headlines detailing the negative public backlash,and low ratings which never really got better."Jack" was the creation of radio consultants, who are paid to tell radio programmers what we, the public, are apt to listen to,but their judgement is cloudy, because the consultants are only trying to please the 'clients'.
The clients are advertising agencies who target particular age groups, such as all bald, siamese twin males between the ages of 23 and 31, or Asian females who suffer from hang nails aged 29 to 44, that sort of thing.
They conduct tests where they play songs or portions of songs in a room for people and have then register their likes and dislikes. This, of course ,is bullshit, and is the reason that radio is the total mess it currently is.Most people, put into a test situation, want to give what they think is the right answer, which in no way reflects what they'll really do in a situation where's there's no big light bulb over their head and three spectacled men surrounding them.
In such a situation, most people will avoid anything alien to them, for fear of not being 'correct'.The first Elvis record, if it had been tested against the prevalent music of it's time(Sinatra, Patti Page, etc) would have failed and never made it to the radio.The first Beatles record, surrounded by Bobby Rydell and Cubby Checker records, would have suffered the same fate.
Testing didn't exist, to my knowledge, in the golden age of pop music(1955-1975),and if it had, that age probably wouldn't be so golden, as most of the artists that have become decades spanning icons would have never been heard by the masses in the first place.Does anyone think that left field smashes from the 60s like "Oh Happy Day" by the Edwin Hawkins Singers, or James Brown's defiant "Say It Loud-I'm Black And I'm Proud" would have made it past the finish line with the 'pavlov's dog' testing program? Highly unlikely.
It's a money go round; the consultants want to protect their income, so do the agencies,and radio is no longer run by 'radio people',but by bean counters and paper shufflers.Carbon copy hip hop and pop records are what make it to the airwaves, so artists everywhere,with an eye on the dollar,make bland, safe ,same old sounding retreads that fail to excite music buyers or draw the fan base at radio that ignited the radio business during the heydays of Sinatra, Elvis, The Beatles, Motown, and later, disco.
So, after being trounced in the ratings and filleted by the music/media press, it's time to 'hit the road, jack",as WCBS-FM allegedly returns to the "Golden 101!" their downfall with be shoving in all the 'Jack" tracks under the CBS emblem, that will result in the final, ultimate backlash for that location on the dial; Men at Work right after The Supremes won't work,and Cyndi Lauper next to Martha & the Vandellas will be a non starter; save those tracks for an MTV Gold radio station, not CBS FM, we don't want 'video music',which is what everything from 1981 onwards became.
Give us what we want, CBS-FM! We Want The Marvelettes!





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
It's funny you use Cyndi Lauper as an example, because the old CBS-FM actually use to play her in rotation before the switch to Jack.
 
And again, you folks in your 60's don't "drive the bus", in terms of advertising anymore.

Gripe, whine, moan and picket all you want...it won't change the situation.

You go after radio "consultants". They are not the problem. You go after corporate radio. It is not the problem. Both of these entities would sell their mothers into slavery if it got them significant revenue.

You criticize music testing. Yet, you never mention that the people who take these tests are not told who is conducting the test. So...how can they be trying to "tell people what they want to hear" if they don't know, themselves for whom they're answering the question?

The problem is: the people who spend the money on commercials don't target age 55 plus, and won't. Not in New York...not anywhere in America. I strongly disagree with this. But, I've talked myself hoarse in the past 5 to 7 years trying to change this.

And (as I stated on another thread on this board today)...why are you people so arrogant as to believe your music is the "one true music"? Why can't the "kids" who grew up in the 70's and 80's have their "oldies" station, even if it's called something different. This isn't a religion. It's rock and roll. You may think Elvis is God, but he's not. Hopefully, he's just sitting there next to Him.

The old WCBS-FM was hemmoraging listeners 25-54...which is why the station began to move into the 70's
before it's demise. Why? The primary audience for the "old" oldies format was now exceeding age 55.

The so-called "Classic Hits" format is now a proven commodity in most radio markets in America. Its' target is perfect: 35-49 year olds. I've heard some of the "Classic Top 40" presentations...and they're pretty good. If CBS-FM can create a "New York" version of this, the legend may continue for another decade or so.

