How Deep Should A Playlist Go?

[davideduardo]

Agreed.....ever wonder how most of the major classic hits stations around the country have very similiar lineups, with little variation?? Gotta wonder, huh...

Ever wonder why American Top 40 was such a major success for decades across the US (and, indeed, in many parts of the world)? Because, within genres, the same songs were the big hits everywhere.

So it stands to reason that the songs that people like today would be very similar, with the only differences having to do with the competitive situation in each market and influences like ethnicity and such.

How can people who enjoy older songs really put up with that nonsense.

It's because people who grew up on pop music in a certain era, such as '65 through the 70's, determined the hits then and also are in substantial agreement on which ones they want to hear, still, today.

 

[Tom Wells]

I do not have to hear "What I Like About You" 18 times a month...once or twice a year is fine with me.

Speaking of that Romantics song, where was that song back in 1980 when it was released? I guess there's a good reason why it only reached #49...never heard it on the radio then.

A good song to touch upon. I heard it more than a little bit on the air in Chicago. I did like it then when new.
Not wild about it, but better than a lot of what was prevalent then. I bought the 45 new at the time.
It did not become big, but somewhere, later, it got exposure in various marketing connections, and had some resurgence of
popularity above its original appeal, to the point it is now considered some kind of
"alertnative (maybe-ish) rock'-n standard".
One that's even OK for a TV commercial because of recognition.

If marketing people hadn't dragged it out it would be as dust covered as as "Rock Lobster".

It's right there on the shelf next to me , but I can't quite imagine putting it into my playlist.
For me, that would be too deep in the wrong direction.
I'm trying to avoid what is already deemed acceptable, that can be heard everywhere else already.

Maybe I'm saving it for a day when it seems....different.

"Rhapsody in Blue" is going to be on the "Crispy list" for many years yet to all those who remember
how United Airlines whipped it tirelessly into the ground for years.

Maybe some day it can just be a great composition again.

 

[davideduardo]

If an Oldies station only plays the offically(sic) sanctioned top xxx songs, they're really not worth my time at all.

I can almost hear the "whup whup" of the black helicopters. Now we have a conspiracy theory about "officially sanctioned" songs.

There is no such thing. There is a relatively modest number of songs that were big enough in their time to be considered real hits in the moment. And, of those, after many decades, there is an even more modest number of songs that people want to hear again today.

Further, there are many people who grow up liking a kind of songs, but who move on and don't have much interest in reliving those moments in the present. So "oldies" or "classic hits" fans are not those who liked pop music of the 60's and 70's, but those who liked it and still like hearing many of those same songs.

It's just plain unnatural for a human with normal capacity for increase in data,
to listen to a small, and increasingly smaller set of music.

If you had interviewed or been part of interviewing hundreds and hundreds of listeners to this general type of format you would know that much of the attraction involves the "feel" of a station that evokes at some level the sensations of what for many people was a very happy, and perhaps fun and carefree era in their lives. It's no coincidence that such formats thrive when current living conditions are troubling.

So listeners don't want to discover songs they paid little or no attention to 35 or 40 years ago, if they even remember them. Like a class reunion, they want to be in touch with their "biggest friends" and not with the people they had little acquaintance with or who they never found interesting to begin with. Oldies formats are the "class reunion" of a person's life... so a station that goes for the BFFs of music will not be SOL.

Seems to me more like a fixation disorder, to be so superstitiously intolerant of variance from a highly defined ordering of "presented reality".

No, it's just that larger market radio stations actually talk to listeners and know what they should play and what they should not play. There is still a lot of "art" in creating a format around the ingredients that potential listeners want to hear, but trying to make listeners stay around for stuff they did not come for.... sort of like, beating the analogy to death, a former cheerleader showing up for that class reunion and finding that the only others who showed up were the members of the chess and debate clubs. "Not what I came for" is equal to tuneout.

 

[flashback]

the same small list songs played over and over gets boring.

when the announcer says "coming up is a song by (insert recording artist name)" and you can usually tell in advance what it is with out being told the title , thats pretty bad.

 

[Tom Wells]

I made up the term "The Officially Sanctioned XXX oldies" in 1975, so it rolls off my toungue like I believe it.

I do. But like most conspiracies it's not "orchestrated", it's a diffuse effect over time.

The class reunion aspect is a great parallel. I want to see everybody, and hate the lack of time.
I do NOT want "favorites only", and I do want to know better those I never had time to know better.

But also, there is the "not what I came for" aspect.

That runs both ways. Whose "fault" is it what's "cool" then or now?
What if the chess geek is a wealthy techno geek today?
It's still only OK to be interested in the doings of the rah-rah club because they got all the attention back then?
Class reunions should be a week long in a class of several hundred.