And, CBS-FM announced today the new 101.1 will feature some "New York Classics" that are not on its' regular playlist and will do specialty and weekend "oldies" shows.

You're still getting more of what you want with this station than you would probably get in any other radio market in America.

If that can't satisfy you, may I suggest a Time-Life CD?

Get over it, folks. You sound petty and childish to continue to make this argument.
 
Wake up to reality boys and girls, Fodor is correct. Oldies radio today is 64-82, or later. The target is 5-10 years younger. Look at the successful Oldies/Classic Hits stations today and you'll see that'w what they're playing.
By the way, Men at Work into Supremes is playing quite well across America right now. Look for it to do the same at CBS.
 
KevinFodor said:
And (as I stated on another thread on this board today)...why are you people so arrogant as to believe your music is the "one true music"? Why can't the "kids" who grew up in the 70's and 80's have their "oldies" station, even if it's called something different. This isn't a religion. It's rock and roll. You may think Elvis is God, but he's not. Hopefully, he's just sitting there next to Him.

But let's get around to another issue, from a POV closer to your generation: why do I get this feeling that "your" oldies (or at least, "your" oldies radio) represents a much more blaaah pasty-white-suburban-uninspired aspect to "your" generation than "their" oldies? Like, really cheesy-wedding-DJ stuff.

Remember: we're dealing with an era when the whole one-high-school-nation-under-a-Top-40/CHR-station mythos started to wilt, and video started to kill the radio star, and kids started to discover how radio really sucked, etc. And even re "oldies", how a lot of that 70s/80s generation didn't want to subscribe to no generation gap "remember when" thing, etc. They'd rather be rejuveniles than "Jack". And they, too, are today's downloaders, rather than active radio consumers.

So, much more so than the universal-cross-everything-appeal of oldies at its best, you're left with "whomever's left". Oldies at its best was "eternally hip". Classic Hits at its "best" caters to the Gen X equivalent to square 60s suburban parents with their Herb Alpert records.
 
adma said:
So, much more so than the universal-cross-everything-appeal of oldies at its best, you're left with "whomever's left". Oldies at its best was "eternally hip". Classic Hits at its "best" caters to the Gen X equivalent to square 60s suburban parents with their Herb Alpert records.

Here we go with the value judgements again. One of my posts in another thread touched upon this issue. It's the, "My music's cooler, better, more meaningful than your music" issue. By extension it becomes the "I'm smarter, hipper, more aware" issue. This is flat out prejudice and borders on elitism.

BTW, just what the hell's wrong with Herb Alpert anyway? The dude was a musician, producer, arranger and founder of A&M Records. No, it wasn't The Doors and Tiajuana Taxi ain't Light My Fire, but WTF?

These threads started out with "WCBS-FM is coming back, isn't that great, isn't it gonna be fun..." and progressed to "Classic Hits sucks, Oldies is the only way to go..." Holy Kripe! Don't we have SOME common ground here? I understand the Classic Hits v. Oldies debate. I worked both formats, successfully. I personally prefer Classic Hits because it does, in fact, appeal to a younger audience which I found to be more open to a variety of different music genres. Listeners liked Mustang Sally as much as they liked Miss You. I also know how zealous Oldies listeners can be. It's remarkable.

Twenty years ago, the Classic Hits station I worked for (WHTT, Buffalo consulted by Gary Guthrie, 1986-87) played a ridiculously and joyously broad libarary, nearly 13 hundred titles which we platooned in and out of rotation. Our core library was about 600 songs and our critical rotations were about 300 songs. (Dave Eduardo and other Classic Hits PD's are probably wincing as they read this.) It worked in 86-87, but that was then and there's no way in hell that would work today.

We got much tighter in 89 when the Classic Rock station (97 Rock) returned to the air, to the same degree of fervor WCBS-FM is returning to NYC. 97 Rock forced WHTT to morph to Oldies, which did spectacular for nearly 15 years. I saw this from the other side of the street because in 1990, I left Oldies and joined the Classic Rocker.) Around 1998, the Oldies station became top heavy and "aged-out" of the 25-54 zone. The 35-64 was strong, but "buys" that once were "25-54 automatic" went to competitors which nibbled away at the once strong 25-49's and 25-54's (does this sound familiar?) Around 2005, WHTT morphed back to Classic Hits. (Ironically, I rejoined the station in 2001.) Because of market dynamics, the station transitioned to Gold-based AC earlier this year, with a target of Women 25-54, specifically 35-49.