Furthermore there are MANY years of music I'm not done "mining" yet. Nor are other people
1966 would be a good example. There have been over the years, several revivals of this certain sound in
garage/psychedelic/protopunk sound. In record complialtions and many new bands touring and making records at one
point int he 1980s on vinyl, then CDs, now again on vinyl....

I have learned through music scene people here in Chicago that there is at the present yet another a new strain
of this, described as Kraut-Psychedelic Garage.....

There ARE MANY people who DO enjoy discovering songs they did not have time to enjoy when they were new.


"Ohhh, I couldn't possibly go to that symphony, I wasn't alive when it was new, and I don't care to dredge up
other decades, let alone other centuries. Let the dead music be dead in peace. Wanna buy some colon blow?"

 

[oldies76]

So listeners don't want to discover songs they paid little or no attention to 35 or 40 years ago, if they even remember them. Like a class reunion, they want to be in touch with their "biggest friends" and not with the people they had little acquaintance with or who they never found interesting to begin with. Oldies formats are the "class reunion" of a person's life... so a station that goes for the BFFs of music will not be SOL.

When 85 people attend a class reunion today, do you really think they all like the same songs today that every class member liked, say in 1977?? No. Every one of those alumni has their favorite songs from back then. They may only like 10 good songs from their graduating year. But when you multiply that by 85 people, I can guarantee you that those "10 best" lists will differ among each person attending. Therefore the DJ during the reunion would be very smart to have a complete collection of 1977 songs to satisfy everyone attending. And not just what radio plays today, because if the DJ did that, most would say....I didn't get to hear xx song tonight and would be somewhat disappointed.

I would have everything from "Hotel California" to "You Light Up My Life" ready to go...just in case.

You have this idea that people today, who grew up years back, only like certain songs today and only the same songs and should only be those songs that air. It does not work that way in life. Almost sounds robotic.

 

[oldies76]

Ever wonder why American Top 40 was such a major success for decades across the US (and, indeed, in many parts of the world)? Because, within genres, the same songs were the big hits everywhere.

You are comparing two totally different situations, that have nothing to do with each other.
American Top 40 is a ranking the 40 biggest hits on the Hot 100 for that week in time. It contains songs that you would call stiffs today.
Today's lineups are very similiar among most stations and have a very small fraction of what ranked originally in those Top 40 countdowns.
If it was a major success, then most, if not all of those songs would also be airing as classics today. Obviously it must be somewhat successful, if reruns are airing today, stiffs and all.

 

[davideduardo]

Ever wonder why American Top 40 was such a major success for decades across the US (and, indeed, in many parts of the world)? Because, within genres, the same songs were the big hits everywhere.

You are comparing two totally different situations, that have nothing to do with each other.
American Top 40 is a ranking the 40 biggest hits on the Hot 100 for that week in time. It contains songs that you would call stiffs today.
Today's lineups are very similiar among most stations and have a very small fraction of what ranked originally in those Top 40 countdowns.
If it was a major success, then most, if not all of those songs would also be airing as classics today. Obviously it must be somewhat successful, if reruns are airing today, stiffs and all.

The point, which you missed, is that the same music, with very little difference, was played on Top 40 stations all over the country, which is why AT40 could succeed with one program that could be played anywhere in the US and in many places abroad.

The lower ranking songs that fizzled were OK to play then, just as now... only a portion of songs makes it to recurrent on a current based format. Yet you think that the songs that stations themselves killed because they were not happening when they were currents should somehow be played now, when nobody save the chartists remembers them or, worse, wants to remember them.

The reason stations in similar formats have similar playlists all over the US is that the big "keeper" songs are national hits.

 

[davideduardo]

When 85 people attend a class reunion today, do you really think they all like the same songs today that every class member liked, say in 1977?? No. Every one of those alumni has their favorite songs from back then. They may only like 10 good songs from their graduating year. But when you multiply that by 85 people, I can guarantee you that those "10 best" lists will differ among each person attending. Therefore the DJ during the reunion would be very smart to have a complete collection of 1977 songs to satisfy everyone attending. And not just what radio plays today, because if the DJ did that, most would say....I didn't get to hear xx song tonight and would be somewhat disappointed.

You have it backwards and inside out. First, only a certain percentage of those people today would want to hear music from their HS days... except maybe at a reunion. But may will have moved into more specific kinds of music... AC, R&B, rock, etc., and not even want to hear older songs much.

But one thing is certain... among those who like oldies there will be a significant batch of songs that everyone likes a lot. Those are the ones to play, at the dance or on the air. Any others will be polarizing and to some, even embarrassing.

Since we know in PPM markets that listeners do not sit through songs they don't like, the idea is to find the ones that are not polarizing. Nobody listens to a station where "every third or fourth song is one I like." They listen to a station where nearly every song is one they like.