Twenty years have passed. Bryan Adams "Run To You" now qualifies as a bona fide "hit" which appeals to a 35-49 year old as much as "Ain't to Proud to Beg" appealed to a 35-49 year old some twenty years ago.

Take "Heatwave," a great song, by Martha and the Vandellas (#4/'63) and Linda Rondstadt (#5/'75). You can argue "the original is better," but it's a matter of personal taste as much as it is the age of the listener. Martha's version is 44 years old, Linda's version is 32 years old. We're not talkin' re-currents here, folks.

Presuming the sweetspot, or age of favoritism is 16, Martha's original hits a 60 year old and Linda's version hits a 48 year old. This is a simple example of the distinction that is made between Oldies and Classic Hits.

If you think Classic Hits is vanilla and bland compared to Oldies, you may not have heard the format executed properly. I'm not here to convince you otherwise. I'm only trying to make a reasoned, non-judgemental explanation for Classic Hits. My dog really isn't in this "WCBS-FM Oldies-Classic Hits Fight." Hell, if it comes back and plays The Mermaids and Little Peggy March, go nuts, do the happy dance and knock yourselves out.

There are a number of successful Classic Hits stations that have an uptempo, dynamic presentation that are fun to listen. Somebody mentioned WRBQ, Tampa. I'd concur.

Is "Takin' Care Of Business" by BTO vanilla? How about "Saturday Night' Alright for Fightin'?" These are two cuts plucked from most everybody's favorite party tunes list and they're Classic Hits staples.

It's not my intent to convince or sell anybody on Classic Hits over Oldies. We'll know more about what WCBS-FM sounds like on Thursday. Even being in Buffalo, I'm eager to hear it and read about it. I'm certain it will be disected and written about on these boards.

I suspect WCBS-FM is going to surprise a lot of people. I'd only ask that you give it a chance and savor it. Rather than yelp at each other about our differences, why don't we agree on points that are common?

Yeah, I know... this a message board... like the corner bar... it's what happens.
 
JimPastrick said:
BTW, just what the hell's wrong with Herb Alpert anyway? The dude was a musician, producer, arranger and founder of A&M Records. No, it wasn't The Doors and Tiajuana Taxi ain't Light My Fire, but WTF?
Hey, I'm not disagreeing--even genuine urban hipsters dig him these days. I'm not judging his music--only the point-of-origin "square parents" thing.

JimPastrick said:
Is "Takin' Care Of Business" by BTO vanilla? How about "Saturday Night' Alright for Fightin'?" These are two cuts plucked from most everybody's favorite party tunes list and they're Classic Hits staples.
"Everybody's favorite party tunes list"?!? I rest my case about today's version of the square parents of yesteryear.

Oh, next to Iggy Pop's "Lust For Life", they *are* vanilla.

JimPastrick said:
Take "Heatwave," a great song, by Martha and the Vandellas (#4/'63) and Linda Rondstadt (#5/'75). You can argue "the original is better," but it's a matter of personal taste as much as it is the age of the listener. Martha's version is 44 years old, Linda's version is 32 years old. We're not talkin' re-currents here, folks.

It's not necessarily an mere age-of-the-listener thing; keep in mind that thanks to mass awareness/utilization of music history (think of The Big Chill and its spawn), Martha's version may well be *more* familiar and resonant to those who first learned it via Linda.

Personally, I'll thoughtfully take them alongside each other, because they were both legit hits. And any learned-it-via-Linda-generationer who feels nervous about Martha's being "too old" has, in terms of 2007, a serious developmental disability.

JimPastrick said:
If you think Classic Hits is vanilla and bland compared to Oldies, you may not have heard the format executed properly.
Judging from your wimpy radio-programmeresque description of everything, I'm not so sure.

*However*, there may be a deeper issue to my, er, "elitism"; frankly, what you're describing *can't* be universal anymore in the way oldies once seemed to be, we're dealing w/different eras of music, different eras of audience, and it probably has parallels to the never-the-twain-shall-meet Red/Blue America cultural divides out there, and toss in a bit of the other technological and cultural stuff. Essentially, you're speaking from more of an awkward cultural plastic bubble than it might have seemed 20 years ago. IOW take a breath and consider why fewer people are choosing radio; and yes, I know it doesn't mean individual iPod shuffles are any less bland and routine, it's all about the infinite choice and *freedom*, baby. Just as radio could once make even the most banal piece of schlock magical, mp3 players could make the most banal playlists magical through individualization--sort of like how it'd be crass for a restaurant to serve a frozen Stouffer's meal, but there's nothing like making it at home...
 
lalumia said:
They conduct tests where they play songs or portions of songs in a room for people and have then register their likes and dislikes. This, of course ,is bullshit, and is the reason that radio is the total mess it currently is.Most people, put into a test situation, want to give what they think is the right answer, which in no way reflects what they'll really do in a situation where's there's no big light bulb over their head and three spectacled men surrounding them.

Obviously, you have never been at a music test. People give broad ranges of scores to songs, with one person giving a 10 where the person next to them might give an 87. People, in fact, love music tests because they are aware that their opinion matters and to many people in boring jobs or situations where they are never asked an opinion on anything, this is exciting.

In such a situation, most people will avoid anything alien to them, for fear of not being 'correct'.

In general, listeners don't like unfamiliar things as much as favorite, familiar ones. Duh.

The first Elvis record, if it had been tested against the prevalent music of it's time(Sinatra, Patti Page, etc) would have failed and never made it to the radio.The first Beatles record, surrounded by Bobby Rydell and Cubby Checker records, would have suffered the same fate.

This is plain stupidity and ignorance. Music tests are not used to try out unfamiliar music. In fact, many stations do not test currents at all on music tests, and only test them on callout when they have reached 100 to 120 total plays on the air. You can not predict hits... or every record released would be tested and not released if it were bad. As it is, at most stations only one out of every 30 or 40 new songs gets on the air, and that is because the Program Director thinks it is worth taking a chance on... and it is a chance. No way to prove it. Just the skills of the PD.

Testing didn't exist, to my knowledge, in the golden age of pop music(1955-1975),

Sure it did. We checked singles records sales and jukebox plays to see what was popular. When those died, we went proactive, as opposed to reactive. It's better, as you talk to ONLY your own listener base. But it is very expensive.

and if it had, that age probably wouldn't be so golden, as most of the artists that have become decades spanning icons would have never been heard by the masses in the first place.Does anyone think that left field smashes from the 60s like "Oh Happy Day" by the Edwin Hawkins Singers, or James Brown's defiant "Say It Loud-I'm Black And I'm Proud" would have made it past the finish line with the 'pavlov's dog' testing program? Highly unlikely.

Again, slowly: w-e d-o n-o-t t-e-s-t n-e-w s-o-n-g-s. We only test songs that we have been playing quite a while, in fact. I'm amazed you would submit an article so filled with total untruths and errors of fact without checking it.

It's a money go round; the consultants want to protect their income, so do the agencies,and radio is no longer run by 'radio people',but by bean counters and paper shufflers.Carbon copy hip hop and pop records are what make it to the airwaves, so artists everywhere,with an eye on the dollar,make bland, safe ,same old sounding retreads that fail to excite music buyers or draw the fan base at radio that ignited the radio business during the heydays of Sinatra, Elvis, The Beatles, Motown, and later, disco.

You are confusing your taste with the tastes of others. There is a lot of amazingly good hip hop.... I can say myself that I have maybe 200 hip hop and reggaetón songs on my computer, but would not be caught dead with a Sinatra song. That is my taste... yours is yours. But don't blame radio for focusing on the different groups of music tastes that represent the most people.

So, after being trounced in the ratings and filleted by the music/media press, it's time to 'hit the road, jack",as WCBS-FM allegedly returns to the "Golden 101!" their downfall with be shoving in all the 'Jack" tracks under the CBS emblem, that will result in the final, ultimate backlash for that location on the dial;

Actually, Jack was in the top 10 25-54, and its billing was about the same as what CBS-FM had in early 2005 as oldies. However, the folks at CBS obviously see great potential with the classic hits format, particularly with the people meter coming on September 20th to NY.