We have the technology today to be able to look at what we played just a few days ago and to see which songs cost us listeners... and if we then see if the same thing happened other times the song played, we kill it.

 

[Tom Wells]

So in essence we're just meausring how little music matters to the average person?

Or are we measuring just how tightly we're going to adjust the blinders?


Which is the cause and which is the effect?

Is the goal to drive away those who are paying the most attention and then burned out on the playlist?
Or is it to teach the public to expect only this narrow offering?

I'd agrue that music studies are about figuring exactly "what's the least we can do to get by".
When that's the goal, I won't tune out, I'll tune PAST.
How many times would you watch 1 particular episode of a TV show?
Wouldn't you want to see other episodes?
Why would music be any different?

Draw your curve, devise methods to ensure your test audience is going to be composed of
people who aren't too interested in music, then drop your data points neatlly in on the curve.

 

[oldies76]

But one thing is certain... among those who like oldies there will be a significant batch of songs that everyone likes a lot. Those are the ones to play, at the dance or on the air. Any others will be polarizing and to some, even embarrassing.

Since we know in PPM markets that listeners do not sit through songs they don't like, the idea is to find the ones that are not polarizing. Nobody listens to a station where "every third or fourth song is one I like." They listen to a station where nearly every song is one they like.

I give up.....

Everyone enjoys their own songs and that's the way of life...You make it sound like there's a "master list" of songs that everyone must like and listen to. Sorry, but I disagree.

 

[hornet61]

This was a totally facetious post I submitted, explain to we third graders, why you felt compelled to respond. Who is the embarassment here??

What part of "Very amusing post" do you need an explanation of?

Your post, understandable amusing, to a slight extent, to insiders, can only befuddle and bewilder the casual lurker. Thus the clarification.

fair enough....don't agree ....but fair enough.

 

[davideduardo]

Everyone enjoys their own songs and that's the way of life...

Yes, but the commonality of, let's say, 70% of the songs, is undeniable. So a station finds the songs that are common to just about everyone in their market, eliminates the ones that are not, and plays them.

There is a radio truism that is more often applied to new music that says, "you can't be hurt by what you don't play." Listeners don't talk about the songs you don't play... but they complain vigorously about ones you do play that they don't like. In fact, probing when a listener complains about repetition yields the fact that the station plays quite a few songs that the listener does not like... thus "repetition" of bad songs. They don't complain about a song they love being played very often.

You make it sound like there's a "master list" of songs that everyone must like and listen to. Sorry, but I disagree.

There is a master list, and it's the one with Brown Eyed Girl near or at the top. A lot of the songs are found on every list of tested songs (assuming the target age is the same) everywhere. The factors that change some songs would be things like ethnicity and, thus, ethnic influence on the market, history of oldies stations in the market (local over- or underplay), the rest of the competitive array that shares listening with an oldies (or classic hits) station, etc.

A change in rank of even 100 or perhaps 200 positions is not significant, and that is because rotation is not determined by such differences... a station with 800 titles might have 3 or 4 rotational categories, heavy, medium, light and fill/very light for example. So all the songs ranked, again in an example, 150 to 400, might get the same rotation whether they were the 150th or the 400th song. (There are other criteria, like a PD making an "artistic" decision that certain songs don't bear up as well to repetition as others, thus they are slowed down)

Based on that kind of broader categorization, you can say that there is truly a common song list that in all probability works everywhere, while there is a secondary list of songs that may work fine in some places, marginally in others and not as all in others.

But the list is not one of songs people "must" like, but rather of songs that just are liked or are seen as positive everywhere.

 

[davideduardo]

Is the goal to drive away those who are paying the most attention and then burned out on the playlist? Or is it to teach the public to expect only this narrow offering?

Radio does not teach. Radio reflects. Whether the research used is only ratings, or more in dept proprietary research by stations, programming is adjusted to reach the broadest salable audience possible. Radio reacts to listening levels by adjusting and tuning, not by trying to make listeners find things they were not looking for to begin with.

The average listener, PPM has shown us, listens at least a little to about 6 to 7 stations a week, and even more over a two or three week period. So if a "playlist is burned out" the listener simply uses some of the other stations more for a while... but the station will see the reduced tune-in time and make corrections. Again, radio reacts.

I'd agrue that music studies are about figuring exactly "what's the least we can do to get by".

The study of all studies is Arbitron. No matter how much proprietary research such as perceptuals, music tests and such are done, the goal is to look good in the ratings. Stations will adjust programming to enhance ratings, and it has nothing to do with "the minimum" in that the very first thing we learn from music tests and ratings analysis is that the first cause of low tune in times is too deep a library where mediocre songs prevent the really good ones from playing soon enough..

How many times would you watch 1 particular episode of a TV show? Wouldn't you want to see other episodes? Why would music be any different?