If you have not figured it out yet, this is about the People Meter and ratings, not about Jack or oldies.

Give us what we want, CBS-FM! We Want The Marvelettes!

I sure don't. But I would like lauper and Madonna and friends. And the demos that advertisers buy want this music, not the stuff only a 65-year-old might love.

Shame on you for submitting an article with not an ounce of fact and with many distortions or just plain untrue things.
 
JimPastrick said:
BTW, just what the hell's wrong with Herb Alpert anyway? The dude was a musician, producer, arranger and founder of A&M Records. No, it wasn't The Doors and Tiajuana Taxi ain't Light My Fire, but WTF?

Exactly. If you like HA and the TJB, go for it. The songs that do not test are perfect iPod tunes, just like we used to buy vinyl albums of artists we liked so we could hear them more often and with the full album of songs.

I personally prefer Classic Hits because it does, in fact, appeal to a younger audience which I found to be more open to a variety of different music genres.

Absolutely. And a lot greater tolerance of "train wrecks" which makes really fun segues possible at times.

Our core library was about 600 songs and our critical rotations were about 300 songs. (Dave Eduardo and other Classic Hits PD's are probably wincing as they read this.) It worked in 86-87, but that was then and there's no way in hell that would work today.

Our 12 classic hits staitons (5 in top 10 markets) have libraries in excess of 1000 songs. In fact, if you add specialty shows, over 1800 songs.

Presuming the sweetspot, or age of favoritism is 16, Martha's original hits a 60 year old and Linda's version hits a 48 year old. This is a simple example of the distinction that is made between Oldies and Classic Hits.

Good example. It's about who would have liked and listened to the song when it was a current and whether they still like it.

[/quote]It's not my intent to convince or sell anybody on Classic Hits over Oldies. We'll know more about what WCBS-FM sounds like on Thursday. Even being in Buffalo, I'm eager to hear it and read about it. I'm certain it will be disected and written about on these boards. [/quote]

Excellent point. we are discussing a product that does not even exist yet.

Thanks for a good post. And a voice of reason.
 
adma said:
Essentially, you're speaking from more of an awkward cultural plastic bubble than it might have seemed 20 years ago. IOW take a breath and consider why fewer people are choosing radio; and yes, I know it doesn't mean individual iPod shuffles are any less bland and routine, it's all about the infinite choice and *freedom*, baby. Just as radio could once make even the most banal piece of schlock magical, mp3 players could make the most banal playlists magical through individualization--sort of like how it'd be crass for a restaurant to serve a frozen Stouffer's meal, but there's nothing like making it at home...

It just may be that I am an illiterate high school drop-out, and my reading cmprehension on the SATs was lower than my big toe, but I just can't really figure out what your point is in any of your posts. And, more than that, I just can't tell what any of it has to do with radio or CBS-FM.
 
Judging from your wimpy radio-programmeresque description of everything, I'm not so sure.

"Wimpy, radio-programeresque..." You've certainly layed the smack down there. For the record, I'm not a PD... been one, no longer am one... not that there's anything wrong with PD's, in the overall sense of PD's, now I'm just a grunt in the trenches.

*However*, there may be a deeper issue to my, er, "elitism"; frankly, what you're describing *can't* be universal anymore in the way oldies once seemed to be, we're dealing w/different eras of music, different eras of audience, and it probably has parallels to the never-the-twain-shall-meet Red/Blue America cultural divides out there, and toss in a bit of the other technological and cultural stuff.

Might we also be dealing with music prejudices here as well. The "Mine's more meaningful than yours..." routine. I can accept that prejudice to a degree, as long as you cop to it like a real man.

Essentially, you're speaking from more of an awkward cultural plastic bubble than it might have seemed 20 years ago.

Am I inside or outside the bubble? Because from my perspective, you've got a pretty dandy bubble of yer own, and there's no problem with that. I'll admit that I've presented my observations from a perspective different from yours, but please, let's not judge each other's choice of bubbles.