That's like asking a Catholic how often saying the Lord's Prayer is too often.

Draw your curve, devise methods to ensure your test audience is going to be composed of
people who aren't too interested in music, then drop your data points neatlly in on the curve.

Music tests are recruited to include people who use a station or format a significant amount of time, and who, in general, are the kind of people who would also participate in ratings surveys ("research friendly").

 

[flashback]

^ so you are saying the average listoner is narrow minded about music and has no interest in expanding their listening experences.

 

[oldies76]

^ so you are saying the average listoner is narrow minded about music and has no interest in expanding their listening experences.

The ones who can care less about expanding their oldies knowledge (even basically) and are satisfied with 400 burnt-out songs, then radio is for them. But for all the rest of us and for the vast populous that never get the experience of performing a music test and giving their feedback, we're out of luck, stuck with what the average masses have to listen to all day, every week over and over. Exactly why I'm stuck listening to inferior and somewhat static signals on the AM dial to hear a decent selection of hits from the 60's and 70's that other stations refuse to play. Kind of sad, isn't it. Or I can just fire up my 4600 song MP3 and the heck with it. And when this becomes the majority in time..oldies radio will be the huge minority.

 

[davideduardo]

^ so you are saying the average listoner is narrow minded about music and has no interest in expanding their listening experences.

Radio listeners over 35 (meaning essentially all of the oldies and classic hits listeners), don't use radio specifically to hear "new" music, whether that be songs that have been recorded recently, or things from the past that were not part of the listener's experience when they first came out.

When radio tries to "educate" people musically, it generally ends up driving them away. It's just all the more apparent now that we have tools that show audience flow minute by minute, song by song.

 

[davideduardo]

The ones who can care less about expanding their oldies knowledge (even basically) and are satisfied with 400 burnt-out songs, then radio is for them.

Of course, none of the major market classic hits stations have 400 song libraries, but it seems to make you happy to believe that is true.

Oldies/CH formats are listened to predominantly (I'd say "exclusively" were it not for the handful of folks like you) for the memories that are part of the music. You can't take an unfamiliar Monkees cut and create a new memory of the 60's to go with it...

But for all the rest of us and for the vast populous that never get the experience of performing a music test and giving their feedback, we're out of luck, stuck with what the average masses have to listen to all day, every week over and over.

Statistical sampling creates a miniature version of "everyone" in a group, and does it with minimal error. in music testing, a couple of percent "off" is insignificant, so as long as we can replicate the results (another same-size group at the same time done the same way will yield the same results) there is no need to bring in more people.

And since the sample is accurate to within a few percent, since we don't find people like you or find them very rarely, it means that in any given market area, there are not enough like you to worry about... particularly since making the tiny percentage of your ilk happy would drive off the other 99% of the audience.

As I have said before, I have no interest in hearing "new" 60's songs, be they by Cream, The Supremes, The Union Gap, The Toys or Bobby Vinton. But I'm really happy to hear Lover's Concerto or Brown Eyed Girl again, and again. That's because I genuinely like them, played them as currents, and they have memories attached. Heck, I even have a vivid, Technicolor mental movie of the first time I heard Sugar Sugar... and that is what the format is about.

 

[Tom Wells]

I'm glad I and others are able to access their memories so well.

I DO have new memories dredged up by hearing songs that somehow disappeared.

AND I will continue to be more excited by something new (or old-new) than the tired and crispy.

Ha! "Ballad of the Green Berets" is on now. We are still in how many police-action type wars where we refuse
to DECLARE war, and VietNam is no different from Afghanistan or Iraq or Korea .
We have people dying far away in hopes that ultimately things will be better.
Still seems relevant to me.

But the narrow minded still just see this as an oldie, too "dated", and even embarrassing.

I am aready assured statistical sampling was devised as a way to stifle creativity by those who have little.
Or to marginalize those not within a pre-defined normalization.

I will not be "normalized". I accepted that radio was infested with this mindset 35 years ago,
but as I have listened to and enjoyed the exceptions I know it doesn't HAVE to be this way.

 

[firepoint525]

Thankfully CBS-FM and several AM's provide some relief to the monotony of these "sanctioned", overplayed to death songs. I do not have to hear "What I Like About You" 18 times a month...once or twice a year is fine with me.
Speaking of that Romantics song, where was that song back in 1980 when it was released? I guess there's a good reason why it only reached #49...never heard it on the radio then.

Interesting that you should bring that one up, because I literally never heard "What I Like About You" in 1980, thus have NO memories associated with it. My only memory of "What I Like About You" is from the Michael Morales remake of it, which charted #28 in 1989. In my opinion, it's the far better of the two versions of the song, and it's the only version with which I associate any memories. But it's unheard on radio now.