You insist on framing this friendly dust-up with the presumption that I don't like or appreciate Martha, Otis, Aretha and those in the pantheon of great (Oldies) artists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If it's the Marcels and Gene Chandler you want on CBS-FM, that's cool, but I suspect we'll hear more of Billy Joel, Sly and the Family Stone, Three Degrees, Billy Paul, Huey Lewis, Stones and The Beatles than we will the Shangri-las, Diamonds and Everly Brothers. This doesn't make me right and you wrong, or vice versa. It simply demonstrates what direction the format is taking. You don't wanna get on that bus? Fine. More than likely, the seats will be filled by others, lots of listeners who'll enjoy the ride.

Personally, I'll thoughtfully take them alongside each other, because they were both legit hits. And any learned-it-via-Linda-generationer who feels nervous about Martha's being "too old" has, in terms of 2007, a serious developmental disability.

I'm curious. You frame this (presumably to me) as if I'm unaware of the heritage of the original artist(s). Discussion of age shouldn't be relevant in this regard but for the record, I've experienced in real time, some of the (tragic) seminal moments in modern history (e.g., knowing where I was when JFK, RFK and MLK were killed) as well as Man's first step on the moon. The recollection of VietNam for me did not come through history books.

"Developmental disability?" Now there's a nice alliterative judgement. Could it be that, stylistically speaking, whether it's the singer, the production or the arrangement, a person who's 48 (or younger) plain ol' likes the way Linda warbles through the song better than he/she likes Martha's style? If so, why should that be held against a person?

Y'know, we treat this like an argument before the Supreme Court or the search for a cure for AIDS or cancer. It's friggin' radio. Music. Advertising. Yeah, lots of people make their living at it, but at the end of the day, did we pull anybody out of a burning building or save somebody's life? A little perspective, eh?

And this board is a hobby that helps keep up our writing and debating chops.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Excellent point. we are discussing a product that does not even exist yet.

Thanks for a good post. And a voice of reason.

You're the one who already has the playlist down, the format regimented and the financials already figured out for the next two years. You're just as guilty as everyone else.
 
wgliradio said:
DavidEduardo said:
Excellent point. we are discussing a product that does not even exist yet.

Thanks for a good post. And a voice of reason.

You're the one who already has the playlist down, the format regimented and the financials already figured out for the next two years. You're just as guilty as everyone else.

The WCBS-FM playlist has been described in multiple interviews, including references to WOGL as the example. Whe know the ingredients, but have not yet tasted how the recipe turns out.
 
JimPastrick said:
Y'know, we treat this like an argument before the Supreme Court or the search for a cure for AIDS or cancer. It's friggin' radio. Music. Advertising. Yeah, lots of people make their living at it, but at the end of the day, did we pull anybody out of a burning building or save somebody's life? A little perspective, eh?
Yeah, but maybe blame whatever Sgt Pepper-era thing (and whatever collateral influence of Pop Art, etc) for how "friggin' radio. Music. Advertising." became elevated into something larger-than-life.

Reflecting on all this, I think it's pretty safe to say that a lot of those who got most passionately hooked on the magic of Top 40 in the 60s and 70s (well, passionately to the point of becoming, er, rock critics and stuff, yet never losing that inner Top 40ness) would, transposed 2-3-4 decades later, likely *not* be into radio; or at least, it'd be like something from a different "Ugly American" planet. (Yeah, I know, no loss.)
 
Australian Whine said:
You kidding? Someone's really gonna publish that? I gotta pick up a copy. Is it available in one of those racks by the front door of better donut shops everywhere?

I can not believe someone would submit for publication an article so jam-packed with so much wrong information.
 
lalumia said:
i can't believe that you thought oldies would never come back to New York....
your royal consultancy...lol...

And I was right. Oldies is not coming back. Classic hits is coming.
 
lalumia said:
...you're a hoot......

David...or me?

By the way, looks like they pulled a comment of mine. And all the while I was hoping for TIO! Just funnin'. Sheesh. I guess it doesn't pay to have a day off, and a strange sense of humor. Never post while drinking Red Bull. It's worse than drinking an all-squishy squishy.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom